Introduction

Biblical information about the personality of the evangelist Mark

What Sacred Tradition says about Mark and his Gospel

The purpose of writing the Gospel according to Mark

Comparison of Mark’s Gospel with the testimony of church Tradition about it

The relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the two other synoptic Gospels

The division of the Gospel according to Mark by content

A view of the gradual unfolding of the ideas contained in Mark’s Gospel

Literature on the Gospel of Mark

Biblical information about the personality of the evangelist Mark

The writer’s own name, who wrote the second Gospel, was John – Mark (Μᾶρκος) was his nickname. The latter was adopted by him, probably at the time when Barnabas and Saul, returning from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25), took him with them to Antioch to make him their companion in missionary journeys. Why John took precisely such a nickname, we can find some explanation in the similarity of the first three letters of this nickname to the first three letters of his mother’s name, Mary.

From ancient times, John-Mark had been in friendly relations with the apostle Peter. When this apostle was miraculously freed from prison, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John, called Mark (Acts 12:12). Shortly before his death, the apostle Peter calls Mark his son (1 Pet 5:13), showing by this that he had turned Mark to faith in Christ. This conversion took place early, because Mark appears as a companion of the apostles Barnabas and Paul around Passover of the year 44. In the autumn of that same year, he settled in Antioch and perhaps engaged in preaching the Gospel. However, he did not distinguish himself in any special way at that time – at least his name is not mentioned in Acts 13:1, where there is a list of the most outstanding prophets and teachers who were at that time in Antioch. Still, in the year 50, in spring, Barnabas and Paul took Mark on their first missionary journey as a servant (ὑπηρέτης – Acts 13:5). From the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 4:10), we learn that Mark was Barnabas’ cousin (ἀνεψιός). But if the fathers of Barnabas and Mark were brothers, then it can be supposed that Mark belonged to the tribe of Levi, to which, by tradition, Barnabas belonged. Paul was introduced to Mark by Barnabas. However, in Perga, or perhaps earlier, when departing from Paphos to the island of Cyprus, Mark separated from Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13). Probably further participation in their “work” seemed difficult to him (Acts 15:38), especially the journey through the mountains of Pamphylia, and moreover it might have seemed somewhat humiliating to him even his position as a servant to the apostles.

After this, Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). When Barnabas after the Apostolic Council and, it seems, after a brief stay in Antioch (around 52 – Acts 15:35) wanted to take Mark again on the second missionary journey, which he again undertook with the apostle Paul, the latter opposed Barnabas’ intention, considering Mark incapable of undertaking great and difficult journeys for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. The dispute that arose between the apostles ended (in Antioch) in the fact that Barnabas took Mark with him and departed with him to his homeland – Cyprus, and Paul, taking Silas as his companion, departed on a missionary journey through Asia Minor. But where Mark stayed during the interval between his return to Jerusalem and his departure with Barnabas to the island of Cyprus (Acts 15:36), is unknown. It is most probable to suppose that he was at that time in Jerusalem and attended the Apostolic Council. From there Barnabas could take him with him to Cyprus, having previously parted with the apostle Paul precisely because of Mark.

From this point Mark disappears from view for a long time, namely from 52 to 62 years. When Paul around the year 62 or 63 wrote from Rome to Philemon, transmitting greetings from various men, whom he calls his fellow workers, he mentions Mark as well (Phlm 1:24). From this same Mark he sends a greeting in the Epistle to the Colossians, written at the same time as the epistle to Philemon (Col 4:10). Here he calls Mark the “cousin” of Barnabas (according to the Russian text – “nephew”; this is an inaccurate rendering of the Greek word ἀνεψιός) and adds that the Colossian Church received certain instructions concerning Mark, and asks the Colossians to receive Mark when he comes. It is important that Paul calls Mark and Justus his only fellow workers for the kingdom of God, who were a comfort to him (Col 4:11). From this we can see that Mark was with the apostle Paul during his Roman imprisonment and helped him in the work of spreading the Gospel in Rome. When his reconciliation with Paul took place, is unknown.

Then we see Mark with the apostle Peter in Asia, on the banks of the Euphrates, where ancient Babylon had stood, and where a Christian Church was established even during the time of the apostles (1 Pet 5:13). We can conclude from this that Mark did indeed set out from Rome to Colossae (cf. Col 4:10) and somewhere here met with the apostle Peter, who retained Mark with him for a time. Then he was with the apostle Timothy in Ephesus, as is evident from the fact that the apostle Paul instructs Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome, saying that Mark is needed for him for service (2 Tim 4:11) – of course, for preaching service, and perhaps also for becoming acquainted with the outlook of the 12 apostles, with whose representative, Peter, Mark was in the most friendly relations. Since the second Epistle to Timothy was written around 66 or 67 years, and Mark, according to Col 4:10, was to set out to Asia around 63-64 years, consequently he spent about three years away from the apostle Paul, traveling most likely with the apostle Peter.

Besides these, so to speak, direct testimonies about the life of the evangelist Mark, in his own Gospel we can also find information about his personality. So it is very probable that he was the young man who followed the procession in which Christ was led after being seized in Gethsemane, and who fled from those who wanted to seize him, leaving in their hands the garment with which he had covered himself (Mark 14:51). Perhaps he was present also at the last Passover supper of Christ (see comments to Mark 14:19). There are also some indications that the evangelist himself was present at some other events from the life of Christ described by him (for example, Mark 1:5 and following; Mark 3:8; Mark 11:16).

What Sacred Tradition says about Mark and his Gospel

The most ancient testimony about the writer of the second Gospel is found in Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis. This bishop, according to the report of Eusebius of Caesarea (“Ecclesiastical History,” III, 39), wrote: “The elder (that is, John the theologian – according to the generally accepted opinion) also said this: ‘Mark, the interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής) of Peter, having followed him, wrote down accurately all the things which he remembered, both what the Lord taught and what He did, although not in order; for neither did he hear the Lord nor follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, he was with Peter, who used to compose his teachings to meet the needs of his listeners, but not to arrange the Lord’s sayings in order. Therefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them; for he was careful of one thing – to omit nothing of what he had heard and to state nothing falsely in them.’”

From this testimony of Papias it is clear:

1) that the apostle John knew the Gospel of Mark and discussed it among his disciples, of course, in Ephesus.

2) That he testified that the evangelist Mark conveyed those recollections which he had preserved in his memory of the speeches of the apostle Peter, who recounted the words and deeds of the Lord, and thus became a messenger and intermediary in transmitting these accounts.

3) That Mark did not adhere to chronological order in doing so. This remark gives reason to suppose that at that time there was criticism of the Gospel of Mark concerning the fact that it had some deficiencies compared with other Gospels, which carefully concerned themselves with “order” (Luke 1:3) in the exposition of gospel events.

4) Papias for his part reports that Mark was not a personal disciple of Christ, but – probably later – a disciple of Peter. However, this does not deny the possibility that Mark also relates something from what he himself experienced. In the beginning of the Muratorian fragment there is a note about Mark: “and he himself was present at some of the events and related them.”

5) That Peter adapted his teachings to the contemporary needs of his listeners and was not concerned with a connected strictly chronological exposition of gospel events. Therefore, one cannot blame Mark for departures from strict chronological sequence of events.

6) That the dependence of Mark on Peter in his writing extended only to some circumstances (ἔνια). But Papias praises Mark for his care and accuracy in narration: he concealed nothing and did not embellish the events and persons at all.

Justin Martyr in his “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” (Justinus Martyr, “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew”, ed. E.J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten. Göttingen, 1915, c. 100, 4–6) mentions the existence of “memorable deeds” or “memoirs of the apostles,” while citing a passage from Mark 3:16 and following (in this case the author of the commentary makes an error: Justin says nothing of the memoirs of Peter, mentioning only “the memoirs of the apostles” [ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων]. – Editor’s note). It is clear that he understands by these “memorable deeds” the Gospel of Mark. Saint Irenaeus (Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies,” III, I, 1), also knows definitely that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, who, according to Irenaeus’ chronology, preached in Rome from 61 to 66, – wrote it precisely as Peter proclaimed the Gospel. Saint Clement of Alexandria (hypot. to 1 Pet 5:13) reports that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of some prominent Roman Christians. In his Gospel he set forth the oral preaching of the apostle Peter, which Peter himself knew about through the desire of Roman Christians to have a record of his conversations with them. To this testimony of St. Clement, Eusebius of Caesarea adds that the apostle Peter, on the basis of a revelation given to him, expressed his approval of the Gospel written by Mark (“Ecclesiastical History,” VI, 14, 5 and following).

Regarding the further fate of Mark, Eusebius reports the tradition that Mark became the first preacher of the Gospel in Egypt and founded the Christian Church in Alexandria. Through Mark’s preaching and his strictly ascetic way of life, Jewish therapists turned to faith in Christ (“Ecclesiastical History,” II, 15). Although Eusebius does not call Mark bishop of Alexandria, he begins the enumeration of Alexandrian bishops precisely with Mark (“Ecclesiastical History,” II, 24). Having appointed Anianas as bishop in Alexandria and making some men presbyters and deacons, Mark, according to the account of Symeon Metaphrastes, withdrew from the persecutions of the pagans into Pentapolis. Two years later he returned to Alexandria and found that the number of Christians there had greatly increased. Then he begins to preach again and work miracles. The pagans on account of this accuse him of witchcraft. During a celebration honoring the Egyptian god Serapis, Mark was seized by the pagans, bound with a rope around his neck, and dragged outside the city. In the evening they threw him into prison, and the next day a crowd of pagans put him to death. This occurred on April 25 (the year is unknown). His body lay for a long time in Alexandria, but in the year 827 Venetian merchants took it with them and brought it to Venice, where Mark with his symbol – the lion – became the protector of the city, in which in his honor was built a magnificent cathedral with a remarkable bell tower (according to another tradition, Mark died in Rome).

In Saint Hippolytus (haeresium”, VII, 30), Mark is called “without the thumb” (ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος). In explanation of this name, the testimony of an ancient preface to the Gospel of Mark can serve. According to the account of this introduction (prologue), Mark as a descendant of Levi held the office of Jewish priest, but after his conversion to Christ, he cut off his big thumb to show that he was not fit to perform the duties of a priest. This, according to the remark of the author of the introduction, did not prevent Mark from becoming bishop of Alexandria, and thus the mysterious destiny of Mark to serve God in a sacred office was fulfilled anyway... It is possible, however, to suppose that Mark lost his big thumb during the tortures to which he was subjected by his pagan persecutors.

The purpose of writing the Gospel according to Mark

The purpose of writing the Gospel according to Mark is revealed already from the first words of this book: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This is an inscription in which the content and purpose of the Gospel according to Mark are clearly indicated. Just as the evangelist Matthew with the words “the book of the genealogy (βίβλος γενέσεως, inaccurately rendered in the Russian translation as “genealogy”) of Jesus Christ, son of David,” and so on, wants to say that he intends to give a “history of Christ” as a descendant of David and Abraham, in whom in His activity He fulfilled the ancient promises given to the Israeli people, so the evangelist Mark by the first five words of his book wants to make clear to his readers what they should expect from him.

In what sense did the evangelist Mark use the words “beginning” (ἀρχή) and “Gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) here? The latter word appears in Mark seven times and everywhere means the good news brought by Christ about the salvation of people, the proclamation of the coming of the kingdom of God. But in combination with the word “beginning” the word “Gospel” does not appear again in Mark. Here the apostle Paul comes to our aid. In the Epistle to the Philippians, he uses this very expression in the sense of the initial stage of gospel preaching, which he proposed in Macedonia. “You know, Philippians,” the apostle says, “that in the beginning of the gospel (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), when I departed from Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone” (Phil 4:15). The expression “the beginning of the Gospel” here can have only the meaning that the Philippians knew then only the most necessary things about Christ – His words and deeds, which constituted the usual subject of the initial preaching of the evangelists about Christ. Meanwhile, now, after eleven years have passed since the apostle’s stay in Macedonia, of which he speaks in the passage quoted above, the Philippians are undoubtedly standing much higher in their understanding of Christianity. Thus the Gospel of Mark represents an attempt to give an elementary description of the life of Christ, which was caused by the special state of those persons for whom the Gospel was written. This is confirmed also by the testimony of Papias, according to which Mark recorded the “missionary discourses” of the apostle Peter. And what these discourses were – the apostle Paul gives us quite a definite idea in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Addressing his readers, Christians of Hebrew descent, he reproaches them for having remained long on the initial stage of Christian development and having even taken some step backward. “In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food” (Heb 5:12). Thus the apostle distinguishes “the beginnings of the word of God” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ) as milk from the solid food of the perfect. The Gospel of Mark or the preaching of the apostle Peter and represented this initial stage of gospel teaching about the facts from the life of Christ, proposed to Roman Christians, those who had just entered the Church of Christ.

Thus, “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” – this is a concise designation of all the content of the narrative to be offered subsequently as the simplest exposition of gospel history. With this understanding of the purpose of writing the Gospel according to Mark agrees the brevity, the conciseness of this book, which makes it similar, it can be said, to an “abridgement” of gospel history, most suited for people standing still on the first stage of Christian development. This is evident from the fact that in this Gospel in general more attention is paid to those facts from the life of Christ in which the divine power of Christ, His miraculous force, was manifested, and moreover quite thoroughly it reports about miracles performed by Christ over children and youths, while very little is said about the teaching of Christ. It is as if the evangelist had in mind to give Christian parents guidance for the exposition of events from gospel history when instructing children in the truths of Christian faith. It can be said that the Gospel of Mark, which predominantly brings attention to the miracles of Christ, is as well adapted to the understanding of those who can be called “children in faith,” and perhaps even for Christian children in the proper sense of the word. Even the circumstance that the evangelist loves to dwell on details of events and moreover explains almost everything in detail, can testify to the fact that he had in mind to propose precisely the initial, elementary exposition of gospel history for people who needed such instruction.

Comparison of Mark’s Gospel with the testimony of church Tradition about it

Papias reports that the “elder,” that is, John the Theologian, found in the Gospel of Mark non-observance of strict chronological order in the exposition of events. This is indeed noticed in the Gospel. For example, when reading (Mark 1:12), the reader remains in uncertainty regarding when the “imprisonment” of the Baptist occurred and when Christ’s coming forward for public ministry took place, in what chronological relation to this coming stands the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and in what framework should the history of the calling of the first two pairs of disciples be placed. The reader also cannot determine when the Lord calls the 12 apostles (Mark 3:13 and following), where, when, and in what succession Christ spoke and explained His parables (Mark 4).

Then Tradition names John-Mark as the writer of the Gospel and represents him as a disciple of the apostle Peter, who wrote his Gospel from his words. In the Gospel of Mark we find nothing that could contradict the first report of Tradition, and very much that confirms the latter. The writer of the Gospel is evidently a native of Palestine: he knows the language that was spoken at that time by the inhabitants of Palestine, and it obviously delights him sometimes to cite a phrase in his own language, accompanying it with a translation (Mark 5:1 and others). Only the most well-known Hebrew words remained without translation (rabbi, abba, amen, Gehenna, Satan, hosanna). The entire style of the Gospel is Hebrew, although the entire Gospel is undoubtedly written in Greek (the tradition of an original Latin text – a fiction without any sufficient basis).

It is possible that from the fact that the writer of the Gospel himself bore the name John, one can explain why he, when speaking of John the Theologian, calls him not simply John, but adds to it as a definition: “brother of James” (Mark 3:17). It is also remarkable that Mark reports some characteristic details that define the personality of the apostle Peter (Mark 14:29-31), and on the other hand, omits such details from the history of the apostle Peter that could too much exalt his significance. Thus, he does not transmit those words which Christ spoke to the apostle Peter after his great confession (Matt 16:16-19), and in the enumeration of the apostles does not call Peter “the first,” as the evangelist Matthew did (Matt 10:2; cf. Mark 3:16). Is it not clear from this that the evangelist Mark wrote his Gospel from the recollections of the humble apostle Peter (cf. 1 Pet 5:5)?

Finally, Tradition points to Rome as the place where the Gospel according to Mark was written. And the Gospel itself shows that its writer had to do with Latin Christians from among the pagans. Mark, for example, uses Latin expressions far more often than the other evangelists (for instance, centurion, executioner, legion, census, and others, of course, in their Greek pronunciation). And the main point – Mark sometimes explains Greek expressions by means of Latin and precisely Roman terms. Rome is also indicated by the designation of Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (cf. Rom 16:13).

Upon closer acquaintance with the Gospel of Mark, it turns out that he wrote his work for Christians from among the pagans. This is evident from the fact that, for example, he explains the Pharisaic customs in detail (Mark 7:3 and following). He does not have those speeches and details which are in the evangelist Matthew and which could have significance only for Christian readers from among the Jews, while for Christians from among the pagans without special explanations would have remained even incomprehensible (see Matt 1:1 and following – the genealogy of Christ; Matt 17:24, Matt 23, Matt 24:20 – “nor on the Sabbath”; Matt 5:17-43).

The relationship of the Gospel of Mark to the two other synoptic Gospels

Blessed Augustine supposed that Mark in his Gospel was a follower of the evangelist Matthew and merely abridged his Gospel (“On the Harmony of the Evangelists,” I, 2, 3). In this opinion there is, undoubtedly, a correct understanding, because the writer of the Gospel of Mark evidently made use of some older Gospel and indeed abridged it. Critics of the text almost agree on the supposition that such a guide for Mark was the Gospel of Matthew, but not in its present form, but in the original, namely that which was written in the Hebrew language. Since the Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language was written in the first years of the seventh decade in Palestine, Mark, who at that time was in Asia Minor, could have received in his hands the Gospel written by Matthew, and taken it with him later to Rome.

There were attempts to divide the Gospel into separate parts, which by their origin were attributed to different decades of the first century and even to the beginning of the second. (First Mark, second Mark, third Mark, and so on). But all these hypotheses about the later origin of our present Gospel of Mark from some later reviser are shattered by the testimony of Papias, according to which already around the year 80 John the Theologian had in his hands, evidently, our Gospel of Mark and discussed it with his disciples.

The division of the Gospel according to Mark by content

After the introduction to the Gospel (Mark 1:1-13), the evangelist in the first section (Mark 1:14-3:6) depicts in a series of individual artistic pictures how Christ came forward to preach first in Capernaum, and then throughout Galilee, teaching, gathering the first disciples around Himself, and performing miracles that aroused amazement (Mark 1:14-39), and then how the defenders of the old order began to rise up against Christ. Christ, although in fact observes the law, nevertheless seriously responds to the attacks upon Him by those who honored the law, and refutes their attacks. Here He also expresses a very important new teaching about Himself: He is the Son of God (Mark 1:40-3:6). The next three sections – the second (Mark 3:7-6:6), third (Mark 6:6-8:26), and fourth (Mark 8:27-10:45) – depict the activity of Christ in the north of the Holy Land, mostly in the first period, in Galilee, but also, particularly in the later period, beyond the borders of Galilee, and finally His journey to Jerusalem through Perea and the Jordan to Jericho itself (Mark 10:1 and following). At the beginning of each section stands a narrative related to the 12 apostles (cf. Mark 3:14): narratives of their calling, their sending out to preach, and their confession regarding the Messianic dignity of Christ. The evangelist obviously wants to show how Christ considered it His necessary task to prepare His disciples for their future calling as preachers of the Gospel even among the pagans, although of course one cannot consider this point of view here as exclusive. The person of the Lord Jesus Christ as Preacher and Miracle-worker, the Promised Messiah and Son of God stands here in the first place. In the fifth section (Mark 10:46-13:37), Christ’s activity in Jerusalem is depicted as that of a Prophet, or rather as that of the Son of David, Who must fulfill the Old Testament predictions about the future kingdom of David. Along with this is described the growth of hostility toward Christ from the representatives of Judaism to its highest point. Finally, in the sixth section (Mark 14:1-16:20), the story is told of the sufferings, death, and Resurrection of Christ, as well as of His Ascension into heaven.

A view of the gradual unfolding of the ideas contained in Mark’s Gospel

After a brief inscription in which readers are given an understanding of what the book represents (Mark 1:1), the evangelist in the introduction (Mark 1:2-13) depicts the coming forward and activity of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, and, first of all, the baptism performed by him of the Messiah Himself. Then the evangelist makes a brief remark about Christ’s stay in the wilderness and His temptation there by the devil, indicating that at this time Angels served Christ. By this he wants to designate the victory of Christ over the devil and the beginning of a new life for humanity, for whom now the forces of hell would no longer be terrible (represented figuratively in the form of the “beasts of the wilderness,” which no longer harmed Christ, this new Adam). Further, the evangelist consistently depicts how Christ subjected humanity to Himself and restored the communion of people with God.

In the first section (Mark 1:14-3:6), in the first part (Mark 1:14-39), the evangelist first gives a general depiction of the teaching activity of the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:14-15), and at the end (Mark 1:39) – of His deeds. Between these two characterizations the evangelist describes five events: a) the calling of disciples, b) events in the synagogue of Capernaum, c) the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, d) the healing of the sick in the evening before Peter’s house, and e) the seeking of Christ, who withdrew early in the morning to prayer, by the people and mainly by Peter and his companions. All these five events took place during the time from the afternoon of Friday to the morning of Sunday (by Jewish reckoning – the first day after the Sabbath). All events are grouped around Simon and his companions. It is evident that the evangelist received his information about all these events from Simon. From this the reader obtains a sufficient understanding of how Christ, opening His activity after the imprisonment of the Baptist in prison, was performing His service as Teacher and Miracle-worker.

In the second part of the first section (Mark 1:40-3:6), the evangelist depicts the gradually growing hostility toward Christ from the Pharisees and especially those Pharisees who belonged to the number of scribes. This hostility is explained by the fact that the Pharisees see in Christ’s activity a violation of the law given by God through Moses, and therefore a series of, so to speak, criminal offenses. Nevertheless, Christ regards all Jews with love and compassion, helping them in their spiritual needs and bodily diseases and showing Himself as a Being exceeding ordinary mortals, standing in a special relation to God. It is especially important that here Christ testifies about Himself as the Son of Man, Who forgives sins (Mark 2:10), Who has authority over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), Who even has the rights of priesthood, just as once such rights were recognized for His ancestor David (the eating of sacred bread). But Christ’s testimonies about Himself are expressed not directly and immediately, but enter into His speeches and deeds. Here we have before us seven accounts.

1. The account of the healing of the leper is intended to show that Christ in the fulfillment of the works of His high calling did not violate the direct ordinances of the Mosaic law (Mark 1:44). If reproaches were made to Him in this regard, then these reproaches were based on a one-sided, literal understanding of the Mosaic law, of which the Pharisees and rabbis were guilty.

2. The history of the healing of the paralyzed shows us in Christ not only a Healer of the body, but also of a sick soul. He has the power to forgive sins. The attempt of the scribes to accuse Him of blasphemy, the Lord reveals before all in all its insignificance and groundlessness.

3. The history of the calling as a disciple of Christ of the publican Levi shows that the publican is not so bad as to be unable to become a helper of Christ.

4. Christ’s participation in a feast arranged by Levi shows that the Lord does not disdain sinners and publicans, which of course further enrages against Him the Pharisaic scribes.

5. The relations of Christ with the Pharisees become even more strained when Christ appeared as a principled opponent of old Jewish fasts.

6–7. Again Christ appears as an enemy of Pharisaic one-sidedness in regard to the observance of the Sabbath. He is the King of the Heavenly Kingdom, and His servants can refrain from observing the ceremonial law when this is necessary, the more so since the law concerning the Sabbath was given for the benefit of man. But such an appearance of Christ brings the irritation of His enemies to the highest degree, and they begin to plot against Him.

In the second section (Mark 3:7-6:6), which depicts Christ’s relation to His disciples, the evangelist

1) gives a general overview of Christ’s increasingly expanding activity,

2) depicts how Christ singled out 12 nearest disciples from among all His followers for a special mission,

3) shows us Christ in His struggle with the scribes, who came from Jerusalem,

4) characterizes those who are true followers of Christ,

5–9) depicts Christ teaching the people and especially His disciples in parables,

10) depicts Christ’s power over the storm,

11) over demonic possession,

12) over an incurable disease of a woman,

13) over the power of death;

14) only the unbelief of Christ’s fellow-citizens places an obstacle to His all-healing and all-helping power. Here Christ’s disciples appear constantly following Christ. They are being prepared for their future service.

In the third section (Mark 6:6-8:26), Christ’s care for His disciples is also predominantly depicted. He goes with them throughout the north of Palestine, avoiding for a long time remaining on the western shore of the Sea of Gennesaret, where He usually stayed in former times.

In the fourth section (Mark 8:27-10:45), Christ is also depicted among His apostles and the gradual approach of Christ to Jerusalem.

In the fifth section (Mark 10:46-13:37), the Lord appears already coming out of the narrow circle of apostles to the people, from whom He now receives the confession of faith in Him as the Son of David. This serves as an introduction to His solemn entry into Jerusalem.

The sixth and last section (Mark 14:1-16:20) presents to us how the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of people, which He had foretold before. The evangelist Mark depicts here quite thoroughly the last days of Christ’s earthly life – His sufferings, death, burial, Resurrection, and (briefly) His Ascension into heaven.

Literature on the Gospel of Mark

In the so-called “Catenae of the Greek Fathers” (ed. Cramer, 1844), there is a commentary on the Gospel of Mark, attributed to Victor of Antioch (or, according to others, to Saint Cyril of Alexandria). Then there are commentaries by Blessed Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and attributed (incorrectly) to Blessed Jerome, consisting entirely of allegorical explanations, and a commentary by Bede the Venerable. Among recent commentaries, the following deserve attention: a) Catholic – by Knabenbauer (1894), Rose (1904), Schanz (1881), and Lagrange (1911); b) Protestant – by Hegel (1909), Holtzmann (3rd ed., 1901), Klostermann (1907), Loisy (1907–1908), Merx (1905, here actually a commentary on the Gospel of Mark according to its most ancient Syriac translated text), Weiss, P. (1901, in the 9th ed. of Meyer’s commentary), Weiss, I. (1907), Volenberg (1910).

Among our Russian commentaries, only one truly serious commentary is known – that of Bishop Michael (Luzin) in his “Expository Gospel.” Also worthy of attention is the master’s dissertation of Archpriest Eleonskii, “On the Gospel according to Mark” (against Baur). Commentaries of a moral nature on the Gospel according to Mark have been published among us: 1) by a circle of students, 2) in the “Sunday Herald” for 1911, no. 3) in “New Land” (commentary by Lamne). I. Gladkov gives quite an extensive commentary on the Gospel according to Mark, but as is known, his commentaries are not composed on each Gospel separately, but represent, so to speak, an overview of all the Gospels (3rd ed.).

* * *

Notes

Mark through the composition of his work became an “interpreter” of Peter, that is, he conveyed to many what the apostle Peter said, became as it were the voice of Peter. It is a mistaken supposition that Mark is here characterized as a “translator,” whose services the apostle Peter allegedly used and who was necessary to Peter in Rome to translate his speeches into the Latin language. First, Peter hardly needed a translator for his preaching speeches. Second, the word ἑρμηνευτής in classical Greek language often denoted a messenger, a transmitter of the will of the gods. Finally, in Blessed Jerome (letter 120 to Hedybia), Titus is called the interpreter of Paul, just as Mark is called the interpreter of Peter. Both indicate only that these fellow-workers of the apostles proclaimed their will and desires. Perhaps, however, Titus, as a natural Greek, was a fellow-worker of the apostle Paul in writing the epistles; as an experienced stylist, he could give the apostle explanations of certain Greek terms.

The suppositions of Professor Bolotov “on the day and year of the death of Saint Mark” (April 4, 63) (“Christian Reading,” 1893, July and following issue) do not agree with what is obtained from familiarity with the biblical data about Mark’s death.