A Genre for Mark

Abstract

Abstract I have yet to address directly the question asked earlier: What kind of text would Mark have been seen to be, either by its author or by its first readers and auditors? What, in short, was its genre? Following the massive and influential work of Rudolf Bultmann, and for reasons that have perhaps more to do with theological conviction than scientific criticism, there has been until recently a curious reluctance among New Testament scholars to consider this question seriously, or to look to literature contemporary with the written gospel for parallels that will help us understand its genre. The written gospel, it has been claimed, is of its own kind: sui generis. It is unique, having no exact parallel in any literature. The gospels can be understood only as expansions of the primitive Christian preaching, or as having risen in response to a need for Christian lections to match the Jewish calendar in the liturgy. There are elements of truth in all these claims. There is evidence that early Christian literature was read in the Christian assembly (Col. 4:16; compare Philem 2). Yet there is hardly evidence that at this period it was read in sequence, or in connection with a “calendar” that is itself a matter of considerable scholarly uncertainty. Justin’s description of the Roman liturgy in the mid-second century, when “the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets” were read “for as long as time permits,” appears in any case to contradict such an idea (Apology 1.67).