Titlul: În originalul grec, cartea poartă titlul: „Kata Markon” – „după Marcu”.
Autorul: Să trecem în revistă mai întîi ceea ce ştim despre acest personaj:
a. Mama lui s-a numit Maria (Miriam – în ebraică), dar el însuşi a purtat un nume evreiesc „Ioan” şi unul roman „Marcus”, ceea ce ne poate arăta sau că a avut un tată roman sau că tatăl său îşi cîştigase (sau cumpărase, vezi Fapte 22:28) cetăţenia romană.
b. Familia lui s-a bucurat de o oarecare prosperitate materială, subliniată de altfel şi de prosperitatea unchiului său Barnaba (Fapte 4:37).
c. În casa lor s-au întîlnit adeseori ucenicii Domnului Isus după înălţarea învăţătorului lor la cer. De fapt, Ioan Marcu a fost prins fără voia lui în lanţul evenimentelor şi se pare că era cît pe ce să o păţească pentru amestecarea lui în anturajul care-l însoţea adesea pe „Rabinul din Nazaret”. Cu siguranţă că el este acela despre care se vorbeşte în Marcu 14:51-52.
„După El mergea un tînăr, care n-avea pe el decît o învelitoare de pînză de in. Au pus mîna pe el; dar el şi-a lăsat învelitoarea, şi a fugit în pielea goală”.
Numai Ioan Marcu putea cunoaşte şi scrie asemenea detalii despre propria lui păţanie!
d. Despre Marcu mai aflăm şi că a fost „fiul lui Petru”:
„Biserica aleasă cu voi, care este în Babilon, vă trimete sănătate. Tot aşa şi Marcu, fiul meu” (1 Petru 5:13). Această exprimare plină de afecţiune ne arată două lucruri: că Petru l-a „născut” pe Marcu în credinţa creştină şi că dealungul întregii sale vieţi, Marcu a continuat să fie un fiu al lui Petru. Există evidenţe clare că între cei doi au fost legături comune de slujire.
Papias, unul din presbiterii Bisericii din secolul întîi, scrie că Ioan apostolul a spus următoarele: „Marcu, fiind traducătorul lui Petru, a notat totul cu fidelitate, nu într-o ordine cronologică a evenimentelor, căci el n-a umblat cu Domnul, ci doar l-a auzit pe Petru povestind”. Se pare că Petru, pescar lipsit de o educaţie aleasă, a continuat să vorbească cu predilecţie limba aramaică şi că de cîte ori a trebuit să vorbească în afara iudeii l-a folosit pe Ioan Marcu în slujba de interpret. Ani de-a rîndul deci, Ioan Marcu a fost „gura” prin care Petru a vorbit neamurilor. Probabil că după moartea marelui apostol, oamenii l-au îndemnat pe Ioan Marcu să continue să le povestească ceea ce spusese Petru. Spre bătrîneţe, Marcu însuşi a aşternut pe hîrtie viaţa Domnului Isus aşa cum o ştia de la Petru şi această scriere a lui a devenit cea de a doua Evanghelie aşezată în Noul Testament. Cine o va citi ştiind toate acestea, va recunoaşte uşor pasajele în care este evidentă contribuţia lui Petru şi îşi va explica de ce această scrierere „din memorie” este mai scurtă decît toate celelalte trei Evanghelii.
Conţinutul cărţii: Deşi a ştiut multe despre Domnul Isus, Marcu a scris cea mai scurtă dintre cele patru Evanghelii. Toţi cei ce au studiat Evanghelia lui Marcu au remarcat că ea este o carte de acţiune. Marcu nu este preocupat nici de împlinirea profeţiilor şi nici de clarificarea genealogiilor. Discursurile, atunci cînd apar, sînt date în forme prescurtate. Nu întîlnim în textul lui Marcu nici un fel de genealogie a Mîntuitorului. Accentul este pus pe activitatea depusă de Domnul Isus în slujba oamenilor.
Cuvinte cheie şi teme caracteristice: Evanghelia lui Marcu nu are nici un fel de introducere. Toate celelalte au un cuvînt de lămurire sau un preambul care să prezinte scopul scrierii. Marcu trece direct la redarea faptelor vieţii Domnului Isus. Cuvîntul caracteristic lui Marcu este: „îndată…” El este repetat mereu, de parcă autorul ar fi dorit să ne atragă atenţia că personajul pe care ni-L prezintă este mereu grăbit şi ocupat cu lucrarea pe care a venit să o facă. Marcu nu redă discursurile Domnului Isus, dar ne dă în schimb minunile săvîrşite de El. În textul Evangheliei sale găsim nu mai puţin de 20 de minuni săvîrşite de Domnul.
Tema Evangheliei lui Marcu este: „Cristos – Robul” şi se găseşte în textul din Marcu 10:45:
„Căci Fiul omului n-a venit ca să I se slujească, ci El să slujească, şi să-şi dea viaţa răscumpărare pentru mulţi”.
I. Slujirea lui Cristos ca Rob, 1-10
A. Pregătirea, 1:1-13
1. prin misiunea lui Ioan Botezătorul, 1:1-8
2. prin botezul Lui, 1:9-11
3. prin ispitirile Lui, 1:12-13
B. Propovăduirea Lui, 1:14-20
C. Puterea Lui, 1:21-3:12
D. Anturajul Lui, 3:13-35
E. Pildele Lui, 4:1-34
F. Prerogativele Lui, 4:35-9:1
G. Prevestirile Lui 9:2-50
H. Predicarea în Ferea, 10:1-52
II. Sacrificiul lui Cristos ca Rob, 11-15
A. Duminică: Intrarea triumfală în Ierusalim, 11:1-11
B. Luni: Blestemarea smochinului şi curăţirea Templului, 11:12-19
C. Marţi: Discursuri şi învăţături, 11:20-13:37
D. Miercuri: Uns de Maria şi trădat de Iuda, 14:1-11
E. Joi: Cina şi trădarea, 14:12-52
F. Vineri: Judecata şi pătimirea, 14:53-15:47
III. Biruinţa lui Cristos ca Rob, 16
A. Duminică: învierea Lui, 16:1-8
B. Arătările Lui, 16:9-18
C. Înălţarea Lui, 16:19-20
In Mark, Jesus is portrayed as immensely popular with the people in Galilee during his ministry (Mark 2:2; 3:7; 4:1). He appoints twelve disciples to help preach and drive out demons, just as he does (Mark 3:13-19). He continues to work many miracles; the blocks Mark 4:35-6:44 and Mark 6:45-7:10 are cycles of stories about healings, miracles at the Sea of Galilee, and marvelous feedings of the crowds. Jesusí teaching in Mark 7 exalts the word of God over ìthe tradition of the eldersî and sees defilement as a matter of the heart, not of unclean foods. Yet opposition mounts. Scribes charge that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). His relatives think him ìout of his mindî (Mark 3:21). Jesusí kinship is with those who do the will of God, in a new eschatological family, not even with mother, brothers, or sisters by blood ties (Mark 3:31-35; cf Mark 6:1-6). But all too often his own disciples do not understand Jesus (Mark 4:13, 40; 6:52; 8:17-21). The fate of John the Baptist (Mark 6:17-29) hints ominously at Jesusí own passion (Mark 9:13; cf Mark 8:31).
A breakthrough seemingly comes with, Peterís confession that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah; Mark 8:27-30). But Jesus himself emphasizes his passion (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), not glory in the kingdom (Mark 10:35-45). Momentarily he is glimpsed in his true identity when he is transfigured before three of the disciples (Mark 9:2-8), but by and large Jesus is depicted in Mark as moving obediently along the way to his cross in Jerusalem. Occasionally there are miracles (Mark 9:17-27; 10:46-52; 11:12-14, 20-21, the only such account in Jerusalem), sometimes teachings (Mark 10:2-11, 23-31), but the greatest concern is with discipleship (Mark 8:34-9:1; 9:33-50). For the disciples do not grasp the mystery being revealed (Mark 9:32; 10:32, 38). One of them will betray him, Judas (Mark 14:10-11, 43-45); one will deny him, Peter (Mark 14:27, 31, 54, 66-72); all eleven men will desert Jesus (Mark 14:27, 50).
The passion account, with its condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:53, 55-65; 15:1a) and sentencing by Pilate (Mark 15:1b-15), is prefaced with the entry into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-11), ministry and controversies there (Mark 11:15-12:44), Jesusí Last Supper with the disciples (Mark 14:1-26), and his arrest at Gethsemane (Mark 14:32-52). A chapter of apocalyptic tone about the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:1-2, 14-23) and the coming of the Son of Man (Mark 13:24-27), a discourse filled with promises (Mark 13:11, 31) and admonitions to be watchful (Mark 13:2, 23, 37), is significant for Markís Gospel, for it helps one see that God, in Jesus, will be victorious after the cross and at the end of history.
The Gospel of Mark ends in the most ancient manuscripts with an abrupt scene at Jesusí tomb, which the women find empty (Mark 16:1-8). His own prophecy of Mark 14:28 is reiterated, that Jesus goes before the disciples into Galilee; ìthere you will see him.î These words may imply resurrection appearances there, or Jesusí parousia there, or the start of Christian mission, or a return to the roots depicted in Mark 1:9, 14-15 in Galilee. Other hands have attached additional endings after Mark 16:8
Cuvinte cheie, teme caracteristice: Evanghelia lui Marcu nu are nici un fel de introducere. Toate celelalte au un cuvknt de lqmurire sau <preambul> care sq prezinte scopul scrierii. Marcu trece direct la redarea faptelor vieyii Domnului Isus. Cuvkntul caracteristic lui Marcu este: <îndatq…> El este repetat mereu, de parcq autorul ar fi dorit sq ne atragq atenyia cq personajul pe care ni-L prezintq este mereu grqbit wi ocupat cu lucrarea pe care a venit sq o facq.
Marcu nu redq discursurile Domnului Isus, dar ne dq ën schimb minunile sqvkrwite de El. ìn textul evangheliei sale gqsim nu mai puyin de 20 de minuni sqvkrwite de Domnul.
Schiya PROCLAMAREA RESPINGEREA ìNQLYAREA
ìmpqryirea cqryii Puterea
Textul 1 – 3 4 – 7 8 – 10 11 – 13 14 – 16
Teme ìn slujba mulyimii ìn slujba
ucenicilor Sacrificiul suprem
Pentru oameni Pentru
Locul Galileia wi Perea Ierusalim
Timpul 29 – 33 A.D.
Marcu wi Barnaba
Marcu wi Pavel
Marcu wi Petru
Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:
ìWe have seen that Markís Gospel has the highest frequency of reference to Peter among the Gospels, and that it uses the inclusio of eyewitness testimony to indicate that Peter was its main eyewitness source….In a neglected article published in 1925, Cuthbert Turner argued that a characteristic aspect of Markís narrative composition shows that the story is told from the perspective of a member of the Twelve and that this must be because Mark closely reproduces the way Peter told the story. Major English Gospels scholars of the mid-twentieth century were impressed by the evidence: Thomas Manson accepted the argument but proposed that it be used to distinguish Petrine and non-Petrine sources in Mark, while Vincent Taylor, though partly critical, thought that ëit would be fair to claim that these usages suggest that Mark stands nearer to primitive testimony than Matthew or Luke.í I am not aware that the evidence adduced by Turner has been subsequently discussed, but it certainly deserves reconsideration. Turner drew attention to twenty-one passages in Mark in which a plural verb (or more than one plural verb), without an explicit subject, is used to describe the movements of Jesus and his disciples, followed immediately by a singular verb or pronoun referring to Jesus alone….Matthew and Luke have a clear tendency to prefer a singular verb to Markís plurals encompassing both Jesus and the disciples. Moreover, this same tendency is also, very strikingly, reflected in the variant readings of Mark. In no less than eleven of Markís twenty-one instances of this narrative feature, there is a variant reading (more or less well supported) that offers a singular verb in place of the plural….Turner thought the Markan third-person plurals in these passages were modifications of a first-person plural, used by an eyewitness ëto whom the plural came natural as being himself an actor in the events he relates.í If ëweí is substituted for ëtheyí in these passages, they read more naturally, since a distinction between first and third-person is then added to the difference between plural and singular. Turner argued that one passage, awkwardly expressed in Markís Greek, makes better sense if an underlying ëweí is reconstructed. This is 1:29, where the ëtheyí can scarcely include more people than Jesus, Simon, Andrew, James, and John, since these four are so far the only disciples (cf. 1:21): [quoting Cuthbert Turner] In one passage in particular, i.29, ëthey left the synagogue and came into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and Johní, the hypothesis that the third person plural of Mark represents a first person plural of Peter makes what as it stands is a curiously awkward phrase into a phrase which is quite easy and coherent. ëWe left the synagogue and came into our house with our fellow-disciples James and John. My mother-in-law was in bed with fever, and he is told about her….í [end quote of Cuthbert Turner]…Turner was right to see this narrative feature as adopting the ëpoint of viewí of the group of disciples or of someone within the group. If we are to construe this point of view consistently through all these passages, then it should be that of one of the inner group of disciples – Peter, James, and John – since in some cases it is only they and Jesus who are the understood subject of the plural verb….Peter is both the first and the last disciple to be named in the Gospel, encompassing the whole scope of Jesusí ministry, while Peter is also the most often named disciple in Mark, as well as being named proportionately more often in Mark than in the other Gospels. It is also relevant to observe that Mark first uses the plural-to-singular narrative devise on the first and last occasions Jesus goes anywhere with a group of disciples (1:21, 14:32)….Several literary features combine to give readers/hearers Peterís ëpoint of viewí (internal focalization), usually spatial and visual or auditory, sometimes also psychological. It is this literary construction of the Petrine perspective that has so far gone almost unnoticed in Markan scholarship. Not only has Mark carefully constructed the Petrine perspective; he has also integrated it into his overall concerns and aims in the Gospel so that it serves Markís dominant focus on the identity of Jesus and the nature of discipleship. Thus, in deliberately preserving the perspective of his main eyewitness source through much of the Gospel, Mark is no less a real author creating his own Gospel out of the traditions he had from Peter (as well as, probably, some others). The perspective is that of Peter among the disciples, whether the inner group of three or more generally the Twelve. The perspective is Peterís ëweí perspective, the perspective of Peter qua member of the group of disciples, rather than an ëIí perspective, that of an individual relating to Jesus without reference to the others….it is Peterís teaching, not his autobiographical reminiscence, that lies behind Markís Gospel. The Gospel reflects the way Peter, as an apostle commissioned to communicate the gospel of salvation, conveyed the body of eyewitness traditions that he and other members of the Twelve had officially formulated and promulgated….The author of Mark seems to have been bilingual, competent in both Greek and Aramaic, a characteristic that suggests a Palestinian, and most plausibly a Jerusalem Jew. Martin Hengel points to the many Aramaic terms that have been preserved in the Gospel: ëI do not know any other work in Greek which has so many Aramaic or Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow a space.í More recently Maurice Casey has argued that substantial parts, at least, of this Gospel were translated from Aramaic.î (Richard Bauckham, Jesus And The Eyewitnesses [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006], pp. 155-159, 161, 179-180, 239
For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: ìAnd the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lordís sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.î This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.
Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): ìAfter their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.î Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesnít provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.
However, there are two other pieces of external evidence that may confirm that the author of the Gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter. Justin Martyr quotes from Mark as being the memoirs of Peter (Dial. 106.3). In Acts 10:34-40, Peterís speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, ìbeginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached.î Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.
This shortest of all New Testament gospels is likely the first to have been written, yet it often tells of Jesusí ministry in more detail than either Matthew or Luke (for example, the miracle stories at Mark 5:1-20 or Mark 9:14-29). It recounts what Jesus did in a vivid style, where one incident follows directly upon another. In this almost breathless narrative, Mark stresses Jesusí message about the kingdom of God now breaking into human life as good news (Mark 1:14-15) and Jesus himself as the gospel of God (Mark 1:1; 8:35; 10:29). Jesus is the Son whom God has sent to rescue humanity by serving and by sacrificing his life (Mark 10:45).
The key verses at Mark 1:14-15, which are programmatic, summarize what Jesus proclaims as gospel: fulfillment, the nearness of the kingdom, and therefore the need for repentance and for faith.
Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. Its audience seems to have been Gentile, unfamiliar with Jewish customs (hence Mark 7:3-4, 11)
The framework of Markís Gospel is partly geographical: Galilee (Mark 1L14-9:49), through the area ìacross the Jordanî (Mark 10:1) and through Jericho (Mark 10:46-52), to Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-16:8). Only rarely does Jesus go into Gentile territory (Mark 5:1-20; 7:24-37), but those who acknowledge him there and the centurion who confesses Jesus at the cross (Mark 15:39) presage the gospelís expansion into the world beyond Palestine.
Markís Gospel is even more oriented to christology. Jesus is the Son of God (Mark 1:11; 9:7; 15:39; cf Mark 1:1; 14:61). He is the Messiah, the anointed king of Davidic descent (Mark 12:35; 15:32), the Greek for which, Christos, has, by the time Mark wrote, become in effect a proper name (Mark 1:1; 9:41). Jesus is also seen as Son of Man, a term used in Mark not simply as a substitute for ìIî or for humanity in general (cf Mark 2:10, 27-28; 14:21) or with reference to a mighty figure who is to come (Mark 13:26; 14:62), but also in connection with Jesusí predestined, necessary path of suffering and vindication (Mark 8:31; 10:45).
The unfolding of Markís story about Jesus is sometimes viewed by interpreters as centered around the term ìmystery.î The word is employed just once, at Mark 4:11, in the singular, and its content there is the kingdom, the open secret that Godís reign is now breaking into human life with its reversal of human values. There is a related sense in which Jesusí real identity remained a secret during his lifetime, according to Mark, although demons and demoniacs knew it (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7); Jesus warned against telling of his mighty deeds and revealing his identity (Mark 1:44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30), an injunction sometimes broken (Mark 1:45; cf Mark 5:19-20). Further, Jesus teaches by parables, according to Mark, in such a way that those ìoutsideî the kingdom do not understand, but only those to whom the mystery has been granted by God.