The Gospel of Mark
 

"There are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matt. 16:28; cf. Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27)

"From now on, you [Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, the whole Sanhedrin] shall be seeing the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69)

"The kingdom of God is at hand." (Mk. 1:15)

"What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others. ....They [the chief priests, scribes and elders] understood that He spoke the parable against them." (Mk. 12:9,12)

"This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” (Mk. 13:30)
 

DATING OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

George Eldon Ladd (1975)
"Mark was written about A.D.60, Matthew and Luke possibly a little later." (I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; p. 35)
 
Dr. William L. Lane (1974)
"The Gospel of Mark is generally dated within the decade A.D.60-70." (The Gospel According to Mark; gen. ed. F.F. Bruce; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974; p. 17)

Thomas Newton
"But none of our Saviour's prophecies are more remarkable than those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, as none are more proper and pertinent to the design of these discourses: and we will consider them as they lie in the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew, taking in also what is superadded by the other evangelists upon parallel occasions. These prophecies were delivered by our Saviour about forty years, and were committed to writing by St Matthew about thirty years, before they were to take effect. St Matthew's is universally allowed to be the first of the four Gospels; [1] the first in time, as it is always was the first in order was written, as most writers affirm, in the eighth year after the ascension of our Saviour. [2] It must have been written before the dispersion of the apostles, because St. Bartholemew [3] is said to have taken it along with him into India, and to have left it there, where it was found several years afterwards by Pantaenus. If the general tradition of antiquity be true, that it was written originally in Hebrew, it certainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, for there was no occasion for writing in that language after the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews into all nations. It is asserted upon good authority, [4] that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were approved and confirmed, the one by St. Peter the other by St. Paul. So Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Clemens Alexandrinus say expressly that the Gospel of St. Mark was written at the desire of the new converts, and ratified by St. Peter. So the learned Origen affirms, that the second Gospel is that of Mark, who wrote as Peter dictated to him; and the third Gospel is that of Luke, which is commended by Paul. So Tertullian saith, that Mark's Gospel is affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was; and Luke's Gospel they are wont to ascribe to Paul. So Jerome saith, that the Gospel according to Mark, who was the disciple and the interpreter of Peter, is said to be Peter's. These authorities are more than sufficient to weigh down the single testimony of Irenaeus to the contrary; but besides these, Gregory Nazienzen, Athanasius, and other fathers might be alleged to prove, that the Gospels or Mark and Luke received the approbation, the one of St. Peter, the other of St. Paul: and it is very well known, that both these apostles suffered martyrdom under Nero. " (Prophecy of Matthew 24)

Will Ed Warren
"Mark's Gospel was written about A.D.65." ("Mark," in New Testament Survey; p. 113)

Mark 16 "Long Ending"
PROOF OF EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM?

"The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled"

New Revised Standard Version Notes
"..some manuscripts include the following very interesting exchange: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now' -- thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, ' The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near..  And for those who have sinned, I was handed over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more..." (Inserted in Mark 16:14, NRSV) 

WIKIPEDIA

Mark the Evangelist (Greek: Markos) (1st century) is traditionally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark, drawing much of his material from Peter. He is often identified with the John, also named Mark, that accompanied Paul and Barnabas in the first journey of Paul. After a sharp dispute, Barnabas separated from Paul, taking Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:36-40). Later Paul calls on the services of Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, and Mark is named as Paul's fellow worker. He is also believed to be the first pope of Alexandria by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church.
[edit]

Biblical and Traditional Information

Though it is possible that the various uses of the name 'Mark' in the New Testament refer to different people, it is far more likely that they are one and the same person. So the John Mark in Acts (12:12, 25; 15:37) mentioned simply as John in 13:5 and 13:13 and as Mark in 15:39 is the same person as the Mark mentioned by Paul in (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy, 4:11; Philemon, 24) and by the author of 1 Peter 5:13. Mark of the Pauline Epistles is specified as a cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10); this would explain Barnabas' special attachment to the Mark of Acts over whom he disputed with Paul (Acts 15:37-40). Mark's mother was a prominent member of the earliest group of Christians in Jerusalem; it was to her house that Peter turned on his release from prison. The house was a meeting-place for the brethren, "many" of whom were praying there the night Peter arrived from prison (Acts 12:12-17). Evidence for Mark's authorship of the Gospel that bears his name originates with Papias.

A number of traditions have built up around Mark, though none can be verified from the New Testament. It is suggested that Mark was one of the servants at the wedding feast at Cana who poured out the water that Jesus turned to wine (John 2:1-11). Mark is also said to have been one of the Seventy Apostles sent out by Christ (Luke 10); was the servant who carried water to the house of Simon the Cyrenian, where the Last Supper took place (Mark 14:13); was the young man who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51-52); and was the one who hosted the disciples in his house after the death of Jesus, and into whose house the resurrected Jesus Christ came (John 20). These connections are probably wishful thinking.

The tradition that he eventually went to Alexandria and was the first to preach the Gospel there probably has more basis in fact. He is said to have performed many miracles, and established a church there, appointing a bishop, three priests, and seven deacons.

When Mark returned to Alexandria, the people there are said to have resented his efforts to turn them away from the worship of their traditional Egyptian gods. In AD 68 they killed him, and tried to burn his body. Afterwards, the Christians in Alexandria removed his unburned body from the ashes, wrapped it and then buried it in the easterly part of the church they had built.
[edit]

Fate of his remains

In 828, relics believed to be the body of St. Mark were stolen from Alexandria by Italian sailors and were taken to Venice in Italy. A basilica was built there to house the relics.

Copts believe that the head of the saint remained in Alexandria. Every year, on the 30th day of the month of Babah, the Coptic Orthodox Church celebrates the commemoration of the consecration of the church of St. Mark, and the appearance of the head of the saint in the city of Alexandria. This takes place inside St Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria, where the saint's head is preserved.

In 1094, during the construction of a new basilica in Venice, St. Mark's relics could not be found. However, it is said that "the saint himself revealed the location of his remains … by extending an arm from a pillar" The newfound remains were placed in a sarcophagus in the basilica.

In June 1968, Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria sent an official delegation to Rome to receive a relic of St. Mark from Pope Paul VI. The delegation consisted of ten metropolitans and bishops, seven of whom were Coptic and three Ethiopian, and three prominent Coptic lay leaders. The relic was said to be a small piece of bone that had been given to the Roman pope by Giovanni Cardinal Urbani, Patriarch of Venice. Pope Paul, in an address to the delegation, said that the rest of the relics of the saint remained in Venice. The delegation received the relic on June 22, 1968. The next day, the delegation celebrated a pontifical liturgy in the church of St. Athanasius the Apostolic in Rome. The metropolitans, bishops, and priests of the delegation all served in the liturgy. Members of the Roman papal delegation, Copts who lived in Rome, newspaper and news agency reporters, and many foreign dignitaries attended the liturgy.

This excerpt is taken from Carl S. Patton in Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (London: The Macmillan Company 1915), pp. 13-16.

We add here a brief statement of the theory that Mark's Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tho this theory is no longer defended, it may be worth while to summarize the more general considerations which have led to its abandonment.

1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark of so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.

2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper, for example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In the healing of the paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have eliminated.

3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases. For example, scizomenous, i, 10; en pneumati akaqartw, i, 23; krabattoV, ii, 4, and in five other places; epiraptei, ii, 21; qugatrion, v, 23; vii, 25; escatwV ecei, v, 23; spekougatwr, vi, 27; sumposia sumposia, vi, 39; eisin tineV wde twn esthkotwn, ix, 1; eis kata eis, xiv, 19; ekperisswV, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better expressions.

4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions; as in iii, 16+; iv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii, 38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49. Such constructions would be easily corrected by Matthew and Luke; they would not easily be inserted into the narratives of Matthew and Luke by Mark.

5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of which Matthew has taken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes another. Such instances may be found in Mark's Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv, 39; xi, 2; xii, 14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will show their treatment of these redundancies.

6. Mark uses uniformly kai, where Matthew and Luke have sometimes kai and sometimes de. Mark's use shows him to be nearer the Hebrew or Aramaic. No explanation can be given for his substitution of this monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by Matthew and Luke. The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark's one conjunction is entirely natural.

7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into the Greek; see especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of Mark's material for Hellenistic readers; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words into the Greek texts of Matthew and luke.

8. Mark's narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either Matthew's or Luke's. It would be much easier for these graphic touches to be omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke, even tho they found these before them in the Gospel of Mark, than for Mark to have added these touches in copying the narratives of Matthew and Luke. One may mention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the Baptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter (ii, 3); the statement, "He looked around upon them with wrath, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts" (Mk iii, 5); the names of persons, and their relatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the description of the Gadarene demoniac, the additional details of the conversation between Jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix, 20-24), and many similar items.