The way the texts of Mark and John approach the Gospel narrative is very different. Mark begins straight away with John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus and the temptation in the desert, whereas John’s gospel begins with a profound theological statement of Christ’s preexistence and incarnation as the Word of God. The prologue of John’s gospel clearly states what other gospels such as Mark lead you to discover. What theological significance can we draw from the manner in which these two introductions are written? How does the use of induction versus deduction affect the way we approach the rest of each text? As in how does knowing that Jesus is God influence how we read the Gospel of John as opposed to how we read Mark?
While the beginnings of these texts may seem vastly different, there are also important parallels and likenesses that can help us better understand the theology behind the two Gospels. Neither begins with a birth narrative, and both go from the stories of John the Baptist to the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. Why is it so important that both Gospel writers chose this as the starting point for their respective narratives?
Considering that these texts are written by two different authors (or two different schools of authors) drawing from different sources, how does this enlighten the conversation?
Courtesy of Samantha Bognar and Laura Rothgeb
The Gospel of Mark appears to answer the question, "What did Jesus do?" This narrative gives descriptions of his various healings, teachings, his passion, and resurrection. Jesus' actions then lead the reader to wonder who Jesus is. Although Mark does give implications that Jesus is the Son of God, like when "a voice came from the heavens, 'You are my beloved Son,"(1:11) the author wants the reader to discover for themselves who Jesus is. Jesus, for the most part, keeps his identity a secret, so that people may wonder who he is and re-evaluate their idea of a political figure as the Messiah. In John's Gospel, the author tells the reader right from the beginning who Jesus is and why this is significant. He is the Son of God who has seen the father and reveals who God is. Not only does this introduction shape how the audience sees Jesus; it also shapes how believers interpret other Scripture passages such as Genesis, because this Gospel says that Jesus was necessary for creation.
ReplyDeleteWho? WHO is but the form following the funnction of WHAT, and what He is isa man in a mask!
Delete(couldn't resist)
^Like.
DeleteI just want to say that I enjoy the title of this post quite a bit. Otherwise, I'll stay out of it...at least for the moment.
ReplyDeleteIt may have been difficult to deduce something like the divinity of God form the Gospel of Mark. The gospel of Mark simply relates all the information the author(s) knew about the story of Jesus in a matter-of-fact way. If Mark was indeed a source text for the other synoptic gospels then John's intro was probably part of of the author(s) of John's attempt to improve upon Mark by clarifying and giving additional details. John probably thought that Mark did not emphasize Jesus' divinity enough, and may have also thought that Jesus' story could be told in a more poetic way. Finally, I believe that John wrote for a Greek audience ( I could be wrong, maybe it was Luke) but if so, the use of a word like "logos" to Greeks could help them understand Jesus a bit better.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to echo what Eric said about the Gospel of Mark being action-based. Mark's Gospel centers around what Jesus does as opposed to what Jesus says. He even tells His followers to keep His true identity a secret, further de-emphasizing saying things to further His ministry. This reminds me of the quote usually accredited to St. Francis: "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words." To me, the action-based tone of the Gospel of Mark is in contrast to the beginning of John's Gospel, where John refers to Jesus as the "word" several times. I realize that "logos" has several more implications beyond just literally the "word," but I think this sets the tone for a much different portrayal of the life of Jesus. Both Gospels are obviously Gospels for a reason, and I think they both have really great messages to us as Christians. I believe that, based on the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, we are meant to spread the Word by both mouth AND deed.
ReplyDeleteI think Lauren brings up an interesting point. Both gospels proclaim the same message, but they say to share that message in different ways. Why do you think these are the Gospel of Mark wants the message to be spread by deed and Gospel of John by mouth?
DeleteI just think it boils down to perspective. The Gospel of John appears to be taking a post-Resurrection point of view, insofar as to introduce Jesus as being the Word of God and referring to stories retrospectively. I think the fact that Mark provides numerous examples of Jesus' miraculous deeds enables audiences to interpret Him in various ways (be it the Son of God/Man, or a political figure), which builds up to His Resurrection (which - in class - we find is hardly alluded to amongst the multiple endings of Mark).
DeleteWe can also consider the synoptic Gospels' aim at different audiences, Mark's in particular being that for the less educated. Perhaps it was better to teach through example than through conscious preaching.
I definitely agree with Evangeline. The Gospel of John opens with a direct account of Jesus' divinity, which can help audiences understand Jesus' life and deeds better. The Gospel of John emphasizes that Jesus is a teacher through word. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus' role as a teacher through action and humility comes to light. When looked at comparatively, we see the difference in their approaches, however, when looked at simultaneously, these two Gospels point out that Jesus was a teacher of both word and deed and that we must follow him and share his good news in a similar way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that many more people believe and understand the divinity of Jesus through the Gospel of John than do through the Gospel of Mark because of how straightforward the message is at the John's Prologue.
This shapes how we read the Gospels because when we read the Gospel of Mark we would say, Jesus the Messiah, but then we would have to question ourselves and ask for proof of how we know he is the Messiah. However, when we read the Gospel of John we can find evidence to support and examples of how He is the Messiah because we have already been directly told this truth.
I also agree with what Eric said, that Mark tells us what Jesus did; contrary to this, I feel that the Gospel of John tells us WHO Jesus is. Of course both gospels serve as different forms of narrative to accentuate the two aspects of Jesus' life: fully divine and fully human. John's form of writing is a lot more poetic and flowing. I think it shows Jesus' direct link to God more so than His link to humanity. For this reason, I believe that his gospel was placed last out of the four gospels in the Bible, because it was a build-up. The other synoptic gospels show Jesus' actions and His words, but John begins by stating the fact that Jesus is God and after all that we see in the other three gospels, with this statement, we should finally realize that this is true.
ReplyDeleteBoth gospel's, surprisingly, begin with an excerpt about John as the voice in the wilderness and the witness to the light. I think that this is a very important aspect of each because it emphasizes the fact that there's a messenger because the event that is happening, the Word becoming flesh, is a big deal. We are called to be like John the Baptist, using this word to announce of Jesus' existence in the world.
I agree that it is interesting that both gospels begin with John the Baptist. However, after the excerpt about John, they start at different places in Jesus' ministry. Why do you think that might be?
DeleteTo respond to Sam's question:
DeleteAfter the stories of John the baptist, Mark jumps straight to the baptism, the 40 days in the desert, and then the proclamation of the gospel and the first call of the disciples. John skips to Jesus calling his disciples.
However, even the ways in which the Gospels describe the call of the disciples continues to reflect this idea of John as revealing who Jesus is and Mark what Jesus did (what he did meaning his proclamation of the kingdom of god and his call to conversion for all peoples). In looking at just the opening of John, the disciples who Jesus is calling keep on making statements about the identity of Jesus. When Jesus calls Philip he says, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel,” which makes 3 statements about who Jesus is.
In beginning of Mark, as Jesus calls the disciples, the focus is on Jesus's announcement of the nearness of the kingdom of God (which we now understand to be the reign or the power of God that we are called to live under). Jesus says, "the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” This just reinforces the idea already stated about John's gospel's focus on Jesus's identity and Mark's gospel's focus on Jesus's message.
This opening of John's Gospel to the call of the disciples over both the nativity narrative and Mark's baptism in the Jordan could mean that John's writers intended that the Gospel of John not only show Jesus' divinity (though such discourses as Bread of Life, etc.) or even that divinity from afar (the Transfiguration in Mark) but instead how the message was personal from the beginning. This would also complement the lofty and impersonal "Logos" language (impersonal as compared to the disciples; definitely not impersonal concerning Christ being the saving word of humanity)
DeleteI think that the Gospel of Mark, compared to John's account, downplays the divinity of Christ because of what Eric mentioned before- secrecy of Jesus' mission and works is emphasized in the Gospel of Mark. Throughout the book, Jesus asks his disciples to keep what he has done from becoming public knowledge. In Chapter 8, after Peter proclaims that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus tells his followers to "not tell anyone about him." (Mk 8:30). Jesus even commands the demons that he cast out of people not to speak of him (Mk 1:34). This secrecy even is seen after the Resurrection, as the angel near the tomb tells the women to go immediately to find Peter and the others (Mk 16:7). The secrecy in the account of Mark leads the reader to determine who exactly Jesus is on their own. While John gives some sort of a definition of who Jesus is- The Word who was with God in the beginning, who gives life to all of humanity- the definition of Jesus in Mark is found in the accounts of his works and in his words and teachings.
ReplyDeleteThe theological significance of the two different beginnings in the Gospels of Mark and John is that they give two separate accounts of the same story. The Bible is not meant to be taken literally, but more meant to be read and interpreted metaphorically. This is important because if just simple facts were given in the Bible, i.e. Jesus walked on water, rather than a story given and left open to discussion, then people may be less inclined to believe in Christianity. The freedom to believe and to question is a valuable element in religion because it allows believers to feel as though they are choosing to believe rather than that they are being told to believe.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but I'd be careful about blanketing the whole of the Bible with the "metaphor" blanket. I think that is the difference, possibly, between John and Mark. John explains concrete theological arguments. The Bread of Life discourse, for example, is not spoken in terms of metaphor, especially if you read it in the original Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The word choice is specific. This is why we have the theological concept of the Transfiguration - the not-at-all metaphorical changing of the wine and bread into the Blood and Body of Christ. However, actions of Christ (the walking on water) COULD be metaphorical; I'm not yet taking a stance on that. Therefore, if Mark is more action based, he could be more metaphorical, while the spiritual truths that John seeks to echo (how can you be metaphorical about John's intro???? It's clear cut in a theological sense, there IS the Word, it most definitely WAS begotten) are far from metaphorical.
DeleteWhile I agree that John's Gospel does reveal who Jesus is in a more straight forward manner than Mark's I don't think I can agree with the claim that John's Gospel focuses on Jesus' identity and Mark's on Jesus message. To my knowledge Biblical Scholars have long maintained that the identity of Jesus-the Messianic Secret-is the the key to the Gospel of Mark; it is the central question and driving force of the Gospel. Throughout the Gospel the question of who Jesus is constantly arises, and this question is answered by Jesus' relation to God: Jesus is the Son of God. Now this question arises, that is, the identity of Jesus is so greatly stressed, because ultimately God sent His beloved Son to live a life completely committed to others, to preach the Kingdom, and to be crucified, all in order to bring people to salvation. One cannot understand this, one cannot understand God's complete love, without answering the question of who Jesus is. So the Gospel of Mark deals very much so with the identity of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maria that the Gospel of John tells us who Jesus is in a unique way. The synoptic gospels show more of the words and actions of Jesus, which John touches on, but I think it's important to note that John begins, unlike the others, by clearly stating that Jesus is God. The Gospel of John lacks the secrecy of Mark. I think both are effective in their own ways. As Lauren says, I think these differences show the ways we are supposed to spread the Word, by action and word.
ReplyDeleteAs previously stated, Mark approaches Jesus from a Low Christology perspective, whereas John approaches Jesus from a High Christology perspective. Mark's gosple implies witnessing and presentation of the Mystery, John's gospel implies reflection and theological interpretation of the Mystery. This is clearly present in the different apporaches to the start of the story: Mark's gospel is an interpretation of who Jesus the man is through his actions. John's gospel is the interpretation of Jesus as Divine, and reflects on his purpose in time.
ReplyDeleteI find John's interpretation of Jesus as he relates to Time and the History of Salvation the most fascinating aspect when comparing the two Gospels. In fact, in the synoptic Gospels, Jesus preaches about the Kingdom of Heaven, whereas John's version of Christ talks about "eternal life"
"Neither begins with a birth narrative, and both go from the stories of John the Baptist to the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. Why is it so important that both Gospel writers chose this as the starting point for their respective narratives?"
ReplyDeleteWhile both Gospels don't tell the Christmas story as we know it, John does mention Jesus's beginning. By describing who the person of Jesus is as the Word, we come across the phrase the "Word Made Flesh." Catholic tradition has always referred back to this as the Incarnation in the womb of Mary. (We say this in the Angelous.) So while John does not specifically state the birth, Jesus's beginning as a human on Earth is mentioned. I believe this is key in our faith and part of the reason I dislike Mark. Mark tells the stories but John give the theological approach even up to the point of the Incarnation. Did I mention that the Incarnation is one of the fundamentals of Christianity? I think it's pretty important.
John's Gospel is espeially important for intellectuals who come to have faith primarily through reason and philosophy like St. Augustine. In fact, it is through John's prologue that Augustine begins to believe in Christianity. Food for thought.
And so in this Gospel showdown, I choose John as the winner....of course, one must remember that Mark is equally important too, otherwise his Gospel wouldn't be in the Bible....
Gina makes a good point about how Jesus' beginning is discussed in the Gospel of John. As others have said, His beginning is discussed in terms of His divine beginning. So what do you think of Mary's statement that Mark is more focused on Jesus as a man while John is focused on Jesus as the divine?
DeleteJohn the Baptist plays a very important role in the gospels and in Christ's mission. He is one of the first people who knows about Jesus as the Christ. He "leaped in her [Elizabeth, his mother] womb," acknowledging the presence of the Lord. He proclaims the message that "one mightier than i is coming after me. I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals." John's role is to prepare the people of Judea for the coming of this man, Jesus. He preached to them repentance and baptized them for the forgiveness of their sins. Clearly, this time of preparation is very important. The gospel would not be as effective if Jesus simply came on to the scene preaching, healing, and teaching without any forewarning or preparation. The importance of this period of preparation gives meaning to its place at the beginning of both the Gospels of John and Mark.
ReplyDeleteI think Gina makes a good point about where each of the Gospels begin. Neither chooses to examine any part of Jesus' life before his baptism. I think this is because the gospels do focus on the important works within Jesus' life. The birth of Jesus is a significant event within the Catholic tradition, but it makes sense that not all the gospel writers include this event or the others of Jesus' childhood because within his life there are teachings that hold more significance.
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting is how John starts with this theological declaration about God and the Word. As it is the first part, it sets itself up as a lens through which the reader sees the rest of the book. Mark didn’t have any large asides; the book simply told the story of certain works and parables of Jesus. This method does leave readers with more room to realize for themselves the proper way to receive the stories, but has less of a connection to the story. It’s like a paper without an introduction; one has to find out the importance of the topic while one is trying to understand the story. However, both books reveal different truths, so both hold value.
I think that since John draws immediately draws from the Old Testament, he already is proving what one could consider his thesis that Jesus is the Word. Since he does this, and Mark does not till later, he draws the attention of the readers immediately, giving more validity to what he would begin to write about Jesus' life and influence.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospels focused on Jesus' ministry, which is why they did not emphasize the birth of Jesus. For John's Gospel, the birth narrative is not really needed--Jesus' preeminence is emphasized, so a birth narrative may have distracted from His pre-existence. In Mark's Gospel, the birth narrative may have distracted from Jesus' ministry.
ReplyDeleteBy stating his High Christology, John wishes to lead the reader to understand Jesus in the way that he has come to know him. Instead of making the reader come to the conclusion eventually, John leads the reader into a richer understanding of who Jesus is, so that the reader can see Jesus as God. Mark, however, wished to emphasize the humanity of Jesus, so he left his Christology hidden.
The concordance between these Gospels (and their differences) show that Jesus was complex, while maintaining an interior unity. This differentiated unity is something that would develop in the centuries to come.
I find it interesting that John begins his gospel with an early Christian hymn, which describes Jesus as the "incarnate Logos." John probably begins with the hymn, in order to announce the theological themes and motifs that will be prevalent in the gospel. In Mark's gospel, there is no song or intricate introduction. He just begins by describing the story. These differences clearly relate to the context of the authors. It is believed that Mark wrote his Gospel first in order to put general information about Jesus' life down on paper. John's gospel was written after the other three synoptic gospels for the people of Asia minor. With more time, John's gospel probably includes more of his theology and teaching of Jesus than Mark because they had more time to theologize. Thus, the authorship of the gospels forces the reader to begin at different points in understanding the nature of Christ. While starting at different points - in John, that Jesus is the incarnate word of God, and in Mark, readers have not yet come to that conclusion - we can still come to the same conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan that the intention of the two gospels differ. I believe that John’s Gospel focuses more on Jesus as an individual and the narrative of his life leading up to His crucifixion and resurrection. However, Mark’s Gospel is more of Jesus’ message and Him delivering God’s message and fulfilling His role on Earth. Mark’s Gospel is more open for individual interpretation and allows for the readers to shape their own beliefs and opinions whereas John’s Gospel is more narrative and straightforward, leaving it not as open to interpretation as Mark’s Gospel.
ReplyDeleteI really like what Jason and Lucy had to say about John and Mark. The approach that the authors take is quite different as they pointed out above, and that is what makes discussing these two Gospel so rich to our faith in my opinion. It seems to me that a great deal of what we believe about Jesus comes from these two Gospels. Anything that we learn about Jesus is important to a Theologian. It enlightens this conversation by giving descriptions of Jesus in different ways and developing him as the person that we study. It brings to the conversation how good he is, and it gives everyone, especially the people that only go to church on Sunday, a deep desire to love their faith and Jesus! In other words, these two Gospels are what gives Christianity a following I think. To those who are not Christians, these two Gospels are what they refer to in order to know the basics of our faith. Because this is the first time I have studied Theology, these thoughts may seem rudementary to most of you but this is what a beginner sees.
ReplyDeleteI think that I tend to agree with many of the people who have made the point that the Gospels differ in purpose in the telling of the life and work of Jesus. However both gospels share a common goal of portraying Jesus as a teacher of the Word of God, albeit in different methods. It is interesting to examine the different prologues of these two canonical Gospels- and I tend to agree with Jason that they are not focused so much on the birth narratives because it is external to the plot of the Gospels (the ministry of Jesus).
ReplyDeleteAlso, the hidden Christology in Mark is in keeping with the secrecy of Mark, which we have been discussing. Where as the more abrupt and blatant declaration of Jesus' origin and nature, a profound theological statement, as found in John's prologue is more in keeping with his goal to emphasize the divinity of Jesus.
Looking into both gospels, there are noticeable similarities and differences. I feel that it is evident that the reason that both authors decide to start with John the Baptist at the beginning of the narrative is that there is a feeling of giving accreditation to Jesus. I would guess then at the time there was the urge to provide further evidence of Jesus' worth in terms of holiness and worthiness to the masses. By providing John the Baptist, there is a certain amount of respect that is understood as John was seen as not only a holy man but a messenger as well tasked with giving the good news to the masses. These two authors' points of view are important not only in and of themselves but also to the respective audiences that they are conveying their messages to. Each audience that each gospel writer is writing to has their own specific viewpoint or perception of who and what Jesus is and what he ultimately represents in terms of many things from salvation to the point of the essence of divinity. These authors provide interesting insights into the character that we all read and marvel at, Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah about the gospel of Mark "downplaying" Jesus in Mark's text. John talks about Jesus as it is already know that he is God's son. Mark's gospel includes more room for interpretation. This is even seen with the different endings and the fact that Jesus did not want to be know as the Messiah. John's gospel tells a much more direct story, with less room for questions.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these Gospels, as are all four, are integral in the understanding of the identity of Jesus. the GOspel of John reveals to us the divine nature of Jesus, while Mark focuses upon the human nature of Jesus. these perspectives are essential in understanding Jesus hypostatic nature. i think it is also important to know the circumstance in which the writers wrote.Marks was one of the first written and therefore had much less access to other sources and was rushed in its compilation because the return of Christ was thought to be near. Because John's Gospel was written much later, he had access to many more writings and exposure to the development of Christian thought and theological understanding. his Gospel is organized in such a manner as to reveal to us and invite us to come to know of Jesus' divinity as the Word of God, the Light of the World and the Bread of LIfe.
ReplyDeleteI first of all think that this discussion is really interesting. Just the fact that there are four gospels (and many more that weren't deemed worthy to be in the canon) is very interesting. I have struggled with this question: If someone as exceptional as God Himself became flesh and dwelt on earth, and if those who met him were so amazed by his goodness, his apparent divinity, that they were able to say with certainty, after spending only one day with him, "We have met the messiah" wouldn't they have written down everything he said? Wouldn't you want to take in and remember every single detail of your time with the Son of God? So why are there different accounts and not just one true gospel?
ReplyDeleteYet then I look at my own life and faith and I see something there that can't be ignored. It is the presence of something that is somehow able to make good all that is bad in me and in my circumstances. I don't understand it, I can't put it into words, and even if i could no one would understand me. That thing that gives me a reason to get up in the morning and allows me to sleep at night and lets me forget my sin and weakness for a time is God on earth. Christianity is not just reading the bible and believing it. it's not understanding everything or even anything. its not being a good catholic. This is all fine and good, but christianity really boils down to following the presence of Christ right here, right now. Just like the apostles. they stayed with Him for a day and were so amazed that they were sure they had met the messiah. They couldn't explain, and they didn't want to, because that would just reduce the experience to something less than what it was. instead they said to their friends "come and see who we met!"
So now actually about the topic at hand. John and Mark both portray Jesus exactly as he is. John by looking back and seeing the fulfillment of the law through Jesus (hence the old testament Yahweh reference: "Logos") while Mark sees fit simply to relate the wondrous events of Jesus' life. Both are effective. John's is because we can read it and relate through our own understanding Christ's ability to fulfill everything. Mark's is because Christ works in our life in a way that's not all that different from the gospel stories. He talks to us in parables and heals us. When we're figuratively blind he can allow us to see. Both the gospels are cool! BUT neither can really be christianity unless the person reading them has done work in his or her life towards verifying their truth. And the truth of the gospel can only be verified through meeting God on earth today.
I agree with Amber's idea of Mark's gospel revealing the human nature of Jesus and John's gospel revealing the divine nature and that both are necessary for our complete understanding of who Jesus is. The fact that John begins His gospel by introducing Jesus as God gives his reader's a unique insight into the rest of his gospel and the many teachings of Jesus written in his gospel. It allows the reader to be assured that Jesus' teachings are from God. On the other hand, Mark's gospel leaves room for questions about Jesus' divinity. The reader must come to a decision for himself or herself after reading Mark's gospel about whether or not he or she believes that Jesus is God.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find it interesting that Mark does not begin with a assurance of Jesus' divinity. One would think that since this was a major tenet of followers of Christ, the School of Mark would want its readers to be certain of this most crucial concept.
I agree with some of the earlier statements that John's gospel is more of a closed narrative whereas Mark's gospel is more open to the interpretation of the reader. John also has a seemingly different focus than that of Mark. John examines Jesus' connection to both the Word and to God and how He fits into the trinity. John is also very interested in the idea of Jesus being both fully divine and fully human. Mark on the other hand focuses on the actual work done be Jesus during his time on earth. The fact that these two gospels are so different make it clear why there in fact are so many gospels in the Bible. It is necessary to see the different aspects of Jesus and the way they were each seen by others in order for one to establish true and solid faith.
ReplyDelete