The consensus among scholars is that Mark is the earliest of the four canonical gospels and was not written until after 65 AD [1]. This means the first communities of believers began and grew throughout their first three decades without a written "gospel." The only writings reflecting faith in Jesus as the Messiah and originating from this period are the letters Paul sent to the Gentile churches he had founded [2]. In these epistles the word "gospel" refers not to a written document but to Paul's teaching about the Messiahship (divine Sonship) of Jesus and its significance for both Gentiles and Jews. "The gospel" in this context is essentially a synonym for "the faith," as is most obvious in Galatians [3]. The agreement reached among Christian leaders at Jerusalem and described in this letter (2:1-10) bears witness to the fact that the lack of interest in a written gospel evident in Paul's epistles is not unique to him: no one during this early period spoke of "a gospel" or "the gospel" as a written document and thus as a part of scripture. There was in fact no "New Testament" as we now know it, and more importantly, there was no discernible sense that something was amiss because of that lack. Indeed, our term "Old Testament" presumes there is a "New" counterpart, but such was not the case at this time. The Old Testament as scripture was considered complete and sufficient throughout those first 30 years.

This was no less true among Gentile believers than it was among Jewish ones; the scripture consisting solely of the Old Testament was considered applicable equally and directly to all believers, Jew and Gentile alike (though Paul's opponents interpreted certain portions of it differently than he did). That even Paul's Gentile converts had to adopt the Old Testament as their own no less than Jews did is clear from the way Paul's epistles assume his Gentile readers have thoroughly assimilated its contents. And the Old Testament's authority extended even to practical issues in Gentile communities, as can be seen in 1 Corinthians: even when Paul addresses matters peculiar to the Gentile nature of those communities -- matters which would not have been issues at all among Jews -- he consistently appeals to the Old Testament writings as a final authority containing solutions to "Gentile" problems no less than strictly "Jewish" ones.

"The gospel" itself remained an oral proclamation, something outside of written scripture, and we find no evidence in Paul's epistles that oral preaching ever came to be considered inadequate as a vehicle to convey the content of this gospel. Nowhere in Paul's epistles does he hint at any sense of discomfort about the absence of a comprehensive or systematic written version of the content of his preaching. For Paul, the gospel was in its essence brief, and it always pointed back to the scriptures of the Old Testament, as can be seen from his summary of the Thessalonians' response to his preaching: they "turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus" (1 Thess 1:9b-10).

So long as Paul was alive, his teaching was itself "the gospel" and was not replaced or supplemented by any written works that could be called "a gospel" or "gospels." Paul did offer defenses and explanations of his gospel in written form within his epistles, but there was no attempt at a systematic literary exposition, no attempt to create a writing that could itself be called a gospel.

Thus, for the Pauline Gentile churches all was well so long as Paul was alive. The shining hope of their faith was the "new Jerusalem," a vision of hope in the eschatological future that Paul himself created for them. While he lived, he alone stood as their tangible and secure link with that hope and that goal. The Old Testament books of Ezekiel and Isaiah had centuries earlier spoken of a "new Jerusalem," and those texts at that time had in a similar manner created that concept as a new and concrete reality in the minds of the readers and hearers of scripture. Likewise, Paul's eschatological "new Jerusalem" became a reality for those who accepted his gospel, and it became that because his hearers trusted his authority just as their predecessors trusted the authority of Ezekiel and Isaiah.

"The Jerusalem above" (Gal 4:26) is embedded in Paul's gospel, having been preached first to the communities he established, and preserved for us in written form in his letters. It was only through Paul that his converts learned about this "Jerusalem above" as their "free mother" [4], but he drew it directly from the words of Isaiah (4:27) [5]; he was simply proclaiming "God's gospel, promised beforehand" by God himself in the book of "his prophet" Isaiah [6]. In simpler terms, Paul was telling the Gentiles that Isaiah's promises had been fulfilled, and he was explaining how they had been fulfilled [7]. For Jews the prophetic texts themselves would already be familiar, but this interpretation of their intent and fulfillment would not, and it was precisely this interpretation that was the essence of Paul's gospel. Thus, whatever Paul said to the Gentiles applied equally to the Jews since his gospel was the one and only true gospel and was addressed to both [8]. Nevertheless many or most Jews who accepted the Messiahship of Jesus rejected Paul's interpretation of the significance of that Messiahship, and while he lived Paul was constantly forced to defend his gospel against those who preached "another gospel" (Gal 1:6).

Consequently, throughout Paul's lifetime his gospel stood firmly on the basis of Paul's own personal authority, and only on that basis. After Paul's death his Gentile followers were left without root or anchor. Granted, both Jewish and Gentile believers still had their one common body of scripture, a collection of texts that served as the authoritative source for Paul himself when he preached his gospel. But the texts could be interpreted in many different ways, and the essence of Paul's gospel was his own interpretation of these texts, an interpretation which he claimed to be the sole correct one [9]. And only Paul's interpretation effectively secured the full membership of the believing Gentiles as equals alongside their Jewish counterparts in the one church of the one God. But who among the authoritative apostles dared to say so unequivocally besides Paul? None, to our knowledge. For the others, a Gentile would always be somehow secondary until and unless he would fully become a Jew by following the dictates of Jewish Law.

Thus, beginning with the break at Antioch between Paul and emissaries of the Jerusalemite Jewish Christian leadership (Gal 2:11-14), Paul realized that his Gentile churches would always be hounded by the camp of James and Barnabas. And, as early as that break and starting with 1 Thessalonians, he decided to seal his teaching in writing by sending letters to those churches, knowing that some day he would die and leave them orphaned, at the mercy of his opponents, who would tell them that they as Gentiles were still "separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). But a situation that could have ended in disaster for them was salvaged precisely because of the way Paul had always presented his gospel as a word (logos). It was in effect Paul's gospel word -- rather than Paul himself -- that had proclaimed to them the new reality of their new faith and assured them of its truth. Throughout his mission to the Gentiles Paul had drilled into his converts' minds that what was of import was not his person, but rather his gospel teaching; he was merely passing on to others what the Lord had conveyed to him. Numerous texts testify to this view of himself as merely a servant and of the gospel he serves as not merely "his" but "the gospel," something with independent existence and a life of its own:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. ... For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son ... But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God ... Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith -- to the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! (Rom 1:1, 9; 15:15-16; 16:25-27)

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. ... If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. ... I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (1 Cor 4:15; 9:11-12, 23)

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God. ... Under the test of this service, you will glorify God by your obedience in acknowledging the gospel of Christ, and by the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others ... For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you; we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ. ... For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough ... Did I commit a sin in abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel without cost to you? (2 Cor 4:3-4; 9:13; 10:14; 11:4, 7)

I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now ... It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. ... I want you to know, brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel ... The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel ... Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel ... But Timothy's worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel. ... And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Phil 1:3-5, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3)

... for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. ... For you yourselves know, brethren, that our visit to you was not in vain; but though we had already suffered and been shamefully treated at Philippi, as you know, we had courage in our God to declare to you the gospel of God in the face of great opposition. For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts. ... So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. For you remember our labor and toil, brethren; we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you, while we preached to you the gospel of God. ... we sent Timothy, our brother and God's servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you (1 Thess 1:5; 2:1-4, 8-9; 3:2).

I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel (Philem 13).

The emphasis on the gospel is so strong as to overshadow any image one might gain of Paul's person; it is as though he rendered himself transparent so that his readers and hearers would see in him only the gospel itself. As he eloquently stated as early as in 1 Thessalonians (2:8) and as late as in Philippians (1:3-5, 27), the gospel was the only possible bridge of communication between him and them, the only prism through which he and they would view one another. Thus, whenever Paul spoke of himself, it was in regard to his own authority as an apostle of the gospel, and the purpose of such remarks was to aid his defense of the gospel. He trained his flock to view him exclusively as an apostle, and specifically as their apostle (1 Cor 9:2; 2 Cor 3:1-3), and the authority over them that this gave him he used strictly to promote the gospel among them. This authority was particularly useful because it could be exercised from afar as well as while physically present:

For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor 5:3-5)

His ability to exercise authority in this manner rendered his physical presence immaterial since he effectively made himself present through his words; in a sense he sent to his churches an incarnation of himself in words. It was in recognition of this power in Paul's words that his co-workers, under the leadership of Timothy, gathered the letters he wrote to his churches into a corpus that became their authoritative reference for his gospel [10]. This corpus ensured that the ongoing opposition to Paul's gospel could not take advantage of Paul's absence, for in these epistles Paul remained powerfully present even after his death. The act of collecting Paul's epistles for this purpose was the first step toward the creation of a "fourth (and last) scripture" [11] of the "Israel of God" (Gal 6:16), the birth of what came to be known as the New Testament.

In creating this new body of scripture the Pauline leaders of the emerging Gentile churches were merely following in the footsteps of their predecessors, Ezekiel and the priestly writers of the Old Testament who began to gather the "words" of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah [12]. The same process repeated itself in the first century AD. The Pauline school took the first step by putting together the master's epistles into a corpus, and it augmented that corpus with a series of additional letters composed along the line of his teachings and, as was usual in those times, superscripted with his name out of deference to him (the first of these being Colossians and 2 Thessalonians). Thus, both Paul's disciples and his predecessors the Old Testament prophets created a set of authoritative scriptures that would define the very character and nature of God's Israel.

The second step undertaken by the Pauline school was much more complex. Here one must recall that, besides editing the prophets' words into scrolls as scripture, the school of Ezekiel proceeded to produce its own writings, the Torah (Pentateuch), in order to present a more systematic view of their teaching [13]. The Pentateuch is the story of the origins of God's people revisited in the light of the prophetic teaching that identified and defined the true God for nascent Judaism [14]. The gospel of Mark was produced along similar lines. It revisited whatever stories regarding Jesus were still alive in the memory of the early church leaders, in the light of the Pauline gospel teaching. In Paul's preaching and teaching, Jesus the Messiah and Lord was co-extensive with the gospel taught and preached by the apostle. The gospel of Paul to the Gentiles carried Jesus for them; the only Jesus they knew, beginning with Timothy and Mark who had never personally seen him, was the reality engraved on their minds and hearts by Paul's apostolic words [15]. They -- probably leaders such as Timothy and Mark -- must have decided that Paul's written legacy was inadequate, even supplemented as it was by works such as Colossians. They concluded that a more systematic view of Christ, the subject and content of Paul's preaching, had finally become necessary. But why? What would have triggered in their minds the idea of embarking on such a monumental project? What was the purpose? Whom would it benefit? And was it absolutely necessary or merely beneficial, a nice-to-have extra?

The event that led to the decision to write a gospel book was Paul's death. This left the Gentile churches in a very precarious position with no apostle supporting them and necessitated finding a different, yet equally authoritative, means of support. Paul's epistles were being collected, and Timothy did provide a new charter (Colossians) based on Paul's apostolic authority, but despite everything said above about the importance of Paul's apostolic word over his person, that written word in these collected epistles still did not carry the same weight as a living apostle. The remaining living apostles were associated with the Jerusalemite leadership, which had openly rejected the believing Gentiles' freedom from circumcision and the Mosaic ordinances. The only hope was to sway one of these leaders into the Pauline camp. James himself (or his following) might be too difficult to persuade, but Peter (or his following) was apparently less adamant on this position than James and seemed a possible convert to Gentile cause. Moreover, he was an apostle, and officially Paul's counterpart among the Jews for that matter (Gal 2:7-8), so he would also have substantial influence with James (v.9) and the rest of the Jerusalem leadership.

The Pauline following included among its membership a natural bridge to the Petrine group in the person of Mark. He was part of Paul's entourage during the apostle's last days: "Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers" (Philem 23-24). And later on we find Mark still with Timothy (Col 4:10). What made him uniquely fit for this task, however, was his earlier close connection with Barnabas (Col 4:10; see also Acts 12:25; 15:37) and, more importantly, with Peter: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet 5:13; see also Acts 12:12). For a while, his relation to Barnabas made him suspect in the eyes of Paul's colleagues, to the extent that Timothy had to add an extra note vouching for his trustworthiness: "Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions -- if he comes to you, receive him)" (Col 4:10). Thus, Mark was someone who actually shifted allegiance from Barnabas (and Peter) to Paul, i.e., he himself had done what was about to be asked of Peter or his successors.

The fact that Mark was the bridge to the Petrine following must have sealed the tradition that the gospel was named after him; and he may well have actually been the author. However, the gospel text seems to allude to Mark as part of the gospel story [16]. Another candidate would be the author of Luke-Acts, who shows a mastery of the Greek language essential for anyone contemplating an undertaking of this sort. Moreover, this would explain the liberty Luke took in rewriting the first gospel into his monumental two-volume work, Luke-Acts. At any rate, if Luke was the author, he would have written "Mark" under the scrutinizing eye of both Timothy and Mark, given the delicacy of the matter. Since the appeal to Peter was either written by Mark himself or used Mark as an example, or both, this book is in a sense a "Markan" message to the Petrine following, and since Luke's name brings to mind Luke-Acts, I shall henceforth refer to this gospel and its author as simply "Mark."

Still, one does not embark on an impossible mission. One needs to have some realistic hope of success before investing an immense effort in such a grandiose undertaking. What would have been the sign that the endeavor might succeed? It lay in the situation in and around Jerusalem at that time. A Jewish rebellion against the Roman authorities started in Jerusalem in 66 AD and triggered a war that ended with the siege and the fall of the city to the Roman armies in 70. As is typical of such rebellions, the situation was polarized, and the Judean Jewish believers in particular were in a difficult predicament. As Jews they would be considered traitors if they would not openly side with their fellows by taking up arms to defend Jerusalem. As followers of Jesus, their doing so would constitute betrayal of their faith in him as the Messiah who had already secured for them the kingdom of God and guaranteed them the freedom their Jewish fellows were militantly fighting for. In other words, the Jewish revolt of 66 forced the Jerusalemite church to realize the depth of the chasm between it and contemporary Judaism. The Jews' conception of God's city as the physical, earthly city of Jerusalem had not changed since the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at which time it had been opposed to those prophets' views also [17]. Those two prophets taught that it is the word of God that matters, not an earthly city. Indeed, Jeremiah, as bearer of the Lord's word (Jer 1:1:9) in a sense became himself the Lord's city and as such opposed the Jerusalemites and Judahites (vv.18-19). Ezekiel too became the abode of the divine word (Ezek 3:1-3) and spoke against the rebellious house of Israel (2:1-7; 3:4-11), and he did so from Babylonia, the land of the Gentiles who had exiled him there in 597 BC and were about to strike down Jerusalem a decade later just as the Romans did in the first century AD. Through these two prophets, God's saving message to Jerusalem was directed against it and from outside its boundaries!

Mark capitalized on this situation and formulated his literary plan according to the scheme of Ezekiel. The divine word, now as Paul's gospel, summoned the Jerusalemite church to break with the insurgent Judaism of Judea, and it did so from outside Jerusalem -- from Rome or Western Asia Minor. Moreover, it called upon that church to move away from Jerusalem and settle among the Gentile churches, from whom the divine word as gospel was now originating. And since this divine word was identified with Jesus himself, the crucified Messiah, Mark used whatever traditions about Jesus were at hand and presented them as a story, namely the story of Jesus from Galilee. The importance of his Galilean origin is that it means he came from outside Jerusalem and outside Judea. It was to this place relatively foreign to Judaism that Peter was called to leave Jerusalem in order to "see him risen" (Mk 16:7) and thereby to become a true apostle of Jesus [18].

I strongly believe Mark went even farther: he conceived and patterned this story of Jesus after the plan of the book of Isaiah. This means he intended it from the beginning to act as scripture, to be read in the Pauline Gentile churches as well as, hopefully, in the Jerusalemite church community in its eventual new location outside Jerusalem. Why would he have chosen the book of Isaiah to emulate? Two main reasons come to mind, one material and one formal. Materially, besides being the Messianic book par excellence [19] and consequently the most appropriate as a blueprint for the story of Jesus the Messiah, the book of Isaiah is conceived as the "story of God's word" addressed to his city Jerusalem. God's word judges the city and calls it to become truly his city, the place where he will fully execute his mi�pat (righteous judgment) and to which all nations will flock to enjoy his �alom (peace) [20]. The fact that this "story" is one of "continual faithlessness on Israel's part and equally unrelenting faithfulness on the Lord's part" [21] made it remarkably appropriate for Mark's purposes. His intention was to emphasize how "Israel," in the persons of Peter and James, was unfaithful to God's word as expressed in the (Pauline) gospel.

Formally, the one "story" presented in Isaiah is actually presented "as a whole series of stories following one repeated pattern" [22]. The purpose of this arrangement is to underscore the people's faithlessness versus the Lord's faithfulness, for the repeating pattern is that "the people through their rebellions try to put an end to the story, but God, through his prophet(s), always has the last word" [23]. This pattern, though particularly clear in Isaiah, is actually encountered throughout the Old Testament, making it effectively a "scriptural" as much as "Isaianic" pattern. Mark, as we shall see, follows suit.

This scriptural pattern entailed another very important feature. Isaiah's "story" is presented more specifically as that of the city of Jerusalem from its beginnings up to its end as the "new" Jerusalem. Yet the city is viewed throughout from the perspective of the end, as is clear from Isaiah's opening "vision" of the divine "word": its subject matter is the eschatological Jerusalem where God's eschatological �alom (peace) is established and to which all the nations flock (2:1-4) [25]. This "perspective from the end" is a trademark of the Old Testament literature as well as Paul's gospel, for Paul's Christ is always the one who is coming, the risen Lord who will come to judge the world [26]. Consequently, when Jesus begins "preaching the gospel of God" (1:14) at the very beginning of Mark, that gospel is already focused on the end time: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (v.15). The Jerusalem of Isaiah's day was a real earthly city, but what he wrote about it was colored by his vision of its future glory; in the same way Mark wrote about the human person Jesus of Galilee but his presentation of that person was always colored by his vision of the risen Lord expected to return in glory.

As I indicated earlier, Mark was not merely writing a dissertation or an appeal addressed to Peter and the Jerusalemite church such as what Paul did with his letter to the Romans. He was also writing a "scripture" for the Pauline Gentile churches based on Paul's gospel as it had been presented in Paul's preaching and teaching. He actually refers to his work as a "gospel" by placing that word in the very first sentence, which effectively acts as a title: "(The) beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Another indication that Mark intended to write a "scripture" is the remark "... let the reader understand..." in 13:14. That reference to one reader is telling. Nowadays, being children of the post-printing press era, our understanding of the meaning of "books" and even "reading" is quite different from that of the first century AD. At that time, copies of any given manuscript were very few and their "reading" was done usually in gatherings. This is borne out by the meaning of the Hebrew verb qara' and the corresponding Greek anaginosko; both meant "to read aloud," and not just for oneself, as we understand it today. Thus, the very notion of reading implied that it would be done aloud by one person, the "reader," in an official gathering at which the others present were the "hearers." Rev 1:3 offers another witness to this: "Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near" (Rev 1:3). Two things in this text are especially significant: a) the RSV translates the same Greek word once without and once with "aloud"; b) the original Greek of Revelation has "Blessed is the reader and the hearers of the words of the prophecy." Therefore if Mark was addressed to one reader, that person was "the official, public reader" of the gathered community [27]. And since scripture was read and commented upon at these gatherings, the reader or commentator is the one who had to understand the text, in order to explain it to the others.

My conclusion is that in Mark we have a "story" intended to be read in the Pauline gatherings as a prophecy would [28], a "story" being offered as a "word," and more specifically as the "word of God." This is exactly how the "stories" of the Patriarchs, the exodus, and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are handled in the Old Testament. In other words, Mark was conceived as scripture.

So Mark decided to create a "story of Jesus" and intended it to serve as scripture, but what will have been the source for the overall outline of that story? Could he have created it from scratch, devising his own plan for fitting numerous short vignettes about Jesus into a cohesive whole? I am convinced that he in fact utilized a story outline that had already been known among the Gentile churches. Earlier I referred to two essential points: the practical equivalence between the person of Jesus and the words of the gospel concerning him; and the fact that for the Gentile churches as well as for the Jews Timothy and Mark, Paul was the apostle, the original authoritative bearer of this gospel. When one takes these two matters seriously into consideration, one can understand that in the minds of Paul's disciples and communities, the "gospel story" was already outlined: it followed the major contours of Paul's life and activity as an apostle. It is not difficult to determine those contours, for they are laid out in some detail in Paul's epistles. These letters were written by him as an apostle, that is, in conjunction with his explication and defense of his gospel. Of these letters, only in Galatians and Philippians is the argument itself closely interwoven with personal data about Paul as an apostle, thus making the author's own history and experiences a kind of "gospel story." The former deals squarely with Mark's immediate interest: Paul's gospel on the one hand, and Peter, James, and the Jerusalemite church, on the other. The latter is Paul's testament from his place of imprisonment prior to his death and reflects the fact that the Jerusalemite church authorities did not heed Paul's appeal to them through his letter to the Romans. It is along the lines of the arguments in these two epistles that Mark wrote his "gospel story."

This whole process may seem strange to the contemporary reader, but it is precisely what had been done earlier in the Old Testament, and Mark was merely following an example set for him by scripture itself. The Pentateuch as a whole, as well as Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in particular, were "stories" conceived on the basis of the prophets' teachings [29]. One can even say that these same "stories" were actually woven from the prophets' personalities and lives. Scholars have long pointed out similarities between Moses and Jeremiah [30]. They have also noticed that the Pentateuch describes two Aarons: one subservient to Moses and even opposed to him [31], the other his successor as high priest throughout the ages [32]. Whereas Moses led Israel during his lifetime, this second Aaron leads it throughout the generations [33]. This second Aaron bears a remarkable resemblance to Ezekiel, the exilic priest-prophet. Indeed, Ezekiel's eschatological Jerusalem is the blueprint of Aaron's temple in the wilderness [34]. Finally, Joshua, Israel's leader into Canaan, the land promised to Abraham, is patterned after Second Isaiah and, to some extent, Ezekiel. The names Isaiah and Joshua are from the same root in Hebrew meaning "the Lord saves," and Second Isaiah is the prophet who speaks of the return to God's city, Jerusalem, and at the same time presents Abraham as the one to whose progeny the promise is made [35]. On the other hand, the land's conquest by Joshua is done in a "priestly" manner: it is the Lord who leads Israel in a cultic manner into the land as though it is his holy of holies, exactly as Ezekiel's "new Jerusalem" is [36].

Mark has created a similar mixture in his gospel; the life of Jesus here is reminiscent of the New Testament "prophet" [37] Paul. Mark's purpose is to call upon the Jerusalem church and Peter's followers -- and ultimately through them the Judaism of his time as a whole -- to relinquish the earthly Jerusalem that is bound to destruction, and follow the prophetic call arising from the "wilderness of the Gentiles," into the new, heavenly Jerusalem. This prophetic voice was none other than Paul's, "an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom 1:1-2). And consequently, the image of Paul shows through in Mark's portrayal of Jesus, just as the image of Jeremiah shows through in the Pentateuch's depiction of Moses.

The literary structure of Mark can best be discerned precisely by paying attention to the way Paul and the issues facing his Gentile churches show through in the story of Jesus. The story is built around a framework that begins with a preamble (1:1-15) followed by three cycles of calling/invitation (1:16-3:12; 3:13-6:6a; 6:6b-8:21) and three cycles of teaching (8:27-9:29; 9:30-10:31; 10:32-45). Then there is a pivotal pericope [38] where Timothy's leadership as Paul's successor is introduced (10:46-52), and that is followed by two long sections, one offering the gospel for the last time to the Jerusalemite Christian leadership (chs.11-13) and one recounting their refusal of it (chs.14-15). Finally there is a short text indicating the door is still open for Peter and his following (16:1-8) to accept Paul's gospel.

The following list breaks this structure down into some more detail and indicates how these sections reflect Paul himself, his gospel, or specific issues faced by adherents to his gospel. It is offered here less as an initial overview than as a "quick reference" that may help the reader to visualize more easily the flow of the Markan story while following the main text of this book. It is placed here merely to make sure that the reader is aware of its availability; to anyone who is reading the book for the first time I suggest that this list be skimmed quickly or skipped entirely.

Preamble (1:1-15)

Paul's conversion from the Judaism of his time to the crucified Christ, and the beginning of the gospel.

Three Cycles in Which the Other Apostles Are Invited to Accept Paul's Gospel (1:16-8:21)

First cycle (1:16-3:12): up to the Jerusalem meeting

Introduction: Call to the "pillars" (1:16-20)

1. The essence of all subsequent stories in a nutshell: three basic stages of the propagation of the gospel (1:21-39)
   1. Pauline activity before the Jerusalem meeting (1:21-28)
   2. The meeting with the pillars (1:29-34)
   3. The reaching out to the Gentiles (1:35-39)

2. Expanded version of the Pauline gospel story (1:40-3:12)
   1. Paul's conversion (1:40-45)
   2. Confrontation with the pillars (2:1-3:6)
   3. The gospel is preached throughout the Roman empire (3:7-12)

Second cycle (3:13-6:6a): from the incident at Antioch until the writing of Romans

Introduction: Call to the apostles (3:13-19)

1. Confrontation with (3:20-30) and separation from (3:31-34) the "brothers," corresponding to Gal 2:10-14
2. Content of the gospel (4:1-34)
3. Invitation to go out of the realm of Judaism (4:35-41) and preach the gospel also to the Gentile world (5:1-20)
4. The gospel to the Gentiles is also offered to the Jews (5:21-34), corresponding to the thesis of Romans
5. The Jewish leadership refuses the gospel (6:1-6a)

Third cycle (6:6b-8:21): after Paul's death

Introduction: Call to the apostles to reach outside the realm of Judaism (6:6b-13)

1. The death of Paul (6:14-29)
2. The apostles are called to carry on his teaching of table fellowship (6:30-44)
3. They are called to go out to the Gentiles (6:45-52)
4. They are shown the way: the gospel is offered to the Gentiles (6:53-56)
5. Criticism and correction of the judaizing teaching of the pillars (7:1-23)
6. The gospel is to go unhindered to the Gentiles (7:4-30) throughout the Roman empire (7:31-37) to the extent of full table fellowship with them (8:1-10)
7. Refusal by the Jewish leadership (8:11-21)

Timothy, an Example for the Pillars in That His Eyes Were Opened to the Gospel (8:22-26)

This passage serves as a hinge between the sections comprising the two sets of cycles. Timothy is the prime Jewish follower of Paul and thus is the best emissary from him to the Jews. He is also the one who carried the teaching of Paul's gospel after the latter's death.

Three Cycles Detailing the Gospel of the Crucified Messiah (8:27-10:45)

Introduction: the beginning of the gospel is linked to Philippi (8:27-30)

First cycle (8:27-9:29)

1. First announcement of Jesus' death (8:31)
2. Teaching Peter the gospel of the cross (8:32-9:1)
3. Teaching the pillars the same gospel (9:2-13)
4. The one community created by the gospel includes the Gentiles (9:14-29)

Second cycle (9:30-10:31)

1. Second announcement of Jesus' death (9:30-32)
2. Teaching of the pillars (9:33-50)
3. The gospel includes the Gentiles on the same footing as the Jews (10:1-31)

Third cycle (10:32-45)

1. Third announcement of Jesus' death (10:32-34)
2. Presentation of the gospel to the pillars (10:35-45)

Timothy Heads the Pauline Community (10:46-52)

Timothy Comes to Jerusalem with Paul's Message as It Is Conveyed in Romans (11-12)

1. The Entry into Jerusalem (11:1-11).
2. Jesus' Authority (11:15-33).
3. Last Words of Teaching before the Announcement of the Last Test (ch.12).

Last Call to the Pillars before the Lord's Coming (ch.13)

Refusal of Timothy's Message (14-15)

1. Jerusalem's First Refusal of the Gospel (ch.14).
2. Jerusalem's Second Refusal of the Gospel (ch.15).

Mark's Offer to the Petrine Community (16:1-8)