for April 25
Feast of St. Mark, Evangelist

Today is the feast of Saint Mark, the evangelist.  The Church interrupts the sequence of Easter readings to direct our attention to the author of what was most probably the earliest written gospel.

Who was the man Mark? There are some passing references to persons named Mark in the New Testament, our first reading being a prime example. The author of the first letter of Peter refers to Mark, my son. But is this meant to refer to the author of the gospel? There is a well-known reference in a second century document to a man named Mark as “Peter’s interpreter.” Ironically, this second century commentator takes a swipe at the gospel by claiming that the events reported in the gospel are “not in order.” I say this is an ironic comment because modern commentators have detected a highly organized structure reflected in the gospel. 

Personally, I have always concluded that in fact we know very little about the history and life of Mark, the evangelist, beyond mere conjecture. But what we do know, is precious, namely the gospel he wrote for us. If we read back from the gospel, we can learn much about the author.

Mark was not a highly educated man. His command of Greek as a written language was limited. For example, he reverted to the Greek word “kai” to begin almost every sentence. The word means “and” in English. And most translations drop the overuse of the word so as not to distract the reader. And for good reason. And you get the point. If one compares Mark’s gospel with that of Matthew and Luke, it becomes readily apparent that the other two evangelists frequently made editorial changes to improve the writing style and literary flow of the text.

Mark’s gospel contains very few words of Jesus. Mark included no long discourses by Jesus like the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) or the Last Supper Discourse (John). But Mark was a keen observer. We have vivid reports of the acts of Jesus, such as healing miracles and sharp exchanges with the disciples. When we read Mark, we should therefore be very attentive to his descriptions of people and events. For example, when Jesus meets the rich young man in Chapter 10, Mark tells us that “Jesus looked steadily at him and loved him.” But when the young man hears the invitation to follow, “his face fell at these words.” Mark’s gospel is full of such vivid detail.

Mark’s portrait of the disciples of Jesus is not very complementary; hence the gospel’s lack of popularity among church leaders—the successors of the apostles—down through the ages. The inscription around the dome of St. Peter’s in Rome is definitely not from Mark’s gospel. Jesus’s words to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan,” is one of the climatic points of his gospel. Throughout the gospel story, the disciples struggle with the question about Jesus’ identity and never make a full confession of faith in Jesus. John’s gospel, on the other hand, has Nathaniel proclaim to Jesus at their very first meeting in Chapter 1, “You are the Son of God.” Such a confession of faith from one of the disciples is never reported by Mark, even late in the gospel after the passion.

Mark is fixated on the question of Jesus’ true identity. He feels that we can never begin to grasp the full meaning of Jesus until we come to the cross and death of Jesus. This emphasis on Jesus’ redemptive suffering as the moment of disclosure explains why Mark’s gospel has always been the preferred gospel for Christians undergoing persecution. Liberation theology, for example, most frequently appealed to Mark’s gospel for scriptural support.

We owe a great debt to Mark because, as far as we know, he was the first author who wrote down a sequential account of Jesus’ ministry leading up to the passion. The tradition he received did not offer such a chronological ordering of events. This was Mark’s editorial genius imposed on the reports of individual and unconnected events. And he ordered those events to point with ever mounting tension to Jesus’ passion and death.

One of the issues that scholars contend with is the proper ending of the gospel. It seems that Mark’s text ends abruptly with verse 16:8. Most likely, later authors saw this ending as incomplete and added accounts of the resurrection appearances to round out the story. An example is today’s gospel passage. 

As we understand the fullness of our faith, the true value of this kind of close and critical study of the gospel text does not just reveal the personality of the author. More importantly, the text is inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore invites us into a personal relationship with the Son of God whose life and death and resurrection are the source of all grace. Mark was merely the human instrument God used to intimately communicate his love for us.
—Walter F. Modrys SJ

Today’s readings can be found at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website.