Gospel of Mark 1-16

The oldest of the canonical gospels comes second in the New Testament, and as has been noted by scholars seems to form part of the source for both Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke owing to the incredible amount of similar material between them.  If you've ever heard the talk about another source called the Q Gospel, I'll be bringing up my idea for that later on.  For now, the Gospel of Mark:

It begins by invoking Isaiah to introduce John the Baptist.  This is no great surprise.  There's no nativity narrative for Jesus at all, no explanation for where he came from.  He simply appears for the baptism scene as also featured in Matthew.

Needless to say, there's a lot of familiar material, including the sequence of events.

Following the baptism is the 40 days in the wilderness and temptation by Satan.

John the Baptist is arrested, and Jesus proclaims, "The kingdom of God is at hand," which is a subtle shift but certainly supports my belief that the phrase "kingdom of God" is very much like "Son of man" as far as Jesus is concerned.

He recruits Peter, Andrew, James, and John as he does in Matthew.

He teaches in the synagogue, performs exorcisms, cures Peter's mother, cures the leper.  Among the variations is a stronger focus on Jesus attempting to hide who he is, and a general de-emphasis on his growing frustrations.  In a lot of ways, Matthew can be said to be a flourish of Mark (one that also puts a heavy emphasis on the connection to Jewish beliefs, which Mark will shortly demonstrate as certainly no great concern of his).

He cures the paralyzed man.  The religious authorities begin to speak ill of him.  Matthew is identified as Levi.  Religious authorities again question his taste in associations immediately after.

Another considerable mark of distinction between Mark and Matthew is Mark's pointed reference to John the Baptist's disciples actually siding with the religious authorities.  I'll speak more about the significance of this in a little bit.

Jesus begins openly identifying himself, cures a withered hand on the sabbath, which provokes the religious authorities to actively plot against him.

More cures and exorcisms.

The twelve apostles are once again named, and are immediately sent out to perform works similar to what Jesus has been doing,  Jesus's mother is referenced in the same way as she was in Matthew, and in this one hasn't even been named.  In fact, unless you're willing to interpret her in a way that is not at all popular among Catholics, she's never named at all in Mark.

There are parables.  He calms the stormy sea.  Another feature unique to Mark is the demon who identifies itself as Legion, "for we are many."  It may be a symbolic feature for all those who doubt Jesus.  It may also be a case of biblical schizophrenia.

As in Matthew, Jesus is all but described as resurrecting a dead little girl.  People begin to ask, who is this guy and how did he become so wise and stuff?  He's called "the carpenter" (rather than "the carpenter's son, as in Matthew), and also referenced with Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon.  (Catholics prefer the idea of perpetual virginity in Mary, although there is the tradition that Jesus in fact had several brothers; Reza Aslan contends that the James who becomes prominent later in the New Testament, in Acts and Letter of James, is in fact Jesus's brother, although he is not one of the apostles, even though there are two James there.)

The apostles are sent out again, two by two.  Jesus has become such a known commodity at this point, Herod wonders if he's the resurrected John the Baptist.  Mark only mentioned what happened to John the Baptist as an aside.  Unlike in Matthew, then, the immediate transition to Jesus seeking a "lonely place" has nothing to do with learning about John the Baptist's death.

Jesus walks on water.  He rebukes the religious authorities, saying they prefer human tradition rather than the way of God.

He cures the daughter of the Gentile, although in Mark he's identified as Greek.  He cures the deaf man.  He feeds a multitude twice.  He suggests there's a reason why he did it twice.  The first time, there were 12 baskets of food left over, the second time 7 baskets.  I'm just shooting in the dark here, but perhaps this is supposed to mean the first time he was speaking to the Jews (12 tribes of Israel) and the second time to everyone (7 as in every day of the week or, well, everyone).

His apostles realize who he is.  He discusses his impending fate.  The reference to the kingdom of God coming appears again, as in Matthew.  Then the transfiguration.  Then the oath to hide that this happened until after the resurrection.  He does grow publicly frustrated, but the emphasis is not nearly as strong as in Matthew.  Although funny enough for these schismatic Christian times of ours, he insists that, "He that is not against us is for us," meaning that if anyone is promoting Jesus they ought to be accepted, no matter if they're part of "our" circle or not (a problem even Acts reflects at the very beginning).

He rejects Moses doctrine, going so far as to say it wasn't even God who gave that particular command, but rather Moses himself.

He cures the blind man.

Palm Sunday occurs (with its unfortunate echo later after the scourging as well).  He curses the fig tree.  Unlike Matthew, there's a follow-up to this moment.  Then the temple incident.

Christians love the "cornerstone" reference Jesus borrows from the Old Testament, but the greater point he makes is actually far more significant.  The parable itself is known well enough, which reflects a series of individuals sent out to deliver a message and each of them is murdered, including the son of the man sending all these people.  The point of the parable is that God has sent all these messengers, too, including Jesus, who is murdered by his own chosen people, the Jews.  This is the point of departure from Jesus attempting to fulfill Jewish prophecy to starting his own divergent religion, Christianity, because what he's saying here is that the Jews are no longer the chosen people, but rather, basically, everyone else.

(Jews, naturally, would prefer not to believe that.)

This, by the way, is described by Mark as the first time the religious authorities attempt to arrest Jesus.  And no wonder!  They try to make it a Roman issue, then a theological issue.  The people, meanwhile, only love Jesus more.

It's at this point that I'll finally talk about my Q Gospel theory.  Basically, as Gospel of Matthew made perfectly obvious and Mark here as well (remember, this one was written earlier), the early Christians likely had as much faith in the legacy of John the Baptist as Jesus.  I submit that Q Gospel was a joint biography.  In early Christianity, it would have been rash for Jesus to speak out against Rome, and that seems like something that was edited or obscured out of the narrative.  So too the intermingling of John the Baptist and Jesus's ministries.  Christians in the first century would have known all about the Q Gospel.  It's why the three gospels that follow distance themselves from it while still obviously using it as a source.  They realized that John the Baptist at some point had to be downplayed but not completely forgotten.  It's not surprising that the fourth attempt, the Gospel of John, is so different, and the only one claimed to have come from one of Jesus's actual followers, and is filled with unique biographical material.  Or that later, noncanonical gospels are so wildly divergent from the four canonical ones.  As the effort to present a portrait of Jesus himself became more important, he was more and more distanced from John the Baptist.  It would be very interesting to read the Q Gospel.  I would be willing to bet that a lot of the Jesus narrative is in fact derived from John the Baptist's (in Luke, for instance, the unmistakable piggybacking concerning how they are born).  This is not to say we must toss everything out that we believe about one or the other, or that questions of this kind invalidates faith in any way.  But that there are things we will never know for certain about John the Baptist and about Jesus.  When the four gospels were written, it was dangerous to be completely truthful.  The Romans persecuted the Christians enough as it was.  And that's just one way the record was distorted.

Now that I've discussed the the theoretical Q Gospel, back to Gospel of Mark.

The same anonymous woman anoints Jesus, as in Matthew.  Judas decides to betray Jesus.  The Last Supper occurs, as detailed in Matthew.  Jesus suffers in Gethsemane.  He appears before the high priest, then Pilate, although while he struggles as before Pilate this time in no way absolves himself of his ultimate decision.

Mary Magdalene, as in Matthew, is present at the crucifixion, along with, this time, a Mary who is described as the mother of James the Younger, Joses, and Salome.  If you want to entertain thoughts popularized by The Da Vinci Code, you certainly also have in Mary Magdalene, emphasized in Mark as the first person, alone this time, to see Jesus resurrected, the possible wife of Jesus, quite an honor for an apparently random witness of the two climactic events.  Further suggestions for the other Mary now have two gospels with another Mary present at the crucifixion where tradition (and Gospel of John) has Mary the mother of Jesus present.  Not to step on too many toes...

For the record, the only mark of distinction Mark gives Mary Magdalene otherwise is that Jesus "had cast out seven demons" from her.

The eleven remaining apostles are described as not believing in the resurrection until they see Jesus for themselves.  By the end of Mark, Jesus ascends into heaven.