Some New Testament scholars argue that Gospel Mark synthesizes a Jesus narrative purely from Old Testament passages. On this view, the writer of Mark was not recounting eyewitness memory or even oral history but was constructing a narrative solely using Israel’s scriptures as template and sourcebook. The basic idea is often called scripturalization or midrashic composition, after the rabbinic tradition of midrash halakha, which seeks to uncover deeper meaning in scripture by delving into its gaps.

A quick look at the case for gospel construction focuses on the direct scriptural allusions. Mark is thick with echoes of the OT that are not simply ornamental. Most are structural. Mark’s baptism of Jesus echoes Exodus and Isaiah’s “prepare the way” (Mark 1:2–3 cites Malachi and Isaiah). Jesus’s wilderness temptation scene mirrors Israel’s 40 years in the desert, and also Elijah’s and Moses’s desert experiences. The feeding of the 5,000 resembles Moses feeding Israel with manna and Elisha multiplying loaves. Mark’s transfiguration scene parallels Sinai theophany. Mark includes a bright cloud, divine voice, terrified companions. The Passion Narrative is rich with Psalmic and prophetic motifs (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, Zechariah 13). Curiously, Mark rarely mentions his source material.

Scholars arguing for scripturalization in Mark point to typology and scripted roles. Jesus is cast as a type of multiple OT figures: Moses, David, Elijah, Elisha, Joseph, and especially the Suffering Servant. As they see it, Mark doesn’t merely reference these figures – he constructs scenes that replay their stories. The cleansing of the temple recalls prophetic critiques in Jeremiah and Malachi. The entry into Jerusalem on a colt enacts Zechariah 9:9. The cry of dereliction on the cross (Mark 15:34) is lifted straight from Psalm 22.

They also cite lack of biographical detail. Mark omits nearly everything one would expect in the life of a historical figure. There is no discussion of birth, family lineage, or youth. (If this comes as a surprise, see my deeper analysis here.) Mark takes no interest in Jesus’s appearance, habits, or daily life. Indeed, some suggest that when you remove OT source material, nothing is left of Mark’s Jesus.

Mark’s gospel moves in large, literary strokes – like a passion play or prophetic drama. This line of argument has been advanced by Thomas L. Brodie, who suggests the gospel is “a mosaic of scripture” rather than a biography, and by Randel Helms, who argues in Gospel Fictions that Mark invents Jesus’s deeds by repurposing OT texts.

Counterpoints to the argument claim that Mark used scripture as language, not as a blueprint. The ancient Jewish imagination was steeped in scripture. To narrate meaningfully was to echo scripture. But this doesn’t mean the events were invented wholesale. Modern minds separate “event” from “interpretation.” Ancient writers, including the Greeks (Mark’s author was unquestionably Greek), did not – as is evidenced by The Iliad and the Odyssey. Even if a healing story echoes Elisha, it doesn’t follow that the story was created ex nihilo.

Opponents of scripturalization also cite dissimilarities and non-scriptural details. Some episodes lack clear scriptural antecedents, e.g., the episode with the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7), or Jesus’s use of spittle to heal a blind man. Likewise, Jesus’s family thinking he’s mad (Mark 3:21) and the dullard disciples don’t map onto Jewish scripture. Though, as I argue here, Mark’s narrative role for the disciples might operate as a higher layer on top of any scripturalization.

Many scholars, particularly those with theological perspectives, still maintain that Mark draws on oral traditions – stories shaped by community memory and theology, but not necessarily fabricated from texts. Scripture may provide the interpretive frame, but not always the content.

The same scholars often ask: if Mark is working from scratch using only OT texts, why invent such a flawed and cryptic messiah? Why depict such dense disciples and an abandoned, dying Jesus? This is the “criterion of embarrassment” (still controversial). It suggests Mark didn’t invent everything. If he had, he would have left out the embarrassing stuff. Some material looks like it had to be explained, not devised. I find this unconvincing, because I believe Mark used “embarrassing” moments as a literary device with great skill.

The strongest position may be a middle ground. I find this plausible, purely from a literary perspective, independent of any argument about the historicity of Jesus or any position on Mark’s beliefs or theological agenda. Mark likely used scripture to narrate meaning, not to fabricate events. He may have witnessed the events, heard them second hand, received them in oral tradition, or created them as literature; the text remains silent on this. He does something better than either writing history or inventing fiction, and he deserves credit for keeping us confused. He puts the reader in command. Mark produced a sacred narrative in a form recognizable to his audience – a kind of theological storytelling that blurs the line between reporting and interpreting.

_____

For those interested in Mark’s use of the OT, Here’s my list. You may know of others.