text:
The Bible
'That word above all earthly powers...'
Question Mark: Understanding the Gospel of Mark
Douglas Moo
- Douglas Moo is professor systematic theology in Wheaton College. He is known especially for his New Testament scholarship. View all resources by Douglas Moo
View this article in PDF format
The Gospel of Mark is a text read by academics, scholars, Christian people, and the person on the street! It is a text that raises many important questions, both scholarly and theological. This booklet aims to act as an introduction to these issues, explaining what they are, and perhaps more importantly, what the gospel is about. This work is aimed at theological students, but hopefully many will profit from it. The main body of the work was written by Douglas Moo, and is taken from Carson, Moo and Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester/Grand Rapids: Apollos/Zondervan, 1992) with the kind permission of the author and the publishers. That book is an excellent introduction to the whole of the New Testament. We hope this booklet helps and encourages you to read Mark, and may perhaps lead you on to read the rest of the Bible.
Tony Gray
Martin Downes
RTSF Staffworkers, Jan 2000.
Contents of Mark
Marks story of Jesus ministry is action oriented. Recounting little extended teaching of Jesus, Mark shifts scenes rapidly, immediately, is almost a standard linking word in Mark). Jesus is constantly on the move, healing, exorcising demons, confronting opponents, and instructing the disciples. This fast-paced narrative is punctuated by six transitional paragraphs or statements, which divide Marks account into seven basic sections.
Preliminaries to the ministry (1:113). While it could be the title of the entire gospel, Mark 1:1 is probably the heading for 1:113, the preliminaries to the ministry: the beginning (arche) of the good news about Jesus Christ consists in the ministry of John the Baptist, the eschatological forerunner (1:28), Jesus baptism by John (1:911), and Jesus temptation by Satan in the wilderness (1:1213).[1]
First part of the Galilean ministry (1:163:6). The important summary in 1:1415 Jesus entrance into Galilee, proclaiming the good news that the time of fulfilment had come and that the kingdom was near is the first of the six transitional sections. It introduces Jesus ministry in Galilee (1:168:26) and, more immediately, the opening events in that period of ministry (1:163:6). After Jesus call of four disciples (1:1620), Mark gives us a glimpse of a typical day in Jesus ministry, including teaching in the synagogue, exorcisms, and healings (1:2134). The extraordinary nature of these events attracts great crowds of people, but Jesus insists on moving from Capernaum, on the Sea of Galilee (where these events took place), to other towns in Galilee (1:3539). After another healing story (1:4045), Mark narrates five events that focus on Jesus controversy with Jewish leaders: controversies over his claim to be able to forgive sins (2: 112), over his fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (2:1317), over his disciples failure to fast regularly (2:1822), and over the Sabbath (2:2328 and 3:16). The section climaxes with the plot of the Herodians to take Jesus life.
Second part of the Galilean ministry (3:135:43). Marks second transitional passage focuses on Jesus immense popularity and emphasises Jesus ministry of healing and exorcism (3:712). It introduces the third major section of the gospel, in which, Jesus continues the Galilean ministry. Mark here focuses especially on the kingdom (3:135:43). Like the second section, this one also begins with a narrative about the disciples in this case, Jesus appointment of twelve of them to be apostles (3:1319). There follow further stories about the growing opposition to Jesus on the part of both Jesus family (3:2021, 3134) and the teachers of the law (3:2230). Jesus uses parables to explain this opposition as part of the mystery of the kingdom of God (4:134). The section comes to a climax with four miracles, each of them representing a type of Jesus miracles: the calming of the storm (a nature miracle, 4:3541); the casting out of a legion of demons from a man in the region of the Gerasenes (an exorcism, 5:120); the healing of a woman with a flow of blood (a healing, 5: 2 534); and the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (a resurrection, 5:2124, 3543).
The concluding phase of the Galilean ministry (6:78:26). The story of Jesus movement away from the region of the Sea of Galilee, where so much of the action of 1:165:43 takes place, to his hometown of Nazareth in the hill country of Galilee (6:16) is Marks third transitional text. In the ensuing fourth section of his gospel (6:78:26), Mark amplifies notes that he has sounded in the two previous sections Jesus amazing feats of power, his criticism of certain Jewish customs, and the growing opposition to him. He also initiates what will become an important theme in the gospel: the disciples lack of understanding. The disciples are again featured at the beginning of this section, as Jesus sends the Twelve out on a mission (6:713). The rumour that Jesus is John the Baptist returned from the dead, mentioned along with other popular estimates of his person, leads Mark to include here a flashback explanation of Johns death at the hands of Herod Antipas (6:1429). After the return of the Twelve, the press of the crowds forces Jesus and his disciples into the wilderness, where the five thousand are fed (6:3044). This is followed by Jesus miraculous walking on the water, as he meets the disciples crossing the Sea of Galilee (6:4552). At Gennesaret, on the western shore of the Sea, Jesus heals many people (6:5356) and, shortly afterward, explains the real nature of impurity in response to Jewish criticism (7:123). Jesus then leaves Galilee (and Israel) for the regions of Tyre and Sidon to the North, where he commends the faith of a Gentile woman (7:2430). Very quickly, however, we find him back in the regions around the Sea of Galilee, healing (7:3137), feeding the four thousand (8:113), teaching without much success the blinded disciples (8:1421), and, with considerably greater success, healing a physically blinded man (8:2226).
The way of glory and suffering (8:2710:52). Marks gospel reaches its climax with Peters recognition of Jesus messiahship (8:2730). It forms the fourth major transition in the gospel, as the emphasis shifts from the crowds and the power of Jesus displayed in miracles to the disciples and the cross. The ensuing fifth section of the gospel (8:2710:52) has at its heart the thrice-repeated sequence of (1) Jesus prediction of his death, (2) the disciples failure, and (3) teaching about the cost of discipleship (8:3138; 9:3037; 10:3245). In addition, we have in this section the transfiguration (9:113), the driving of a demon out of a young lad (9:1429), and teaching about putting others first (9:3850), divorce (10:112), humility (10:1316), and the difficulty of combining wealth with discipleship (10:1731). The section concludes, as Jesus nears Jerusalem, with his giving sight to Bartimaeus in Jericho (10:4b52).
Final ministry in Jerusalem (11:113:37). Jesus entrance into Jerusalem marks the beginning of the next major stage in the gospel: the days of confrontation with various Jewish groups and authorities preceding the passion (11:113:37). Jesus public entry into the city, with its messianic overtones (11:111), sets the stage for the confrontation; and the cleansing of the temple (11:1219), a strike at the heart of Judaism, forces the issue. The withering of the fig tree, in addition to being a lesson in faith, is also an acted parable of judgement upon Israel (11:2025). It is thus no surprise that we find the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders challenging Jesus authority (11:2733), or Jesus telling a parable in which the Jewish leaders rebelliousness to God is a prominent theme (12:112). Jesus is further questioned about the appropriateness of paying taxes to a Gentile ruler by the Pharisees and Herodians (12:1317), about implications of the doctrine of resurrection by the Sadducees (12:1827), and about the greatest commandment in the law by a teacher of the law (12:2834). Finally, Jesus takes the initiative, asking about the interpretation of Psalm 110:1 in an effort to force the Jews to consider his claims to be Messiah (12:3540). After Jesus commending of a widows sacrificial giving (12:4144) comes the Olivet discourse, in which Jesus encourages the disciples to be faithful in light of coming suffering and as they look toward to his triumphant return in glory (13:137).
The passion and empty-tomb narratives (15:116:8). The last section of Marks gospel has two parts: the passion narrative (chs 1415) and the story of the empty tomb (ch. 16). Mark leads into the passion narrative with his only mention of a definite date: it is two days before the Passover when the chief priests and teachers of the law plot Jesus death (14:12). The narrative of Jesus anointing in Bethany is found here for topical reasons (for it took place six days before the Passover; see John 12:18), namely, the anointing of Jesus head points to his royal dignity (14:39). As Judas provides a means of arresting Jesus quietly, Jesus arranges for himself and the disciples to celebrate Passover together (14:1226). After this meal, during which he uses elements of the Passover ritual to refer to his death, Jesus and the disciples leave the city for Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives, where Jesus agonisingly prays and is then arrested (14:2752). There follows the series of judicial proceedings and trials: a night-time hearing before the supreme Jewish council, the Sanhedrin (14:5365), during which Peter denies the Lord (14:6672), a quick morning trial before the Sanhedrin (15:1), and the decisive trial before the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate
(15:215). Pilate sentences Jesus to death by crucifixion; he is mocked by the soldiers and executed at Golgotha (15:1641). The burial takes place that same day (15:4247). But the despair of the women who saw him buried gives way to awe at the empty tomb and the angels announcement of the resurrection (16:18).
Like the other three gospels, Mark is anonymous. The title, According to Mark (kata Markon),[2] was probably added when the Gospels were collected and there was need to distinguish Marks version of the gospel from the others. The gospel titles are generally thought to have been added in the second century but may have been added much earlier.[3] Certainly we may say that the title indicates that by ad125 or so an important segment of the early church thought that a person named Mark wrote the second gospel.
Marks connection with the second gospel is asserted or assumed by many early Christian writers. Perhaps the earliest (and certainly the most important) of the testimonies is that of Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia of Asia Minor until about ad130. His statement about the second gospel is recorded in Eusebiuss History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica), written in 325.
And the presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peters interpreter [hermëneutës] and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lords oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them. (H.E. 3.39.15).[4]
Three important claims about the second gospel emerge from this statement:
Mark wrote the gospel that, in Eusebiuss day, was identified with this name.
Mark was not an eyewitness but obtained his information from Peter.[5]
Marks gospel lacks order, reflecting the occasional nature of Peters preaching.[6]
The importance of these claims is magnified when we realise that the presbyter whom Papias is quoting is the presbyter John, probably the apostle John himself. If Papias is to be trusted, the identification of Mark as the author of the second gospel goes back to the first generation of Christians.
Later Christian writers confirm that Mark was the author of the second gospel and that he depended on Peter for his information: Ireneus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.2 (AD180); Tertullian, Adv. Macrc. 45 (c. 200); Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes (c. 200), according to Eusebius (H.E. 6.14.57), Origen, Comm. on Matt. (early third century), again according to Eusebius (H.E. 6.25.5); and, probably, the Muratorian Canon (a list of New Testament books drawn up
c. 190 and so named because the sole manuscript to preserve the list, an incomplete Latin manuscript of the seventh or eighth century, was discovered and published by Cardinal L.A. Muratori in 1740).[7] Some scholars dismiss these testimonies as secondhand avidence going back to Papias, believing that Papias invents his claim about Marks connection with Peter in order to defend the gospel against its detractors.[8] But Papias does not appear to be defending Marks authorship or his connection with Peter but only the reliability of the gospel, against the charge that it lacked order. Moreover, no dissenting voice from the early church regarding the authorship of the second gospel is found. This is surprising, since the tendency in the early church was to associate apostles with the writing of the New Testament books. While we must not uncritically accept everything that early Christian writers say about the origins of the New Testament, we should not reject what they say without good reason. The early and uncontested claim that Mark wrote the second gospel based on Peters teaching can be overturned only by rather clear indications to the contrary from the gospel itself.
To assess this internal evidence, we must first identify the Mark intended by Papias and the other early Christian writers. That they refer to the (John) Mark mentioned in Acts (12:12, 25; 13:5, 13;15:37) and in four New Testament epistles (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Peter 5:13) is almost certain.[9] No other early Christian Mark would have been so well-known as to be mentioned without further description.[10] Son of a woman prominent in the early Jerusalem church (Christians had gathered at her home during Peters imprisonment [Acts 12:12]) and cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:l0), John, also called Mark, accompanied Paul and Barnabas as far as Pamphylia, in Asia Minor, on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:5, 13). For whatever reason (and speculation has been rampant), Mark left Paul and Barnabas before the first journey ended, and Paul therefore refused to take him along on his second extended preaching trip. Barnabas disagreed with Pauls decision and separated himself from Paul, taking Mark along with him (Acts 15:3640). Yet Paul and Mark were eventually reconciled: Paul mentions Marks presence with him during his Roman imprisonment (Philem. 24; Col. 4:10). Peter, writing from Rome, also mentions that Mark was with him, calling him his son (1 Peter 5:13), perhaps implying that Mark had been converted through his ministry.[11] Mark has also been identified as the young man who fled naked from Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:5152): it has been argued that this enigmatic reference, peculiar to Marks gospel, is an autobiographical reminiscence.[12] This may be the case, but the identification may call into question Papiass claim that Mark was not an eyewitness.[13]
Does the little we know of John Mark from the New Testament present any difficulty to identifying him as the author of the second gospel? Some scholars think so, pointing to Marks alleged ignorance of Jewish customs and errors about Palestinian geography.[14] But neither difficulty stands up to scrutiny; careful and sympathetic interpretation of the alleged problem passages reveals no errors in such matters. In contrast, two features of Mark and his career as they are presented in the New Testament fit the author of the second gospel. The Greek style of Marks gospel is simple and straightforward and full of the kind of Semitisms that one would expect of a Jerusalem-bred Christian.[15] And Marks connection with Paul may help explain what many scholars have found to be a Pauline theological influence in the second gospel. Both features are far too general to offer any positive evidence toward an identification. But the important point is that nothing in the second gospel stands in the way of accepting the earliest tradition that identifies John Mark as its author. Our decision, then, will rest almost entirely on external evidence, and especially on the tradition handed down through Papias and Eusebius from the unnamed presbyter. Those who are sceptical of the reliability of Papias conclude that the author of the gospel is unknown.[16] Yet, as we have seen, there is nothing in the New Testament that is inconsistent with Papiass claim that Mark wrote the second gospel. And since we have no indication that anyone in the early church contested Papiass claim, we see no reason not to accept it.
But can we also accept the tradition that Mark is dependent on the preaching of Peter? Here, again, scepticism is rampant. Modern approaches to the Gospels consider the gospel material to be the product of a long and complex process of traditions-history, a view that has difficulty accommodating the direct connection between Mark and Peter suggested by Papias.[17] While recognising this as something of a problem, two factors may mitigate its force. First, we must question whether the assuredness with which critics identify the origins and growth of traditions is always justified. In many cases the basis for such judgements does not appear to be strong, and we may well think that the derivation of a given pericope from Peter himself may satisfy the evidence equally well. Only a doctrinaire form critic would insist that all the gospel tradition must have been transmitted through the faceless community.[18] Second, we must probably allow for Mark to have used sources other than Peter. As long as the apostle was a central source for the gospel, Papiass claim stands.
On the other side of the ledger are factors that could be taken to point to Peters connection with the gospel. The vividness and detail of the second gospel is said to point to an eyewitness.Only Mark, for instance, mentions that the grass on which the five thousand sat was green (6:39). But even if valid (and some scholars insist that there was a tendency to add such detail to the tradition), this feature could do no more than show that there was some eyewitness testimony behind Marks gospel.
This focus may be narrowed by another feature of the gospel: the especially critical light in which the Twelve are displayed. While found in all four gospels, the picture of the disciples as cowardly, spiritually blind, and hard of heart is particularly vivid in Mark. This, it is held, points to an apostolic viewpoint, for only an apostle would have been able to criticise the Twelve so harshly. Two other factors suggest that this apostolic witness may be Peters. First, Peter figures prominently in Mark, and some of the references are most naturally explained as coming from Peter himself (e.g. the references to Peter remembering [11:21; 14: 72]).[19] Second, C.H. Dodd has pointed out that Marks gospel follows a pattern very similar to that found in Peters rehearsal of the basic kerygma, the evangelistically oriented recitation of key events in Jesus life, found in Acts 10:3641.[20] We might add, finally, that Peters reference to Mark as my son in his first letter fits nicely with the relationship between Peter and Mark mentioned by Papias; it discourages one from thinking Papias simply invented such a relationship.
Each of these factors is commensurate with the tradition that Mark is based on Peters preaching, and one or two of them may even point slightly in that direction, but none of them, nor all of them together, is sufficient to establish the connection. Again, however, there seems to be no compelling reason to reject the common opinion of the early church on this matter.
Early tradition is not unanimous about the place where Mark wrote his gospel, but it favours Rome. The anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark (late second century?) claims that Mark wrote the gospel in the regions of Italy. Both Ireneus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.2) and Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius, H.E. 6.14.67) suggest the same thing. Several considerations are said to confirm a Roman provenance: (1) the large number of Latinisms in the gospel;[21] (2) the incidental mention of Simon of Cyrenes sons, Alexander and Rufus, at least one of whom may have been known to Mark in Rome (when writing to the Roman church, Paul greets a Rufus [16:13]); (3) the apparently Gentile audience of the gospel; (4) the many allusions to suffering, which would be appropriate if the gospel was written under the shadow of persecutions of the church in Rome; (5) the fact that 1 Peter 5:13 locates Mark in Rome with Peter in the early sixties; and (6) the connection with an important early centre of Christianity, which would have explained the gospels quick acceptance.
None of these points, however, carries much weight: numbers 1 and 3 could fit a provenance anywhere that boasted Gentile and Latin influence; number 6 is of questionable validity and, even if accepted, could point to several possible locations (Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus); numbers 4 and 5 are valid only if Mark was written in the middle sixties (we will argue for an earlier date, in the middle or late fifties); and number 3 assumes that there was only one Rufus in the early church. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the gospel that is incompatible with a Roman provenance, and Mark may well have been in Rome with Peter for some years prior to the writing of 1 Peter.
The only other provenance that finds support in early tradition is Egypt (Chrysostom, Hom. in Matt. 1.3 [c. ad400]). If Morton Smith is right, Clement of Alexandria may also have connected Mark with the church in Alexandria. According to Smith, a letter he discovered in the monastery of Mar-Saba in Egypt is an authentic letter of Clement, in which he says that Mark, after writing his gospel in Rome with Peter, came to Alexandria, where he composed a deeper, Gnostic-oriented gospel.[22] But the authenticity of the letter is disputed, and in any case, it simply corroborates a Roman provenance for the canonical Mark. Chrysostoms identification of Egypt as the place of Marks composition may even be a mistaken inference from Eusebius.[23]
Two other specific provenances have gained support from modern scholars. J. Vernon Bartlet argues for Antioch, noting, among other things, its proximity to Palestine (which explains why Mark assumes his readers will know Palestinian place-names), its large Roman colony, Peters connection with Antioch, and the fact that the presbyter whom Papias quotes comes from the East.[24] Other scholars, while less specific, are inclined to think that Mark was written somewhere in the East.[25] In his groundbreaking redactional study of Mark, Willi Marxsen argues for a Galilean provenance: Noting the positive significance accorded to Galilee in Mark, Marxsen theorises that Galilee, for Mark, was the place of revelation and that the references to Jesus going before the disciples into Galilee (14:28; 16:7) were a summons to Christians to gather in Galilee and await the return of Christ.[26] Marxsens theory, however, is fraught with problems, and there is no convincing reason to locate Mark in Galilee. While certainty is impossible, a Roman provenance is the best alternative, granted the strength of the early tradition and the lack of any evidence from within the New Testament to the contrary.
Mark has been dated in four different decades: the forties, the fifties, the sixties, and the seventies.
A Date in the Forties
A date in the forties has been proposed on the basis of historical and papyrological considerations. C.C. Torrey argues that Marks abomination that causes desolation (13:14) is a reference to the attempt in AD40 of the Emperor Caligula to have his image set up in the Jerusalem temple, and he contends that the gospel was written shortly after this.[27] But the identification is unlikely. Jose OCallaghan bases his early dating of Mark on three papyrus fragments found at Qumran (7Q5; 7Q6, l, 7Q7), dated c. 50, which he claims contain, respectively, Mark 6:5253, 4:28, and 12:17.[28] But most scholars have contested the identification;[29] even if it were valid, it would prove only the existence at this date of tradition that came to be incorporated into Mark. Another theory holds that Peter may have journeyed to Rome in the 40s after being freed from prison (see Acts 12:17) and that Mark may have written the gospel at that time.[30] But so early a date for Marks gospel makes it hard to explain the silence of Paul and other New Testament writers about it, and it does not perhaps allow sufficient time for the development of the tradition behind Mark.
A Date in the Fifties
Another problem in the way of dating Mark as early as the forties arises if we give credence to the traditions that the gospel was written in Rome on the basis of the preaching of Peter. Although possible, it is not likely that Peter came to Rome in the early forties.[31] But there is evidence that Peter was in Rome in the middle fifties, making it possible to date Mark in the later fifties without contradicting the well-established tradition of the origin of the gospel.[32] The strongest case for this dating comes not from Mark directly but from the relationship of Mark to LukeActs. The argument assumes that Acts ends where it does, with Paul languishing in a Roman prison, because Luke published the work at that time that is, in about AD62. This would require that the gospel of Luke, the first volume of Lukes literary effort, be dated sometime before 62. If we then accept the prevailing scholarly opinion that Luke used the canonical Mark as one of his key sources, Mark must have been written by 60, at the latest.[33] This argument is based on two key assumptions: that Acts is to be dated in the early 60s, and that Luke has used canonical Mark. Yet these assumptions are well founded (on Lukes use of canonical Mark, see ch. 1, and on the date of Acts, see ch. 6), and there is much to be said for this dating of Mark.
A Date in the Sixties
The majority of contemporary scholars date Mark in the sixties, for three reasons. First, the earliest traditions favour a date for Mark after the death of Peter.[34] Second, and perhaps more important for most, the internal evidence of Mark is said to favour a date during, or shortly after, the onset of persecution in Rome. Mark has much to say about the importance of disciples following the road to the cross walked by our Lord. This emphasis best fits a situation when Christians were facing the grim prospect of martyrdom, a setting that would have obtained in Rome at the time of, or after, Neros famous persecution of Christians in AD65.[35] Third, Mark 13 is said to reflect the situation in Palestine during the Jewish revolt and just before the Roman entrance into the city, and thus it must be dated between AD67 and 69.[36]
A Date in the Seventies
The main argument for dating Mark as late as the seventies rests on the assumption that Mark 13 reflects the actual experience of the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans.[37] But the argument is seriously flawed. As several scholars have shown, Mark 13 shows very little evidence of being influenced by the course of events in AD70. Jesus predictions reflect stock Old Testament and Jewish imagery having to do with the beseiging of cities rather than the specific circumstances of the siege of Jerusalem.[38] Even more damaging to this argument is the assumption on the part of these critics that Jesus could not accurately have predicted the course of events in 70. As long as we grant Jesus the ability to do so, Mark 13 will offer no help in dating the gospel.
Mark, then, is to be dated either in the late fifties or the middle sixties. While the latter is the majority view, we favour the late fifties. Indeed, we are required to date Mark before AD60 if our assumptions about the ending of Acts and the priority of Mark are valid. Marks emphasis on persecution need not reflect a situation in which his readers are actually undergoing such persecution. Persecution, as the New Testament makes clear, is always a possibility for the believer, and Marks inclusion of so much of Jesus teaching on the subject is perfectly understandable on such a basis. Dating Mark in the fifties does go against the earliest traditions about Mark having been written after the death of Peter. But other traditions affirm that Mark wrote while Peter was still alive, so the early evidence is by no means unanimous on the subject.[39]
Audience and Purpose
Mark is a self-effacing narrator. He tells his story with a minimum of editorial comments and says nothing about his purpose or his intended audience. We must, depend, then, on the early testimonies about Mark and on the character of the gospel itself for information about his readers and his purpose.
The extrabiblical sources point to a Gentile Christian audience, probably in Rome. The Roman destination of Marks gospel is simply an inference from its Roman provenance. If Mark wrote in Rome, he probably wrote to Romans. This is either stated or implied in the early traditions about the gospel, which have Mark recording the preaching of Peter for those who had heard the great apostle in Rome. As we have noted above, the many Latinisms of the gospel are incompatible with, if not conclusive for, a Roman audience. That Mark writes to Gentiles seems clear from his translation of Aramaic expressions, his explanation of Jewish customs (such as the washing of hands before eating [7:34]), and, in the few texts he includes on the subject, his interest in the cessation of the ritual elements in the Mosaic law (see 7:123, esp. v. 19; 12:3234).
Marks purpose is much harder to determine. Interest in this question has been high because of its importance in redaction criticism, the most popular contemporary method of interpreting the Gospels. Redaction criticism of Mark is hampered by our inability to isolate the sources Mark has used, but this has not stood in the way of the quest for Marks purpose. Redaction critics typically stress theological purposes in the writing of the Gospels, and this has certainly been the case with respect to Mark. The large number of specific proposals forbids our giving anything close to a complete survey. We mention here three representative interpretations, the first focusing on eschatology, the second on Christology, and the third on apologetics.
Willi Marxsen, who initiated the modern redactional study of Mark, thought that Mark wanted to prepare Christians for Jesus imminent parousia in Galilee.[40] He argued that Mark focuses on Galilee, as the place where Jesus meets with his disciples, at the expense of Jerusalem, where Jesus is rejected and killed. Jesus command to his disciples to meet him in Galilee (14:28; cf. 16: 7) was taken by Marxsen as a prediction to Marks community of Jesus glorious return to them. But the meeting with Jesus to which these verses refer is clearly a postresurrection meeting, not the parousia.[41] Moreover, the geographic contrast that Marxsen (and some before him) discerns is much better explained as a reflection of the actual course of Jesus ministry than as a theologically motivated invention of Marks.
Theodore Weeden found in Mark a polemic against a divine man (theios anër) Christology, a way of viewing Jesus that saw him as a wonder-working hero but denied or neglected his suffering and death.[42] To counter this tendency, Mark wrote a gospel that emphasised the humanity and suffering of Jesus. Weeden is correct to see in Mark a focus on Jesus suffering, but he goes too far in identifying Marks opponents as people who held to a divine-man Christology. For one thing, evidence for a polemical stance in Mark is not at all clear he probably does not have any opponents in view at all.[43] For another, the very existence of a Hellenistic divine-man concept as a category into which early Christians would have put Jesus is open to question.[44]
A specific kind of apologetic was discerned in Mark by S.G.F. Brandon. He thought that Mark had attempted to mask the political implications of Jesus life and, especially, his death. According to Brandon, Jesus was a sympathiser with the Jewish revolutionaries, the Zealots. For this reason he was crucified by the Romans, a method of execution generally reserved for political criminals. By branding Jesus as a rebel against Rome, his crucifixion made it very difficult for Christians to win a hearing from the Roman public particularly in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt in Palestine, when, according to Brandon, Mark wrote his gospel. To overcome this difficulty, Mark transferred as much of the blame for Jesus death from the Romans to the Jews as he could, a process revealed by the many manifestly unhistorical features in the Sanhedrin and Roman trials.[45] But there is no need to follow Brandon in finding these trials to contain unhistorical fabrications.[46] In general, Brandons theory can be sustained only by arguing, without any evidence, that Mark (and all other writers who have come after him) has eliminated the political element from Jesus teaching and ministry.
These three specific suggestions about Marks purpose represent only a sampling of recent proposals, but they share with many others the fault of being overly specific and based on only a selection of the data. Any attempt to determine Marks purpose must take into account the gospel as a whole and refrain from arguing beyond the evidence.
Certain features of Marks gospel are especially relevant to an investigation into its purpose: its focus on the activity of Jesus, especially his working of miracles; its interest in the passion of Jesus (Mark, claimed Martin Kähler in a famous aphorism, is a passion narrative with an extended introduction); its repeated correlation of Jesus predicted sufferings and the cost of discipleship in 8:2610:52. As Ralph Martin has shown, two general concerns emerge from these characteristics: Christology and discipleship.[47] Mark presents a balanced Christology in which Jesus miracle-working power (the focus in 1:168:26) is set beside his suffering and death (the focus in 8:2716:8). The one who is identified as the Son of God in the opening verse of the gospel[48] is confessed to be the Son of by the Roman centurion as Jesus dies, humiliated and in agony, on the cross (15:39). Mark wants his readers to understand that Jesus is the Son of God, but especially the suffering Son of God. Moreover, believers are to be followers of Jesus. Mark also shows that Christians must walk the same road as Jesus the way of humility, of suffering, and even, should it be necessary, of death. Mark wants to impress on his readers the famous words of the Lord: If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (8:34).
Mark thus wants to help his readers understand who Jesus is and what real discipleship involves. But we must recognise that Mark has many other things to say that cannot easily be placed into these categories. Recent study has stressed the theological purposes behind the writing of the Gospels, and we may agree that the evangelists were writing with some specific points to make to the Christian communities in their day. But we should not ignore two other, more general purposes, that were probably at work in the production of Mark: historical interest, and evangelism. In addition to encouraging certain beliefs and actions in his Christian readers, Mark was providing them with a record of Jesus deeds and words. This was becoming a great need in Marks day, as the original eyewitnesses such as Peter, were beginning to pass from the scene. While it is unlikely that Mark was written for non-Christians directly, the focus in the gospel on Jesus actions, the similarity between the gospels structure and the early Christian evangelistic preaching, and Marks armounced intention to write a book about the gospel (1:1) all suggest that Mark wanted to arm his Christian readers with a knowledge of the good news of salvation.[49]
Our ability to identify the sources Mark has used in composing his gospel depends on our solution to the synoptic problem. If the Griesbach, or two-gospel, solution is correct, then both Matthew and Luke are sources for Mark, and we could seek to identify the ways in which he has epitomized these two major sources. If, however, the two-source solution is correct, then both Matthew and Luke have depended on Mark, and we would possess no written source that Mark has used. As we argue in chapter l of An Introduction to the New Testament, the two-source theory is much more likely to be correct. Any knowledge of Marks sources, then, will be based on extrapolations from his gospel itself. And this, as the many conflicting reconstructions demonstrate, is a highly dubious procedure.[50]
The most persistent theory is that there existed a written pre-Markan passion narrative,[51] but even this idea now meets with less favour than it used to.[52] We must admit that we have no certain knowledge of the written sources, if any, Mark has used in putting his gospel together. His material may have come to him in small pieces of tradition, as the classic form critics thought, in both small pieces of tradition and longer oral summaries, or in a combination of these along with some written sources. In any case, if, as we have argued, the traditions about the Petrine origin of Mark are correct, then Peter himself is the immediate source of much of Marks material.
The two most important textual problems in Marks gospel concern its beginning and its end. The words "Son of God" (greek [huiou theou]) in 1:1 are omitted in a few important early manuscripts (the original hand of the uncial x, the uncial O, and a few minuscules). But the words could have been accidentally omitted;[53] they are found in the majority of early and significant manuscripts (the uncials A, B, D, L, W), as well as in the mass of later manuscripts; and the inclusion of the phrase fits well with Marks Christology. With most modern commentators, then, we think the words belong in Marks text.
The ending of Marks gospel poses quite a different, and more severe, problem. The majority of manuscripts include the so-called long ending, in which are narrated several resurrection appearances of Jesus, Jesus commissioning of the disciples, and his ascension. This long ending is printed as verses 920 in the KJV, in modern English versions, it usually appears in the margin or with a notation. Since it is found in the bulk of the manuscripts and can be traced to as early as the first half of the second century, this long ending can lay some claim to be considered as the original ending of Marks gospel.[54]
But the arguments against this ending being original are very strong. First, it is missing from what are generally considered the two most important manuscripts (the: uncials Greek and greek), as well as several others. Second, Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending. Third, two other endings to the gospel exist: a shorter ending (attested in the uncials L, 099, 0112, and some other witnesses), and the longer ending combined with an interpolation (attested in the uncial W and mentioned by Jerome). The presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. Fourth, the longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions. Fifth, the longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8: Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 (the Greek does not have an expressed subject), although the women was the subject in verse 8; Mary is introduced in verse 9 as if she has not been mentioned in verse 1; and when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week (v. 9) sounds strange after very early on the first day of the week (v. 2). With the great majority of contemporary commentators and textual critics, then, we do not think that verses 920 were written by Mark as the ending for his gospel. The resemblances between what is narrated in these verses and the narrative of Jesus resurrection appearances in the other gospels suggest that this longer ending was composed on the basis of these other narratives to supplement what was felt to be an inadequate ending to the gospels.[55]
If verses 920 were not the original ending to Marks gospel, what was? Three main possibilities exist. First, Mark may have intended to write more but been prevented from doing so (by his death or arrest?).[56] Second, Mark may have written a longer ending to his gospel, including one or more resurrection appearances, and this ending may have been lost in the course of transmission. It has been suggested, for instance, that the last leaf of Marks gospel presuming the gospel was in the form not of a scroll but of a codex, or many-paged book may have been accidentally torn off.[57] Third, Mark may have intended to end his gospel with verse 8. This third possibility is becoming more popular and is perhaps the most likely. Marks gospel is typified by a degree of secrecy and understatement. For him to conclude his gospel with a plain announcement of the fact of the resurrection (v. 7) and the resulting astonishment and fear (perhaps to be understood in the biblical sense as reverential awe) of the women would not be out of keeping with his purposes.[58]
Recent Study
For many centuries, little attention was paid to Marks gospel.[59] The early church quickly saw Matthew come to pride of place among the Gospels, with Mark considered to be a rather inferior and inconsequential extract from Matthew. It was only in the nineteenth century that Mark came into a position of prominence. The liberal school of interpretation, pioneered by scholars such as H.J. Holtzmann, found in Marks simplicity of style and relative paucity of theological embellishment evidence of an earlier and more factual account of the life of Jesus than was presented in the other gospels. This isolation of Mark was destroyed by the work of W. Wrede. Specifically, Wrede argued that Mark had imposed on the tradition the notion of the messianic secret. Jesus many commands for silence about his status in the gospel, argued Wrede, were invented by Mark in order to explain how it was that Jesus was not recognised to be the Messiah during his lifetime.[60] Today few hold to this notion of the messianic secret.[61] The motif itself is more likely to reflect the actual situation in the life of Jesus than it does a later invention.[62] But at the time, Wredes work was taken to indicate that Mark wrote with just as much theological interest and bias as did the other evangelists.
The dominance of the form-critical approach during most of the first half of the twentieth century resulted in little interest in Mark as a gospel as such attention was focused on the tradition before Mark. With the advent of redaction criticism in the 1950s, this changed, and the last three decades have witnessed an avalanche of studies on Marks theology, purposes, and community. The contributions of Willi Marxsen, Theodore Weeden, S.G.F. Brandon, and Ralph Martin have been described above. To these could be added numerous other studies, devoted either to the gospel as a whole or to specific themes within the gospel. Two themes that receive considerable attention in recent studies are Marks Christology[63] and his portrait of the disciples.[64]
The methodology of interpreting the Gospels, and Mark in particular, has also been the subject of debate. Some scholars are attempting to refine the technique of redaction criticism as it may be applied to Mark,[65] while at least one recent study questions the fruitfulness of the whole approach for the study of Mark.[66] In this respect we might mention two other methods that are being used in recent study of Mark. The first is sociological analysis, exhibited in Howard Clark Kees Community of the New Age.[67] Kee analyses Marks community, suggesting that it was moulded by an apocalyptic perspective and that Mark was seeking to redefine and encourage the community in light of Gods purposes in history. Another direction is determined by the recent interest in the application of modern literary techniques to the Gospels. These studies focus on the way in which Mark, as a narrative, is put together and how it may be understood by the contemporary reader.[68] Marks significance is then often seen to lie not in what he actually says but in the deeper structures created by his narrative world. Older questions and methods continue to crop up in the recent literature as well. Notable in this respect is the series of articles by Martin Hengel, which show that Mark must be taken seriously as a historian of early Christianity and that his obvious theological interests do not force us to abandon his material as historically worthless.[69]
The Contribution of Mark
One might be tempted to mimic the early church and wonder why one should bother with Mark at all. Those who do not consider the gospel an inferior extract of Matthew and/or Luke may well find Marks significance to lie almost entirely in his supplying to these more verbose evangelists the basic raw material of their own gospels. On this view, Marks significance could be considered mainly historical: he was the first to compose a gospel, the first to set forth an account of the ministry of Jesus in this peculiar and largely unparalleled genre.
But that accomplishment in itself should not be underrated. Mark is the creator of the gospel in its literary form an interweaving of biographical and kerygmatic themes that perfectly conveys the sense of meaning of that unique figure in human history, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God. Furthermore, by tying the significance of Jesus for the church so tightly to a specific series of historical occurrences in Palestine in the third decade of the first century, Mark has ensured that the church, if it is to be true to its canonical documents, never abandons the real humanity of the Christ whom it worships. By reminding Christians that their salvation depends on the death and resurrection of Christ, Mark has inextricably tied Christian faith to the reality of historical events.
Marks very organisation of this history makes a point in this regard. The structure of the gospel has been understood in various ways. Philip Carrington suggested that a synagogue lectionary sequence lies at the basis of its structure,[70]
Parallels between Peter's Preaching and Mark
Acts 10
good news (v. 36)
the beginning of the gospel (1:1)
God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit (38)
the coming of the Spirit on Jesus (1:10)
beginning in Galilee (37)
The Galilean ministry
He went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil (38)
Jesus ministry focuses on healings and exorcisms
we are witnesses of everything he did Jerusalem (39)
in the ministry in Jerusalem
They killed him by hanging him on a tree (39)
Focus on the death of Christ
God raised him from the dead on the third day (40)
He has risen! He is not here. (16:6)
but this is most unlikely.[71] Equally improbable is the complicated series of Old Testament correspondences discerned by Austin Farrer.[72] Most think that geography plays a significant role in the gospels structure, and there is truth to this. But the significance of the geography lies not in some particular theological scheme of Marks but in the actual sequence of the ministry of Jesus. As C.H. Dodd has noted, the sequence of Marks gospel follows the same sequence revealed in the early churchs preaching.[73] In the table note the parallels between the preaching of Peter in Acts 10:3640 and the structure of Mark.
While the sequence in the table is to a considerable extent dictated by the actual course of events, Marks straightforward, action-oriented account preserves the sequence more clearly than do the other gospels. The kerymatic structure of Mark helps the readers of the gospel understand the basic salvation events and prepares them to recite those events in their own evangelism.
This same bare-bones narrative sequence also throws into prominence the structural divide of Caesarea Philippi. Though often differing on the structure of Mark, commentators find in this incident the hinge on which the gospel turns. The material in 1:18:26, with its stress on Jesus miracles, leads up to Peters divinely given insight into the true nature of the man Jesus of Nazareth. But immediately after the confession, and dominating the remainder of the gospel, is the focus on the suffering and death of Jesus. As we have noted, this combination of emphases reveals a major Christological purpose of Marks: Jesus is the suffering Son of God and can truly be understood only in terms of this suffering.
As we also noted above when discussing the purpose of the gospel, another central theme in Mark is discipleship. The Twelve figure very prominently in Mark and serve in general as a pattern for the disciples whom Mark addresses in his gospel. To be sure, the Twelve are not always presented as models to be emulated: their conspicuous failure, though present to some degree in the other gospels, is especially prominent in Mark. Mark portrays the disciples as hard of heart (e.g. 6:52), spiritually weak (e.g. 14:3242), and incredibly dim-witted (e.g. 8:1421). As Guelich puts it, Mark presents the disciples as both privileged and perplexed.[74] Perhaps in both these ways they are models for the disciples of Marks day and of ours: privileged to belong to the kingdom, yet perplexed about the apparent reverses suffered by that kingdom when Christians suffer. In another way Mark perhaps wants implicitly to contrast the situation of the Twelve, seeking to follow Jesus before the cross and the resurrection, with that of Christian disciples at his time of writing: the latter, however, follow Jesus with the help of the powers of the new age of salvation that has dawned.
The Identity of Jesus
But who do you say that I am? Throughout Marks account of the life and death of Jesus, he presents his readers with the challenge of answering this question for themselves. The gospel, from beginning to end, is about the identity of Jesus. At the opening of the gospel the author presents his account as the good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. At the centre-point of the gospel, Peters confession at Caesarea Phillippi proclaims that You are the Messiah. And at the cross the sign and the centurion also affirm and acknowledge this same identity. Mark presents Jesus as the Messiah, the one who will come after Elijah, the one who fulfils the Old Testament prophecies, the one who will deliver his people. Jesus is the new Moses who inaugurates the new exodus, and who establishes a new covenant for the forgiveness of sins by shedding his own blood. From his own lips he forgives sinners and demonstrates power over the elements, declarations that testify to his deity. Tied up with these questions of the identity of Jesus is the death of Jesus. Of all the gospels, Mark is overwhelmed by the fact that the Messiah must suffer (a fact that Peter cannot grasp) indeed, the majority of the text is devoted to the events of the passion. Jesus is at pains to point out that suffering and death is an intricate part of the role he must fulfil. He will die not because the authorities did not like him, but because the Messiah must suffer. In 10:45, Jesus identifies why this must be so he must give his life as a ransom for many. His life laid down in sacrificial death will be a payment for others, alone on the cross he would be the substitute bearing the sins of many. Yet Jesus knew that the cup he was to drink was a cup of judgement, the cross would leave him forsaken by God, and willingly he submitted to his Fathers will. The staggering effect of his death would be the opening up of a way into Gods presence as the curtain in the temple was torn in two (15:38). Yet even his own disciples, initially, find this offensive; that the Son of Man must suffer is a scandal and an enigma. Jesus, however, is resolute as to the necessity of his suffering and his willingness to accomplish the Fathers plan. Before this, Jesus teaching, miracles and parables have provoked a reaction. The demons recognise his authority and want to flee from him. The authorities realise eventually that some of the parables are told against them (12:112). Ultimately, the lack of understanding by some is an indication that the parables have brought judgement. Those who have ears to hear do so, those who do not (and they are the ones who should have done) judge themselves.
Studying Mark
There is of course much more to the background and content of Mark than this short booklet could include. In many ways the gospel is multi-layered. Although Johns gospel is often viewed as a pool of water in which children can paddle but elephants can wade in, Mark also has a number of depths for different readership. On one level we have a biographical-type of literature that desires to present an accurate record of the words and work of Jesus. When we probe deeper we find that Mark has structured his material, in a very deliberate way, to make sure we clearly see the person of Jesus. But perhaps above all Mark wants us to understand the person of Jesus in close connection with his work, he is supremely the suffering Son of God. The good news that Mark announces at the start of his gospel is the in-breaking of the kingdom of God, the culmination of Gods plans for Israel and the extension of Gods grace to the whole world. Yet for all these levels the student of Mark can often miss the wood for the trees. Like the blind man who at first only sees men as trees walking, we can study the gospel, grasp some of the issues and main points, but never answer Jesus question for ourselves who do you say that I am? How many scholars, academics and students of theology and RS achieve great proficiency in all these subjects yet evade the blunt challenge of Jesus question? It is a question that you the reader must be prepared to answer, and one that cannot be fended off by clinging to vague notions of so called objective and impartial study. Mark will not let us get off the hook so easily. It seems that Mark wrote to early Christians who, because of their answer to this question, were prepared to go the way of the Messiah. They were to suffer, and even to die, taking up their own cross as Jesus had said, because they understood for themselves who this Jesus was and why he came. This radical call to follow Jesus remains, the cost is not optional. Even in the 21st century whether those who leave everything to become disciples of Jesus risk their lives in doing so will depend on which part of the globe they live in. In the academic world to confess that Jesus is the Son of God will be done at the cost of being thought of as intolerant, obscurantist and intrusive. After all, the academy says, studying Mark is about arriving at an impartial understanding of the text and its problems. What would the author of the gospel say to this? The Jewish authorities were those who should have heard and understood, and yet they were cast out of the vineyard for their reaction to the masters son. In the modern world the academics and the theologians may well be expected to hear and understand, but how many do? Can we say that we have truly read and understood Marks gospel if we have not answered Jesus question? To confess that Jesus is the Son of God, if we listen to his teaching, is not only to make a truth claim about him but also to identify with him. Will you then take up your cross and follow him, denying yourself, and being unashamed of him and his words? To those who count the trappings and trophies of this life of greater value than becoming a disciple he plaintively asks what good is it for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?.
More on Mark's Gospel
Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1976); David E. Aune, The Problem of the Messianic Secret, NovT 11 (1969): 131; J. Vernon Bartlet, St. Mark (London: Thomas Nelson, n.d.); Pierre Benoit, Note sur les fragments grecs de la Grotte 7 de Qumran, RevBib 79 (1972): 32124; Ernest Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNT 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981); idem, Marks Narrative Technique, JSNT 37 (1989): 4358; Gilbert Bilezikian, The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977); C. Clifton Black, The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate, JSNT 27 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989); Josef Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, 2nd ed. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1955); A.B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, in EGT 1; T.A. Burkill, Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Marks Gospel (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1963); Herbert Cancik, Die Gattung Evangelium: Das Evangelium des Markus in Rahmen der antiken Historiographie, in Markus-Philologie, ed. H. Cancik, WUNT 33 (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1984); Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar: A Study in the Making of the Marcan Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952); David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden: Brill, 1971); C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966); Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962); Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, n.d.); C.H. Dodd, The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, ExpTim 43 (1932): 396400; William Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Marks Gospel, SNTSMS 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974); Austin Farrer, A Study in St. Mark (Westminster: Dacre, 1951); Joachim Gnilka, Das EvanBelium nach Markus, 2 vols., EKKNT (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978; Zurich: Benziger, 1979); Robert A. Guelich, Mark 18:26, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989); Ernst Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklarung des Markusevangelium und der kanonischen Parallelen (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966); Adolf Harnack, The Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, (New York: Putnam, 1911); Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Joseph Hug, La finale de levangile de Marc, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1978); Sean Kealy, Marks Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation from the Beginning Until 1979 (New York: Paulist, 1982); Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age: Studies in Marks Gospel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977); Werner H. Kelber, Marks Story of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem, ed., The Passion in Mark: Studies in Mark 1416 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976); Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Marks Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, FRLANT 102 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); Ernst Loymeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem, FRLANT 34 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936); B.L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Ortains (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); C.S. Mann, Mark, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986); T.W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and the Epistles, ed. Matthew Black (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962); Ralph P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972); Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969); Frank J. Matera, What Are They Saying About Mark? (New York: Paulist, 1987); Leon Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964); D.E. Nineham, Studies in the Gospels (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955); Jose OCallaghan, Papiros neotestamentarios en la cuere 7 de Qumran, Bib 53 (1972): 91100; David Barrett Peabody, Mark as Composer (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987); Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 197680); E.J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel, SNTSMS 33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978); Quentin Quesnell, The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method Through the Exegesis of Mark 6, 5 2, AnBib 38 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969); Gottfried Rau, Das Markusevangelium: Komposition und Intention der ersten Darstellung christliches Mission, ANRW 25.3 (1985): 20362257; Bo Reicke, The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Forness, 1986); idem, Synoptic Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem, in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. David E. Aune, SuppNovT 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 12133; J.A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark (Richmond: John Knox, 1970); Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1973); Robert H. Stein, A Short Note on Mark XIV.28 and XVI.8, NTS 20 (1974): 44552; Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, Del: Glazier, 1989); Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, reprint ed., with The Witness of Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979); Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966); David Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula, Mont.: SP, 1972); G. Minette de Tillesse, Le secret messianique dans levangile de Marc (Paris: Cerf, 1968); Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Marks World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1989); C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels (New York: Harper, 1947); Etienne Trocmé, The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark (London: SPCK, 1975 ); H.E.W. Turner, The Tradition of Marks Dependence upon Peter, ExpTim 71 (195960): 26063; Theodore Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); J.W. Wenham, Did Peter Go to Rome in ad42? TynB 23 (1972): 97102; William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (London: J. Clarke, 1971); Günther Zuntz, Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben? in Markus-Philologie, ed. H. Cancik, WUNT 33 (Tubingen: Mohr, 1984).
[1] For this view of Mark 1:1, along with nine others, see C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), pp. 3435.
[2] Or `The Gospel According to Mark the manuscript tradition makes it hard to be sure whether the longer or shorter form is the original. NAZ prints the shorter, but Hengel argues for the longer (The Titles of the Gospels and the Gospel of Mark, in Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], pp. 6667).
[3] Ibid., pp. 6484.
[4] The quotation is taken from the translation by Kirsopp Lake in Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, vol. l, LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926).
[5] In identifying Mark as Peters hermëneutës Papias may mean that he was Peters translator (from Aramaic into Greek) (see H.E.W. Turner, The Tradition of Marks Dependence upon Peter, ExpTim 71 [195960]: 26063) or, more probably, his interpreter, one who repeated and transmitted Peters preaching (Zahn 2, 44244).
[6] This may mean that Mark, in the judgement of the presbyter, lacked chronological order (Martin Hengel, Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems in the Gospel of Mark, in Studies in the Gospel of Mark, p. 48) or, more probably, that it lacked rhetorical/artistic order (Robert A. Guelich, Mark 18:26, WBC [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1989], p. xxvii).
[7] Justin Martyr mentions the reminiscences of Peter in conjunction with a quotation from Marks gospel (Dial. 106).
[8] E.g. Kümmel, p. 95; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 197680), 1:47.
[9] A few scholars think that an unknown Mark wrote the gospel (see, e.g., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:911).
[10] Jerome is the first explicitly to identify the Mark of the second gospel with the John Mark mentioned in the New Testament.
[11] See Zahn 2:427.
[12] E.g. A.B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels, in EGT 1:44142. Early tradition also identified the home of Mark and his mother as the location of the last supper.
[13] Kümmel calls the identification a strange and wholly improbable conjecture (95), but he gives no better explanation for the inclusion of these verses in Marks gospel.
[14] E.g. ibid., pp. 9697.
[15] Note Martin Hengels judgement: I do not know any other work in Greek which has so many Aramaic or Hebrew words and formulae in so narrow a space as does the second gospel (Literary, Theological, and Historical Problems, p. 46).
[16] E.g. Kummel, pp. 9597; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evanaelium nach Markus, EKKNT, 2 vols. (Neukirchcn-Vluyn: Neukirchencr, 1978; Zurich: Benziger, 1979), 1:3233.
[17] Thus, for instance, Guelich concludes that Papias is right in identifying Mark as the author but wrong in thinking that the gospel is based on the preaching of Peter (Mark 18:26, pp. xxvixxix).
[18] Martin 204-5.
[19] Ibid., 1:204
[20] C.H. Dodd, The Framework of the Gospel Narrative, ExpTim 43 (1932): 396400.
[21] See esp. Marks explanation of the widows two copper coins as equalling a kodrantes, a Roman coin (12:42), and of the courtyard, aulë as being a praitörion, another distinctively Roman/Latin name (15:16). Readers in the eastern part of the Roman Empire would almost certainly have known these Greek terms. For a complete list of Marks Latinisms, see Kümmel, pp. 9798.
[22] Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel: The Discoverer and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
[23] H.E. 2.16.1: Mark is said to have been the first man to set out for Egypt and preach there the gospel which he had himself written down. See, e.g., Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1966), p. 32; Martin 1:215.
[24] J. Vernon Bartlet, St. Mark (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.), pp. 56.
[25] E.g. Kümmel, p. 98. Bo Reicke suggests Caesarea, its Palestinian location fitting his theory of gospel origins, and its Roman flavour (it was the Roman administrative centre) explaining the large number of Latinisms (The Roots of the Synoptic Gospels [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], pp. 16566).
[26] Willi Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969).
[27] C.C. Torrey, The Four Gospels, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper, 1947), pp. 26162. Moreover, Torreys theory assumes an early Aramaic gospel of Mark. A similar proposal has recently been defended by Günther Zuntz (Wann wurde das Evangelium Marci geschrieben? in Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschtliche, und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium, ed. Herbert Cancik, WUNT 33 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1984), pp. 4771).
[28] Jose OCallaghan, Papiros neotestamentarios en la quere 7 de Qumran, Bib 53 (1972): 91100. See William Lane, The Gospel According to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 1821, for a summary and discussion.
[29] See, e.g., Pierre Benoit, Note sur les fragments grecs de la Grotte 7 de Qumran, RevBib 79 (1972): 32124; Lane, Mark, pp. 1921.
[30] J.W. Wenham, Did Peter Go to Rome in ad42? TynB 23 (1972): 97102.
[31] Wenham is representative of those who think that Peter may have come to Rome after his miraculous release from prison, recorded in Acts 12 (Did Peter Go to Rome? pp. 9799). Yet Peter is back in Palestine by the time of the Jerusalem Council in ad48 or 49 (Acts 15), and it is difficult to think that Paul and Barnabas would have taken on the first missionary journey one who had worked closely with Peter in Rome for some years. For a discussion of Peters movements, sec Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), pp. 3839.
[32] Peter was probably in Corinth before ad55, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (see 1:12; 2:22), and in Rome in about 63 (the probable date of 1 Peter). Eusebius implies that Peter was in Rome during the reign of Claudius, who died in ad54 (H.E. 2.14.6). The absence of any reference to Peter in Rome suggests that Peter was not in Rome
in 57.
[33] See esp. Adolf Harnack, The Date of Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels (New York: Putnams, 1911). Reickes argument is similar, although he thinks Mark was written at about the same time as Luke (Roots of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. I7780). C.S. Mann thinks that Mark composed a first draft of his gospel in ad55 (Mark, AB [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1986], pp. 7283).
[34] The anti-Marcionite prologue (late second century?), Ireneus (ad185; see Adv. Haer. 3.1.2), and perhaps Papiass citation of the presbyter (note the tense: Mark, who had been Peters interpreter).
[35] For this case, see esp. Cranfield, Mark, p. 8; Hugh Anderson, The Gospel of Mark, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1976), p. 26; Martin 1:213. Martin Hengel cites other arguments in support of a late date: (1) the clarity of Marks writing; (2) Marks lateness in comparison with Q; (3) the assumption in Mark of the existence of a worldwide mission (see 13:10; 14:9); and (4) the prophecy of the martyrdom of James and John (The Gospel of Mark: Time of Origin and Situation, in Studies in the Gospel of Mark, pp. 1228).
[36] Hengel, Time of Origin, pp. 228; Augustine Stock, The Method and Message of Mark (Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1989), pp. 68; Guelich, Mark 18:26, pp. xxixxxii.
[37] See Kümmel, p. 68; Pesch, Markusevangelium 1:14; Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus 1:34.
[38] See esp. Bo Reicke, Synoptic Prophecies of the Destruction of Jerusalem, in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, ed. David E. Aune, SuppNovT 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 12133; John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), pp. 1330.
[39] Clement of Alexandria says: When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome and announced the gospel by the Spirit, those present, of whom there were many, besought Mark, since for a long time he had followed him and remembered what had been said to record his words. Mark did this, and communicated the gospel to those who made request of him. When Peter knew of it, he neither actively prevented nor encouraged the undertaking (recorded by Eusebius in H.E. 6.14.67; the translation is from Taylor, Mark, pp. 56.) Tertullian may also witness to this tradition (see Against Marcion 4.5.3). It has even been argued that the key early traditions can be reconciled by understanding the word exodos in Ireneus (e.g. after the exodos of these [Peter and Paul]) to refer not to their death but to their departure from Rome (so T.W. Manson, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962], pp. 3440). Others reconcile the conflicting traditions by assuming that Mark began his gospel during Peters lifetime but published it after his death (Zahn 2:43334; Guthrie is favourable to the suggestion [86]).
[40] Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist.
[41] See, e.g., Robert H. Stein, A Short Note on Mark XIV.28 and XVI.7, NTS 20 (1974): 44552.
[42] Theodore Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971).
[43] See Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Marks Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
[44] See, e.g., David Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula, Mont.: SP, 1972).
[45] S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967).
[46] For studies of Jesus trials that generally vindicate the historicity of the gospel accounts, see David R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden: Brill, 1971); Josef Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, 2nd ed. (Regensburg: Pustet, 1955).
[47] Ralph Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), esp. pp. 15662.
[48] For the textual problem, see the section Text below.
[49] See Guthrie, pp. 5758; Cranfield, Mark, pp. 14-1S; Moule, p. 122.
[50] Kümmel lists a number of suggestions (pp. 8485).
[51] See, e.g., Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, n.d.), pp. 178217.
[52] See esp. Eta Linnemann, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, FRLANT 102 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970); a convenient summary of the discussion in English is found in John R. Donahue, Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative, in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 1416, ed. Werner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 816.
[53] The eye of a scribe may have passed from ou at the end of Christou, lit. of Christ), to the same letters at the end of theou, (lit. of God), omitting what is between, thereby effectively dropping out huiou theou, (of the Son of God).
[54] William R. Farmer has recently argued that Mark composed vv. 920 before writing his gospel and then added it at the end of this gospel as he finished
(The Last Twelve Verses of Mark SNTSMS 25 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974]).
[55] The secondary character of the longer ending has been argued in the monograph by Joseph Hug, La finale delevangile de Marc, EBib (Paris: Gabalda, 1978).
[56] Zahn 2:47980.
[57] C.F.D. Moule speculates that the loss of the bottom sheet could have resulted in both the ending and the beginning of the gospel being lost, and that 1:1, as 16:920, is a later attempt to fill in the resulting gaps (pp. 13132n.).
[58] See, e.g., Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, reprint ed., with The Witness of Luke to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), pp. 86118; Kümmel, pp. 100101; Lane, Mark, pp. 59092; Pesch, Markusevangelium, 1:4047.
[59] For a history of interpretation of Marks gospel, see Sean Kealy, Marks Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation from the Beginning Until 1979 (New York: Paulist, 1982); Martin, Mark, pp. 2950.
[60] William Wrede, The Messianic Secret (London: J. Clarke, 1971); the German original was published in 1901.
[61] David E. Aune, The Problem of the Messianic Secret, NovT 11 (1969): 131.
[62] See, e.g., Hengel, Literary, Historical, and Theological Problems, pp. 4145.
[63] E.g. Kingsbury, Christology.
[64] E.g. Ernest Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSupp 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981).
[65] E.g. E.J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark, SNTSMS 33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
[66] C. Clifton Black, The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction in Current Debate, (JSNTSupp JSOT, 1989).
[67] Howard Clark Kee, Community of the New Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977).
[68] See, e.g., Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); B.L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Marks World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1989).
[69] Hengels essays have been collected in Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).
[70] Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).
[71] On the issue of Jewish lectionaries and the Gospels, see Leon Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries (London: Tyndale, 1964).
[72] Austin Farrer, A Study in St. Mark (Westminster: Dacre, 1951).
[73] Dodd, Framework of the Gospel Narrative. Dodds scheme was criticised by D.E. Nineham (Studies in the Gospels [Oxford: Blackwell, 1955], pp. 22339) but has been accepted by others (e.g. Lane, Mark, pp. 1012).
[74] Guelich, Mark 18:26, p. xlii.


text:
June 1, 2006
TAOYUAN COUNTY, Taiwan - MIT took its 2-0 record into Thursday's contest against National Taiwan University in the first match-up of the day. After a slow start, one that saw MIT's largest deficit of the week, the Engineers climbed back into the game with its depth and offensive balance before pulling away for a 92-59 victory.
MIT led 50-29 at the break after Will Mroz, Hamidou Soumare, and Mike D'Auria scored on consecutive plays and forced NTU to call its second timeout of the first half during an exciting run that closed the second quarter. After the timeout, the Engineers discovered their three-point range again, with Billy Johnson, Mroz, and D'Auria all connecting from deep.
"It was only a matter of time before we would start hitting from outside," said assistant coach Oli Eslinger. "I think many of the guys were so excited earlier because of the large crowd and exciting atmosphere that their focus wasn't at the appropriate level."
The second half provided some fast paced action with the teams trading baskets for a good stretch. After Soumare converted a dunk off an MIT steal, balanced scoring helped the Engineers close the game. In the final minutes, Barnett Koryan had a sweet block from help side, while Alan Ho drained a deep shot that made the crowd erupt for the Taiwan-born MIT player.
"I wasn't pleased with the way we started the game," stated head coach Larry Anderson, "but I was happy with how we were able to play through our fatigue and play typical MIT basketball."
MIT placed five players in double figures, with Mroz leading the way with 16 points. He also added seven boards in what proved to be his best game of the week. Dou scored 15 points, Alex Krull added 13, Johnson had 11 including three three-point field goals, and D'Auria had 11. D'Auria also grabbed a team leading nine rebounds to go along with seven assists and five steals.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Opinion: Looting J.P. Morgan
Assistant editorial page editor James Freeman on J.P. Morgan's third-quarter loss and its enormous cash reserves to fight government-led litigation. Photo: Getty Images
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.
... I ... I ... cheeky were announced the loss of three hundred and eighty million dollars last quarter in these last hours ... mostly things to litigation costs in the ... news here ... that the bank is now spending more money on lawsuits lawyers and on its actual business its employees the system editorial page editor James Freeman joins me now James ... is the coverage is reading this plan that psychiatry to add another quite spending more money on the employer's than on the fly ... yet the numbers they're putting out or are amazing ... the Howard litigation reserves of twenty three billion dollars this is ... larger than the annual net income of General Electric or Walmart ... and this doesn't include a lot of their legal expenses the twenty three billion is what they think they're going have to pay out to the government the private lawyers ... it doesn't include the fees that they're paid their outside lawyers the council doesn't include their internal legal department which is on certain enormous so ... it's a it's a staggering figure remember this is a bank that did not fail at the end of the bailout ... no one at that steered around the mortgage that yet you know that banks are getting an awful lot of bad press they have since the start of the administration of ... you know some readers might look at that and say well JPMorgan deserves it ... aam there were a lot of shoddy loans that were sold what about the foreclosure crisis while a lot of this of the current settlement the of ... this is the big ones they're working on the Justice Department doesn't ... look like eleven billion our inside of our paper saying somewhere north of that perhaps ... a lot of this money that is part of this dispute ... our is traced in the states allege mistakes made by companies that getting worried bought during the crisis because the government wanted them to because they were failing God ... Washington mutual the head of the FDIC made a point of ... of us wanting JPMorgan for coming to the fore during the crisis and helping out so I really amazing what fun it is anything JPMorgan have done to when they should they justify are a lot of government cronies like Citigroup you you wonder of the new custom that ... ensures question what is going on here when ... this bank has never posted a quarterly loss under Jamie Dynan until now so ... through the crisis the a ... League the crisis a bow wave in the course early on I was very rocky for the banking system to in the course sluggish growth since then ... never a loss ... until Dodd Frank Wright and until ... the costs of government are being imposed so this is a quarterly loss of one businesses are helping either generating very large profits ... but this is a big government and lower your costs ... imposed in and is in political payback will certainly ... Jamie Dynan JPMorgan has been very outspoken in criticizing the policies of the industry's Camino do we know where this money goes when the government comes in JPMorgan ... essentially seizes it from shareholders ... what what what they have to go up the other and what we'll find out that's the settlement talks involve a lot of pieces right now you have a load of Main Justice Department sued the New York attorney general sued get lots of other ... related stuff five Fannie and Freddie oh it's up a whole nother story ... ALM so it's not clear yet where this pot of money is going to be distributed but I think it's a very good guess that many billions will flow from the private economy to


text:
When Havelock firefighter Charlie Winter went into a burning home to look for a trapped child, he didn�t think about his own children.
When Havelock firefighter Charlie Winter went into a burning home to look for a trapped child, he didn�t think about his own children.
"You just think about what you have to do," said the father of 9- and 11-year-old girls.
But after finding 2-year-old Dylan Burkett in a smoke-filled room and passing the child out of the burning home to rescue personnel, his thoughts turned.
"After that, you get a chance to reflect and it opens your eyes," he said. "Being a parent, I can�t imagine what it was like for them. I�m just glad it turned out the way it did."
Winter was presented a North Carolina golden life-saving medal during the Havelock Board of Commissioners meeting Monday night at Havelock City Hall.
"I think it�s a bit much. I didn�t think it was warranted," Winter said of receiving the medal, the first one ever presented to a Havelock firefighter. "We don�t go out looking for things like this, but it is appreciated."
The fire started on the morning of April 23 in the front part of the house. Though Father William Burkett managed to get one son, 3-year-old Little Will, out of the house, Dylan was napping in a back bedroom and couldn�t be reached.
As fire crews arrived, the front of the house was fully engulfed in flames.
"There was a lot of fire," Havelock Fire Chief Rick Zaccardelli said. "There was heavy flame involvement. The whole front of the house was fully involved. The front two rooms of the house were fully involved with fire."
Winter went to the side of the house where a police officer and a worker from A&M Body Shop lifted him through a window. Winter couldn�t see with the heavy smoke but heard the child crying. He followed the sound and found the boy on a bed. He passed the young boy through the window to firefighter Megan Lashway, who carried him to an ambulance.
"The important thing here is that Charlie didn�t hesitate," Zaccardelli said. "He acted bravely. From the time the alarm went in until the time we had the baby in the back of the ambulance was nine minutes. That�s pretty impressive."
Havelock News reporter/photographer Drew C. Wilson captured the scene, and his pictures of the rescue played on a large screen as Winter received his medal.
"The first thing a fireman learns when they come in the fire service, your job is to save lives and to protect property, in that order, and that�s exactly what took place," Zaccardelli said.
Three A&M Body Shop workers, Chad Mattern, Chuck Waldow and Rick Ruder, were also honored with Public Expression of Gratitude proclamations from the city. They ran from the business to the home on nearby Pineview Street, with Mattern attempting to put out the fire with a pair of extinguishers. Waldow shut off the propane gas, tried to move the family van and also tried to get inside to save the child. Ruder also tried to get inside and moved various obstacles out of the way, clearing a path for firefighters.
Dylan Burkett spent two days in the hospital receiving treatment for smoke inhalation. The family lost everything in the fire, which destroyed the house. The family attended the presentation, with Dylan sporting a nice shirt and tie.
"Seeing Dylan playing around, it was a good feeling," Winter said. "Honestly, that was the best part of the whole night."
During the presentation of the medal, Zaccardelli choked back tears.
"We�re proud of Charlie. We�re proud of the whole department," he said. "The outcome could have been so much worse. I�ve been down that road here in Havelock, having people pass on in fires, and when you get a save like that, it should be recognized."


text:
Moderators: Kommander Ken, Elmagnifico, Duerer, BrickSyd
Alex wrote:*bump*
Kalvinator wrote:Do you need turns from anyone?
Zupponn wrote:
Zupponn wrote:
I bet nobody saw that coming.
Natalya wrote:Wtf is going on in this thread?
stubby wrote:Awesome! I bet Robo Arm gives the best high fives.
Scribonius wrote:Well crap, so much for that run. Still, took out the prof and some artillery, so my time was a success.
Assuming I can't do magic to reattach my head, that means I am out of the game, therefore Mirial the Demiliche will have to awaken the next clone or simulacrum or whatever back in her lab on Mirial's Rock.
At least I racked up a decent kill tally!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


text:
If it is time to finish your basement make sure you do it correctly. After all you want it to last.
The hard part about making finished basements last is that the great majority of contractors you speak with install wood, drywall and other organic materials. These materials are susceptible to mold and rot if they get wet. A burst pipe in the kitchen could mean you need to tear out your newly finished basement!
At Tri-State Total Basement Finishing, we are not like other contractors. We only use state of the art patented, exclusive Total Basement Finishing basement materials that are attractive but also waterproof! You can have both a beautifully finished basement and one that won't be damaged by a water leaking from a water heater.
We use nothing but the tried and true basement finishing products and service methods of Total Basement Finishing. We offer everything from basement wall panels, drop ceiling tiles, our patented flooring systems, and much more. Our home improvement experts can transform any dull, unfinished basement to a place you and your family can enjoy for years to come!
|Our Products Include:
They also come with a written warranty. For example the basement wall system has a 50-year warranty. We know our products and believe in their high quality.
For the past 30 years we have been Livingston's trusted basement remodeling company and we plan to be for the next 30 years. With top notch products, a highly skilled crew and an impressive installation time we are the obvious choice for finishing your basement. Give us a call today for a FREE design consultation & written cost estimate. From basement drop ceiling tiles to basement flooring we are Livingston's expert. We look forward to meeting you.


text: Savanna purchased a wedding dress and opon exiting the store, The Hunter and Tone spotted her talking on her cellphone. She chose to ignore The Hunter but when he mentioned that he owned the store that she just finished shopping at, she was all ears. After all the pleasantries, Savanna agreed to go to The Hunter's house and model her new dress. Savanna looked amazing wearing all white and somehow The Hunter persuaded her to suck and ride his cock before walking down the isle and marrying her sugar daddy.


text:
The Green Mad Men Dress
Added Aug 30, 2012
by Milena Bella
Tel Aviv, Israel
I saw a green dress earlier this year while traveling in Berlin. It was of course in a size too small and too short for my taste. So I looked for a green fabric when I got back and was thinking what kind of pattern will look good with it. When I saw the Neue Mode pattern I knew I could make it into a combination of Joan Holloway's style and a Marilyn Monroe dress I was researching about. Read more about it on my blog –
Now about the pattern. First of all it a downloadable pattern, which is great for folks like me living far away. It is only possible to print it out immediately, you can't save it on your computer, so take that in mind. The Neue Mode patterns don't have seam allowances, and that is good, much easier to trace, I am planning a whole post on that soon. The pattern has a LOT of ease. I tried the basted dress wrong on wrong side out and just pinned the seams to fit me close. I took in about one cm from every seam (and there are 6 of them (not including the shoulder seams adjustments). It's about a size and a half less, I think? So yeah, keep that in mind.
Pattern Used – Neue Mode 23425 neu
link – http://www.neuemode.com/products.php?search=Dresses
Material Notes
stretchy light weight cotton
5 Comments Sign in to add a post
Aug 31, 2012, 03.27 PMby robygiup
I love the shape of the back! Great job on the ease reduction, it fits you perfectly.
Aug 31, 2012, 07.26 AMby Ivanamania
so sexy and still decent stylish dress! reminds me of dear marilyn. love it!
Aug 30, 2012, 05.22 PMby katrinahueniken
Gorgeous colour, and I love the neckline!
BTW if you're visiting Toronto, our best fabric shops are all downtown, around Queen St. and Spadina. For about three blocks west of that intersection, we have our own mini fashion district.
1 Reply
Aug 30, 2012, 09.09 PMby Milena Bella
Oh, thank you!!! Yay! I can't wait…!!
Aug 30, 2012, 10.39 AMby jenny walker
very pretty, great color for that style of dress
1 Reply
Aug 30, 2012, 09.09 PMby Milena Bella
thank you :))
Aug 30, 2012, 09.22 AMby Mary Athey
Wow!! what a fab dress. the colours gorgeous and its a brillant fit on you. well done x
1 Reply
Aug 30, 2012, 09.10 PMby Milena Bella
Mary, you are so sweet, thank you!
Add to Favorites 8 people added it