Michael J. Kok. The Gospel on the Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. See here to purchase the book.
The second century figure, Papias, has been significant in scholarly,
apologetic, and counter-apologetic discussions about the historical
reliability of the biblical Gospels. Eusebius (fourth century C.E.), in
Ecclesiastical History 3.39, states that Papias received information
from eyewitnesses to the apostles. According to Eusebius, Papias heard
from John the Elder that the Gospel of Mark was based on the testimony
of the apostle Peter. Many Christian apologists and conservative
scholars have argued, on the basis of Papias, that the Gospel of Mark
reflects eyewitness testimony to Jesus Christ, which enhances its
reliability as a historical document.
Michael J. Kok, in The Gospel on the Margins, evaluates
these claims, and he also aims to address a perplexing puzzle:
considering that the Gospel of Mark was believed to reflect the
eyewitness testimony of Peter, why was it such a marginal Gospel, one
that was rarely cited in patristic sources? Would not one expect a
Gospel thought to be based on the testimony of such a high-ranking
apostle as Peter to be more popular and widely-used?
While scholars have debated the reliability of Papias and what Papias
says about the Gospel of Mark, Kok explores a topic that he believes
has been neglected in such discussions: the “ideological function” of
the patristic traditions about the Gospel of Mark “in Mark’s reception history”
(page 9, Adobe Digital Edition).
For Kok, the attribution of the
Gospel of Mark to Mark, as well as the claim that the Gospel of Mark
contained Peter’s eyewitness testimony, served an ideological purpose in
second century Christian debates.
In the Introduction, Kok offers evidence that the Gospel of Mark was
marginal in terms of second century patristic interaction with it. Kok
also briefly mentions a scholarly debate about Papias’ statement about
the Gospel of Mark: was Papias correct on this, or did Papias spin “the
whole tale out of an erroneous inference from 1 Peter 5:13,” which
presents Mark as a close associate of Peter? I Peter 5:13 will be
significant in Kok’s overall discussion. Kok also refers to a
difference of opinion between Papias and Augustine: Papias regarded Mark
as a preserver of Peter’s testimony, whereas Augustine viewed Mark
merely as one who abbreviated Matthew’s Gospel. This difference of
opinion highlights the tensions that Kok will explore. On the one hand,
Mark’s Gospel was regarded as significant enough to include in the
canon. On the other hand, Mark’s Gospel was marginal and often
overshadowed by the Gospel of Matthew, which has a lot of what Mark’s
Gospel has, and more.
Chapter 1, “The Decline of the Patristic Consensus,” interacts with
twentieth-century scholars who disputed that the Gospel of Mark was by
John Mark, the one who knew apostles. In turn, they also disputed that
the Gospel of Mark contained Peter’s testimony. To quote from page 33,
Kok engages “the form critical replacement of Peter with the anonymous
community (Dennis Nineham), the redaction or narrative critical
portrayals of Peter as a villain in Mark’s drama (Theodore Weeden,
Richard Horsley), and the historical critical objections to the
authorship of the second canonical Gospel by a first-century Palestinian
Jew (Kurt Niederwimmer, Pierson Parker).” Kok weighs these objections
and identifies what he believes are their strengths and weaknesses, but
he does not think that they by themselves successfully exclude the
possibility that Peter played some role in the Gospel of Mark’s
content. Kok also concludes that a first century Palestinian Jew could
have written the Gospel of Mark. One interesting question with which
Kok wrestles in this chapter is this: Why would Jesus in Mark 7
criticize some of the Pharisees for violating the Torah, only to go on
and nullify the Torah’s dietary laws?
In Chapter 2, “The Re-Emergence of the Patristic Tradition,” Kok
engages scholars who maintain that Papias is reliable in what Papias
says about the Gospel of Mark. These scholars include Robert Gundry,
Martin Hengel, Samuel Byrskog, Richard Bauckham, and Michael Bird. It
is in this chapter that Kok offers his own view on the reliability of
Papias, and his conclusion is that Papias is rather wanting in terms of
reliability. Kok agrees with Eusebius that Papias is drawing from John
the Elder rather than John the apostle (whereas Irenaeus equated the
two), and Kok calls John the Elder “elusive.” Kok doubts that John the
Elder was an eyewitness to Jesus, since “the likelihood of [a personal
student] of Jesus living into the second century is low” (page 82). Kok
also contends that Papias may have been naive and uncritical in his
acceptance of traditions. Also in this chapter, Kok evaluates whether
the Gospel of Mark contains Peter’s testimony. Kok is doubtful of this,
one reason being that the Gospel of Mark is highly critical of the
apostles. Kok engages the question of whether the Gospel of Mark could
have been written by someone associated with Paul, a Paulinist, and,
while Kok believes some arguments for this have merit, he ultimately
concludes that Paul and the Gospel of Mark are too different in terms of
their ideologies, emphases, and themes. For Kok, the author of the
Gospel of Mark was probably a late first century Jew (writing for Jewish
and Gentile Christians) who was alienated from the political and
religious establishment and was hoping for the return of the Son of Man,
and he encouraged his fellow Christians to suffer faithfully.
According to Kok, this Gospel was anonymous to highlight the importance
of its message rather than its author.
In Chapter 3, “From Paul’s Fellow Worker to Peter’s Interpreter,” Kok
offers one model for how the Gospel of Mark came to be attributed to
Mark, and, in turn, to Peter. According to Kok, Mark in parts of the
New Testament is presented as a companion to Paul, but Mark comes to be
associated with Peter, too (Acts 12:5; I Peter 5:13), in an attempt to
present a centrist Christianity and to bring together different
factions. I Peter 5:13 was influential in Asia Minor, where John the
Elder, the man who influenced Papias, was. Kok believes that the Papian
prologues influenced Luke-Acts rather than vice-versa, and that
Luke-Acts itself may refer to the idea that Mark wrote the Gospel of
Mark. Kok thinks that Acts 13:5 may present John Mark as a repository
of Christian tradition for Paul, who was not himself an eyewitness to
the historical Jesus, and that the negative portrayal of Mark in Acts
may serve to uphold Luke’s “orderly” Gospel at the expense of the Gospel
of Mark. Also noteworthy in this chapter is that Kok addresses the
argument that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark, for why would church
fathers attribute the Gospel of Mark to an insignificant person such as
Mark, unless Mark actually wrote it? If the church fathers wanted to
attach a name to a Gospel, why not the name of an actual apostle, such
as Peter? Kok notes that “apocryphal Gospels were attributed to all
sorts of names, apostolic or not, such as Thomas, Matthias, Mary,
Bartholomew, Nicodemus, or Gamaliel” (page 143). Kok goes on to say
that “‘Mark’ may have been an ideal candidate as a figure of some repute
via his association with the apostles and as an intermediary who could
bear the blame for the shortcomings of the Gospel instead of Peter
himself.” Another topic that Kok explores in this chapter is how
Papias’ view on the Gospel of Mark influenced Justin Martyr (second
century C.E.), Irenaeus (second century C.E.), and Clement of Alexandria (second
century C.E.).
In Chapter 4, “Toward a Theory of the Patristic Reception of Mark,”
Kok sets the stage to address possible ideological reasons that the
Gospel of Mark was attributed to Mark, and, in turn, to Peter. In the
second century, there were debates within Christianity. Both the
factions that became “orthodox” and the factions later deemed
“heretical” claimed apostolic succession and attributed their Gospels to
apostles, as a way to buttress their own authority and claims to
possess authentic Christianity. Kok raises the question of whether the
same thing that happened to the Gospel of John happened to the Gospel of
Mark. According to Kok, there was some avoidance of the Gospel of John
in the second century, as the “orthodox” noted that the “heretics” used
it; some even disputed that John wrote it, attributing it instead to
Cerinthus. Yet, the “orthodox” came to co-opt the Gospel of John, as it
reinforced their belief that Jesus pre-existed and was God. Could
Mark’s Gospel, likewise, have been co-opted by the “orthodox,” after
being used by “heretics”?
In Chapter 5, “The Gospel on the Margins of the Canon,” Kok narrates
how Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement essentially apologize for the Gospel
of Mark, offering different traditions on the Gospel’s relationship with
Peter. They want to uphold the Gospel of Mark as somehow related to
Peter, but they also want to distance Peter from the Gospel of Mark’s
apparent deficiencies. According to Kok, Papias’ problem with the
Gospel of Mark was its lack of literary refinement and its dearth of
important details about Jesus’ life, such as Jesus’ birth. Papias says
that Peter relayed details to Mark, but blames Mark for the Gospel of
Mark’s deficiencies. Irenaeus’ solution was that Mark wrote after Peter
died. Clement (as discussed by Eusebius) offered other possibilities,
one being that Peter was still alive when Mark wrote the Gospel, but was
indifferent as Mark released the Gospel to a limited circle of
Christian leaders, perhaps as unrefined notes. Also in this chapter,
Kok disputes that the Gospel of Mark was used in an Alexandrian
baptismal lectionary.
Chapter 6, “The Clash of Rival Interpreters,” concerns the
theological and religious problems that the “orthodox” had with the
Gospel of Mark, or its usage by “heretics.” Adoptionists appealed to
the Gospel of Mark to argue that the divine possessed the man Jesus at
Jesus’ baptism and later left Jesus at the passion. Clement was
concerned about how the Gospel of Mark was used by ascetics to encourage
people to give up all their wealth, as Jesus told the rich young ruler;
Clement had a more moderate stance on how Christians should perceive
wealth. Kok argues that the “orthodox” (my term, not Kok’s) co-opted
the Gospel of Mark because it “was too dangerous to be left in the wrong
hands” (page 322). They attributed it to Mark, and in turn, to Peter,
as a way to legitimize its usage in Christian churches, while
controlling how it was used. Yet, the Gospel of Mark “hardly captured
their excitement” and was thus marginal (page 338).
An Appendix, “The Carpocratians and the Mystic Gospel of Mark,”
concerns the controversial Mystic Gospel of Mark. Kok disputes that the
Mystic Gospel of Mark was a forgery by the twentieth century scholar
Morton Smith, and Kok also disagrees with the idea that the Mystic
Gospel existed prior to the Gospel of Mark. For Kok, the Mystic Gospel
of Mark is an example of how a group of second century Christians deemed
heretical (by the “orthodox”) used Mark and Mark’s Gospel for their own
purposes, while promoting the asceticism that Clement criticized.
Interestingly, the Mystic Gospel of Mark may be an attempt to continue
the story of the rich young ruler who turned Jesus down in Mark 10 out
of love for his own possessions: either the ruler in Mystic Mark later
converted and gave up his possessions (which seems to be Robert Grant’s
view), or another rich person gave up his possessions, after Jesus was
disappointed that the first rich person failed to do so (Kok’s view on
Mystic Mark).
This book has a lot of assets. It interacts with scholarly views and
addresses different patristic traditions. Those interested in what
scholars have said about Papias will find this book a valuable
resource. The book was often a maze and required intense concentration
to follow Kok’s engagement with different scholarly ideas, but Kok did
well to offer a lucid summary of his arguments and conclusions at the
end of each chapter.
In terms of Kok’s argument, his models are possible. They may be
speculative, on some level, but they do incorporate plausible details.
His belief that I Peter 5:13 attempts to bring together different
factions and appeals to Mark to do so is rather speculative. Yet, one
can make a plausible case that there were differences in early
Christianity about Gentiles and the Torah among key figures (Paul and
James, or James’ party; see Galatians 2), and that Acts seems to be a
later attempt to present Peter, Paul, and James as united rather than
divided on this issue, and others. Could the depiction of Mark play a
role in this development? Moreover, Kok never definitively proves that
the “orthodox” Christians attributed the Gospel of Mark to Mark, and, in
turn, to Peter to score points in controversies, but he does present an
effective case that there was concern about the Gospel of Mark in the
second century.
In terms of slight critiques, I have a problem with how Kok presents
John the Elder as somewhat of a nobody (which may be an extreme
characterization of Kok’s view, on my part, but it was the impression
that I got). Why would Papias value what John the Elder had to say, if
that were the case? Also, I was puzzled about how paleographic experts
could date a copy of the Mystic Gospel of Mark to the eighteenth
century. Kok dates it to the second century, whereas those who see it
as a forgery by Morton Smith would presumably date it to the twentieth
century. How does the conclusion of the paleographic experts fit into
all that? Kok should have addressed that, at least to clear up
misunderstandings that some readers (like yours truly) might have.
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher through Edelweiss. My review is honest!