The gospel account of Jesus of Nazareth as told in the book of Mark is dynamic.  It is said to start with a bang.  The book of Mark is more than an exciting account of the life of the Christ.  It is also as close to a historical account of the life of Jesus as we will see.  It is a statement on the basic principles of the Christian faith.  Such things as Jesus, the Son of God, and man's failure to embrace the cross are put to paper for the first time in this book.  In this essay we will review the scholarly texts of An Introduction to the New Testament written by D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris and Introducing the New Testament written by Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meyer Thompson.  An Introduction to the New Testament is primarily concerned with the historiography of the text.  The primary concern of Introducing the New Testament is the lessons in the text of Mark.

In An Introduction to the New Testament, the book of Mark is discussed by content, author, provenance, date, audience, purpose, sources, text, recent study, and the contribution of Mark to the New Testament and the early church.

The contents of the story are action-packed.  It begins with the narrative of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist and his wilderness experience.  The narrative goes directly to the first part of the Galilean ministry.  Jesus proclaims the good news.  "The typical day in Jesus ministry involves teaching in the synagogue, exorcisms, and healings (1:21-34)".  Crowds of people follow Jesus.  This angers the Scribes and Pharisees and they begin to plot to kill him.  The second and third part of the Galilean ministry focuses on his popularity and the Kingdom of God.  In the fourth part of the Galilean ministry, the scripture focuses on the powerful teacher, growing opposition, and the disciples’ failure to understand what his Messiahship is all about.  The final section of the story is referred to by Carson, Moo, and Morris as The way of glory and suffering.  The author describes it in three segments:   "One, Jesus' prediction of his death; two, the disciples' failure to understand; and three, teaching about the cost of discipleship."  Finally, the authors discuss Jesus' passion and resurrection.  In Mark, the only discussion of the resurrection is that of the empty tomb and the angel's announcement of the resurrection.

Carson, Moo, and Morris explain that like the entire Gospel, the authorship is anonymous.  However, it is widely believed that the author is a man named John Mark who followed the apostle Peter and acted as his interpreter.  This belief comes from testimony of Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia of Asia Minor in 130 A.D.  Papias' testimony is recorded in Eusebius' History of the Church written in 325.  Three assumptions are made based on Papias' testimony.  One, John Mark wrote this gospel.  Two, John Mark was not an eyewitness but received his information from Peter.  Three, the gospel of Mark is not in a particular order but is told as it was preached by Peter and as it was remembered by John Mark.  The author asserts that the authorship of Mark is most likely a correct assumption because Papias makes reference to the presbyter who credits John Mark with authorship.  The presbyter is the apostle John.  This dates the Markian narrative to the first generation Christians.  Carson, Moo, and Morris acknowledge that the authorship of John Mark may be called into question by some who regard Eusebius' record as second-hand.  Also, there is some speculation that the author makes an autobiographical statement in the scripture in the telling of a young man who runs away at the arrest of Jesus and is striped of his robe.  This would contradict Papias' statement that Mark was not an eyewitness.  However, Carson, Moo, and Morris point to the evidence in the scripture where John Mark, who is called Mark, is referred to in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Peter and Paul.  These references give credence to Papias' and Eusebius' claim that John Mark was in fact the author of the second gospel.  Finally, the authors decide that there is no good reason to reject the claim by the early Church that the author is John Mark.

Provenance is the next issue discussed by Carson, Moo, and Morris.  According to the authors, a Roman Provenance is the most likely possibility.  Rome is likely because of the number of Latinisms composing the gospel.  The mention of Alexander and Rufus who may have known Mark in Rome, Mark has a gentile audience.  The allusions of suffering coinciding with the suffering of the early Church in Rome, 1 Peter 5:13, locates Mark in Rome.  Mark's apparent acceptance of the early church in Rome.  There are other possibilities of a provenance other than Rome, such as a Galilean provenance.  Another possibility is Alexandria where Mark is said to have traveled and written a Gnostic gospel, or Antioch which was both a Roman city and close in proximity to Palestine where Peter followed Christ and most likely ministered himself for sometime.

Carson, Moo, and Morris examine the possibility that Mark's gospel could have been written in the forties, fifties, sixties, or seventies.  The reference in Mark to the desecration of the Temple makes a forties argument possible.  In the forties, Caligula wanted to have his image erected in the Temple.  It is possible that Mark wrote the gospel account in the forties if Mark traveled to Rome in the forties with Peter.  However, it is unlikely that other New Testament writers would have been silent about this source.  It is not mentioned in any of Paul's epistles which were written in the fifties and sixties.  The argument for the fifties or early sixties is supported by the widely-held belief that Luke used the gospel of Mark as a source.  The gospel of Luke ends with Paul imprisoned in Rome.  Paul was beheaded in the mid-sixties, indicating that Mark was written prior to Paul’s death.  This fits with the theory that Luke used Mark as a source.  The most popular view is that Mark was written in the sixties.  This is supported by the historical fact that Nero began persecuting the Christians in 65 A.D.  Mark makes several references to the suffering of Jesus.  These references could have been used to bolster the early Church which was suffering under Nero.  Also, Jesus makes a reference to the destruction of the temple which seemed to be the impending doom of the temple.  Rome was at war with the Jews in the late fifties.  One of their major disagreements was over Rome's disrespect for the temple.  It was also likely that Rome would prevail in this war.  The destruction of the temple is also an argument for a seventies composition.  The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.  Mark's account of Jesus' Prophecy of the temple's destruction may have been offered to the early Church as that of the all-knowing Christ.  Scholars may argue that Jesus was referring to his own death and resurrection.

The audience and purpose are obvious from the text of Mark.  The audience is clearly Latin and gentile.  This is apparent from the much Latinism in the text as well as the explanation of Jewish customs, something the audience would not have understood without explanation.  It also is supported by the assumption of a Roman Provenance.  The purpose of the gospel from a text point-of-view is that the author was trying to convey Peter's message.  Peter makes several points.  The first is the call to discipleship and the powerful teacher Jesus.  The second is that the suffering Messiah cannot be avoided.  Disciples must embrace the crucified Jesus to understand his messiahship, after all,this will also be the path for many of the disciples.  Finally, Mark wants all disciples, Jew or Gentile, to hear the good news of Jesus Christ.  There are other studies, such as redaction criticism and the political influences of the day.  However, they do not make strong arguments for the purpose of the author Mark and his mentor Peter's telling of the story.

There are few obvious sources to Mark's gospel.  If the two-source theory is correct, then Matthew and Luke used Mark's gospel for its source.  It is unlikely that Mark had Matthew and Luke as sources.  Therefore, the only sources available to Mark are the witness of St. Peter and possible written stories of Jesus that were included in Mark's gospel.

There are two textual problems with Marks gospel.  First, the words "Son of God" at the beginning and end are omitted from some of the early manuscripts.  It appears to be an accidental omission because it is part of the most important original manuscript.  The second problem is Mark 16:9-16, the resurrection account.  It was most likely added in the second century.  This portion of the text is not in two of the most important early manuscripts.  There are three possible reasons for this.  One, Mark was prevented from writing an extended resurrection narrative.  Two, Mark wrote a resurrection narrative that was lost or eliminated.  Three, verse 8 was Mark's intended ending.

When redaction criticism became popular in the 1950's, study of Mark’s gospel became very popular.  Liberal school of thought gives Mark credit for being more factual and less theological than the other gospels.  Two other methods of study of Mark have been used recently:  sociological analysis and modern literary techniques.  Sociological analysis analyzes the community of Mark, the author, and suggests that he was trying to redefine God's purpose in history.  Modern literary techniques focus on the narrative and how it was put together, and how that narrative may be understood by Mark's reader today.

The chapter concludes with the contribution of Mark to the Church.  The gospel itself is a "bare-bones, straight-to-the-point" book about the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.  The gospel of Mark is rejected by some because it does not elaborate on detail or theology.  However, as Carson, Moo, and Morris point out, Mark presents an historical account of Jesus' ministry better than any other source.  It is the first gospel account and is most likely used by Matthew and Luke as a source.  As the first gospel account, it is the creator of the gospel as genre.  Geography plays a role in the gospel account in the sense that it follows the same sequence of the early Church's preaching.  Mark's christological purpose is to depict Jesus as the suffering Son of God whom we as disciples must embrace to have the full understanding of his Messiahship.

Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson submit chapter five in their book Introducing the New Testament in the following four subtitles:  Narrating the Story of Jesus, Jesus, the Disciples, and The Authorities in Mark, Mark's Dramatic Narrative, and The Setting and Purpose of Mark's Gospel.

In narrating the story of Jesus, Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson discuss Mark as the oldest and most historical of the Gospels.  Tradition holds that Mark is a narrative written by the early Christian, John Mark, who served as an interpreter and scribe to Peter.  Mark starts his Gospel with the opening line:  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, as it was written in the prophet Isaiah..." (Mark 1:1).  Mark makes it clear that this gospel account is a witness to Jesus the Messiah Son of God.  The Gospel of Mark is about God's intervention in human history to bring about His Kingdom here on earth and the salvation of mankind through Jesus.  Like all the gospels, Mark is about a divine perspective.

Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson discuss Jesus, the disciples, and the authorities mentioned in Mark in their second section.  In this section they discuss the two conflicting images of Jesus.  Jesus the powerful and popular teacher, and Jesus the rejected and unpopular Messiah.  Most of the first section tells the story of the events of Jesus the healer, miracle worker, and teacher.  However, one third of the gospel story is devoted to the Passion of the Christ.  The authors have the view that this part of the story is a melody and counter-melody.  Jesus is both the powerful Messiah and the rejected Messiah.  Throughout the story the disciples are unable to put the two-piece puzzle together.  They do not understand that Jesus must give up his life to save ours.  Jesus is always in conflict with the Scribes and Pharisees.  This culminates in his cleansing of the Temple.  The authors point to the fact that "the time of Temple, which is symbolic of the Jewish people, has passed because they have lost their fruitfulness."  Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson end this segment of the chapter with "Mark's narrative braids together these two strands, Christology and discipleship, in order to show that how one understands the first will influence one's understanding of the second."

In the next section, Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson specifically discuss each section of Mark's Gospel.  The introduction of Jesus, Messiah, Son of God (1:1-15); Jesus, bearer of the kingdom of God (1:16-8:26); the road to Golgotha (8:27-1:41); and the Epilogue, which is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.  The introduction of Jesus the Messiah, Son of God, is information we have.  The characters in the story must find this out for themselves.  Mark deals with Jesus' ministry in two stages.  The first stage is that of a powerful teacher and faith healer.  The accounts start with Jesus healing the demonic.  He is very popular as the chapter points out.  The second phase is the road to Golgotha.  In this account the authors discuss His revealing of the Passion and the disciples complete failure to understand the Passion as part of His Messiahship.  Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson point to three episodes in the book of Mark that highlight the inability of the disciples to understand the suffering Messiah.  One, Peter's Confession.  He speaks for himself and the other disciples, which is followed by their objections to the idea that he will be crucified.  The second is the attempt by James and John to hold powerful positions in His heavenly kingdom.  Finally, Jesus heals the blind man.  This healing happens in two stages.  In the first attempt to heal, he sees images but can't see detail.  In the second attempt, all things come into focus.  This implies that the disciples' understanding of Jesus is a two-part experience.  First, they see the beautiful part of His kingdom.  Then, they see the suffering servant and the need for their sacrifice.  This is expected of a disciple.  The epilogue is primarily the account of the empty tomb.  The authors indicate that most scholars are dissatisfied with the end of the story.  This is because it does not give an account of any of the risen savior's encounter with his followers.  They refer to it as the denouement of the Gospel of Mark.

In the final section of the chapter The Setting and Purpose of Marks Gospel, Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson discuss the authorship of the book of Mark.  As with Carson, Moo, and Morris, they state that the author is anonymous.  Tradition holds that it was written by John Mark who is the John Mark of the book of Acts. Scribe 7 and assistant to both Peter and Paul.  The support for this tradition is in references made by early church leaders, Eusebius who quoted Papias' testimony giving John Mark credit for the authorship of the Markian gospel.  However, Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson point out that little is gained by the knowledge of who the author was because so little is known about John Mark, aside from what is written in Acts.  They conclude Mark was likely written after Peter’s death in 64 or 65 A.D., and before the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D.  This assumption is based on the idea that the book of Mark is not written as if it were known that the temple had been destroyed.  In the end, Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson note that at least in part, the book of Mark is about the disciple’s failure to understand the Messiahship of Jesus Christ something that was most likely common in the first generation of the early Church.  The final word in Mark is "initial failure in discipleship is no sign that the disciple will fail in the end."

In review of the two approaches taken by the authors of these books, it is obvious that An Introduction to the New Testament written by Carson, Moo, and Morris is primarily concerned with the histography of Mark and Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson in Introducing the New Testament are primarily concerned with the lessons of the text.  Although these two approaches are vastly different, the combination is very nice for the purpose of reviewing Mark’s gospel.  Of course, each book gives some insight to the other's perspective.  Neither author is extremely liberal or conservative.  They stick with the basic facts of Mark as we know them.

Carson, Moo, and Morris spend a great deal of their chapter on the authorship, location, date, audience, purpose, and source of Mark.  Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson do not.  However, they both agree that the most likely author is John Mark, assistant to Peter and Paul, and more importantly, interpreter to Peter.  It is the same John Mark as described in Acts.  This is confirmed by Papias' testimony that the apostle John credited John Mark with the account.  Carson discusses several possibilities for the location.  However, he states the most likely location was Rome.  Achtemeier agrees.  It is likely that the book was written there because tradition holds that Peter spent the last years of his ministry there and John Mark was said to have followed him to Rome to act as his interpreter.  Carson considers all possibilities of a date from 40 A.D. through 70 A.D.  Both authors agree that the most likely date is sometime after 65 A.D. when Peter and Paul had been executed and Nero began to oppress the early Church.  If the location was Rome then it is likely that the audience would have been Roman.  This is evident from the original manuscripts which have much Latinism.  Also, John Mark was an interpreter which means he was fluent in Latin and Aramaic.  Mark has many purposes the one was to bolster the sprits of the early Church.  Since the Church was no doubt suffering during the time of Nero it is likely that they would have been comforted and encouraged by the Passion narrative of Jesus and how His death had great meaning to the purpose of God.  Mark does not appear to have many sources other than the testimony of St. Peter.  The authors of both books agree another possible source was the written accounts of individual events which may have appeared in the book as a collection.  Carson, Moo, and Morris also discuss recent study of Mark.  They state that for many years the book was considered inferior to Matthew and Luke.  It lacked details of many important events.  However, recent study has determined that Mark is more factual and less theological than the other two synoptic gospels.  This makes it the primary source for studying the histography of the biblical events.  They also state that the book's contribution to the church is that of proclamation of Jesus as the Son of God.  This is one of the primary beliefs of the faith.

Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson discuss at great length the narrative of Mark.  Carson, Moo, and Morris do not.  Achtemeier discusses the proclamation that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God.  This would have a profound impact on the first century Christian and on the theological foundations of the Church.  Carson, on the other hand, only mentions that it presents some problems in the text because it is not stated in some of the early manuscripts.  However, he does state that it is in the most important one.  Achtemeier also discusses at great length Jesus' discussions with the disciples, followers, and authority figures of the day.  He articulates the disciples' complete misunderstanding of the suffering Messiah, while the authorities seek to make his death a reality.  Carson discusses this as well but not to the same extent.  Finally, the authors discuss the Passion and Resurrection narratives.  Like all scholars, they consider the ending of Mark's story.  Achtemeier calls this the denouement of the book while Carson gives three possible scenarios.  One, that Mark was prevented from finishing the book.  Two, that he wrote a resurrection account but it was lost, or three, that he intended to end it at the empty tomb.

As a seminarian, the book of Mark is most useful as a teaching tool for the faithful.  Our primary concern throughout our lives will be to consider how Mark affects our daily twenty-second century lives and ultimately our faith.  It is for this reason that I consider Introducing the New Testament by Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson the more beneficial of the two books.  Followers, unlike theologians, are mostly concerned with how the Bible directs their walk of faith.  Introducing the New Testament is a splendid book for this purpose.  Its break-down of the Gospel of Mark and how each segment introduces a major theological theme is very helpful.  These are the themes that are not often spoken of in the churches today.  I do disagree that the ending of Mark is its denouement.  I can see Peter telling the story and ending it with the angel standing over the empty tomb asking the question:  Why do you seek the living among the dead?  Imagine the impact, wow!  Today's Christian struggles with the image of the powerful teacher and the suffering servant as much as the disciples ever did.  The lesson of Mark as outlined in both books is that we must embrace the cross if we are ever to understand the salvation we receive and the expectation of our own sacrifice.