data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/32f5c/32f5c70e7203c6552d13b76ba70ef231ed50a67e" alt=""
According to Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140), Mark was "Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. . . . [he] followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them" (as quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.39.15-16; cf. 6.25.5, trans. K. Lake, LCL).3 It is of further interest that the Gospel of Mark follows a pattern very similar to Peter’s sermon recorded in Acts 10:36-41 (see esp. W. L. Lance, The Gospel According to Mark 10-11; also D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 193).
Both Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyposeis; cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6.14.5-7) report that Mark’s Gospel was compiled in Rome. In fact, the Gospel has a definite Roman flavoring. It contains a number of Latinisms: e.g. modus (4:21), legion (5:9), speculator (6:27), census (12:14), denarius (12:15), lepta (12:42), quadrans (12:42), flagellare (15:15), praetorium (15:16), and centurion (15:39, 44-45). Mark uses Roman rather than Hebrew time (6:48; 13:35). And seeing that Mark’s readers were acquainted with Simon’s sons Alexander and Rufus (15:21), it is not without significance that there was a Christian named Rufus among the believers at Rome (Romans 16:13).
Mark portrays Jesus as the suffering servant of God (8:31-32; 9:31; 10:33-34), and his unique focus on suffering (cf. 10:30)4 may be the result of Nero’s persecutions in Rome approximating the time of writing. The message and unique features of Mark’s Gospel make more sense when read from a first-century Roman perspective.
–Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Colossians 4:10-11; Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:37. The author of Mark’s Gospel was familiar with the geography of Palestine (5:1; 6:53; 8:10; 11:1; 13:3), knew Aramaic (5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36), and understood Jewish customs (1:21; 7:2-4). Although one of the arguments against Markan authorship is an alleged ignorance of Palestinian geography and Jewish customs, these criticisms are exaggerated and do not stand up to close scrutiny (see D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 175).
2 There is no evidence that the church was existing in the literal Babylon of Mesopotamia in the mid-first-century AD or that Peter or Mark or Silvanus was associated with the region. Few, if any, would consider Egypt’s Babylon as a possibility either.
3 Note that Mark’s Gospel is arranged more geographically than chronologically. On Mark’s association with Peter in the biblical record, see Acts 12:11-12; 13:13; 2 Timothy 4:11; and 1 Peter 5:13. Comparable early testimonies include Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 106.3); the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (ca. 160-180), Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.5), and Jerome (Ad Hedibiam 120).
4 Mark does not include teachings of Jesus on discipleship until after the Lord's description of his own suffering (8:31-33).
Related Posts: Uniqueness of Mark's Gospel, Matthew's Audience, Luke's Audience, John's Audience
Image credit: http://www.esgetology.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Old_Bibles-1.jpg