Peter Kirby

Better evidence than manuscript attestation exists for the (un)popularity of Mark--patristic citations. Even where there are Markan parallels, the fathers as a rule prefer to quote Matthew or a little less commonly Luke for the synoptic material. Couple this with the fact that little is unique to Mark, and there's relatively a handful of quotes and references that can be positively identified as coming from Mark's Gospel. Origen is the one to most frequently specify Mark as a source, among the ante-nicenes (though there are earlier and later references). I wonder if this has anything to do with Mark's status as a 'hidden' gospel, as opposed to a public gospel such as Matthew or Luke, in the Alexandrian tradition (see Clement of Alexandria's comment as interpreted by Stephen Carlson), which tended to be more 'gnostic' than the rest of the Christian world. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.11.7, complains that the Ebionites use only Matthew, Marcion uses only Luke, Valentinus uses John, and unidentified docetic gnostics prefer Mark.)

If it is the case, why would Mark be more popular with gnostic types than with the orthodox? And is it in the canon for a reason other than its literary affinity to the other two synoptics?

regards,
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

The very insightful article by Carlson is (as I am certain you are aware) available online. It is on Mark that I disagree with Bauckham and company in The Gospels for All Christians (and apparently agree with you). Matthew and Luke do indeed look like general gospels written for Christians at large; Mark looks like a more private affair (at least in its original intent). Witness, for example, its orienting mention of the sons of Simon of Cyrene in 15.21, surely not a reference intended for Christians in general; it looks like the author had specific people in mind who would know who Alexander and Rufus were.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

I feel the same way you do about Bauckham's thesis as it relates to Mark. His idea fits Matt and Luke a lot better.

Stephen