Interpretation of the Gospel of Mark

Biblical data on the personality of the Evangelist Mark What does Holy Tradition say about Mark and his Gospel? The Purpose of Writing the Gospel of Mark Comparison of the Gospel of Mark with the testimony of Church Tradition about him Relation of the Gospel of Mark to the other two Synoptic Gospels Division of the Gospel of Mark according to content A look at the gradual unfolding of the thoughts contained in the Gospel of Mark Literature about the Gospel of Mark Chapter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 On the Authenticity of the Conclusion to the Gospel of Mark The proper name of the writer of the second Gospel was John – Mark (Μᾶρκος) was his nickname. The latter was probably accepted by him when Barnabas and Saul, returning from Jerusalem (Acts 12:25), took him with them to Antioch to make him their companion on missionary journeys. Why John adopted this particular nickname can be somewhat answered in the similarity of the initial three letters of this nickname with the three initial letters of the name of his mother, Mary. For a long time John-Mark had been on friendly terms with the Apostle Peter. When this apostle was miraculously freed from prison, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John, called Mark (Acts 12:12). Shortly before his death, the Apostle Peter calls Mark his son (1 Pet. 5:13), indicating that he converted Mark to faith in Christ. This conversion took place early, because Mark was a companion of the apostles Barnabas and Paul around Easter in the year 44. In the autumn of the same year he settled in Antioch and, perhaps, was engaged in preaching the Gospel. However, he did not stand out as anything special at that time - at least, his name is not mentioned in Acts 13:1, where there is a list of the most prominent prophets and teachers who were in Antioch at that time. Still, in the spring of 50, Barnabas and Paul took Mark on their first missionary journey as a servant (ὑπηρέτης – Acts 13:5). From the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. 4:10) we learn that Mark was Barnabas' cousin (ἀνεψιός). But if the fathers of Barnabas and Mark were brothers, then we can assume that Mark belonged to the tribe of Levi, to which, according to legend, Barnabas belonged. Barnabas introduced Mark to Paul. However, in Perga, and maybe earlier, when departing from Paphos to the island. Cyprus, Mark separated from Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:13). Probably, further participation in their “business” seemed difficult to him (Acts 15:38), especially the journey through the mountains of Pamphylia, and his very position as a servant under the apostles might have seemed somewhat humiliating to him. After this, Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). When Barnabas, after the Apostolic Council and, as it seems, after a short stay in Antioch (about 52 - Acts 15:35), wanted to take Mark again on a second missionary journey, which he again undertook with the Apostle Paul, the latter opposed Barnabas' intention, considering Mark incapable of making large and difficult journeys for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. The dispute that arose between the apostles ended (in Antioch) with Barnabas taking Mark with him and going with him to his homeland - Cyprus, and Paul, taking Silas as his companion, went with him on a missionary journey through Asia Minor. But where did Mark stay in the interval between his return to Jerusalem and his departure with Barnabas to Fr. Cyprus (Acts 15:36), unknown. The most likely assumption is that he was in Jerusalem at that time and was present at the Apostolic Council. From here Barnabas could have taken him with him to Cyprus, having previously separated from the Apostle Paul precisely because of Mark. From now on, Mark disappears from view for a long time, namely from 52 to 62. When Paul, around the year 62 or 63, wrote from Rome to Philemon, then, conveying to him greetings from various men, whom he calls his colleagues, he also names Mark (Phil. 1:24). From the same Mark he sends greetings in the Epistle to the Colossians, written at the same time as the letter to Philemon (Col. 4:10). Here he calls Mark Barnabas’ “cousin” (according to the Russian text, “nephew”; this is an inaccurate rendering of the Greek word ἀνεψιός) and adds that the Colossian Church received certain instructions regarding Mark, and asks the Colossians to accept Mark when he comes. It is important that Paul here names Mark and Justus as his only co-workers for the Kingdom of God, who were his delight ( Col. 4:11 ). From this we can see that Mark was with the Apostle Paul during his Roman bonds and helped him in the spread of the Gospel in Rome. It is unknown when his reconciliation with Paul took place. Then we see Mark together with the Apostle Peter in Asia, on the banks of the Euphrates, where Babylon formerly stood, and where the Christian Church was founded under the apostles (1 Pet. 5:13). We can conclude from this that Mark actually went from Rome to Colossae (cf. Col. 4:10) and here somewhere he met the Apostle Peter, who kept Mark with him for some time. Then he was with the Apostle Timothy in Ephesus, as can be seen from the fact that the Apostle Paul instructs Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome, saying that he needs Mark for ministry (2 Tim. 4:11), - of course, for preaching service, and perhaps to become familiar with the mood of the 12 apostles, with whose representative, Peter, Mark was on the most friendly terms. Since the 2nd Epistle to Timothy was written around the year 66 or 67, and Mark, according to Col. 4:10, was supposed to go to Asia around 63-64, then, consequently, he stayed away from the Apostle Paul for about three years, and, most likely, he traveled with the Apostle Peter. In addition to these, one might say, direct testimony about the life of the Evangelist Mark, in his Gospel itself one can also find information about his personality. So it is very likely that he was the young man who followed the procession in which Christ was taken, taken in Gethsemane, and who ran away from those who wanted to grab him, leaving in their hands the veil with which he wrapped himself (Mark 14:51). Perhaps he was present at Christ’s last Easter supper (see comments on Mark 14:19). There are also some signs that the evangelist himself was present at some other events in the life of Christ that he describes (for example, Mark 1:5 et seq.; Mark 3:8, 22; Mark 11:16). The most ancient testimony about the writer of the second Gospel is from Bishop Papias of Hierapolis. This bishop, according to Eusebius of Caesarea (“Church History”, III, 39), wrote: “The presbyter (i.e. John the Theologian - according to the generally accepted opinion) also said: “Mark, the interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής) of Peter 1, accurately wrote down, as much as he remembered, what the Lord taught and what the Lord did, although not according to order, for he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not accompany Him. Subsequently, it is true, he was, as I said, with Peter, but Peter expounded the teaching in order to satisfy the needs of the listeners, and not in order to convey the Lord’s conversations in order. Therefore, Mark did not sin at all in describing some events as he recalled them. He was only concerned about not missing something from what he heard. change it." From this testimony of Papias it is clear: 1) that the Apostle John knew the Gospel of Mark and discussed it among his disciples, of course, in Ephesus. 2) That he testified that the Evangelist Mark reported those memories that he retained in his memory about the speeches of the Apostle Peter, who spoke about the words and deeds of the Lord, and thus became a messenger and mediator in the transmission of these stories. 3) That Mark did not adhere to chronological order. This remark suggests that at that time there was a condemnation of the Gospel of Mark due to the fact that it had some shortcomings in comparison with other Gospels, which were carefully concerned about “order” (Luke 1: 3) in the presentation of Gospel events. 4) Papias, for his part, reports that Mark was not personally a disciple of Christ, but - probably later - a disciple of Peter. However, this does not deny the possibility that Mark is communicating something from what he himself experienced. At the beginning of the Muratorian fragment there is a remark about Mark: “he himself was present at some events and reported them.” 5) That Peter adapted his teachings to the modern needs of his listeners and did not care about a coherent, strictly chronological presentation of the Gospel events. Therefore, Mark cannot be blamed for deviations from a strictly chronological sequence of events. 6) That Mark's dependence on Peter in his writing extends only to certain circumstances (ἔνια). But Papias praises Mark for his thoroughness and accuracy in the narration: he did not hide anything and did not embellish events and persons at all. Justin the Martyr in “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew” (Justinus Martyr, “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”, ed. E.J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten. Göttingen, 1915, p. 100, 4–6) mentions the existence of “sights” or “memoirs of Peter”, and gives the place from Mark 3:16 et seq. (in this case, the author of the commentary makes a mistake: Justin says nothing about the memories of Peter, mentioning only the “memories of the apostles” [ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν τῶν ἀποστόλων]. – Approx. ed.). It is clear that by these “attractions” he means the Gospel of Mark. Saint Irenaeus (Irenaeus of Lyons. “Against Heresies”, III, I, 1), also knows definitely that Mark wrote the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul, who, according to the chronology of Irenaeus, preached in Rome from 61 to 66 - he wrote exactly as Peter proclaimed the Gospel. Saint Clement of Alexandria (hypot. to 1 Peter 5:13) reports that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of some noble Roman Christians. In his Gospel, he outlined the oral sermon he heard from the Apostle Peter, who himself knew about the desire of the Roman Christians to have a monument to his conversations with them. To this testimony of St. Clement Eusebius of Caesarea adds that the Apostle Peter, on the basis of a revelation to him, expressed his approval of the Gospel written by Mark (“Ecclesiastical History”, VI, 14, 5 et seq.). Eusebius reports on the further fate of Mark that Mark appeared as the first preacher of the Gospel in Egypt and founded the Christian Church in Alexandria. Thanks to Mark's preaching and his strictly ascetic lifestyle, Jewish therapists turned to faith in Christ (Church History, II, 15). Although Eusebius does not call Mark the bishop of Alexandria, he begins to count the Alexandrian bishops precisely with Mark (“Church History”, II, 24). Having installed Anyan as bishop in Alexandria and made several persons presbyters and deacons, Mark, according to the legend of Simeon Metaphrastus, withdrew to Pentapolis from persecution of the pagans. Two years later he returned to Alexandria and found the number of Christians here had increased significantly. Then he begins to preach again and perform miracles. On this occasion, the pagans accuse him of sorcery. During a celebration of the Egyptian god Serapis, Mark was captured by the pagans, tied with a rope around his neck and dragged out of the city. In the evening he was thrown into prison, and the next day a crowd of pagans killed him. This happened on April 25 (year unknown 2). His body rested in Alexandria for a long time, but in 827 Venetian merchants took him with them and brought him to Venice, where Mark, with his symbol - a lion, became the patron of the city, in which a magnificent cathedral with a wonderful bell tower was built in his honor (according to another legend, Mark died in Rome). At St. Hippolyta haeresium", VII, 30) Mark is called “fingerless” (ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος). This name can be explained by the evidence of an ancient preface to the Gospel of Mark. According to the story of this introduction (prologue), Mark, as a descendant of Levi, had the title of Jewish priest, but after his conversion to Christ he cut off his thumb to show that he was not suitable for correcting priestly duties. This, as the author of the introduction notes, did not, however, prevent Mark from becoming the Bishop of Alexandria, and thus Mark’s mysterious destiny to serve God in the priesthood was still fulfilled... One can, however, assume that Mark’s loss of his thumb occurred during the torture to which he was subjected by his pagan persecutors. The purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark is revealed already from the first words of this book: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” This is an inscription that clearly states the content and purpose of the Gospel of Mark. As the Evangelist Matthew, with the words “the book of Genesis (βίβλος γενέσεως, in the Russian translation inaccurately - “genealogy”) of Jesus Christ, the Son of David,” etc. wants to say that he intends to give the “history of Christ” as a descendant of David and Abraham, who in His activity fulfilled the ancient promises given to the people of Israel, and the Evangelist Mark, with the first five words of his book, wants to make it clear to his readers what they should expect from him. In what sense did the Evangelist Mark here use the words “beginning” (ἀρχή) and “Gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον)? The last word in Mark occurs seven times and everywhere means the good news brought by Christ about the salvation of people, the announcement of the coming of the Kingdom of God. But in connection with the word “beginning” the word “Gospel” is no longer found in Mark. Here the Apostle Paul comes to our aid. In the Epistle to the Philippians, he uses this very expression in the sense of the initial stage of the gospel preaching, which he proposed in Macedonia. “You know, Philippians,” says the apostle, “that at the beginning of the gospel (ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου), when I left Macedonia, not a single church helped me with alms and acceptance, except you alone” (Phil. 4:15). This expression “the beginning of the Gospel” can only have the meaning here that the Philippians then knew only the most necessary things about Christ - His words and deeds, which formed the usual subject of the initial preaching of evangelists about Christ. Meanwhile, now, eleven years after the apostle’s stay in Macedonia, which he speaks of in the above passage, the Philippians undoubtedly stand much higher in their understanding of Christianity. So the Gospel of Mark is an attempt to give an elementary description of the life of Christ, which was caused by the special condition of those persons for whom the Gospel was written. This is confirmed by the testimony of Papias, according to which Mark recorded the “missionary conversations” of the Apostle Peter. And what these conversations are – the Apostle Paul gives us a fairly definite concept about this in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Addressing his readers, Jewish Christians, he reproaches them for lingering for a long time at the initial stage of Christian development and even taking a certain step back. “Judging by the time, you should have been teachers; but you must again be taught the first principles of the word of God, and you need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). Thus the apostle distinguishes “the beginnings of the word of God” (τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ) as milk from the solid food of the perfect. The Gospel of Mark or the sermon of the Apostle Peter represented this initial stage of the Gospel teaching of the facts from the life of Christ, offered to Roman Christians who had just entered the Church of Christ. Thus, “the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” is a short designation of the entire content of the following narrative as the simplest presentation of the Gospel story. This understanding of the purpose of writing the Gospel of Mark is consistent with the brevity and conciseness of this book, which makes it look like, one might say, a “condensation” of the Gospel story, most suitable for people still at the first stage of Christian development. This is evident from the fact that in this Gospel, in general, more attention is paid to those facts from the life of Christ in which the Divine power of Christ, His miraculous power was revealed, and, moreover, the miracles performed by Christ on children and youth are reported in quite detail, while relatively little is said about the teaching of Christ. As if the evangelist meant to give Christian parents guidance for presenting the events of the gospel story when teaching children the truths of the Christian faith. It can be said that the Gospel of Mark, focusing primarily on the miracles of Christ, is perfectly adapted to the understanding of those who can be called “children in the faith,” and perhaps even for the children of Christians in the proper sense of the word. Even the fact that the evangelist likes to dwell on the details of events and, moreover, explains everything in almost detail, may indicate that he meant to offer precisely the initial, elementary presentation of the gospel story for people who needed this kind of instruction. Papias reports that “presbyter”, i.e. John the Theologian, found that in the Gospel of Mark the strict chronological order in the presentation of events was not observed. This is really noticeable in the Gospel. So, for example, when reading (Mark 1:12, 14, 16), the reader remains perplexed as to when the “tradition” of John the Baptist happened and when Christ’s appearance in public ministry followed, in what chronological relation to this appearance stands the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and within what framework the history of the calling of the first two pairs of disciples should be placed. The reader also cannot determine when the Lord calls the 12 apostles (Mark 3:13 et seq.), where, when and in what sequence Christ spoke and explained His parables (Mark 4). Then tradition names John-Mark as the writer of the Gospel and presents him as a disciple of the Apostle Peter, who wrote his Gospel from his words. In the Gospel of Mark we find nothing that could contradict the first message of the tradition, and very much that confirms the latter. The writer of the Gospel is obviously a Palestinian native: he knows the language that the Palestinian inhabitants spoke at that time, and it apparently gives him pleasure to sometimes quote a phrase in his language, accompanied by a translation (Mark 5:1, 7:34, 15:34, etc.). Only the most famous Hebrew words remained without translation (Rabbi, Abba, Amen, Gehenna, Satan, Hosanna). The entire style of the Gospel is Jewish, although the entire Gospel is undoubtedly written in Greek (the legend about the original Latin text is a fiction that does not have any sufficient basis). Perhaps, from the fact that the writer of the Gospel himself bore the name John, it can be explained why, when speaking about John the Theologian, he calls him not just John, but adds to this in the definition: “brother of James” (Mark 3:17, 5:37). It is also remarkable that Mark reports some characteristic details that define the personality of the Apostle Peter (Mark 14:29–31, 54, 66, 72), and on the other hand, he omits such details from the history of the Apostle Peter that could exalt his significance too much. Thus, he does not convey the words that Christ said to the Apostle Peter after his great confession (Matthew 16:16–19), and in listing the apostles he does not call Peter “first,” as the Evangelist Matthew did (Matthew 10:2; cf. Mark 3:16). Isn’t it clear from here that the Evangelist Mark wrote his Gospel according to the memoirs of the humble Apostle Peter (cf. 1 Pet. 5:5)? Finally, tradition points to Rome as the place where the Gospel of Mark was written. And the Gospel itself shows that its writer dealt with pagan Latin Christians. Mark, for example, uses Latin expressions much more often than other evangelists (for example, centurion, speculator, legion, census, etc., of course, in their Greek pronunciation). And most importantly, Mark sometimes explains Greek expressions using Latin and specifically Roman terms. Rome is also indicated by the designation of Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (cf. Rom. 16:13). Upon closer examination of Mark's Gospel, it turns out that he wrote his work for pagan Christians. This is evident from the fact that he explains in detail the Pharisees' customs (Mark 7:3 et seq.). He does not have those speeches and details that the Evangelist Matthew has and which could have meaning only for Christian readers from the Jews, and for Christians from the pagans without special explanations would even remain incomprehensible (see Matt. 1: 1 et seq. - the genealogy of Christ; Matt. 17:24, Matt. 23, Matt. 24:20 - “not on the Sabbath”; Matt. 5: 17-43). Blessed Augustine believed that Mark in his Gospel was a follower of the Evangelist Matthew and shortened only his Gospel (“On the Concord of the Evangelists,” I, 2, 3). There is undoubtedly a correct idea in this opinion, because the writer of the Gospel of Mark obviously used some more ancient Gospel and actually shortened it. Critics of the text almost agree in the assumption that the Gospel of Matthew served as such a guide for Mark, but not in its current form, but in its original form, namely the one that was written in Hebrew. Since the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew was written in the first years of the seventh decade in Palestine, Mark, who was at that time in Asia Minor, could get his hands on the Gospel written by Matthew and then take it with him to Rome. There were attempts to divide the Gospel into separate parts, which, in their origin, were attributed to different decades of the first century and even to the beginning of the second. (First Mark, second Mark, third Mark, etc.). But all these hypotheses about the later origin of our current Gospel of Mark from some later alterator are shattered by the testimony of Papias, according to which already around the year 80, John the Theologian apparently had in his hands our Gospel of Mark and talked about it with his disciples. After the introduction to the Gospel (Mark 1:1–13), the evangelist in the first section (Mark 1:14–3:6) depicts in a number of separate artistic paintings how Christ went out to preach first in Capernaum, and then throughout Galilee, teaching, gathering the first disciples around Himself and performing miracles that aroused astonishment (Mark 1:14–39), and then how the defenders of the old order began to rebel against Christ. Christ, although in fact observes the law, nevertheless takes seriously the attacks on Him by the followers of the law and refutes their attacks. Here He expresses a very important new teaching about Himself: He is the Son of God (Mark 1:40–3:6). The next three sections - the second (Mark 3:7-6:6), the third (Mark 6:6-8:26) and the fourth (Mark 8:27-10:45) - depict the activities of Christ in the north of the Holy Land, mostly in the first period, in Galilee, but also, especially in the later period, beyond the borders of Galilee and, finally, His journey to Jerusalem through Perea and Jordan as far as Jericho ( Mark 10:1 et seq.). At the beginning of each section there is a narrative relating to the 12 apostles (cf. Mark 3:14, 9:35): narratives about their calling, sending to preach and confession on the issue of the Messianic dignity of Christ. The Evangelist obviously wants to show how Christ considered it His indispensable task to prepare His disciples for their future calling as preachers of the Gospel even among the pagans, although, of course, this point of view cannot be considered exclusive here. It goes without saying that the face of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Preacher and Wonderworker, the Promised Messiah and Son of God is in the foreground here. The fifth section (Mark 10:46–13:37) depicts the activity of Christ in Jerusalem as a Prophet, or rather as the Son of David, who was to fulfill the Old Testament predictions about the future kingdom of David. At the same time, the increase in hostility towards Christ on the part of representatives of Judaism to its highest point is described. Finally, the sixth section (Mark 14:1–16:20) tells about the suffering, death and Resurrection of Christ, as well as His Ascension into heaven. After a brief inscription, in which readers are given an idea of ​​​​what the book is (Mark 1:1), the evangelist in the introduction (Mark 1:2-13) depicts the speech and activity of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, and, above all, his baptism of the Messiah Himself. Then the evangelist makes a brief remark about Christ’s sojourn in the desert and about His temptation there from the devil, indicating that at that time Angels served Christ. By this he wants to signify the victory of Christ over the devil and the beginning of a new life for humanity, which will no longer be afraid of all the forces of hell (figuratively represented by the “beasts of the desert”, which no longer harmed Christ, this new Adam). Further, the evangelist consistently depicts how Christ subjugated humanity to Himself and restored people’s communion with God. In the first section (Mark 1:14–3:6), in the first part (Mark 1:14–39), the evangelist first gives a general picture of the teaching activity of the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:14–15), and at the end (Mark 1:39) – His works. Between these two characteristics, the evangelist describes five events: a) the calling of the disciples, b) the events in the Capernaum synagogue, c) the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, d) the healing of the sick in the evening in front of Peter’s house and e) the search for Christ, who retired in the morning to prayer, by the people and, mainly, by Peter and his companions. All these five events took place during the time period from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning (according to Jewish reckoning, the first day after Saturday). All events are grouped around Simon and his companions. It is clear that the evangelist received information about all these events from Simon. From here the reader receives a sufficient understanding of how Christ, who revealed His activity after taking John the Baptist into prison, carried out His ministry as a Teacher and Wonderworker. In the second part of the first section (Mark 1:40–3:6), the evangelist depicts the gradually growing hostility towards Christ on the part of the Pharisees and mainly those Pharisees who belonged to the scribes. This enmity is explained by the fact that the Pharisees see in the activities of Christ a violation of the law given by God through Moses, and therefore a number of, one might say, criminal offenses. Nevertheless, Christ treats all Jews with love and pity, helping them in their spiritual needs and bodily illnesses and revealing Himself at the same time as a Being superior to ordinary mortals, standing in a special relationship with God. It is especially important that here Christ testifies of Himself as the Son of Man, Who forgives sins (Mark 2:10), Who has power over the Sabbath (Mark 2:28), Who even has the rights of the priesthood, as similar rights were once recognized for His ancestor David (eating the sacred bread). Only these testimonies of Christ about Himself are not expressed directly and directly, but are included in His speeches and deeds. Here we have seven stories before us. 1. The story of the healing of the leper is intended to show that Christ, in fulfilling the works of His high calling, did not violate the direct decrees of the Mosaic Law (Mark 1:44). If he was reproached in this regard, then these reproaches were based on a one-sided, literal understanding of the Mosaic Law, of which the Pharisees and rabbis were guilty. 2. The story of the healing of the paralytic shows us in Christ not only the Physician of the body, but also the sick soul. He has the power to forgive sins. The Lord reveals to everyone the attempt of the scribes to accuse Him of blasphemy in all its insignificance and groundlessness. 3. The history of the calling of the publican Levi as a disciple of Christ shows that the publican is not so bad as to become a helper of Christ. 4. Christ’s participation at the feast hosted by Levi shows that the Lord does not disdain sinners and tax collectors, which, of course, further incites the Pharisees’ scribes against Him. 5. The relationship between Christ and the Pharisees became even more strained when Christ acted as a principled opponent of the old Jewish fasts. 6–7. Here Christ again appears as the enemy of the Pharisaic one-sidedness in relation to the observance of the Sabbath. He is the King of the Heavenly Kingdom, and His servants may not fulfill the ritual law where it is necessary, especially since the Sabbath law was given for the good of man. But such a speech by Christ brings the irritation of His enemies to the extreme, and they begin to plot against Him. In the second section (Mark 3:7–6:6), which depicts the attitude of Christ towards His disciples, the evangelist 1) gives a general overview of the increasingly expanding activity of Christ, 2) depicts how Christ singled out 12 closest disciples from among all His followers for a special mission, 3) shows us Christ in His struggle with the scribes who came from Jerusalem, 4) characterizes those who are true followers of Christ, 5–9) depicts Christ as teaching the people and especially His disciples in parables, 10) depicts the power of Christ over the storm, 12) over a woman’s incurable illness, 14) only the unbelief of Christ’s fellow citizens poses an obstacle to His all-healing and helping power. Here the disciples of Christ are constantly following Christ. They are preparing for their future ministry. The third section (Mark 6:6–8:26) also primarily depicts Christ’s concerns for His disciples. He walks with them throughout the entire north of Palestine, avoiding for a long time to stay on the western shore of the Sea of ​​Gennesaret, where He usually stayed in the past. The fourth section (Mark 8:27–10:45) also depicts Christ among His apostles and Christ's gradual approach to Jerusalem. In the fifth section (Mark 10:46–13:37), the Lord appears already emerging from the close apostolic circle to the people, from whom He now accepts confessions of faith in Him as the Son of David. This serves as an introduction to His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The sixth and final section (Mark 14:1–16:20) presents to us how the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished the salvation of people, which He foretold before. Evangelist Mark quite thoroughly depicts here the last days of Christ’s earthly life - His suffering, death, burial, Resurrection and (briefly) Ascension into heaven. In the so-called "Catenach of the Greek Fathers" (ed. Kramer, 1844) there is an interpretation of the Gospel of Mark, attributed to Victor of Antioch (or, according to others, St. Cyril of Alexandria). Then there are the interpretations of Blessed Theophylact, Euthymius Zigavinus and that attributed (incorrectly) to Blessed Jerome, entirely consisting of allegorical explanations, and the interpretation of the Venerable Bede. Of the new interpretations, the following deserve attention: a) Catholic ones - Knabenbauer (1894), Rose (1904), Shants (1881) and Lagrange (1911); b) Protestant - Gogel (1909), Holtzman (3rd ed., 1901), Klosterman (1907), Loisy (1907–1908), Merckx (1905, here is given, in fact, the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark according to its oldest Syriac translated text), P. Weiss (1901, in the 9th ed. of Meyer’s commentary), Weiss I. (1907), Wohlenberg (1910). Of our domestic interpretations, only one truly serious interpretation of Bishop Michael (Luzin) in his “Explanatory Gospel” is known. The master's thesis of Prof. Eleonsky “On the Gospel of Mark” (against Baur). Moral interpretations of the Gospel of Mark were published by us: 1) a circle of students, 2) “Sunday Good News” for 1911, No. 3) “New Earth” (interpretation of Lamne). I. Gladkov gives a fairly extensive interpretation of the Gospel of Mark, but, as you know, his interpretations are not compiled for each Gospel separately, but represent, so to speak, a review of all the Gospels (3rd ed.). Mark, through the compilation of his work, became the “interpreter” of Peter, i.e. conveyed to many what the Apostle Peter said, and became, as it were, the mouth of Peter. It is a mistake to assume that Mark is here characterized as a “translator,” whose services were allegedly used by the Apostle Peter and who was needed by Peter in Rome to translate his speeches into Latin. First, Peter hardly needed a translator for his preaching. Secondly, the word ἑρμηνευτής in classical Greek often meant a messenger, a transmitter of the will of the gods. Finally, in Blessed Jerome (letter 120 to Gedibia), Titus is called the interpreter of Paul, just as Mark is the interpreter of Peter. Both of these only indicate that these co-workers of the apostles proclaimed their will and desires. Perhaps, however, Titus, as a natural Greek, was a collaborator with the Apostle Paul in writing the epistles; as an experienced stylist, he could give the apostle explanations of some Greek terms. Prof.'s assumptions Bolotov “about the day and year of the death of St. Mark" (April 4, 63) ("Christian Reading", 1893, July et seq.) do not agree with what emerges from familiarization with the biblical data about the death of Mark. You might be interested in: