Skip to main content

Is The Book of Mark a Biography Of Jesus' Life?


Is The Gospel of Mark a Biography of Jesus Christ?



Can the gospel of Mark be considered a biography of Jesus Christ? Some would answer affirmatively. Of course it is. Is it not an overview of His life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection? However, many others would say no. The Book of Mark does not meet the basic criteria for a biography.

                First, let’s look at the definition of a biography. A biography, as defined by Webster’s dictionary, is an account of the life of something. So in this sense, yes. The Book of Mark is a biography of Jesus Christ. Many would argue, however, that Mark skips over several, key instances of Jesus’ life. This is a failure so egregious that it completely changes the purpose of the book. For example, the Book of Mark does not cover Jesus’ birth or childhood. Instead, it begins with Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist and the inception of His ministry.

                                                                       


                Another interesting issue with the Book of Mark is how often Mark uses the term “immediately”.  Some believe that the prevalent use of the term is a testimony to the faithfulness of God's servant. Or, in simpler terms, showcasing how Jesus did God’s bidding immediately and without hesitation.  Still others believe that the term “immediately” was used to showcase the urgency with which Mark felt everyone should respond to Jesus' calling.




                                             

                Yet another reason why the Book of Mark cannot be called a biography, is the speed with which the author moves through the important points in the life of Jesus. In fact, Mark is the shortest Gospel in the New Testament. Its brevity is important to consider though. Mark does make note of the important teachings of Jesus, such as the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34), or the parable of the growing seed (Mark 4:26-34), but he definitely does not spend a lot of time on them. The swiftness with which he moves through the parables makes the Book of Mark seem more like a quick overview of Jesus’ life, rather than a detailed account.

                Finally, another point of contention with the use of the word “biography” in regards to the Book of Mark is that the ending most readers are familiar with is not the real ending at all. We see Jesus crucified, and we see them return to his grave at the end of the third day, however, in the earliest manuscripts, the reader does not see Jesus return and speak with his disciples. In fact, the Book of Mark ends on Mark 16:8. In truth, the ending that most biblical readers are familiar with and have accepted as sacred was added much later. This new “ending” was added because later Christians felt the end of Mark was insufficient and that a better conclusion was needed.

                                                         


In conclusion, although the Book of Mark is a great overview of Jesus’ life and ministry, it falls short of accurately being called a biography. Mark does capture the essense of the message Christians are asked to deliver to the world, but it does not offer a complete and detailed analysis of Jesus’ life and, as such, cannot be called a biography.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is There an Acceptable Reason to Divorce One's Spouse (according to Paul or the 1st Century Roman Empire)?

In 1 Corinthians, Paul has a lot to say concerning men and women, sex, marriage and divorce. He begins chapter 7 by stating that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman", but goes on to say that, because of the temptation of sexual immorality, "each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband". So, in this context it seems as though Paul is saying men and women should marry only to protect themselves from the sin of sexual immorality. This seems like a pretty bleak existence.  The question then, is this: According to Paul and the 1st Century Roman Empire, is there an acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse? The answer is not as cut and dried as one might think. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the two groups' opinions are split on the subject. It should be noted that Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, was taught that marriage is absolute . In Matthew 19:6 and 19:9 Jesus addresses a Pharisee who is badg
Post a Comment
Read more

Who was Herod Archelaus and Why were Joseph and Mary Afraid of Him?

                                                                   While putting my Matthew blog together, I hit brick wall after brick wall. To be completely honest, the end result of my research on this blog topic is, partially, supposition. However, the facts that I did find, are truly fascinating.       To begin, we must first delve into a quick background of Herod Archelaus. Archelaus was the first son of Herod the Great and the principal heir  to the throne of Judea. After the,  possibly very gruesome , death of his father, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to defend his birthright. His brothers, Antipas and Philip, both made equal claims to the Judean throne. Emperor Augustus, however, recognized that he should receive the largest portion of the inheritance, but he did not go as far as to name him king. Instead, Archelaus had to settle for the lesser title of ethnarch, which is equal to the governor of a specific region. This emphasized his dependence on the Roman Empire
Post a Comment
Read more

A discussion on Paul's teachings about marriage and his views on women's rights in general

While reading Romans chapter 7, I was first struck by the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements on what marriage should look like for believers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives no alternative to being married once you're married, even in the case of adultery (or so it seems), which is directly against the lessons of his teacher, Jesus. He even says that if you DO   get a divorce, then you are not permitted to marry again. Period. Of course, he does allow for reconciliation and remarriage between the husband and wife, which is, admittedly, a small concession. In Romans, however, Paul teaches that if a husband dies, the wife is free from the marriage bond and allowed to remarry. Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between Paul's teachings to the Romans, who he had not even met yet, and his teachings to the Corinthians?  Also, why does Paul only address the issue as it concerns men? Many bible scholars agree that in Romans Paul is referencing the Mosaic
Post a Comment
Read more