What does the Gospel of Mark tell us about its author?

by Julie M. Smith

The Gospel of Mark is formally anonymous, meaning that the name of the author does not occur within the text (contrast Revelation 1:1). The writer may not have felt any need to include his name because he was well known to his community, or he may have omitted his name for rhetorical reasons, perhaps to focus the text on Jesus Christ instead of himself. He does not claim to be a follower of Jesus or an eyewitness to his ministry or to have any specific personal connection to the people in the Gospel.[1]There is no indication as to how the author learned the stories that are in the Gospel. Apparently, the author did not think that the reader needed to know his name or his connection to Jesus’ life. This, of course, has not stopped scholars from trying to figure out as much as possible about who wrote the Gospel.

The first clue is the title. Most scholars believe that the Gospel was originally sans title since “in ancient book production and publication, the title belonged more to the stage of reception that to that of production.”[2]Perhaps the Gospels were initially without titles because the titles would have been obvious to all readers, or because the authors hoped to avoid persecution from having their names associated with Christian writings, or because they did not consider the text their unique creation but rather a communal project.[3] It may have been that a title was only added after other Gospels were written and it became necessary to distinguish them.[4] Or, a title may not have been necessary until the Gospel circulated beyond its original location.

The title of Mark’s Gospel is very old, but it is not attached to all ancient manuscripts.[5] It was most likely added to the Gospel in the late first century[6] or early second century,[7] although there were some copies that even in the fourth century did not have a title.[8] The oldest manuscript of the second Gospel does not have a title, although many other manuscripts from that era do contain titles.[9] The title is likely to date from before the mid-second century because by then Gospels were normally attributed to apostles to increase their prestige so, presumably, had a title-less Gospel of Mark been circulating and someone had decided to give it a title then, it would have been given the name of an apostle.[10]

Because the title appears at the beginning, the end, the side, or both the beginning and the end, depending on the manuscript, it seems that the title was not there originally but was added later and thus placed in a variety of locations.[11] The fact that the only author associated with this text is Mark is an indication of the accuracy of the attribution;[12] by contrast, Galen, a second century physician, had an untitled work that was later given more than one title, which is precisely what one would expect to happen if many different hands were generating a title for a book.

There is a curious situation regarding the Joseph Smith Translation of the title for this Gospel: while LDS Bibles indicate in the footnotes that the JST titles the book “The Testimony of St. Mark,” this is apparently an error; the JST does change the titles of Matthew and John from “The Gospel of” to “The Testimony of,” but apparently the titles of Mark and Luke were not changed. Some Mormon scholars think that the title change, limited to Matthew and John, reflects their apostolic status.[13]

So we have very good—but not airtight—evidence that the author of this Gospel was named Mark. Unfortunately, “Mark” was one of the most common male names in the Roman Empire.[14] What else can we know about him? Through a bit of creative detective work, scholars deduce some characteristics of the author from the text, although most are not without controversy:

1.          Latinisms. Mark’s use of Latin terms[15] supports the association of the Gospel with a Roman setting,[16] placing the author and the audience in Rome, especially since there are two occasions when Greek words are explained in Latin terms,[17] as if the audience would have been familiar with the Latin but not the Greek.

2.          Aramaic words and phrases. Mark’s Gospel contains a surprisingly high number of Aramaic terms[18] for a text of its length. In all cases, these are translated into Greek, leading to the conclusion that the author, but not the audience, knew Aramaic.

3.          Geographical descriptions. Some scholars find errors in Mark’s descriptions of geography,[19] which might indicate his lack of familiarity with Palestine. (Other scholars have pointed out that ancient people would not have known their own geography nearly as well as moderns who have access to maps.[20]) On the other hand, some scholars think that Mark is more concerned with theology than geography and therefore adapts the physical setting to fit his rhetorical needs.[21]

4.          Understanding of Judaism. Mark explains Jewish customs as if he (but not his audience) were familiar with them.[22] Alternatively, some scholars feel that these descriptions show a limited understanding of Judaism,[23] perhaps implying that Mark was not himself Jewish, but this is disputed,[24] especially since there are many biblical allusions in the Gospel. The Old Testament citations are generally closer to the Greek text than the Hebrew text, which makes it less likely that the author was Jewish.[25] So the evidence in mixed.[26]

5.          System of timekeeping. In Mark 6:48 and Mark 13:35, Mark uses the Roman system of four watches per night, instead of the Jewish reckoning of three watches per night, to delineate time,[27] perhaps serving as further evidence for a Roman setting for the Gospel. But other scholars read the evidence differently, suggesting that Mark used Roman time either in order to make the text understandable to Gentile readers, or because he was not being precise, or perhaps because Jews used the Roman system as well.[28]

6.          Writing style. Mark’s Gospel is written in very poor Greek.[29] For example, in Mark 16:6, the word “behold” is in the singular form, despite the fact that more than one person is being addressed. This may suggest authorship by someone who lived in Palestine since many Palestinian Jews knew only a rudimentary Greek.[30]

It can be difficult to evaluate what some of this evidence implies about Mark, and scholars draw opposite conclusions from it. Perhaps it is safe to say that the data suggests that the author knew Aramaic, knew Greek (but poorly), was likely to have been a Jew, and is associated with Rome.