The origin of the Gospel according to Mark

284 Pages·2016·3.09 MB·English

by  Andrzej Kowalczyk

K
R
A
M

O
T
Andrzej Kowalczyk

G
was born on 20th February 1940 in Radomsko (Poland). He is N
a graduate of the Pontificio Istituto Biblico and the University of  I
D
St. Thomas in Rome, doctor habilitate in biblical theology, and  R
lecturer of biblical theology at the Theological Seminary in  O
Gdansk. He is the author of the following books on the Synoptic Gospels: The influence of C
typology and texts of the Old Testament on the redaction of Matthew’s Gospel, Pelplin 2008; C
Geneza Ewangelii Marka, Pelplin 2004; Geneza Ewangelii Lukasza, Pelplin 2006, and has A
published numerous articles. In the first of these books he presents the theory that Matthew’s  L
Gospel was closely related to the Hexateuch. Research on the literary genre of the Synoptic  E
Gospels has led him to the conclusion that the differences between the Gospels are exclusively  P
S
the result of redactional changes introduced by their authors. 
O
* * * G
The literary foundations of Mark’s Gospel dictated a shortening of the Gospel of Matthew  E
and its partial rephrasing. Changes to the composition of the Gospel of Mark as well as the  H
absence in it of many of Matthew’s texts can be explained without positing Mark’s primacy  T
among the Evangelists, and without resorting to multiplying the sources. F
Why, despite so many problems with accepting the existence of the Q-source, is it so hard  O
for many Biblicists to recognise the primacy of the Gospel of Matthew? Basically, there appear 
N
to be only two reasons: the absence from Mark’s Gospel of the narrative of Jesus’s infancy and 
I
the lack of the Sermon on the Mount. But the absence of these texts can be explained on the  G
basis of the literary foundations of Mark’s Gospel. The Evangelists not only added to what they  I
R
had found in their sources but they also removed things from them. Even Matthew does not  O
have all of Mark’s texts. What the Evangelists chose to take from their sources depended on 

E
their conceptions of the works they were setting out to write and their literary foundations. 
H
Because Mark was writing a completely different work from Matthew’s, those differences were 
T
bound to be great. The Gospel of Matthew was intended to be a new Hexateuch, hence it had 

to contain the story of a new Exodus and a new conquest of the promised land, and had to 

include a new Messianic law, whereas the Gospel of Mark, conceived of as a book about the 
•
good news, had to contain a summary of the kerygma. Mark made use of the Gospel of Matthew, 

but in his redaction he was inspired by the teaching of St Peter and the Old-Testament prophecy 

k
about the Gospel. The narrative of the infancy of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount were not 
y
part of the kerygma or subject of the prophecies on the teaching of the Gospel. For this reason  z
c
they were removed by Mark. l
a
w
o
K

j
e
z
r
d
n
A
THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO MARK
ANDRZEJ KOWALCZYK
THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO MARK
Pelplin 2016
On the cover: St. Mark, relief on the pulpit by Mateusz Scholler at Pelplin Cathedral,
a former Cistercian abbey
© Copyright by
Andrzej Kowalczyk, 2016
IMPRIMATUR
Rev. Dr Stanislaw Zieba
Chancellor of the Curia
signed in Gdansk, 24th June 2004
NIHIL OBSTAT
Rev. Dr Wiesław Lauer
Episcopal Vicar
signed in Gdansk, 24.06.2004
Wydawnictwo „Bernardinum” Sp. z o.o.
ul. Biskupa Dominika 11, 83-130 Pelplin
tel. [phone], fax [phone]
e-mail: [email protected]
www.bernardinum.com.pl
Skład, druk i oprawa:
Drukarnia Wydawnictwa „Bernardinum” Sp. z o.o., Pelplin
ISBN 978-83-7823-693-1
AbbreviAtions
AmJourTh – American Journal of Theology
AnBib – Analecta Biblica
Bib – Biblica
BiKi – Bibel und Kirche
BiRe – Biblical Researche
BZ – Biblische Zeitschrift
DBS – Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris.
ETL – Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
ExpT – Expository Times
HE – Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius of Caesarea
HibJ – Hibbert Journal
HTR – Harvard Theological Review
JBL – Journal of Biblical Literature
JTS – Journal of Theological Studies
NovT – Novum Testamentum
NRTh – Nouvelle Revue Théologique
NTS – New Testament Studies
RB – Revue Biblique
RBL – Ruch Biblijny i Liturgiczny
ScottJourTh – Scottish Journal of Theology
SNTU – Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt
StudTheolVars – Studia Theologica Varsaviensia
TheolRund – Theologische Rundschau
StudKrit – Studien und Kritiken
ThLZ – Theologische Literaturzeitung
ThStKr – Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TrinJourn – Trinity Journal
ZNW – Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZThK – Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
5

PrefAce
The 20th century was the age of Biblicists’ special interest in the genesis
of the Gospels. It was then that the Formgeschichte and Redaktionsgeshichte
schools came into existence together with numerous synoptic theories whose
purpose was to explain the sources and literary dependencies of the first
three Gospels. On one hand, more and more literature appeared on the genesis
of the Gospels. On the other hand, however, conflicting opinions multiplied.
After doing research on the creation of Gospel of Matthew which resulted
in the book The Influence of the typology and texts of the Old Testament on
the redaction of Matthew’s Gospel published in 1993, the next logical step
for me was to start working on the problem of the creation of St Mark’s
Gospel. Studies on the Gospel of Matthew led me to the conclusion that
Matthew was inspired by the Hexateuch, and that the composition and
selection of the texts in his Gospel were closely connected with the structure
and content of the Pentateuch. However, a vast majority of contemporary
Biblicists place the Gospel of Matthew after the Gospel of Mark, considering
the latter to be the source for the former. I therefore found it necessary to
address the question whether the Gospel of Mark had actually preceded the
Gospel of Matthew. The present book tries to answer this question by looking
at how the Gospel of Mark came into being.
The book is divided into two main parts. Part One is devoted to theories
on the literary dependencies of the synoptic Gospels, presenting arguments
put forward by Biblicists for and against a given theory. Since it is not
possible to present all the detailed literary data supporting each stance, I focus
on the presentation of at least certain types of argumentation. I will show
that despite the existence of very strong arguments against the priority of
Mark’s Gospel Biblicists find it hard to accept the priority of Matthew, mainly
due to the absence of many of Matthew’s texts in the Gospel of Mark.
Special attention is paid in this book to the problem of the Q source
playing a very important role in the two-source hypothesis, which rejects
the priority of Matthew. A great deal has been written on Source Q, but it is
necessary to keep in mind that its existence is not as certain as it may seem
7
THE ORIGIN OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDINNG TO MARK
at first glance. My doubts about the Q source were raised by the great French
Biblicist from the first half of the 20th century J.–M. Lagrange, who said
that “la source Q est un nonsense, une non-chose. Il faut nécessairement la
compléter… Elle s’annexe… tout l’ensamble de Mt”.1
By presenting arguments in favour and against some synoptic theories
I wish to make the reader aware of the difficulties posed by them. Instead
of solving a given problem they often create new ones, and instead of
explaining the difficulties they evade them. In some cases one may get the
impression that the arguments rely not on literary data, but on the given
author’s assumptions. First an assumption is made and then the literary data
are interpreted in accordance with it. The sheer number of contradictory
synoptic theories seems to prove this.
Part Two of this book is devoted to the literary genre of Mark’s work. It
presents the factors which may have influenced its redaction, the goal he
wanted to achieve, as well as the differences between his Gospel and that of
Matthew. A proper assessment of Mark’s redaction assumptions makes it
possible to look at the knotty literary issues of his Gospel from a slightly
different angle and to explain why it differs from the Gospel of Matthew. In
this part of the study I relate to the most important arguments against the
priority of the Gospel of Matthew. Towards the end of this part I present all
the differences in the composition of the two Gospels in question. As for the
differences in the structure of individual pericopes, only some cases are
analysed, the issue being too broad to deal with in this book.
1 M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Matthieu, Paris 1927, p. XLIII
8
PArt i
The problem of the origin
of Mark’s Gospel
in the tradition of the early Church
and in modern biblical theology