MARK, GOSPEL OF
Mark, Gospel of
The subject will be treated under the following heads: I. Contents, Selection and Arrangement of Matter; II. Authorship; III. Original Language, Vocabulary, and Style; IV. State of Text and Integrity; V. Place and Date of Composition; VI. Destination and Purpose; VII. Relation to Matthew and Luke.
I. CONTENTS, SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER
The Second Gospel, like the other two Synoptics, deals chiefly with the Galilean ministry of Christ, and the events of the last week at Jerusalem. In a brief introduction, the ministry of the Precursor and the immediate preparation of Christ for His official work by His Baptism and temptation are touched upon (i, 1-13); then follows the body of the Gospel, dealing with the public ministry, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus (i, 14-xvi, 8); and lastly the work in its present form gives a summary account of some appearances of the risen Lord, and ends with a reference to the Ascension and the universal preaching of the Gospel (xvi, 9-20). The body of the Gospel falls naturally into three divisions: the ministry in Galilee and adjoining districts: Phoenicia, Decapolis, and the country north towards Cæarea Philippi (i, 14-ix, 49); the ministry in Judea and (kai peran, with B, Aleph, C*, L, Psi, in x, 1) Peræ, and the journey to Jerusalem (x, 1-xi, 10); the events of the last week at Jerusalem (xi, 11-xvi, 8).
Beginning with the public ministry (cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37), St. Mark passes in silence over the preliminary events recorded by the other Synoptists: the conception and birth of the Baptist, the genealogy, conception, and birth of Jesus, the coming of the Magi, etc. He is much more concerned with Christ’s acts than with His discourses, only two of these being given at any considerable length (iv, 3-32; xiii, 5-37). The miracles are narrated most graphically and thrown into great prominence, almost a fourth of the entire Gospel (in the Vulg., 164 verses out of 677) being devoted to them, and there seems to be a desire to impress the readers from the outset with Christ’s almighty power and dominion over all nature. The very first chapter records three miracles: the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of Peter’s mother-in-law, and the healing of a leper, besides alluding summarily to many others (i, 32-34); and, of the eighteen miracles recorded altogether in the Gospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52; xi, 12-14) occur in the first eight chapters. Only two of these miracles (vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar to Mark, but, in regard to nearly all, there are graphic touches and minute details not found in the other Synoptics. Of the parables proper Mark has only four: the sower (iv, 3-9), the seed growing secretly (iv, 26-29), the mustard seed (iv, 30-32), and the wicked husbandman (xii, 1-9); the second of these is wanting in the other Gospels. Special attention is paid throughout to the human feelings and emotions of Christ, and to the effect produced by His miracles upon the crowd. The weaknesses of the Apostles are far more apparent than in the parallel narratives of Matt. and Luke, this being, probably due to the graphic and candid discourses of Peter, upon which tradition represents Mark as relying.
The repeated notes of time and place (e.g., i, 14, 19, 20, 21, 29, 32, 35) seem to show that the Evangelist meant to arrange in chronological order at least a number of the events which he records. Occasionally the note of time is wanting (e.g. i, 40; iii, 1; iv, 1; x, 1, 2, 13) or vague (e.g. ii, 1, 23; iv, 35), and in such cases he may of course depart from the order of events. But the very fact that in some instances he speaks thus vaguely and indefinitely makes it all the more necessary to take his definite notes of time and sequence in other cases as indicating chronological order. We are here confronted, however, with the testimony of Papias, who quotes an elder (presbyter), with whom he apparently agrees, as saying that Mark did not write in order: “And the elder said this also: Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, (he attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles [v. l. “words”]. So then Mark made no mistake [Schmiedel, “committed no fault”], while he thus wrote down some things (enia as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he had heard, or set down any false statement therein” (Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, III, xxxix). Some indeed have understood this famous passage to mean merely that Mark did not write a literary work, but simply a string of notes connected in the simplest fashion (cf. Swete, “The Gospel acc. to Mark”, pp. lx-lxi). The present writer, however, is convinced that what Papias and the elder deny to our Gospel is chronological order, since for no other order would it have been necessary that Mark should have heard or followed Christ. But the passage need not be understood to mean more than that Mark occasionally departs from chronological order, a thing we are quite prepared to admit. What Papias and the elder considered to be the true order we cannot say; they can hardly have fancied it to be represented in the First Gospel, which so evidently groups (e.g. viii-ix), nor, it would seem, in the Third, since Luke, like Mark, had not been a disciple of Christ. It may well be that, belonging as they did to Asia Minor, they had the Gospel of St. John and its chronology in mind. At any rate, their judgment upon the Second Gospel, even if be just, does not prevent us from holding that Mark, to some extent, arranges the events of Christ’s like in chronological order.
II. AUTHORSHIP
All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time. So Irenæus says: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter” (“Adv. Hær.”, III, i; ibid., x, 6). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of “the elder presbyters”, tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark “composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it” (Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, xiv). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark’s work (“Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv). To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark’s presence at Peter’s discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: “The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was” (“Contra Marc.”, IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches (“De Vir. Ill.”, viii), and in another that Mark’s Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente–“Ad Hedib.”, ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of he Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers (“Dial.”, 106), when he sags that Christ gave the title of “Boanerges” to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the “memoirs” of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou–after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the “Diatessaron”, makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.
If, then, a consistent and widespread early tradition is to count for anything, St. Mark wrote a work based upon St. Peter’s preaching. It is absurd to seek to destroy the force of this tradition by suggesting that all the subsequent authorities relied upon Papias, who may have been deceived. Apart from the utter improbability that Papias, who had spoken with many disciples of the Apostles, could have been deceived on such a question, the fact that Irenæus seems to place the composition of Mark’s work after Peter’s death, while Origen and other represent the Apostle as approving of it (see below, V), shows that all do not draw from the same source. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria mentions as his source, not any single authority, but “the elders from the beginning” (ton anekathen presbuteron–Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, xiv). The only question, then, that can be raised with any shadow of reason, is whether St. Mark’s work was identical with our present Second Gospel, and on this there is no room for doubt. Early Christian literature knows no trace of an Urmarkus different from our present Gospel, and it is impossible that a work giving the Prince of the Apostles’ account of Christ’s words and deeds could have disappeared utterly, without leaving any trace behind. Nor can it be said that the original Mark has been worked up into our present Second Gospel, for then, St. Mark not being the actual writer of the present work and its substance being due to St. Peter, there would have been no reason to attribute it to Mark, and it would undoubtedly have been known in the Church, not by the title it bears, but as the “Gospel according to Peter”.
Internal evidence strongly confirms the view that our present Second Gospel is the work referred to by Papias. That work, as has been seen, was based on Peter’s discourses. Now we learn from Acts (i, 21-22; x, 37-41) that Peter’s preaching dealt chiefly with the public life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. So our present Mark, confining itself to the same limits, omitting all reference to Christ’s birth and private life, such as is found in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, and commencing with the preaching of the Baptist, ends with Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension. Again (1) the graphic and vivid touches peculiar to our present Second Gospel, its minute notes in regard to (2) persons, (3) places, (4) times, and (5) numbers, point to an eyewitness like Peter as the source of the writer’s information. Thus we are told (1) how Jesus took Peter’s mother-in-law by the hand and raised her up (i, 31), how with anger He looked round about on His critics (iii, 5), how He took little children into His arms and blessed them and laid His hands upon them (ix, 35; x, 16), how those who carried the paralytic uncovered the roof (ii, 3, 4), how Christ commanded that the multitude should sit down upon the green grass, and how they sat down in companies, in hundred and in fifties (vi, 39-40); (2) how James and John left their father in the boat with the hired servants (i, 20), how they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John (i, 29), how the blind man at Jericho was the son of Timeus (x, 46), how Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21); (3) how there was no room even about the door of the house where Jesus was (ii, 2), how Jesus sat in the sea and all the multitude was by the sea on the land (iv, 1), how Jesus was in the stern of the boat asleep on the pillow (iv, 38); (4) how on the evening of the Sabbath, when the sun had set, the sick were brought to be cured (i, 32), how in the morning, long before day, Christ rose up (i, 35), how He was crucified at the third hour (xv, 25), how the women came to the tomb very early, when the sun had risen (xvi, 2); (5) how the paralytic was carried by four (ii, 3), how the swine were about two thousand in number (v. 13), how Christ began to send forth the Apostles, two and two (vi, 7). This mass of information which is wanting in the other Synoptics, and of which the above instances are only a sample, proved beyond doubt that the writer of the Second Gospel must have drawn from some independent source, and that this source must have been an eyewitness. And when we reflect that incidents connected with Peter, such as the cure of his mother-in-law and his three denials, are told with special details in this Gospel; that the accounts of the raising to life of the daughter of Jaïrus, of the Transfiguration, and of the Agony in the Garden, three occasions on which only Peter and James and John were present, show special signs of first-hand knowledge (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xliv) such as might be expected in the work of a disciple of Peter (Matthew and Luke may also have relied upon the Petrine tradition for their accounts of these events, but naturally Peter’s disciple would be more intimately acquainted with the tradition); finally, when we remember that, though the Second Gospel records with special fullness Peter’s three denials, it alone among the Gospels omit all reference to the promise or bestowal upon him of the primacy (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17), we are led to conclude that the eyewitness to whom St. Mark was indebted for his special information was St. Peter himself, and that our present Second Gospel, like Mark’s work referred to by Papias, is based upon Peter’s discourse. This internal evidence, if it does not actually prove the traditional view regarding the Petrine origin of the Second Gospel, is altogether consistent with it and tends strongly to confirm it.
III. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, VOCABULARY, AND STYLE
It has always been the common opinion that the Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no solid reason to doubt the correctness of this view. We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very widely spoken at Rome in the first century. Various influences were at work to spread the language in the capital of the Empire. “Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and the trading classes there were swarms of Greek and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek; children were taught it by Greek nurses; and in after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation” (Sanday and Headlam, “Romans”, p. lii). We know, too, that it was in Greek St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and from Rome St. Clement wrote to the Church of Corinth in the same language. It is true that some cursive Greek manuscripts of the tenth century or later speak of the Second Gospel as written in Latin (egrathe Romaisti en Rome, but scant and late evidence like this, which is probably only a deduction from the fact that the Gospel was written at Rome, can be allowed on weight. Equally improbable seems the view of Blass (Philol. of the Gosp., 196 sqq.) that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic. The arguments advanced by Blass (cf. also Allen in “Expositor”, 6th series, I, 436 sqq.) merely show at most that Mark may have thought in Aramaic; and naturally his simple, colloquial Greek discloses much of the native Aramaic tinge. Blass indeed urges that the various readings in the manuscripts of Mark, and the variations in Patristic quotations from the Gospel, are relics of different translations of an Aramaic original, but the instances he adduces in support of this are quite inconclusive. An Aramaic original is absolutely incompatible with the testimony of Papias, who evidently contrasts the work of Peter’s interpreter with the Aramaic work of Matthew. It is incompatible, too, with the testimony of all the other Fathers, who represent the Gospel as written by Peter’s interpreter for the Christians of Rome.
The vocabulary of the Second Gospel embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names. Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elsewhere in the New Testament; this, however, is a small number in comparison with more than 250 peculiar words found in the Gospel of St. Luke. Of St. Mark’s words, 150 are shared only by the other two Synoptists; 15 are shared only by St. John (Gospel); and 12 others by one or other of the Synoptists and St. John. Though the words found but once in the New Testament (apax legomena) are not relatively numerous in the Second Gospel, they are often remarkable; we meet with words rare in later Greek such as (eiten, paidiothen, with colloquialisms like (kenturion, xestes, spekoulator), and with transliterations such as korban, taleitha koum, ephphatha, rabbounei (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xlvii). Of the words peculiar to St. Mark about one-fourth are non-classical, while among those peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke the proportion of non-classical words is only about one-seventh (cf. Hawkins, “Hor. Synopt.”, 171). On the whole, the vocabulary of the Second Gospel points to the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the literary use of the language.
St. Mark’s style is clear, direct, terse, and picturesque, if at times a little harsh. He makes very frequent use of participles, is fond of the historical present, of direct narration, of double negatives, of the copious use of adverbs to define and emphasize his expressions. He varies his tenses very freely, sometimes to bring out different shades of meaning (vii, 35; xv, 44), sometimes apparently to give life to a dialogue (ix, 34; xi, 27). The style is often most compressed, a great deal being conveyed in very few words (i, 13, 27; xii, 38-40), yet at other times adverbs and synonyms and even repetitions are used to heighten the impression and lend colour to the picture. Clauses are generally strung together in the simplest way by kai; de is not used half as frequently as in Matthew or Luke; while oun occurs only five times in the entire Gospel. Latinisms are met with more frequently than in the other Gospels, but this does not prove that Mark wrote in Latin or even understood the language. It proves merely that he was familiar with the common Greek of the Roman Empire, which freely adopted Latin words and, to some extent, Latin phraseology (cf. Blass, “Philol. of the Gosp.”, 211 sq.), Indeed such familiarity with what we may call Roman Greek strongly confirms the traditional view that Mark was an “interpreter” who spent some time at Rome.
IV. STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY
The text of the Second Gospel, as indeed of all the Gospels, is excellently attested. It is contained in all the primary unical manuscripts, C, however, not having the text complete, in all the more important later unicals, in the great mass of cursives; in all the ancient versions: Latin (both Vet. It., in its best manuscripts, and Vulg.), Syriac (Pesh., Curet., Sin., Harcl., Palest.), Coptic (Memph. and Theb.), Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic; and it is largely attested by Patristic quotations. Some textual problems, however, still remain, e.g. whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20. But the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: “And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation.” Now this third form may be dismissed at once. Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion. Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form. Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.
We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. In favour of the short ending Eusebius (“Quaest. ad Marin.”) is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt. xxviii, 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Christ’s Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel. The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one “who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing”. But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., “Introd.”, II, 1894, 339). St. Jerome also says in one place (“Ad. Hedib.”) that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere (“Comment. on Matt.”; “Ad Hedib.”), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin. Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20, we have mentioned all the evidence that can be adduced in favour of the short conclusion. The external evidence in favour of the long, or ordinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong. The passage stands in all the great unicals except B and Aleph–in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M, (N), S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma), Omega, Beth–in all the cursives, in all the Latin manuscripts (O.L. and Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and most manuscripts of the Armenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the “Acts of Pilate”, the “Apostolic Constitutions”, and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark’s Gospel (“In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus”, etc.–Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the “Diatessaron”, and most probably by Justin (“Apol. I”, 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.
Much has been made of the silence of some third and fourth century Father, their silence being interpreted to mean that they either did not know the passage or rejected it. Thus Tertullian, SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria are appealed to. In the case of Tertullian and Cyprian there is room for some doubt, as they might naturally enough to be expected to have quoted or alluded to Mark, xvi, 16, if they received it; but the passage can hardly have been unknown to Athanasius (298-373), since it was received by Didymus (309-394), his contemporary in Alexandria (P.G., XXXIX, 687), nor to Basil, seeing it was received by his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, 652), nor to Gregory of Nazianzus, since it was known to his younger brother Cæsarius (P.G., XXXVIII, 1178); and as to Cyril of Alexandria, he actually quotes it from Nestorius (P.G., LXXVI, 85). The only serious difficulties are created by its omission in B and Aleph and by the statements of Eusebius and Jerome. But Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1 sqq.) that the two famous manuscripts are not here two independent witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands. Moreover, in both manuscripts, the scribe, though concluding with verse 8, betrays knowledge that something more followed either in his archetype or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary to his custom, he leaves more than a column vacant after verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed by an elaborate arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the whole manuscript, showing that the scribe was aware of the existence of some conclusion which he meant deliberately to exclude (cf. Cornely, “Introd.”, iii, 96-99; Salmon, “Introd.”, 144-48). Thus both manuscripts bear witness to the existence of a conclusion following after verse 8, which they omit. Whether B and Aleph are two of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to have copies for his new capital we cannot be sure; but at all events they were written at a time when the authority of Eusebius was paramount in Biblical criticism, and probably their authority is but the authority of Eusebius. The real difficulty, therefore, against the passage, from external evidence, is reduced to what Eusebius and St. Jerome say about its omission in so many Greek manuscripts, and these, as Eusebius says, the accurate ones. But whatever be the explanation of this omission, it must be remembered that, as we have seen above, the disputed verses were widely known and received long before the time of Eusebius. Dean Burgon, while contending for the genuineness of the verses, suggested that the omission might have come about as follows. One of the ancient church lessons ended with Mark, xvi, 8, and Burgon suggested that the telos, which would stand at the end of such lesson, may have misled some scribe who had before him a copy of the Four Gospels in which Mark stood last, and from which the last leaf, containing the disputed verses, was missing. Given one such defective copy, and supposing it fell into the hands of ignorant scribes, the error might easily be spread. Others have suggested that the omission is probably to be traced to Alexandria. That Church ended the Lenten fast and commenced the celebration of Easter at midnight, contrary to the custom of most Churches, which waited for cock-crow (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria in P.G., X, 1272 sq.). Now Mark, xvi, 9: “But he rising early”, etc., might easily be taken to favour the practice of the other Churches, and it is suggested that the Alexandrians may have omitted verse 9 and what follows from their lectionaries, and from these the omission might pass on into manuscripts of the Gospel. Whether there be any force in these suggestions, they point at any rate to ways in which it was possible that the passage, though genuine, should have been absent from a number of manuscripts in the time of Eusebius; while, on the other and, if the verses were not written by St. Mar, it is extremely hard to understand how they could have been so widely received in the second century as to be accepted by Tatian and Irenæus, and probably by Justin and Hermas, and find a place in the Old Latin and Syriac Versions.
When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking. The following words or phrases occur nowhere else in the Gospel: prote sabbaton (v. 9), not found again in the New Testament, instead of te[s] mia[s] [ton] sabbaton (v. 2), ekeinos used absolutely (10, 11, 20), poreuomai (10, 12, 15), theaomai (11, 14), apisteo (11, 16), meta tauta and eteros (12), parakoloutheo and en to onomati (17), ho kurios (19, 20), pantachou, sunergeo, bebaioo, epakoloutheo (20). Instead of the usual connexion by kai and an occasional de, we have meta de tauta (12), husteron [de] (14), ho men oun (19), ekeinoi de (20). Then it is urged that the subject of verse 9 has not been mentioned immediately before; that Mary Magdalen seems now to be introduced for the first time, though in fact she has been mentioned three times in the preceding sixteen verses; that no reference is made to an appearance of the Lord in Galilee, though this was to be expected in view of the message of verse 7. Comparatively little importance attached to the last three points, for the subject of verse 9 is sufficiently obvious from the context; the reference to Magdalen as the woman out of whom Christ had cast seven devils is explicable here, as showing the loving mercy of the Lord to one who before had been so wretched; and the mention of an appearance in Galilee was hardly necessary. the important thing being to prove, as this passage does, that Christ was really risen from the dead, and that His Apostles, almost against their wills, were forced to believe the fact. But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Marcan origin of the passage is considerable. Some explanation indeed can be offered of nearly every point (cf. Knabenbauer, “Comm. in Marc.”, 445-47), but it is the fact that in the short space of twelve verse so many points require explanation that constitutes the strength of the evidence. There is nothing strange about the use, in a passage like this, of many words rare with he author. Only in the last character is apisteo used by St. Luke also (Luke 24:11, 41), eteros is used only once in St. John’s Gospel (xix, 37), and parakoloutheo is used only once by St. Luke (i, 3). Besides, in other passages St. Mark uses many words that are not found in the Gospel outside the particular passage. In the ten verses, Mark, iv, 20-29, the writer has found fourteen words (fifteen, if phanerousthai of xvi, 12, be not Marcan) which occur nowhere else in the Gospel. But, as was said, it is the combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, that leaves room for doubt as to the Marcan authorship of the verses.
In weighing the internal evidence, however, account must be take of the improbability of the Evangelist’s concluding with verse 8. Apart from the unlikelihood of his ending with the participle gar, he could never deliberately close his account of the “good news” (i, 1) with the note of terror ascribed in xvi, 8, to some of Christ’s followers. Nor could an Evangelist, especially a disciple of St. Peter, willingly conclude his Gospel without mentioning some appearance of the risen Lord (Acts 1:22; 10:37-41). If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more. But tradition points to his living on after the Gospel was completed, since it represents him as bringing the work with him to Egypt or as handing it over to the Roman Christians who had asked for it. Nor is it easy to understand how, if he lived on, he could have been so interrupted as to be effectually prevented from adding, sooner or later, even a short conclusion. Not many minutes would have been needed to write such a passage as xvi, 9-20, and even if it was his desire, as Zahn without reason suggests (Introd., II, 479), to add some considerable portions to the work, it is still inconceivable how he could have either circulated it himself or allowed his friends to circulate it without providing it with at least a temporary and provisional conclusion. In every hypothesis, then, xvi, 8, seems an impossible ending, and we are forced to conclude either that the true ending is lost or that we have it in the disputed verses. Now, it is not easy to see how it could have been lost. Zahn affirms that it has never been established nor made probable that even a single complete sentence of the New Testament has disappeared altogether from the text transmitted by the Church (Introd., II, 477). In the present case, if the true ending were lost during Mark’s lifetime, the question at once occurs: Why did he not replace it? And it is difficult to understand how it could have been lost after his death, for before then, unless he died within a few days from the completion of the Gospel, it must have been copied, and it is most unlikely that the same verses could have disappeared from several copies.
It will be seen from this survey of the question that there is no justification for the confident statement of Zahn that “It may be regarded as one of the most certain of critical conclusions, that the words ephobounto gar, xvi, 8, are the last words in the book which were written by the author himself” (Introd., II, 467). Whatever be the fact, it is not at all certain that Mark did not write the disputed verses. It may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer, and were appended to the Gospel in the first century or the beginning of the second. An Armenian manuscript, written in A.D. 986, ascribes them to a presbyter named Ariston, who may be the same with the presbyter Aristion, mentioned by Papias as a contemporary of St. John in Asia. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical Scripture, for the Council of Trent (Sess. IV), in defining that all the parts of the Sacred Books are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one (cf. Theiner, “Acta gen. Conc. Trid.”, I, 71 sq.). Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.
V. PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION
It is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome. St. Chrysostom indeed speaks of Egypt as the place of composition (“Hom. I. on Matt.”, 3), but he probably misunderstood Eusebius, who says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the Gospel which he had written (“Hist. Eccl.”, II, xvi). Some few modern scholars have adopted the suggestion of Richard Simon (“Hist. crit. du Texte du N.T.”, 1689, 107) that the Evangelist may have published both a Roman and an Egyptian edition of the Gospel. But this view is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers. Other opinions, such as that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor or at Syrian Antioch, are not deserving of any consideration.
The date of the Gospel is uncertain. The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much. St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter’s death. The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (A.D. 38-40). The “Paschal Chronicle” assigns it to A.D. 40, and the “Chronicle” of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 42 (cf. Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xiv; Jer., “De Vir. Ill.”, i). St. Irenæus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon–“Adv. Hær.”, III, i). Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter’s discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead. This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome. Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, xiv) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work. There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenæus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenæus and accept the later date for Mark’s Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint’s testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew’s Gospel to Mark’s. Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenæus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, e.g. Cornely, “Introd.”, iii, 76-78; Patrizi, “De Evang.”, I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct. It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenæus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter’s death (A.D. 64 or 67).
From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: “But they going forth preached everywhere”, be from St. Mark’s pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts, xiv, 26; xv, 3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul’s arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.
VI. DESTINATION AND PURPOSE
Tradition represents the Gospel as written primarily for Roman Christians (see above, II), and internal evidence, if it does not quite prove the truth of this view, is altogether in accord with it. The language and customs of the Jews are supposed to be unknown to at least some of the readers. Hence terms like Boanerges (iii, 17), korban (vii, 11), ephphatha (vii, 34) are interpreted; Jewish customs are explained to illustrate the narrative (vii, 3-4; xiv, 12); the situation of the Mount of Olives in relation to the Temple is pointed out (xiii, 3); the genealogy of Christ is omitted; and the Old Testament is quoted only once (i, 2-3; xv, 28, is omitted by B, Aleph, A, C, D, X). Moreover, the evidence, as far as it goes, points to Roman readers. Pilate and his office are supposed to be known (15:1–cf. Matthew 27:2; Luke 3:1); other coins are reduced to their value in Roman money (xii, 42); Simon of Cyrene is said to be the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21), a fact of no importance in itself, but mentioned probably because Rufus was known to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:13); finally, Latinisms, or uses of vulgar Greek, such as must have been particularly common in a cosmopolitan city like Rome, occur more frequently than in the other Gospels (v, 9, 15; vi, 37; xv, 39, 44; etc.).
The Second Gospel has no such statement of its purpose as is found in the Third and Fourth (Luke 1:1-3; John 20:31). The Tübingen critics long regarded it as a “Tendency” writing, composed for the purpose of mediating between and reconciling the Petrine and Pauline parties in the early Church. Other Rationalists have seen in it an attempt to allay the disappointment of Christians at the delay of Christ’s Coming, and have held that its object was to set forth the Lord’s earthly life in such a manner as to show that apart from His glorious return He had sufficiently attested the Messianic character of His mission. But there is no need to have recourse to Rationalists to learn the purpose of the Gospel. The Fathers witness that it was written to put into permanent form for the Roman Church the discourses of St. Peter, nor is there reason to doubt this. And the Gospel itself shows clearly enough that Mark meant, by the selection he made from Peter’s discourses, to prove to the Roman Christians, and still more perhaps to those who might think of becoming Christians, that Jesus was the Almighty Son of God. To this end, instead of quoting prophecy, as Matthew does to prove that Jesus was the Messias, he sets forth in graphic language Christ’s power over all nature, as evidenced by His miracles. The dominant note of the whole Gospel is sounded in the very first verse: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God” (the words “Son of God” are removed from the text by Westcott and Hort, but quite improperly–cf. Knabenb., “Comm. in Marc.”, 23), and the Evangelist’s main purpose throughout seems to be to prove the truth of this title and of the centurion’s verdict: “Indeed this man was (the) son of God” (xv, 39).
VII. RELATION TO MATTHEW AND LUKE
The three Synoptic Gospels cover to a large extent the same ground. Mark, however, has nothing corresponding to the first two chapters of Matthew or the first two of Luke, very little to represent most of the long discourses of Christ in Matthew, and perhaps nothing quite parallel to the long section in Luke, ix, 51-xviii, 14. On the other hand, he has very little that is not found in either or both of the other two Synoptists, the amount of matter that is peculiar to the Second Gospel, if it were all put together, amounting only to less than sixty verses. In the arrangement of the common matter the three Gospels differ very considerably up to the point where Herod Antipas is said to have heard of the fame of Jesus (Matthew 13:58; Mark 4:13; Luke 9:6). From this point onward the order of events is practically the same in all three, except that Matthew (xxvi, 10) seems to say that Jesus cleansed the Temple the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and cursed the fig tree only on the following day, while Mark assigns both events to the following day, and places the cursing of the fig tree before the cleansing of the Temple; and while Matthew seems to say that the effect of the curse and the astonishment of the disciples thereat followed immediately. Mark says that it was only on the following day the disciples saw that the tree was withered from the roots (Matthew 21:12-20; Mark 11:11-21). It is often said, too, that Luke departs from Mark’s arrangement in placing the disclosure of the traitor after the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, but it, as seems certain, the traitor was referred to many times during the Supper, this difference may be more apparent than real (Mark 14:18-24; Luke 22:19-23). And not only is there this considerable agreement as to subject-matter and arrangement, but in many passages, some of considerable length, there is such coincidence of words and phrases that it is impossible to believe the accounts to be wholly independent. On the other hand, side by side with this coincidence, there is strange and frequently recurring divergence. “Let any passage common to the three Synoptists be put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows: first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause or two not only wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth; with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions.
The question then arises, how are we to explain this very remarkable relation of the three Gospels to each other, and, in particular, for our present purpose, how are we to explain the relation of Mark of the other two? For a full discussion of this most important literary problem see SYNOPTICS. It can barely be touched here, but cannot be wholly passed over in silence. At the outset may be put aside, in the writer’s opinion, the theory of the common dependence of the three Gospels upon oral tradition, for, except in a very modified form, it is incapable by itself alone of explaining all the phenomena to be accounted for. It seems impossible that an oral tradition could account for the extraordinary similarity between, e.g. Mark, ii, 10-11, and its parallels. Literary dependence or connexion of some kind must be admitted, and the questions is, what is the nature of that dependence or connexion? Does Mark depend upon Matthew, or upon both Matthew and Luke, or was it prior to and utilized in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected through their common dependence upon earlier documents or through a combination of some of these causes? In reply, it is to be noted, in the first place, that all early tradition represents St. Matthew’s Gospel as the first written; and this must be understood of our present Matthew, for Eusebius, with the work of Papias before him, had no doubt whatever that it was our present Matthew which Papias held to have been written in Hebrew (Aramaic). The order of the Gospels, according to the Fathers and early writers who refer to the subject, was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Clement of Alexandria is alone in signifying that Luke wrote before Mark (Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, xiv, in P.G., XX, 552), and not a single ancient writer held that Mark wrote before Matthew. St. Augustine, assuming the priority of Matthew, attempted to account for the relations of the first two Gospels by holding that the second is a compendium of the first (Matthæum secutus tanquam pedisequus et breviator–“De Consens. Evang.”, I, ii). But, as soon as the serious study of the Synoptic Problem began, it was seen that this view could not explain the facts, and it was abandoned. The dependence of Mark’s Gospel upon Matthew’s however, though not after the manner of a compendium, is still strenuously advocated. Zahn holds that the Second Gospel is dependent on the Aramaic Matthew as well as upon Peter’s discourses for its matter, and, to some extent, for its order; and that the Greek Matthew is in turn dependent upon Mark for its phraseology. So, too, Besler (“Einleitung in das N.T.”, 1889) and Bonaccorsi (“I tre primi Vangeli”, 1904). It will be seen at once that this view is in accordance with tradition in regard to the priority of Matthew, and it also explains the similarities in the first two Gospels. Its chief weakness seems to the present writer to lie in its inability to explain some of Mark’s omissions. It is very hard to see, for instance, why, if St. Mark had the First Gospel before him, he omitted all reference to the cure of the centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13). This miracle, by reason of its relation to a Roman officer, ought to have had very special interest for Roman readers, and it is extremely difficult to account for its omission by St. Mark, if he had St. Matthew’s Gospel before him. Again, St. Matthew relates that when, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had come to the disciples, walking on water, those who were in the boat “came and adored him, saying: Indeed Thou art [the] Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). Now, Mark’s report of the incident is: “And he went up to them into the ship, and the wind ceased; and they were exceedingly amazed within themselves: for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was blinded” (Mark 6:51-52). Thus Mark makes no reference to the adoration, nor to the striking confession of the disciples that Jesus was [the] Son of God. How can we account for this, if he had Matthew’s report before him? Once more, Matthew relates that, on the occasion of Peter’s confession of Christ near Cæsarea Philippi, Peter said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). But Mark’s report of this magnificent confession is merely: “Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ” (Mark 8:29). It appears impossible to account for the omission here of the words: “the Son of the living God”, words which make the special glory of this confession, if Mark made use of the First Gospel. It would seem, therefore, that the view which makes the Second Gospel dependent upon the First is not satisfactory.
The prevailing view at the present among Protestant scholars and not a few Catholics, in America and England as well as in Germany, is that St. Mark’s Gospel is prior to St. Matthew’s, and used in it as well as in St. Luke’s. Thus Gigot writes: “The Gospel according to Mark was written first and utilized by the other two Synoptics” (“The New York Review”, Sept.-Dec., 1907). So too Bacon, Yale Divinity School: “It appears that the narrative material of Matthew is simply that of Mark transferred to form a framework for the masses of discourse” . . . “We find here positive proof of dependence by our Matthew on our Mark” (Introd. to the N.T., 1905, 186-89). Allen, art. “Matthew” in “The International Critical Commentary”, speaks of the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels as “the one solid result of literary criticism”; and Burkitt in “The Gospel History” (1907), 37, writes: “We are bound to conclude that Mark contains the whole of a document which Matthew and Luke have independently used, and, further, that Mark contains very little else beside. This conclusion is extremely important; it is the one solid contribution made by the scholarship of the nineteenth century towards the solution of the Synoptic Problem”. See also Hawkins, “Horæ Synopt.” (1899), 122; Salmond in Hast., “Dict. of the Bible”, III, 261; Plummer, “Gospel of Matthew” (1909), p. xi; Stanton, “The Gospels as Historical Documents” (1909), 30-37; Jackson, “Cambridge Biblical Essays” (1909), 455.
Yet, notwithstanding the wide acceptance this theory has gained, it may be doubted whether it can enable us to explain all the phenomena of the first two, Gospels; Orr, “The Resurrection of Jesus” (1908), 61-72, does not think it can, nor does Zahn (Introd., II, 601-17), some of whose arguments against it have not yet been grappled with. It offers indeed a ready explanation of the similarities in language between the two Gospels, but so does Zahn’s theory of the dependence of the Greek Matthew upon Mark. It helps also to explain the order of the two Gospels, and to account for certain omissions in Matthew (cf. especially Allen, op. cit., pp. xxxi-xxxiv). But it leaves many differences unexplained. Why, for instance, should Matthew, if he had Mark’s Gospel before him, omit reference to the singular fact recorded by Mark that Christ in the desert was with the wild beasts (Mark 1:13)? Why should he omit (Matthew 4:17) from Mark’s summary of Christ’s first preaching, “Repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15), the very important words “Believe in the Gospel”, which were so appropriate to the occasion? Why should he (iv, 21) omit oligon and tautologically add “two brothers” to Mark, i, 19, or fail (iv, 22) to mention “the hired servants” with whom the sons of Zebedee left their father in the boat (Mark 1:20), especially since, as Zahn remarks, the mention would have helped to save their desertion of their father from the appearance of being unfilial. Why, again, should he omit viii, 28-34, the curious fact that though the Gadarene demoniac after his cure wished to follow in the company of Jesus, he was not permitted, but told to go home and announce to his friends what great things the Lord had done for him (Mark 5:18-19). How is it that Matthew has no reference to the widow’s mite and Christ’s touching comment thereon (Mark 12:41-44) nor to the number of the swine (Matthew 8:3-34; Mark 5:13), nor to the disagreement of the witnesses who appeared against Christ? (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:56, 59).
It is surely strange too, if he had Mark’s Gospel before him, that he should seem to represent so differently the time of the women’s visit to the tomb, the situation of the angel that appeared to them and the purpose for which they came (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-6). Again, even when we admit that Matthew is grouping in chapters viii-ix, it is hard to see any satisfactory reason why, if he had Mark’s Gospel before him, he should so deal with the Marcan account of Christ’s earliest recorded miracles as not only to omit the first altogether, but to make the third and second with Mark respectively the first and third with himself (Matthew 8:1-15; Mark 1:23-31; 40-45). Allen indeed. (op. cit., p. xv-xvi) attempts an explanation of this strange omission and inversion in the eighth chapter of Matthew, but it is not convincing. For other difficulties see Zahn, “Introd.”, II, 616-617. On the whole, then, it appears premature to regard this theory of the priority of Mark as finally established, especially when we bear in mind that it is opposed to all the early evidence of the priority of Matthew. The question is still sub judice, and notwithstanding the immense labour bestowed upon it, further patient inquiry is needed.
It may possibly be that the solution of the peculiar relations between Matthew and Mark is to be found neither in the dependence of both upon oral tradition nor in the dependence of either upon the other, but in the use by one or both of previous documents. If we may suppose, and Luke, i, 1, gives ground for the supposition, that Matthew had access to a document written probably in Aramaic, embodying the Petrine tradition, he may have combined with it one or more other documents, containing chiefly Christ’s discourses, to form his Aramaic Gospel. But the same Petrine tradition, perhaps in a Greek form, might have been known to Mark also; for the early authorities hardly oblige us to hold that he made no use of pre-existing documents. Papias (apud Eus., “H.E.” III, 39; P.G. XX, 297) speaks of him as writing down some things as he remembered them, and if Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus., “H.E.” VI, 14; P.G. XX, 552) represents the Romans as thinking that he could write everything from memory, it does not at all follow that he did. Let us suppose, then, that Matthew embodied the Petrine tradition in his Aramaic Gospel, and that Mark afterwards used it or rather a Greek form of it somewhat different, combining with it reminiscences of Peter’s discourses. If, in addition to this, we suppose the Greek translator of Matthew to have made use of our present Mark for his phraseology, we have quite a possible means of accounting for the similarities and dissimilarities of our first two Gospels, and we are free at the same time to accept the traditional view in regard to the priority of Matthew. Luke might then be held to have used our present Mark or perhaps an earlier form of the Petrine tradition, combining with it a source or sources which it does not belong to the present article to consider.
Of course the existence of early documents, such as are here supposed, cannot be directly proved, unless the spade should chance to disclose them; but it is not at all improbable. It is reasonable to think that not many years elapsed after Christ’s death before attempts were made to put into written form some account of His words and works. Luke tells us that many such attempts had been made before he wrote; and it needs no effort to believe that the Petrine form of the Gospel had been committed to writing before the Apostles separated; that it disappeared afterwards would not be wonderful, seeing that it was embodied in the Gospels. It is hardly necessary to add that the use of earlier documents by an inspired writer is quite intelligible. Grace does not dispense with nature nor, as a rule, inspiration with ordinary, natural means. The writer of the Second Book of Machabees states distinctly that his book is an abridgment of an earlier work (2 Maccabees 2:24, 27), and St. Luke tells us that before undertaking to write his Gospel he had inquired diligently into all things from the beginning (Luke 1:1).
There is no reason, therefore, why Catholics should be timid about admitting, if necessary, the dependence of the inspired evangelists upon earlier documents, and, in view of the difficulties against the other theories, it is well to bear this possibility in mind in attempting to account for the puzzling relations of Mark to the other two synoptists.
———————————–
NOTE: See the article GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE for the decision of the Biblical Commission (26 January, 1913).
J. MACRORY Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IXCopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Mark, Gospel Of
the second of the evangelical narratives in the N.T. Although the shortest of the four Gospels, its treatment is beset with difficulties in some respects peculiar to itself. SEE NEW TESTAMENT.
I. Authorship. The voice of the Church with one consent assigns our second Gospel to Mark, the son (1 Peter 5:17) and interpreter (Papias, ap. Eusebius, H. E. 3:39) of Peter. The existence of this ascription is the best evidence of its truth. Had not Mark been its author, no sufficient reason can be given for its having borne the name of one so undistinguished in the history of the Church. His identity with the John Mark of the Acts and Epistles has usually been taken for granted, nor (see last article) is there any sufficient ground for calling it in question. It must, however, be acknowledged that there is no early testimony for the fact-as there is none against it which appears first in the preface to the Commentary on the evangelist usually attributed to Victor of Antioch, cir. A.D. 407 (Cramer, Catena, 1:263), and in a note of Ammonius (ibid. ii, iv), where it is mentioned with some expression of doubt … (Westcott, Introd. p. 212). An argument in favor of their identity has been drawn with much acnteness by Tregelles (Journ. of Philol. 1855, p. 224; Horne’s Introd. to N.T. p. 433) from the singular epithet stump-fingered, , applied to the evangelist in the Philosophumena, 7:30, as illustrated by the words of the Latin preface found in some MSS. at least nearly coeval with Jerome, amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dicitur ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur; as if, by his desertion of the apostles (Act 13:13), he had become figuratively a pollice truncus a poltroon.
II. Source of this Gospel. The tradition of the early Church asserts that Mark wrote his Gospel under the special influence and direction of the apostle Peter. The words of John the presbyter, as quoted by Papias (Eusebius, H. E. 3:39), are explicit on this point: This, then, was the statement of the elder: Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter (), wrote accurately all that he remembered (); but he did not record the words and deeds of Christ in order ( ), for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but afterwards, as I said, became a follower of Peter, who used to adapt his instruction to meet the requirements of his hearers, but not as making a connected arrangement of our Lord’s discourses ( ); so Mark committed no error in writing down particulars as he remembered them ( ), for he made one thing his object to omit nothing of what he heard, and to make no erroneous statement in them. The value of this statement, from its almost apostolic date, is great, though too much stress has been laid upon some of its expressions by Schleiermacher and others, to discredit the genuineness of the existing Gospel of Mark. In addition to Peter’s teaching having been the basis of the Gospel, we learn from it three facts of the greatest importance for the right comprehension of the origin the he Gospels: The historic character of the oral Gospel, the special purpose with which it was framed, and the fragmentariness of its contents (Westcott, Introd. p. 186). The testimony of later writers is equally definite, though probably to a certain extent derived from that of Papias. Justin quotes from the present Gospel under the title . Irenseus (H. E. 3:1) asserts that Mark delivered in writing the things preached by Peter; and Origen (ibid. 6:25) that he composed it as Peter directed him ( ). Clement of Alexandria enters more into detail, and, according to Eusebius’s report of his words (H. E. 6:14; 2:15), contradicts himself. He ascribes the origin of the Gospel to the importunity of Peter’s hearers in Rome, who were anxious to retain a lasting record of his preaching from the pen of his , which, when completed, the apostle viewed with approbation, sanctioning it with his authority, and commanding that it should be read in the churches; while elsewhere we have the inconsistent statement that when Peter knew what had been done he neither forbade nor encouraged it. Tertullian’s testimony is to the same effect: Marcus quod edidit evangelium Petri affirmatur (Adv. Marc. 6:5); as is that of Eussebius (H. E. 3:5) and Jerome (De Vir. ill. c. 8; ad hedib. c. 2), who in the last passage writes, Cujus (Marci) evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est. Epiphanius says that, immediately after Matthew, the task of writing a Gospel was laid on Mark, the follower of Peter at Rome (Haer. 51).
Such, so early and so uniform, is the tradition which connects, in the closest manner, Mark’s Gospel with the apostle Peter. To estimate its value we must inquire how far it is consistent with facts; and here it must be candidly acknowledged that the Gospel itself supplies very little to an unbiased reader to confirm the tradition. The narrative keeps more completely to the common cycle of the Synoptic record, and even to its language, than is consistent with the individual recollections of one of the chief actors in the history; while the differences of detail, though most real and important, are of too minute and refined a character to allow us to entertain the belief that Peter was in any way directly engaged in its composition. Any record derived immediately from Peter could hardly fail to have given us far more original matter than the slender additions made by Mark to the common stock of the Synoptical Gospels It is certainly true that there are a few unimportant passages where Peter is specially mentioned by Mark, and is omitted by one or both of the others (Mar 1:36; Mar 5:37; Mar 11:20; Mar 13:3; Mar 16:7); but, on the other hand, there are still more numerous and more prominent instances which would almost show that Mark was less intimately acquainted with Peter’s life than they. He omits his name when given by Matthew (Mat 15:15; comp. Mar 7:17); passes over his walking on the sea (Mat 14:28-31; comp. Mar 6:50-51), and the miracle of the tribute-money (Mat 17:24-27; comp. Mar 9:33), as well as the blessing pronounced on him by our Lord, and his designation as the rock on which the Church should be built (Mat 16:17-19; comp. Mar 8:29-30). Although Peter was one of the two disciples sent to make ready the Passover (Luk 22:8), his name is not given by Mark (Mar 14:13). We do not find in Mark the remarkable words, I have prayed for thee, etc. (Luk 22:31-32). The notice of his repentance also, (Mar 14:72), is tame when contrasted with the of Matthew and Luke. Advocates are never at a loss for plausible reasons to support their preconceived views, and it has been the habit from very early times (Eusebius, Chrysostom) to attribute these omissions to the modesty of Peter, who was unwilling to record that which might specially tend to his own honor an explanation unsatisfactory in itself, and which cannot be applied with any consistency. Indeed, we can hardly have a more striking proof of the readiness with which men see what they wish to see, and make the most stubborn facts bend to their own foregone conclusions, than that a Gospel, in which no unbiassed reader would have discovered any special connection with Peter, should have yielded so many fancied proofs of Petrine origin.
But while we are unable to admit any considerable direct influence of Peter in the composition of the Gospel, it is by no means improbable that his oral communications may have indirectly influenced it, and that it is to him the minuteness of its details and the graphic coloring which specially distinguish it. are due. While there is hardly any part of its narrative that is not common to it and some other Gospel, in the manner of the narrative there is often a marked character, which puts aside at once the supposition that we have here a mere epitome of Matthew and Luke. The picture of the same events is far more vivid; touches are introduced such as could only be noted by a vigilant eye-witness, and such as make us almost eye-witnesses of the Redeemer’s doings. The most remarkable case of this is the account of the demoniac in the country of the Gadarenes, where the following words are peculiar to Mark: And no man could bind him, no, not with chains: because that he had often been bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. And always night and day he was in the mountains crying and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran, etc. Here we are indebted for the picture of the fierce and hopeless wanderer to the evangelist whose work is the briefest, and whose style is the least perfect. He sometimes adds to the account of the others a notice of our Lord’s look (Mar 3:34; Mar 8:33; Mar 10:21; Mar 10:23); he dwells on human feelings and the tokens of them; on our Lord’s pity for the leper, and his strict charge not to publish the miracle (Mar 1:41; Mar 1:44); he loved the rich young man for his answers (Mar 10:21); he looked round with anger when another occasion called it out (Mar 3:5); he groaned in spirit (Mar 7:34; Mar 8:12).
All these are peculiar to Mark, and they would be explained most readily by the theory that one of the disciples most near to Jesus had supplied them. To this must be added that while Mark goes over the same ground for the most part as the other evangelists, and especially Matthew, there are many facts thrown in which prove that we are listening to an independent witness. Thus the humble origin of Peter is made known through him (Mar 1:16-20), and his connection with Capernaum (Mar 1:29); he tells us that Levi was the son of Alphaus (Mar 2:14), that Peter was the name given by our Lord to Simon (Mar 3:16), and Boanerges a surname added by him to the names of two others (Mar 3:17); he assumes the existence of another body of disciples wider than the twelve (Mar 3:32; Mar 4:10; Mar 4:36; Mar 8:34; Mar 14:51-52); we owe to him the name of Jairus (v. 22), the word carpenter applied to our Lord (Mar 6:3), the nation of the Syro- Phoenician woman (Mar 7:26); he substitutes Dalmanutha for the Magdala of Matthew (8:10); he names Bartimeus (10:46); he alone mentions that our Lord would not suffer any man to carry any vessel through the Temple (Mar 11:16); and that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mar 15:21). Thus in this Gospel the richness in subtle and picturesque touches, by which the writer sets, as it were, the scene he is describing before us in all its outward features, with the very look and demeanor of the actors, betoken the report of an eye- witness; and with the testimony of the early Church before us, which can hardly be set aside, we are warranted in the conclusion that this eye- witness was Peter. Not that the narrative, as we have it, was his; but that when Mark, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, after separation from his master, undertook the task of setting forth that cycle of Gospel teaching to which from grounds never yet, nor perhaps ever to be satisfactorily explained the Synoptists chiefly confine themselves, he was enabled to introduce into it many pictorial details which he had derived from his master, and which had been impressed on his memory by frequent repetition.
III. Relation to Matthew and Luke. The question of priority of composition among the Synoptic Gospels has long been the subject of vehement controversy, and to judge by the diversity of the views entertained, and the confidence each appears to feel of the correctness of his own, it would seem to be as far as ever from being settled. (For monographs under this head, see Volbeding, Index, p. 3; Danz, Worterbuch, s.v. Marcus.) The position of Mark in relation to the other two has, in particular, given rise to the widest differences of opinion. The independence of his record was maintained up to the time of Augustine, but since his day three theories have been entertained.
(a.) That father conceived the view, which, however, he does not employ with much consistency, that Mark was merely tanquam pedissequus et breviator of Matthew (De Consens. EV. 1:4); and from his day it has been held by many that Mark deliberately set himself to make an abridgment of one or both the other Synoptists. Griesbach expressed this opinion most decidedly in his Commentatio quo Marci Evangeliumn totumn a Matthtei et Lucae conmmentariis decemptunm esse monstratur (Jena, 1789-90; also in Velthuysen, Comment. 1:360 sq.); and it has been stated in a more or less modified form by Paulus, Schleiermacher, Thiele, De Wette, Delitzsch, Fritzsche, and Bleek, the last two named adding John’s Gospel to the materials before him. Nor can it be denied that at first sight this view is not devoid of plausibility, especially as regards Matthew. We find the same events recorded, and apparently in the same way, and very often in the same words. Mark’s is the shorter work, and that principally, as it would seem, by the omission of the discourses and parables, which are a leading feature in the others. There are in Mark only about three events which Matthew does not narrate (Mar 1:23; Mar 8:22; Mar 12:41), and thus the matter of the two may be regarded as almost the same. But the form in Mark is, as we have seen. much briefer, and the omissions are many and important. The explanation is that Mark had the work of Matthew before him, and only condensed it. But many would make Mark a compiler from both the others (Griesbach, De Wette, etc.), arguing from passages where there is a curious resemblance to both (see De Wette, Handbuch, 94 a). Yet, though this opinion of the dependence, more or less complete, of Mark upon the other Gospels, was for a long time regarded almost as an established fact, no very searching investigation is needed to show its baselessness. Instead of Mark’s narrative being an abridgment of that of Matthew or of Luke, it is often much fuller. Particulars are introduced which an abridger aiming at condensation would have been certain to prune away if he had found them in his authority; while the freshness and graphic power of the history, the life-like touches which almost put us on the stage with the actors, and his superior accuracy as regards persons, words, times, and places, prove the originality and independence of his work.
(b.) Of late, therefore, opinion has been tending as violently in the opposite direction, and the prevailing view among modern critics is that in Mark we have the primitive Gospel, Urevangelium, from which both those of Matthew and Luke awere derived. This is held by Weisse, Wilke, Ewald, Lachmann, Hitzig, Reuss, Ritschel, Thiersch, Meyer, etc., and has lately been maintained with considerable ingenuity in Mr. Kenrick’s Biblical Essays.
(c.) Hilgenfeld again adopts an intermediate view, and considers Mark to have held a middle position both as regards form and internal character; himself deriving his Gospel from Matthew, and in his turn supplying materials for that of Luke; while doctrinally he is considered to hold the mean between the Judaic Gospel of the first, and the universal Gospel of the third evangelist.
Many formidable difficulties beset each of these theories, and their credit severally is impaired by the fact that the very same data which are urged by one writer as proofs of the priority of Mark, are used by another as irrefragable evidence of its later date. We even find critics, like Baur, bold enough to attribute the vivid details, which are justly viewed as evidences of the independence and originality of his record, to the fancy of the evangelist; thus importing the art of the modern novelist into times and works to the spirit of which it is entirely alien.
So much, however, we may safely grant, while maintaining the substantial independence of each of the Synoptical Gospels that Mark exhibits the oral tradition of the official life of our Lord in its earliest extant from, and furnishes the most direct representation of the common basis on which they all rest. In essence, if not in composition, says Mr. Wescott, Introd. p. 190 (the two not being necessarily identical, the earlier tradition being perhaps possibly the latest committed to writing), it is the oldest. The intermediate theory has also so much of truth in it, that Mark does actually occupy the central position in regard to diction; frequently, as it were, combining the language of the other two (Mar 1:32; comp. Mat 8:16; Luk 4:40; Luk 1:42; comp. Mat 8:3; Luk 5:13; Luk 2:13-18; comp. Mat 9:9-14; Luk 5:27-33; Luk 4:30-32; comp. Mat 13:31-33; Luk 13:18-21), as indeed would naturally be the case if we consider that his Gospel most closely represents the original from which all were developed. In conclusion we may say, that a careful comparison of the three Gospels can hardly fail to convince the unprejudiced reader that, while Mark adds hardly anything to the general narrative, we have in his Gospel, in the words of Meyer (Comment.), a fresher stream from the apostolic fountain, without which we should have wanted many important elements for a true conception of our blessed Lord’s nature and work.
If now we proceed to a detailed comparison of the matter contained in the Gospels, we shall find that, awhile the history of the conception, and birth, and childhood of our Lord and his forerunner have no parallel in Mark, afterwards the main course of the narrative (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14, being of course excepted) is on the whole coincident; and that the difference is mainly due to the absence of the parables and discourses, which were foreign to his purpose of setting forth the active ministry of Christ. Of our Lord’s parables he only gives us four: the sower, the mustard seed, and the wicked husbandmen common also to Matthew and Luke; and one, the seed growing secretly, Mar 4:26-29 (unless, indeed, it be an abbreviated and independent form of the tares), peculiar to himself. Of the discourses, he entirely omits the sermon on the mount, the denunciations against the Scribes and Pharisees, and almost entirely the instructions to the twelve; while of the other shorter discourses he only gives that on fasting (Mar 2:19-22), the Sabbath (Mar 2:25-28), the casting out devils by Beelzebub (Mar 3:23-29), on eating with unwashen hands, and corban (Mar 7:6-23), and divorce (Mar 10:5-9). That on the last things (chap. 13) is the only one reported at any length. On the other hand, his object being to develop our Lord’s Messianic character in deeds rather than words, he records the greater part of the miracles given by the Synoptists. Of the twenty-seven narrated by them, eighteen are found in Mark, twelve being common to all three; three the Syro-Phcenician’s daughter, the feeding of the four thousand, and the cursing of the fig tree common to him and Matthew; one the daemoniac in the synagogue to him and Luke; and two the deaf stammerer (Mar 7:31-37), and the blind man at Bethsaida (Mar 8:22-26) (supplying remarkable points of correspondence, in the withdrawal of the object of the cure from the crowd, the use of external signs, and the gradual process of restoration) peculiar to himself. Of the nine omitted by him, only three are found in Matthew, of which the centurion’s servant is given also by Luke. The others are found in Luke alone. If we suppose that Mark had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke before him, it is difficult to assign any tolerably satisfactory reason for his omission of these miracles, especially that of the centurion’s servant, so kindred to the object of his work. On the contrary hypothesis, that they copied from him, how can we account for their omitting the two remarkable miracles mentioned above?
The arrangement of the narrative, especially of our Lord’s earlier Galilaean ministry, agrees with Luke in opposition to that of Matthew, which appears rather to have been according to similarity of subject than order of time.
According to Norton (Genuineness of Gospels), there are not more than twenty-four verses in Mark to which parallels, more or less exact, do not exist in the other Synoptists. The same painstaking investigator informs us that, while the general coincidences between Mark and one of the other two amount to thirteen fourteenths of the whole Gospel, the verbal coincidences are one sixth, and of these four fifths in Mark occur in the recital of the words of our Lord and others; and only one fifth in the narrative portion, which, roughly speaking, forms one half of his Gospel.
Additions peculiar to Mark are, the Sabbath made for man (Mar 2:27); our Lord’s friends seeking to lay hold on him (Mar 3:21); many particulars in the miracles of the Gadarene daemoniac (Mar 5:1-20); Jairus’s daughter, and the woman with issue of blood (Mar 5:22-43); the stilling of the tempest (Mar 4:35-41), and the lunatic child (Mar 9:14-29); the salting with fire (Mar 9:49); that the common people heard him gladly (Mar 12:37); the command to watch (Mar 13:33-37); the young man with the linen cloth about his body (Mar 14:51); the want of agreement between the testimony of the false witnesses (Mar 14:59); Pilate’s investigation of the reality of Christ’s death (Mar 15:44), and the difficulty felt by the women as to the rolling away the stone (Mar 16:3-4). Mark has also preserved several words and phrases, and entire sayings of our Lord, which merit close attention (Mar 1:15; Mar 4:13; Mar 6:31; Mar 6:34; Mar 7:8; Mar 8:38; Mar 9:12; Mar 9:39; Mar 10:21; Mar 10:24; Mar 10:30; Mar 11:17; Mar 13:32; Mar 14:18-37; Mar 16:7 [15-18]).
The hypothesis which best meets all these facts is, that while the matter common to all three evangelists, or to two of them, is derived from the oral teaching of the apostles, which they had purposely reduced to a common form, our evangelist writes as an independent witness to the truth, and not as a compiler; and the tradition that the Gospel was written under the sanction of Peter, and its matter in some degree derived from him, is made probable by the evident traces of an eye-witness in many of the narratives. The omission and abridgment of our Lord’s discourses, and the sparing use of O.T. quotations, might be accounted for by the special destination of the Gospel, if we had surer data for ascertaining it; since it was for Gentiles, with whom illustrations from the O.T. would have less weight, and the purpose of the writer was to present a clear and vivid picture of the acts of our Lord’s human life, rather than a full record of his divine doctrine. We may thankfully own that, with little that is in substance peculiar to himself, the evangelist does occupy for us a distinct position, and supply a definite want, in virtue of these traits.
IV. Characteristics. Though this Gospel has little historical matter which is not shared with some other, it would be a great error to suppose that the voice of Mark could have been silenced without injury to the divine harmony. The minute painting of the scenes in which the Lord took part, the fresh and lively mode of the narration, the very absence of the precious discourses of Jesus, which, interposed between his deeds, would have delayed the action, all give to this Gospel a character of its own. It is the history of the war of Jesus against sin and evil in the world during the time that he dwelt as a Man among men. Our Lord is presented to us, not as in Matthew, as the Messiah, the Son of David and Abraham, the theocratic King of the chosen people; nor, as in Luke, as the universal Savior of our fallen humanity; but as the incarnate and wonderworking Son of God, for whose emblem the early Church justly selected the lion of the tribe of Judah. His record is emphatically the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mar 1:1), living and working among men, and developing his mission more in acts than by words. The limits of his narrative and its general character can hardly be better stated than in the words of his apostolic teacher, Act 10:36-42. Commencing with the Baptist preaching in the wilderness, and announcing the Mightier One who was at hand, he tells us how, at his baptism, God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power, and declared him to be his beloved Son: gathering up the temptation into the pregnant fact, He was with the wild beasts; thus setting the Son of God before us as the Lord of nature, in whom the original grant to man of dominion over the lower creation was fulfilled (Maurice, Unity of the N.T. p. 226; Bengel, ad loc.; Wilberforce, Doctrine of Incarnation, p. 89. 90). As we advance, we find him detailing every exercise of our Lord’s power over man and nature distinctly and minutely not merely chronicling the incidents, as is Matthew’s way, but surrounding them with all the circumstances that made them impressive to the bystanders, and making us feel how deep that impression was; how great the e a and wonder with which his mighty works and preaching were regarded, not only by the crowd (Mar 1:22; Mar 1:27; Mar 2:12; Mar 6:2), but by the disciples themselves (Mar 4:41; Mar 6:51; Mar 10:24; Mar 10:26; Mar 10:32); how the crowds thronged and pressed upon him (Mar 3:10; Mar 5:21; Mar 5:31; Mar 6:33; Mar 8:1), so that there was scarce room to stand or sit (Mar 2:2; Mar 3:32; Mar 4:1), or leisure even to eat (Mar 3:20; Mar 6:31); how his fame spread the more he sought to conceal it (Mar 1:45; Mar 3:7; Mar 5:20; Mar 7:36-37); and how, in consequence, the people crowded about him, bringing their sick (Mar 1:32-34; Mar 3:10); and whithersoever he entered into villages, or cities, or country, they laid the sick in the streets, and besought that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole (Mar 6:56); how the unclean spirits, seeing him, at once fell down before him and acknowledged his power, crying, Thou art the Son of God (Mar 1:23-26; Mar 3:11); how, again, in Peter’s words, He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for God was with him.
But while the element of divine power is that which specially arrests our attention in reading his Gospel, there is none in which the human personality is more conspicuous. The single word (Mar 6:3) throws a flood of light on our Lord’s early life as man in his native village. The limitation of his knowledge is expressly stated (Mar 13:32, ); and we continually meet with mention of human emotions-anger (Mar 3:5; Mar 8:12; Mar 8:33; Mar 10:14), wonder (Mar 6:6), pity (Mar 6:34), love (Mar 10:21), grief (Mar 7:34; Mar 8:12); and human infirmities sleep (Mar 4:38), desire for repose (Mar 6:31), hunger (Mar 11:12).
In Mark we have no attempt to draw up a continuous narrative. His Gospel is a rapid succession of vivid pictures loosely strung together (usually by , or ), without much attempt to bind them into a whole, or give the events in their natural sequence. This pictorial power is that which specially characterizes this evangelist; so that, as has been well said, if any one desires to know an evangelical fact, not only in its main features and grand results, but also in its most minute and, so to speak, more graphic delineation, he must betake himself to Mark (Da Costa, Four Witnesses, p. 88). This power is especially apparent in all that concerns our Lord himself. Nowhere else are we permitted so clearly to behold his very gesture and look; see his very position; to read his feelings and to hear his very words. It is Mark who reveals to us the comprehensive gaze of Christ (, Mar 3:5; Mar 3:34; Mar 5:32; Mar 10:23; Mar 11:11); his loving embrace of the children brought to him (, Mar 9:36; Mar 10:16); his preceding his disciples, while they follow in awe and amazement (Mar 10:32). We see him taking his seat to address his disciples (, Mar 9:34), and turning round in holy anger to rebuke Peter (, Mar 8:33); we hear the sighs which burst from his bosom Mar 7:34; Mar 8:12), and listen to his very accents (Talitha cumi, v. 41; Ephphatha, Mar 7:34; Abba, Mar 14:36). At one time we have an event portrayed with a freshness and pictorial power which places the whole scene before us with its minute accessories the paralytic (Mar 2:1-12), the storm (Mar 4:36-41). the demoniac (Mar 5:1-20), Herod’s feast (Mar 6:21-29), the feeding of the 5000 (Mar 6:30-45), the lunatic child (Mar 9:14-29), the young ruler (Mar 10:17; Mar 10:22), Bartimeus (Mar 10:46-52), etc. At another, details are brought out by the addition of a single word (, Mar 1:7; , Mar 1:10; , Mar 1:41; , Mar 4:11; , Mar 6:53; , , Mar 7:21; Mar 7:23; , , Mar 9:26; , Mar 10:22; , Mar 14:3; , Mar 14:67), or by the substitution of a more precise and graphic word for one less distinctive (, Mar 1:12; , Mar 2:12; Mar 4:37; i, Mar 5:29; , Mar 6:46; , Mar 7:9; , Mar 14:33). It is to Mark also that we are indebted for the record of minute particulars of persons, places, times, and number, which stamp on his narrative an impress of authenticity.
(1.) Persons. Mar 1:20; Mar 2:14; Mar 3:5; Mar 3:17; Mar 3:32; Mar 3:34; Mar 4:11; Mar 5:32; Mar 5:37; Mar 5:40; Mar 6:40; Mar 6:48; Mar 7:1; Mar 7:25-26; Mar 8:10; Mar 8:27; Mar 9:15; Mar 9:36; Mar 10:16; Mar 10:23; Mar 10:35; Mar 10:46; Mar 11:21; Mar 11:27; Mar 13:1; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:20; Mar 14:37; Mar 14:65; Mar 15:7; Mar 15:21; Mar 15:40; Mar 15:47; Mar 16:7.
(2.) Places. Mar 1:28; Mar 4:1; Mar 4:38; Mar 5:11; Mar 5:20-21; Mar 6:55; Mar 7:17; Mar 7:31; Mar 8:10; Mar 8:27; Mar 9:30; Mar 11:4; Mar 12:41; Mar 14:66; Mar 15:16; Mar 15:39; Mar 16:5.
(3.) Time. Mar 1:32; Mar 1:35; Mar 2:1; Mar 2:26; Mar 4:35; Mar 5:2; Mar 5:18; Mar 5:21; Mar 6:2; Mar 11:11; Mar 11:19-20; Mar 14:1; Mar 14:12; Mar 14:17; Mar 14:30; Mar 14:68; Mar 14:72; Mar 15:1; Mar 15:25; Mar 15:33-34; Mar 15:42; Mar 16:1-2.
(4.) Number. Mar 5:13; Mar 5:42; Mar 6:7; Mar 8:24; Mar 14:30; Mar 14:72. Other smaller variations are continually occurring.
Here a single word, there a short parenthesis, sometimes an apparently trivial accession which impart a striking air of life to the record; e.g. Zebedee left with the hired servants (Mar 1:20); our Lord praying (Mar 1:35); the paralytic borne of four (Mar 2:3); the command that a ship should wait on him (Mar 3:9); thy sisters (Mar 3:32); our Lord taken even as he was in the ship (Mar 4:36); other little ships with them (ibid.); Jairus’s daughter walked (Mar 5:42); divers came from far (Mar 8:3); only one loaf in the ship (Mar 8:14); so as no fuller on earth can white (Mar 9:2); the danger of trusting in riches (Mar 10:24); with persecutions (Mar 10:30); no vessel suffered to be carried through the Temple (Mar 11:16); a house of prayer for all nations (Mar 11:17); she hath done what she could (Mar 14:8); Barabbas, one of a party of insurrectionists all guilty of bloodshed (Mar 15:7).
We cannot conclude our remarks on this head better than in the words of Mr. Westcott (Introd. p. 348) that if all other arguments against the mythic origin of the evangelic narratives were wanting, this vivid and simple record, stamped with the most distinct impress of independence and originality, would be sufficient to refute a theory subversive of all faith in history.
V. Style and Diction. The style of Mark may be characterized as vigorous and abrupt. His terms of connection and transition are terse and lively; he is fond of employing the direct for the indirect (Mar 4:39; Mar 5:8-9; Mar 5:12; Mar 6:23; Mar 6:31; Mar 6:37; Mar 9:25; Mar 9:33; Mar 12:6), the present for the past (Mar 1:25; Mar 1:40; Mar 1:44; Mar 2:3-5; Mar 3:4-5; Mar 3:13; Mar 3:20; Mar 3:31; Mar 3:34; Mar 4:37, etc.), and the substantive instead of the pronoun; he employs the cognate accusative (Mar 3:28; Mar 7:13; Mar 13:19; Mar 4:41; Mar 5:42), accumulates negatives ( , Mar 7:12; Mar 9:8; Mar 12:34; Mar 15:5; , Mar 14:25; , Mar 11:14), and for sake of emphasis repeats what he has said in other words, or appends the opposite (Mar 1:22; Mar 1:45; Mar 2:27; Mar 3:26-27; Mar 3:29; Mar 4:17; Mar 4:33-34), and piles up synonymes (Mar 4:6; Mar 4:8; Mar 4:39; Mar 5:12; Mar 5:23; Mar 8:15; Mar 13:33; Mar 14:68), combining this forcible style with a conciseness and economy of expression consistent with the elaboration of every detail. Mark’s diction is nearer to that of Matthew than to that of Luke. It is more Hebraistic than the latter, though rather in general coloring than in special phrases. According to Davidson (Introd. 1:154), there are forty-five words peculiar to him and Matthew, and only eighteen common to him and Luke. Aramaic words, especially those used by our Lord, are introduced, but explained for Gentile readers (Mar 3:17; Mar 3:22; Mar 5:41; Mar 7:11; Mar 7:34; Mar 9:43; Mar 10:46; Mar 14:36; Mar 15:22; Mar 15:34). Latinisms are more frequent than in the other Gospels: , Mar 15:39; Mar 15:44-45; , Mar 6:27; , Mar 15:15; , Mar 7:4; Mar 7:8, are peculiar to him. Others , , , , , he has in common with the rest of the evangelists. He is fond of diminutives , , , but they are not peculiar to him. He employs unusual words and phrases (e.g. , , , , , , , , , , , , , ). Of other noticeable words and expressions we may remark, , eleven times, Matthew six, Luke three; , , twenty-five times; , and , five times, Matthew once; compounds of : e.g. ., eight times, Matthew once, Luke four; ., eleven times, Matthew six, Luke three; ., four times, Matthew once; . The verb occurs twenty-five times, to eight times in Matthew and eighteen in Luke; , eight times, Matthew four, but the verb not once; , forty times, Matthew fifteen, Luke eight. Other favorite words are, , fourteen, Matthew nine, Luke nine; , five, Matthew two, Luke four; and , ten, Matthew three, Luke four; , six times, Luke once; , fourteen, Matthew eleven, Luke nine; v, six times, Matthew twice, John once; , thirteen, Matthew four, Luke four times. Of words only found in Mark, as compared with Matthew and Luke, we may mention-, , . and , , , , , , , ., , , , , , , , , . Words not found at all, or found less frequently in Mark, are , only twice, in the same context (Mar 10:17-18), Matthew sixteen, Luke fifteen times; , , , , , , , , , , only three times, to Matthew twenty-six, Luke forty-two; , only once; , seven, Matthew sixteen, Luke thirteen. Publicans are only mentioned twice, Samaria and its inhabitants not once.
VI. Persons for whom the Gospel was written. A dispassionate review of the Gospel confirms the traditional statement that it was intended primarily for Gentiles, and among these the use of Latinisms, and the concise abrupt character: suitable for the vigorous intelligence of a Roman audience (Westcott, Introd. p. 348), seem to point out those for whom it was specially meant. In consistency with this view, words which would not be understood by Gentile readers are interpreted: Boanerges (Mar 3:17); Talitha cumi (Mar 5:40); Corban (Mar 7:11); Bartimaus (Mar 10:46); Abba (Mar 14:36); Eloi lama sabachthani (Mar 15:34); two mites make a farthing (Mar 12:42); Gehenna is unquenchable fire (Mar 9:43). Jewish usages, and other matters with which none but Jews could be expected to be familiar, are explained, e.g. the washing before meals (Mar 7:3-4); in the days of unleavened bread the Passover was killed (Mar 14:12); at the Passover the season of figs had not come (Mar 11:13); the preparation is the day before the Sabbath (Mar 15:42); the Mount of Olives is over against the Temple (Mar 13:3); Jordan is a river (Mar 1:5; Mat 3:6); the Pharisees, etc., used to fast (Mar 2:18; Mat 9:14); the Sadducees’ worst tenet is mentioned (Mar 12:18); and explanations are given which Jews would not need (Mar 15:6; Mar 15:16). All reference to the law of Moses is omitted, and even the word does not occur; the Sabbath was appointed for the good of man (Mar 2:27); and in the quotation from Isa 56:7 he adds of all nations. The genealogy of our Lord is likewise omitted. Other matters interesting chiefly to the Jews are similarly passed over, such as the reflections on the request of the Scribes and Pharisees for a sign (Mat 12:38-45); the parable of the king’s son (Mat 22:1-14); and the awful denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23). Matter that might offend is omitted, as Mat 10:5-6; Mat 6:7-8. Passages, not always peculiar to Mark, abound in his Gospel, in which the antagonism between the pharisaic legal spirit and the Gospel come out strongly (Mar 1:22; Mar 2:2; Mark 5; Mar 8:15), which hold out hopes to the heathen of admission to the kingdom of heaven even without the Jews (Mar 12:9), and which put ritual forms below the worship of the heart (Mar 2:18; Mar 3:1-5; Mar 7:5-23). Whilst he omits the invective against the Pharisees, he indicates by a touch of his own how Jesus condemned them with anger (Mar 3:5). Mark alone makes the Scribe admit that love is better than sacrifices (Mar 12:33). In conclusion, the absence of all quotations from the O.T. made on his own authority, with the exception of those in the opening verses from Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3 (Mar 15:28 being rejected as interpolated), points the same way. The only citations he introduces are those made by our Lord, or by those addressing him.
VII. Citations from Scripture. The following are the only direct citations:
Of these,
(a) is the only one peculiar to Mark. In
(b) we have the addition of a few words to the Synoptical quotation. We have also references to the O.T. in the following passages:
VIII. Time and Place of Composition. On these points the Gospel itself affords no information, except that we may certainly affirm, against Baur, Hilgenfeld, Weisse, etc., that it was composed before the fall of Jerusalem, since otherwise so remarkable a fulfillment of our Lord’s predictions could not but have been noticed. Ecclesiastical tradition is, as usual, vacillatory and untrustworthy. Clement, as quoted by Eusebius (uit sup.), places the composition of the Gospel in the lifetime of Peter; while Irenaeus, with much greater probability, asserts that it was not written till after the decease (, not departure from Rome, Mill, Grabe, Ebrard) of Peter and Paul. Later authorities are, as ever, much more definite. Theophylact and Euthym. Zigab., with the Chron. Pasch., Georg. Syncell., and Hesychius, place it ten years after the Ascension, i.e. A.D. 40; Eusebius, in his Chronicon, A.D. 43, when Peter, Paul, and Philo were together in Rome. It is not likely that it dates before the reference to Mark in the Epistle to the Colossians (4:10), where he is only introduced as a relative of Barnabas, as if this were his greatest distinction; and this Epistle was written about A.D. 57. If, after coming to Asia Minor on Paul’s sending, he went on and joined Peter at Babylon, he may have then acquired, or rather completed that knowledge of Peter’s preaching, which tradition teaches us to look for in the Gospel, and of which there is so much internal evidence; and soon after this the Gospel may have been composed. We may probably date it between Peter’s martyrdom, cir. A.D. 63, and the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70.
As to the place, the uniform testimony of early writers (Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc.) is that the Gospel was written and published in Rome. In this view most modern writers of weight agree. Chrysostom asserts that it was published in Alexandria, but his statement is not confirmed as, if true, it must certainly have been by any Alexandrine writer. Some (Eichhorn, R. Simon) maintain a combination of the Roman and Alexandrine view under the theory of a double publication, first in one city and then in the other. Storr is alone in his view that it was first made public at Antioch.
IX. Language. There can be no reason for questioning that the Gospel was composed in Greek. To suppose that it was written in Latin as is stated in the subscription to the Peshito, and some early Greek MSS., v because it was intended for the use of Roman Christians, implies complete ignorance of the Roman Church of that age, which in language, organization, and ritual was entirely Greek, maintaining its character in common with most of the churches of the West as a Greek religious colony (Milman, Lat. Christ. 1:27). The attempt made by Baronius, Bellarmine, etc., to strengthen the authority of the Vulgate by this means was therefore, as one of their own Church, R. Simon, has shown, entirely futile; and the pretended Latin autograph, said to be preserved in the library of St. Mark’s at Venice, turned out to be part of an ancient Latin codex of the four Gospels, now known as Codex Forojuliensis.
X. Contents. The Gospel of Mark may be divided into three parts:
(1.) The occurrences previous to the commencement of the public ministry of our Lord, including the preaching and baptism of John, our Lord’s baptism and temptation (Mar 1:1-13).
(2.) Our Lord’s ministry in Galilee, including that in Eastern Galilee (Mar 1:14 – Mar 7:23); that in Northern Galilee (Mar 7:24 – Mar 9:37); that in Persea, and the journeyings towards Jerusalem (Mar 9:38 – Mar 10:52).
(3.) His triumphant entry, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (Mar 11:1 to Mar 14:8 [20]).
XI. Genuineness and Integrity. The genuineness of Mark’s Gospel was never doubted before Schleiermacher, who, struck by an apparent discrepancy between the orderly narrative we now possess and the description of Papias (ut sup.), broached the view followed by Credner, Ewald, and others, that the Gospel in. its present form is not the work of Mark the companion of Peter. This led to the notion, which has met with much acceptance among German critics (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kostlin, etc.), of an original, precanonical Mark, the Gospel of Peter, probably written in Aramaic, which, with other oral and documentary sources, formed the basis on which some unknown later writers formed the existing Gospel. But even if, on other grounds, this view were probable, all historical testimony is against it; and we should have to account for the entire disappearance of an original document of so much importance without leaving a trace of its existence, and the silent substitution of a later work for it, and its acceptance by the whole Church. If ordinary historical testimony is to have any weight, we can have no doubt that the Gospel we now have. and which has always borne his name, was that originally composed by Mark. We can have no reason to think that either John the presbyter or Papias were infallible; and if the ordinary interpretation of was correct, and the description of the Gospel given by Papias was really at variance with its present form, it would be at least equally probable that their judgment was erroneous and their view mistaken. There can, however, be little doubt that the meaning of has been strained and distorted, and that the words do really describe not Mark’s alone, but all three Synoptic Gospels as we have them; not, that is, Lives of Christ chronologically arranged, but a summary of representative facts given according to a moral and not a historic sequence, following a higher order than that of mere time.
As regards the integrity of the Gospel, Ewald, Reuss, and others have called in question the genuineness of the opening verses (Mar 1:1-13). But the external evidence for them is as great as that for the authenticity of any part of the Gospels. Internal evidence is too subtle a thing, and varies too much with the subjectivity of the writer, for us to rely on it exclusively.
The case is different with the closing portion (Mar 16:9-20), where the evidence, both external and internal, is somewhat strong against its having formed a part of Mark’s original Gospel, which is thought to have broken off abruptly with the words (for various theories to account for this, the death of Peter, that of Mark, sudden persecution, flight, the loss of the last leaf, etc., see Hug, Mieyer, Schott). No less than twenty-one words and expressions occur in it, some of them repeatedly, which are never elsewhere used by Mark. This alone, when we remember the peculiarities of diction in the pastoral epistles, as compared with Paul’s other writings, would not be sufficient to prove that it was not written by the same author; though when taken in connection with the external evidence, it would seem to show that it was not composed at the same time. On this ground, therefore, we must conclude that if not the work of another hand, it was written at a later period than the rest of the Gospel. The external evidence, though somewhat inconsistent, points, though less decidedly, the same way. While it is found in all codices of weight, includings A, C, D, and all versions, and is repeatedly quoted, without question, by early writers from the time of Irenaeus (Haer. 3:10, 6), and appears in the very ancient Syriac recension published by Cureton, it is absent from the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. (in the former of which, after the subscription, the greater part of the column and the whole of the next are left vacant, a phenomenon nowhere else found in the N.T. portion of that codex), while in several MSS. that contain it, it is noted that it is wanting in others, and those the most accurate copies. Jerome (ad Hedib. 4:172) speaks of it as being found in but few copies of the Gospels, and deficient in almost all the Greek MSS. Eusebius (ad Marin. quaest. I) states that it is wanting in nearly all the more accurate copies, while the canons that bear his name and the Ammonian sections do not go beyond v. 8. Of later critics, Olshausen and De Wette pronounce for its genuineness. The note of the latter may be consulted, as well as those of Alford and Meyer, who take the other side, for a full statement of the evidence for and against. See also Burgon, The last twelve Verses of Mark vindicated (Lond. 1871).
XII. Canonicity. The citation of v. 19 as Scripture by Irenaeus appears sufficient to establish this point. With regard to other passages of Mark’s Gospel, as it presents so few facts peculiar to himself, we cannot be surprised that there are but few references to it in the early fathers. The Muratorian canon, however (cir. A.D. 170), commences with words which evidently refer to it. It is mentioned by Papias. Justin Martyr refers to it for the name Boanerges (Trymph. 106), as the Memoirs of Peter. Irenaeus, as rwe have seen above, quotes from it, and in the 19th Clementine Homily (ed. Dusseldorf, 1853) a peculiar phrase of Mark (Mar 4:34) is repeated verbally. The fact also recorded by Irenenus (Haer. 3:11, 7), that the Docetic heretics preferred the Gospel of Mark to the others, affords an early proof of its acceptance in the Church.
XIII. Commentaries. The following are the special exegetical helps on the entire Gospel of Mark; to a few of the most important we prefix an asterisk: Victor of Antioch, In Marcum (Gr. ed. Matthai; also in the Bibl. Max. Patr. 4:370); Jerome, Expositio (in Opp. [Suppos.], 11:758); also Commentarius (ibid. 11:783); Possinus,Catena Gr. Patrum (Romans 1673, fol.); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. v. 92; Works, 10:1); Aquinas, Catena (in Opp. iv; also in vol. ii of Engl. transl.); Albertus Magnus, Conmmentarius (in Opp. ix); Gerson, Lectiones (in Opp. 4:203); Zwingle, Annotationes (in Opp. 4:141); Brentius, Homilics (in Opp. v); Myconius, Commnentrius (Basil. 1538, 8vo); Hegendorphinus, Annotationes (Hag. 1526, 1536, 8vo); Sarcer, Scholia (Basil. 1539, 1540, 8vo); Bullinger, Commentaria (Tigur. 1545, fol.); Hofmeister, Commentarius [includ. Matthew and Luke] (Lovan. 1562, fol.; Par. 1563; Colon. 1572, 8vo); Danaeus, Questiones (Genev. 1594. 8vo); Gualther, tomilimc (Heidelb. 1608, fol.); Winckelmann, Commentarius (Francof. 1612,8vo); Del Pas, Commentaria (Romans 1623, fol.); Novarinus, Expensio (Lugd. 1642, fol.); Petter, Commentary (London, 1662, 2 vols. fol.); Heartsocker, A antekeningeen (Amsterd. 1671, 4to); De Veiel, Explicatio [includ. Matt.] (Lend. 1688, 8vo); Dorche, Commentacrius (Kilon. 1690, 4to); Heupel, Notce (Argent. 1716, 8vo); Klemm, Exercitia (Tiibing. 1728, 4to); *Elsner, Commentarius (Traj. 1773, 4to); Cunningham, Thoughts (Lond. 1825,12mo); Hinds, Manual (Lond. 1829, 8vo); Bland, Annotations (Lond. 1830, 8vo); *Fritzsche, Commentarii (Lips. 1830, 8vo); For(d, Illustrations (Lond. 1849, 1864, 8vo); Hilgenfeld, D. Marcus evangelium (Halle, 1850, 8vo); Cumming, Readings (Lond. 1853, 8vo); *Alexander, Explanation (N.Y. 1858,12mo); Klostermann, D). Markus- evangeliunm (Gitting. 1867, 8vo); Goodwin, Notes (Lond. 1869, 8vo). SEE GOSPELS.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
MARK, GOSPEL OF
John Mark, the writer of Marks Gospel, was the young man who set out with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). Later he worked closely with Peter, so closely in fact that Peter called Mark his son (1Pe 5:13; see MARK). There is good evidence that Peter and Mark visited Rome about AD 60 (just before Paul arrived in Rome as a prisoner; Act 28:16) and taught the church there for a time. Over the next few years Mark spent some time in Rome, while Peter revisited churches elsewhere. The Roman Christians asked Mark to preserve Peters teaching for them, and the result was Marks Gospel.
Mark, Peter and the Romans
Many features of Marks Gospel reflect the interests and character of Peter. Apart from the events in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus death and resurrection, most of Jesus ministry recorded in Mark took place in Galilee in the north. Peters home town of Capernaum seems to have been Jesus base (Mar 1:21; Mar 1:29; Mar 2:1; Mar 9:33).
The account in Mark shows the characteristic haste of Peter in the way it rushes on from one story to the next. On the whole the language is more clearcut than in the parallels of the other Gospels, and reported statements are more direct. There is vivid detail, particularly in the record of Jesus actions and emotions (Mar 1:41; Mar 3:5; Mar 4:38; Mar 6:6; Mar 10:14; Mar 10:16; Mar 10:21; Mar 10:32). Peters genuineness is seen in that his mistakes are recorded (Mar 9:5-6; Mar 14:66-72), whereas incidents that might be to his credit are omitted (cf. Mat 14:29; Mat 16:17).
During the decade of the sixties, the Roman persecution of Christians increased, particularly after Nero blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome in AD 64. Just before this, Peter had written from Rome (code-named Babylon; 1Pe 5:13) to encourage Christians who were being persecuted (1Pe 1:6; 1Pe 2:20-23; 1Pe 3:14-17; 1Pe 4:12-16). Not long after this he himself was executed (2Pe 1:14; cf. Joh 21:18-19). Marks Gospel reminded the Roman Christians (by quoting from Peters experience of the life and teaching of Jesus) that they would need strength and patience to endure misunderstandings, persecution, false accusations and even betrayal (Mar 3:21; Mar 3:30; Mar 4:17; Mar 8:34-38; Mar 10:30; Mar 13:9; Mar 13:13; Mar 14:41; Mar 14:72; Mar 15:19; Mar 15:32).
Since the story of Jesus was set in Palestine, the Gentiles in Rome needed explanations of some matters. Mark therefore helped them by translating Hebrew or Aramaic expressions (Mar 3:17; Mar 5:41; Mar 7:11; Mar 7:34; Mar 15:22; Mar 15:34) and explaining Jewish beliefs and practices (Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 12:42; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42).
Marks view of Jesus
Marks Gospel records more action than the other Gospels, but less of Jesus teaching. Nevertheless, the book has a basic teaching purpose. Though Mark wrote in different circumstances from John and for different people, his basic purpose was the same, namely, to show that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. Joh 20:31). Mark makes this clear in his opening statement (Mar 1:1).
According to Mark, the ministry of Jesus from beginning to end showed that he was a divine person in human form, the God-sent Messiah. At Jesus baptism, the starting point for his public ministry, a statement from God showed what this unique ministry would involve. The statement, combining Old Testament quotations concerning the Davidic Messiah and the Servant of Yahweh, showed that Jesus way to kingly glory was to be that of the suffering servant (Mar 1:11; cf. Psa 2:7; Isa 42:1; see MESSIAH). The heavenly Son of man, to whom God promised a worldwide and everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:13-14), would receive that kingdom only by way of crucifixion (Mar 8:29-31; Mar 8:38; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:45; see SON OF MAN).
The death of Jesus is therefore the climax of Marks Gospel. That death came about through Jesus open confession to Caiaphas that he was both messianic Son of God and heavenly Son of man, and he was on the way to his kingly and heavenly glory (Mar 14:61-64). Demons knew Jesus to be the Son of God (Mar 3:11; Mar 5:7), his disciples recognized it (Mar 8:29), his Father confirmed it on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mar 9:7), Jesus declared it to disciples and enemies (Mar 13:32; Mar 14:61-62) and even a Roman centurion at the cross was forced to admit it (Mar 15:39).
Summary of contents
An introductory section deals with Jesus baptism and his subsequent temptation by Satan (1:1-13). The story then quickly moves on to deal with Jesus ministry in Galilee and other northern regions.
After gathering together his first few disciples (1:14-20), Jesus carried out a variety of healings (1:21-2:12) and added Matthew (Levi) to his group of disciples (2:13-17). Through several incidents he showed that the true religion he proclaimed was not concerned simply with the legal requirements of the Jewish law (2:18-3:6).
From Galilee Jesus appointed twelve apostles whom he could send out to spread the message of his kingdom (3:7-19). He illustrated the nature of that kingdom by dealing with critics (3:20-35), telling parables (4:1-34), overcoming storms, evil spirits, sickness, hunger and death (4:35-6:56), demanding moral rather than ceremonial cleanliness (7:1-23), and demonstrating by teachings and miracles the importance of faith (7:24-8:26).
The record of this part of Jesus ministry concludes with Peters acknowledgment of his messiahship (8:27-33), Jesus reminder of the cost of discipleship (8:34-9:1), the Fathers declaration at Jesus transfiguration (9:2-8), the disciples inability to heal a demon-possessed boy (9:9-29), and Jesus teaching on the necessity for humble submission in his kingdom (9:30-50).
Jesus ministry from his departure from Galilee to his arrival in Jerusalem dealt with such matters as divorce (10:1-12), children (10:13-16), wealth (10:17-31) and ambition (10:32-45). Near Jericho he healed a blind man (10:46-52).
On the Sunday before his crucifixion, Jesus entered Jerusalem as Israels God-sent Messiah (11:1-11). In the days that followed, he cleansed the temple and warned of the terrible judgment that was to fall on the Jewish nation because of its rejection of the Messiah (11:12-12:12). On many occasions the Jews disputed with him publicly (12:13-44), but privately he told his disciples of coming judgments and warned them to keep alert (13:1-37).
After his anointing at Bethany (14:1-11), Jesus prepared for the Passover, instituted the Lords Supper, then went and prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane (14:12-42). He was arrested (14:43-52), taken to the high priests house (14:53-72), brought before Pilate (15:1-20), taken away and crucified (15:21-47). On the third day he rose from the dead (16:1-8), after which he appeared a number of times to his disciples and gave them final teaching (16:9-20). (These last twelve verses are not in the oldest and best manuscripts.)