“Just the facts, ma’am”

The Gospel of Mark has always left me flat. It is brief, uninviting and less than fully informative. Matthew and Luke took this brief account and made grand narratives. Two weeks ago I began reading Mark and thinking about the man who wrote it. Perhaps he was the John Mark of Acts 12:12 or Peter’s son (1 Pet.5:13). His agenda seems to have been to record Peter’s recollections of the salient aspects of Jesus’ ministry. There is no fluff or added color to the narrative. I began forming an image of Jack Webb as Sergeant Joe Friday in Dragnet, “Just the facts, ma’am.” I could see Peter in the Roman prison saying, “No Mark, forget all that. Just get down the facts of what happened.”

For example, Mark begins with Jesus’ baptism and has Jesus whisked into the wilderness by verse twelve. Matthew prepares us for this moment with three chapters of 65 verses. Luke outdoes Matthew with three chapters and 170 verses. But for Mark, all the church needs to know is that Jesus was baptized by John, blessed by God the Father, driven into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit for forty days in the company of wild beasts and beset by Satan’s temptations while being waited on by angels. Then Jesus is off gathering his first four disciples, preaching scripture with authority, casting out demons and curing the ill, proclaiming the kingdom of God is near, so repent and believe in the good news. All this occurs in the first 34 verses of the first chapter.

In the old Dragnet television show that ran weekly in the 1950’s, witnesses would recount all manner of information, local color and gossip, while Sergeant Friday listened politely with his notepad and pencil, invariably to interrupt with “Just the facts, ma’am.” to close off the extraneous. Mark is not concerned with accuracy in tying Jesus to OT scripture. His opening verses 1-3 refer to Isaiah, but actually combine Malachi and Isaiah. His explanations of Jewish law, scripture and custom are questionable. These inaccuracies expose for me the writer’s real mission which I am thinking was to reveal the essential Jesus to the gentiles. I am finding a new an unexpected appreciation for this earliest gospel from the recollections of Christ’s first chosen apostle.

For example, I have always looked somewhat askance at the story of Jesus’ temptations by Satan in the desert wilderness as recorded in Matthew and Luke (Mt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13). There were no witnesses, nor does it seem likely that Jesus told this story as his own recollection. However, this rite of passage story does reflect a rich tradition in Hebrew scripture and literary narratives. Mark is uninterested except to note that Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness. The Son of God was impervious to temptation and mortal danger as he welcomed solitude and prayer in preparation for his ministry. Nothing heroic as suggested by Matthew and Luke.

I also find this introduction refreshing because it clearly demonstrates that Mark is reporting what Peter knew as Peter remembered events. Peter had not been introduced to Jesus until after his baptism and time in the wilderness. The earliest Peter would have known about Jesus was from his brother, Andrew, who met Jesus at the Jordan (Jn. 1:37-42). What Peter remembers most clearly is when Jesus came by his fishing boat and that of the Zebedees, calling for him, his brother Andrew, James and John, to follow him. (Mk. 1: 16-20).

Now, the commentators all take great pains to explain that we don’t know who Mark was, but that Peter was likely his principal source of information. What if Peter was his entire source? What if the Gospel of Mark is simply Peter’s witness transcribed by Mark? Just the facts, ma’am. Sorta refreshing, actually. And to some real degree, thrilling. Perhaps we should try reading Mark, imagining that we are listening to Peter tell us about the real Jesus Messiah he knew. Peter was plain spoken (Acts 2:22-25,32; 2Pet. 1:16). Might be a spell binding one act play.