Mark, Gospel According To

Mark, Gospel according to

It is the current and apparently well-founded tradition that Mark derived his information mainly from the discourses of Peter. In his mother’s house he would have abundant opportunities of obtaining information from the other apostles and their coadjutors, yet he was “the disciple and interpreter of Peter” specially.

As to the time when it was written, the Gospel furnishes us with no definite information. Mark makes no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, hence it must have been written before that event, and probably about A.D. 63.

The place where it was written was probably Rome. Some have supposed Antioch (comp. Mark 15:21 with Acts 11:20).

It was intended primarily for Romans. This appears probable when it is considered that it makes no reference to the Jewish law, and that the writer takes care to interpret words which a Gentile would be likely to misunderstand, such as, “Boanerges” (3:17); “Talitha cumi” (5:41); “Corban” (7:11); “Bartimaeus” (10:46); “Abba” (14:36); “Eloi,” etc. (15:34). Jewish usages are also explained (7:3; 14:3; 14:12; 15:42). Mark also uses certain Latin words not found in any of the other Gospels, as “speculator” (6:27, rendered, A.V., “executioner;” R.V., “soldier of his guard”), “xestes” (a corruption of sextarius, rendered “pots,” 7:4, 8), “quadrans” (12:42, rendered “a farthing”), “centurion” (15:39, 44, 45). He only twice quotes from the Old Testament (1:2; 15:28).

The characteristics of this Gospel are, (1) the absence of the genealogy of our Lord, (2) whom he represents as clothed with power, the “lion of the tribe of Judah.” (3.) Mark also records with wonderful minuteness the very words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36) as well as the position (9:35) and gestures (3:5, 34; 5:32; 9:36; 10:16) of our Lord. (4.) He is also careful to record particulars of person (1:29, 36; 3:6, 22, etc.), number (5:13; 6:7, etc.), place (2:13; 4:1; 7:31, etc.), and time (1:35; 2:1; 4:35, etc.), which the other evangelists omit. (5.) The phrase “and straightway” occurs nearly forty times in this Gospel; while in Luke’s Gospel, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times.

“The Gospel of Mark,” says Westcott, “is essentially a transcript from life. The course and issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest outline.” “In Mark we have no attempt to draw up a continuous narrative. His Gospel is a rapid succession of vivid pictures loosely strung together 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 ‘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.'” The leading principle running through this Gospel may be expressed in the motto: “Jesus came…preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Mark 1:14).

“Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew, 60 with Luke, and at most 51 peculiar to itself.” (See MATTHEW)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Mark, Gospel According To

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

i.The problems to be discussed.

ii.The Second Gospel in the Early Church.

1.Statements as to its composition.

2.Early quotations, references, and use.

iii.Character of the Gospel as shown by internal evidence, and by comparison with the other Synoptics:

1.The presentation of Christs Person and work.

2.Autoptic characteristics.

3.Description of the inner feelings of our Lord and the Apostles.

4.Comparison with the other Synoptics:

(a)As to Scope.

(b)Diffuseness and redundancies of Mark.

(c)Correction of Marks matter by Matthew and Luke.

(d)Correction of Marks phraseologyDiminutives.

(e)Colloquialisms.

(f)Latinisms.

(g)Aramaisms.

(h)Grammar and awkward or difficult phrases.

(i)Corrections for precision.

(j)Doubtful cases.

(k)Conclusion from the evidence on this head.

5.Marks other characteristics of diction.

6.Matter peculiar to Mark.

iv.Authorship, Date, and Place of Writing.

v.Aramaic or Greek original.

vi.The last twelve verses.

vii.Is our Second Gospel the original Mark?

Literature.

i. The problems to be discussed.No book of the NT has experienced such a change in public estimation as the Second Gospel. Formerly regarded as comparatively unimportant and receiving little attention from commentators, who in effect re-echoed Augustines opinion that it was but an abbreviation of the First Gospel, it has of late years been more carefully studied, and has received a juster appreciation. It has now been recognized as a book of supreme importance, as giving us the narrative of the life of Christ in a most primitive form, and as being not improbably the foundation, if not directly at least indirectly, of all the Gospels. It will be necessary, then, in this article first to investigate the statements about its composition in the earlier Fathers and their use of it, and then to examine the Gospel itself, to see what picture it gives of our Lords Person and work, and what relation it bears to the other Synoptic Gospels. We shall then be able to come to a conclusion about questions of date, authorship, and place of writing, of the original language, and of the integrity of the Gospel. Finally, we will consider the question of an Ur-Marcus, that is, if the Gospel in our hands is the original work of St. Mark.

It will be convenient here to state the results arrived at in this article with regard to some points. The present writer thinks it most probable that the Second Gospel as we have it, or at any rate with the very slightest differences, was in the hands of all the other Evangelists when they wrote; and that the latter freely used the material before them, altering it, or adding to it, or omitting parts of it, as they thought right when following other guides. The theory put forward by Alford (Prolegomena to his Greek Testament, i. 2) and other holders of the oral hypothesis, that the later writers would not have so treated a book which they regarded as inspired or even as authoritative, does not greatly commend itself, as it appears to interpret the feeling of the Christians of the 1st cent. by those of a later age.The very style of Mk., with its roughness and inelegances, is of great value, and still more is its description of the Saviour in words which were often in after times misunderstood, of the utmost importance as showing a very early record. For these and other reasons a date at least before the Fall of Jerusalem seems to be probable. Further, it is considered likely that the Gospel was written in Greek, and primarily for Roman readers, the last twelve verses being an appendix, not composed as an ending to the Gospel, but having once had an independent existence, and being added later to the Gospel to supply a lost leaf.

ii. The Second Gospel in the Early Church

1. Statements as to its composition.We will first consider those passages of early writers which may be thought to throw light on the composition of Mk., before discussing those which only quote or refer to it; later ( vii.) we will consider whether the Gospel known to these writers is the same as our Mark.

The first passage which may refer to Mk. is St. Lukes prologue. This shows that some who were not from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word had already written narratives of the Gospel history, and by implication avers (Luk 1:3) that these narratives were incomplete in not beginning from the first (); also we perhaps gather that they were not in St. Lukes judgment in good chronological order (, cf. just before). Internal evidence leads us to think that not improbably St. Luke knew Mk. (see below, iii.), and, if so, we may have here the first criticism on the Second Gospel; it has some striking resemblances to Papias account, for which we are indebted to Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39). Eusebius says:

[. ] , . , , , , , , , , , , [. . ], , . , . . Lightfoots translation (Apost. Fathers, compend. ed. p. 529) is here appended, and some points where Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl. s.v. Gospels) differs from him are noted: For our present purpose we will merely add to his [Papias] words which have been quoted above, a tradition which has been set forth through these sources concerning Mark who wrote the Gospel: And the Elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered [Schmiedel: mentioned], 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, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lords oracles [v.l. words]. So then Mark made no mistake [Schm. committed no fault; but see Lightfoots Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 8, 163], while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them [Schm. repeated them exactly from memory], for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein. Such, then, is the account given by Papias concerning Mark.

Here Papias vindicates Mark from inaccuracy, and from errors of omission, as far as his knowledge went, but finds fault with his chronological order, which was due to his being dependent only on Peters oral teaching. If this is a correct interpretation of Papias, which account of the Gospel story did he prefer? Lightfoot (Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 165, 205 f.) thinks John, Salmon (Introd. Lect. vii.) thinks Luke; while Schmiedel, in a not very convincing argument, thinks that Papias did not recognize Jn. and Lk. as being of equal authority with Mt. and Mk. (Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1813; see, further, vii. below). Schmiedel takes no account of Lightfoots essay On the Silence of Eusebius (Sup. Rel. ii.). However this may be, Papias describes the Second Gospel as being limited to Peters reminiscences, the writer being the interpreter of that Apostle. This phrase may mean (Zahn, Einleit. ii. 209, 218) that Mark, being Peters scholar, made Peters teaching widely known through his written Gospel, or (Swete, St. Mark, p. xxiv) that he was the secretary or dragoman who translated Peters words into a foreign tongue during the Apostles lifetime. Papias does not call the work of Mark a gospel, and the word is not undoubtedly found in the sense of the record of good tidings before Justin (Apol. i. 66, see below), though some find this sense in Ignatius, Philad. 5, 8, and in the Didache 8, 11, 15. In these places, however, it is probably not the written word that is referred to. [For a complete discussion of the Papias fragment see Lightfoot, Ess. on Sup. Rel. v., vi., and Sanday, Gosp. in Second Cent. v. 2].

Justin Martyr (Dial. 106) says that Christ changed Simons name to Peter, and that this is written in his memoirs ( ), and also that He changed the name of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder. But these last words actually occur only in Mar 3:17, where we read of both names, Peter and Boanerges, together, and in no other Gospel. We may probably dismiss the idea that refers to Christ, as if Justin meant Christs memoirs, and conclude that Justin is speaking of a Petrine Gospel. Harnack (Bruchstcke d. Ev. d. Petrus, p. 37) proposes to find this in the apocryphal Akhmm Fragment which goes by St. Peters name, and Sanday (Inspiration2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] [Bampton Lectures], p. 310) agrees that Justin used pseudo-Peter. But as there is no other reason to suppose that this apocryphal Gospel ever contained the passage in question,the fragment lately discovered beginning in the middle of the story of the Passion,and as Justin elsewhere probably refers to our Second Gospel (see below), it is more reasonable to suppose with Swete (Gospel of St. Peter, p. xxxiii), Salmond (Hastings, DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iii. 256), and Stanton (JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] ii. 6, and Gospels as Hist. Doc. p. 93 ff.) that he refers to it here. If so, we have another authority for regarding St. Peter as a chief source of Mark. In considering the question whether Justin refers to Mk. or to the apocryphal Gospel, we must note that while some points of contact are found between pseudo-Peter and Justin, there are also some considerable differences (see esp. Stanton, loc. cit.), and that if one borrowed from the other, it is as likely that pseudo-Peter is the borrower as Justin.The Evangelic narratives are in Justin commonly called memoirse.g. Apol. i. 66, the memoirs composed by them [the Apostles] which are called Gospels. From Dial. 103 it appears that he included in the term some not composed by the Apostles themselves but by their followers. He speaks of the memoirs drawn up by the Apostles and by those who followed them, and in this context recalls the (Lukan?) account of the Agony and the drops of blood.

Tatian, Justins pupil, affords evidence that Mk. was received in his time (c. [Note: circa, about.] 170 a.d.) as one of the four Gospel narratives pre-eminently above, and on a different platform from, all others. His Diatessaron is now known to be a harmony of our four Gospels, and probably it was not the first of its kind.

Irenaeus is the first explicitly to expound the doctrine of the necessity of a fourfold Gospel ( , iii. 11. 8). As the world has four quarters, and as the Church is spread over the whole world, and as the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, so it is right that there should be four Gospels. Irenaeus finds other equally fanciful reasons for a fourfold Gospel, and identifies our Evangelists with the fourfold appearance of the cherubim, St. Mark being the eagle (see iii. 1 below). This reasoning, however erroneous, shows that our four Gospels had a position entirely by themselves in Irenaeus estimation; and Dr. Taylor conjectures that he borrowed the idea from Hermas (Witness of Hermas, 1). In an earlier passage (iii. 1. 1) Irenaeus says that Mark was Peters disciple and interpreter (, as Papias), and that he handed on to us in writing the things preached by Peter, after the departure of Peter and Paul. In iii. 10. 6 (where the Greek is wanting), Irenaeus calls Mark interpres et sectator Petri.

Tertullian (adv. Mare. iv. 5, Migne, P. L. ii. 396) gives similar witness ( licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus).

The Muratorian fragment (c. [Note: circa, about.] a.d. 170? or perhaps a little later) begins in the middle of a sentence thus: quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit. Tertium Evangelii librum secundum Lucan. Quarti evangeliorum Johannes ex discipulis. Thus the writer had been speaking of two Gospels, which were neither Luke nor John. It is generally recognized that the opening words of the fragment refer to Mk. rather than to Mt., and that the latter had come first, as in Irenaeus; but there is some difference of opinion as to their meaning. Swete, Lightfoot, and Chase interpret them to mean that Mark was present at some discourses of Peter; he reported Peters teaching as far as he had the opportunity. The first word quibus may be the second half of aliquibus some; Chase (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iii. 24) takes quibus tamen as the equivalent of an original for the fragment is a Latin translation from Greek. Zahn (Einleit. ii. 200 f.) thinks that the author of the fragment had quoted Papias as saying that Mark was not a hearer of our Lord, and then qualified Papias assertion by saying that Mark had been present at some of our Lords discourses. Compare this with the idea of some later writers (e.g. Epiphanius, Hr. xx. 4, li. 6) that Mark was one of the Seventy (Seventy-two) Disciples; and with the modern opinion that the young man of Mar 14:51 was the Evangelist. But, as Swete shows (St. Mark, p. xxxiii), this is against the words that follow about Luke: Neither did he [Luke] himself see the Lord in the flesh.

Clement of Alexandria (Hypotyp., ap. Euseb. Historia Ecclesiastica vi. 14) says that while Peter was preaching the gospel at Rome, many of those present begged Mark to write down what was said. Peter neither forbade nor urged it. There is a story similar to this told in the Muratorian fragment about John. In Historia Ecclesiastica ii. 15, Eusebius says, on the authority of Clement and Papias, that Peter confirmed the writing; but the passage afterwards quoted by Eusebius from Papias does not bear out this detail. Origen (quoted by Euseb. Historia Ecclesiastica vi. 25) says that Mark composed the Gospel at Peters instruction ( ), being acknowledged as his son (1Pe 5:13).

It is unnecessary to quote later writers, who could scarcely have other means of information than we have; but we may notice that Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica ii. 16) makes Mark go to Egypt and found the Church at Alexandria after he had written his Gospel, and says (ib. 24) that Annianus succeeded him as bishop there in the eighth year of Nero, a statement which Jerome improves upon by saying that St. Mark died then (de Vir. Illustr. 8). It is also desirable to quote Augustine, as his opinion has had such weight in the Church. He says (de Consensu Evangelistarum, i. 3, aliter i. 6) that of the four Evangelists, Matthew wrote first, then Mark, and that Mark was, as it were, Matthews follower and abbreviator (Marcus eum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur). Seldom has one short sentence had such an unfortunate effect in distorting a judgment on a literary work; and largely in consequence of it Mk. has been generally neglected. The Second Gospel seems hardly to have engaged the attention of commentators; and the writer known as Victor of Antioch (quoted by Swete, St. Mark, p. xxxiv) in the 5th cent. (or later), says that he had not been able to find a single author who had expounded it.

2. Early quotations, references, and use.The use of Mk. by the Apostolic Fathers is not certain, though in some cases quite probable. The quotation in Clement of Rome (Cor. 23) and pseudo-Clement (Ancient Homily, 11), which in the latter is introduced by , is more likely to be from some lost Christian writing than to be a fusion of Mar 4:26 ff. and other NT passages; but Polycarp, Phil. [Note: Philistine.] 5, , seems to come from Mar 9:35. In other cases it is probable that one of our Gospels is referred to, but we cannot be sure that it is Mk. in particular that is before the writer. As an example we may take Polycarp, Phil. [Note: Philistine.] 7, which quotes Mat 26:41 and Mar 14:38 exactly, and both in Polycarp and in the Gospels the context is about not going into temptation. Pseudo-Clement ( 2), after quoting Is 54:1 LXX Septuagint , continues: Another Scripture saith, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, exactly as Mat 9:13, Mar 2:17, where to repentance is not in the best manuscripts, but comes from || Luk 5:32. But Mt. and not Mk. might have been before Polycarp and pseudo-Clement, though in the latter case the omission of the of Mt. makes Mk. more likely. And so with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and others. The Didache apparently refers to Mt. and Lk., and the name itself seems to be derived from Act 2:42; but though a probable reference (x. 5) to 1Jn 4:18 makes the writers knowledge of Jn. likely, there is no trace of his knowing Mark. For the possible references to the last twelve verses in Barnabas, etc., see below, vi. The use of Mk. by Hermas is very probable. He apparently refers to Mar 3:29; Mar 10:24 where they differ from Mt. and Lk., in Mand. ii. 2 ( ), and Sim. ix. 20. 3 ( ). Indirectly the Shepherd of Hermas supplies a great argument for the antiquity of the Gospels, because it shows the uniqueness of our Lords parables as there narrated. Hermas essays the same method of teaching, but his attempt is utterly feeble. If the Gospels were 2nd cent. productions, and the words of our Lord had been handed on only by oral tradition, the parables could never have been kept so pure. They would in the course of time, before the narratives reached us in their present form, have assimilated features such as we find in Hermas. [For further references in the Shepherd see Zahn, Hirt d. Hermas, p. 456 ff.; Stanton, Gosp. as Hist. Doc. p. 45].

To Justins probable reference to the Boanerges passage (see above) must be added Dial. 88, where he speaks of Jesus as supposed to be the carpenter ( ; but Ottos text has . . ). Only Mark (Mar 6:3) calls Jesus a carpenter (see iii. 4 (j) below). Justin also probably quotes from the last twelve verses (below, vi.).

The use of Mk. by heretics is presumed from references to it in Heracleon, the Valentinians, pseudo-Peter, and the Clementine Homilies (the first two as reported by Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus), for which reference may be made to Swetes St. Mark, p. xxxi; and Sandays Gospels in the Second Century, ch. vi. p. 177 ff.

The Gospel is found in all the old VersionsCuretonian and Sinaitic Syriac (of the former only 16:1720 is extant), Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic; and in all catalogues and Greek manuscripts of the Gospels.

Putting together the statements, references, and quotations, and deferring the question of an editor later than the original writer of the Gospel (see vii.), we may conclude, (a) that there is valid evidence that Mk. was in circulation before the middle of the 2nd cent.; (b) that ecclesiastical tradition almost uniformly connects the Second Evangelist with St. Peterthe Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 57, Lagarde, p. 85, c. [Note: circa, about.] a.d. 375) being the only writing which undoubtedly connects him with St. Paul ( , cf. Phm 1:24, Col 4:11); (c) that there was a difference of tradition as to whether he wrote while St. Peter was alive or after his death (see iv. below). Further, (d) the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen do not mention Marks preaching at Alexandriaa strange silence; and (e) there is no hint till Hippolytus that there was more than one Mark; apparently the other writers identified the cousin of Barnabas and the disciple of Peter.

iii. The Character of the Gospel as shown by itself and by comparison with the other Gospels.If we had no information from ecclesiastical writers, we could have made no conjecture as to the authorship of the Second Gospel, as we can in the case of Lk. (by comparing it with Acts) and Jn. (by comparing it with the Synoptics). But from internal evidence we should gather that the author was either an eye-witness of the events described or at least that he had first-hand information. Further, a close examination of the Gospel makes it exceedingly probable that the writers informant was St. Peter. So that, while we should never from the NT itself have arrived at the name Mark, yet the internal evidence fully corroborates the external, that the author was the interpreter of Peter. The impression left from a study of Mk. is that we have here in effect, though not in form, and not without some additions due to the Evangelist himself, that Apostles Gospel. It begins the narrative at the point when Peter could give his own recollectionsat the preaching of the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. This, not the Birth-narratives, as in the case of Mt. and Lk., nor yet the account of our Lords pre-existence, as in the case of Jn., was to Mark the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God (1:1), whether these words are part of the record or are the title prefixed by an early scribe.

1. Presentation of Christs Person and work.Beginning with the preaching of John and our Lords entering on His ministry, St. Mark describes at length the Galilaean ministry and the slow unfolding of Jesus claims. Our Lord, for example, does not at once proclaim His Messiahship, nor does He allow evil spirits to proclaim it in-opportunely (Mar 1:25; Mar 3:12; cf. Mar 1:44 etc.). Even after Peters confession at Caesarea Philippi, when the Galilaean ministry was nearly ended, the disciples were charged to tell no man (Mar 8:30). At first Jesus begins by calling Himself the Son of Man (Mar 2:10). Then the crowds begin to see in Him a prophet; His own people and the learned scribes from Jerusalem think Him mad. We might even think, at first sight, especially if we have the Matthaean account (Mar 16:16) of Peters confession chiefly in mind and not the Markan, that the disciples then and then only found out that Jesus was Messiah. But this deduction would be precarious. The account in Jn., which makes the Baptist begin by calling Jesus the Lamb of God and the Son of God, and makes Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael at once recognize Him as Messiah (Joh 1:29; Joh 1:34; Joh 1:41; Joh 1:45; Joh 1:49), bears all the marks of probability. A Judaean ministry, as to which the Synoptists are almost silent, must have been carried on simultaneously with the Galilaean preaching. We should expect Jesus, as a religious Jew, to visit Jerusalem frequently; and indeed, if the last Passover were His first visit during the ministry, we could not explain the sudden enmity of the Jerusalem Jews, or the fact of there being Judaean disciplesJudas Iscariot (probably from Kerioth in Judaea), Joseph of Arimathaea, the owners of the colt at Bethphage and of the room where the Last Supper was celebrated (these evidently knew Jesus), the household at Bethany, and Simon the leper. Also non-Markan portions of Mt. and Lk. imply visits to Jerusalem or a wider ministry than that in Galilee (Mat 23:37, Luk 4:44, BC, Luk 13:21; Luk 13:33 f.); and in Acts the Apostles at once make their headquarters at Jerusalem, which would have been unlikely if they had only just arrived there for the first time. On that occasion they were perfectly familiar with places and people. But if this be so, we should expect two methods of proclaiming the Person of Christ to have been adopted for these two quite distinct people, of such different characteristics, and separated by hostile Samaria. In Jerusalem, where religious controversy was rife, the question of Jesus Personality and office could not be postponed; this is shown by the way in which the Pharisees questioned the Baptist. But in Galilee this was not the case, and the revelation consequently was much more gradual. The Apostles, doubtless, had heard the questions asked in Judaea, and did know the claim of Jesus to be the Christ, though perhaps they did not fully realize all that it meant until the incident at Caesarea Philippi. Thenceforward Jesus speaks to them of His future glory (Mar 8:38; cf. Mar 9:7) and of His Passion (Mar 8:31, Mar 9:12; Mar 9:31 etc.). After the Galilaean ministry (which ends at Mar 9:50) Mark gives some short account (ch. 10) of journeys in Judaea and Peraea, and it is only on the final approach to Jerusalem that all reserve passes away. In common with all the Evangelists, Mark gives a detailed account of the last days at Jerusalem.

In describing our Lords Person, Mark emphatically brings out His Divinity. Jesus claims super human authoritye.g. Mar 2:28 (lord of the Sabbath), Mar 8:38 and Mar 14:62 (coming in glory, the latter in answer to Caiaphas question, Art thou the Christ?), Mar 12:6 ff. (the beloved Son and Heir); and especially authority to forgive sins, Mar 2:5; Mar 2:10 (the paralytic). He is a supernatural Person: Mar 1:11, Mar 9:7 (my beloved Son), Mar 1:24 (the Holy One of God), Mar 3:11 (the Son of God), Mar 5:7 (Son of the Most High God), Mar 15:39 (the Son of God or a son of God). He knows the thoughts of man, Mar 2:8; Mar 8:17; Mar 12:15, and what is to happen in the future, Mar 2:20 (fasting), Mar 8:31 and Mar 9:31 etc. (the Passion), Mar 8:38 (the Second Advent), Mar 10:39 (the sufferings of the Apostles), Mar 13:2 (destruction of the Temple), Mar 13:10 (the universal gospel), Mar 14:27 (scattering of the sheep). His death has an atoning efficacy, Mar 10:45 ( ), Mar 14:24 (my blood of the covenant which is shed for many).

But still more striking is the emphasis laid on the true humanity of our Lord. The reality of His human body is referred to much as in the other Evangelistse.g. He is wearied and sleeps (Mar 4:38; sleep is perhaps implied also in Mar 1:35); He eats (Mar 14:3) and drinks Mar 15:36); His touch is frequently spoken of (Mar 1:41 etc.) (see Gestures); the burial of His body is dwelt on in Mar 15:43 ff. But Mark pre-eminently describes the human soul and spirit of our Lord. Note especially His human compassion (Mar 1:41) and love (Mar 10:21), and the more painful emotions (Mar 1:43, Mar 3:5, Mar 6:6, Mar 10:14 Mar 14:33 f., Mar 15:34), for which see below, iii. 3. Note also the reference to our Lords human soul and spirit in Mar 2:8, Mar 14:34, and to His human will in Mar 14:36. Mark also refers to the sinless limitations of Jesus human nature. Questions are asked apparently for information (Mar 5:30, Mar 8:5, Mar 9:16)for in these cases an economical questioning seems scarcely worthy. The Evangelist also records the one perfectly certain instance of Jesus ignorance qua man, Mar 13:32 (the Day of Judgmentso Mt.). It is because so much stress is laid in Mk. on our Lords true human nature that St. Augustine assigns to the Second Evangelist the symbol of the man. Other Fathers vary much in assigning the four symbols, but it is remarkable that each one of the four is assigned to St. Mark in some one or other of the Fathers, Irenaeus making him the eagle, Victorinus the lion, Augustine the man, pseudo-Athanasius the calf (see Swete, St. Mark, p. xxxviii).

2. Autoptic character.In many passages Mk. shows, equally with Jn. and much more than Mt. and Lk., clear signs of first-hand knowledge. In these places Mk. often gives a lifelike touch, though Mt. and Lk. in their parallels have lost it. Such are the stooping down of the Baptist to loose the shoe-latchet (Mar 1:7), the heavens in the act of opening ( [present], Mar 1:10), the incoherent and excited remarks of the crowd at the healing of the Capernaum demoniac (Mar 1:27 best text, see Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ; they are softened down by later scribes of Mk. and by Lk.), the house of Simon and Andrew (Mar 1:29, where || Mt. and Lk. omit Andrew; in the East it is common for several brothers, even when married, to live in one house, but it required first-hand knowledge to know that Andrew and Peter lived together), Simon starting in pursuit of Jesus (Mar 1:36), the breaking up of the mud roof to let the paralytic down through it, with other details (Mar 2:4, where Mt. tells none of the small points, and Lk., writing for a Roman nobleman, as has been conjectured, translates these, to him, unintelligible details into the language of Western Europe, and says that the man was let down through the tiles; see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 63), the single pillow, , probably a wooden headrest, in the boat in the storm (Mar 4:38, Mk. only), Jesus turning round in the crowd to see who touched Him (so Mt., not Lk.), and His glance at the woman (Mar 5:30 ff., Mk. only), His not allowing the crowd who were with Him to come near Jairus house, a very probable and lifelike detail (Mar 5:37, Mk. only; Lk. makes Jesus dismiss the crowd on His entering). The scene at Jairus house is especially vivid in Mk., and is instructive as showing who the Evangelists authority was. It must have been one of the inner circle of Apostles, i.e. Peter, James, or John (Andrew was not here present). As James died early, and another Gospel was written by (or, at least, depends on) John, we are led to think of Peter as the source. Further instances of lifelike touches are: the five thousand arranged like garden beds (Mk. only) on the green grass (Mar 6:40), the details in the account of the Transfiguration (Mar 9:2 ff., where Mt. and Lk. also are vivid), but especially of the healing which followed, where the story is told from the point of view of the three Apostles, not of those who remained behind (Mar 9:14 , Mk. only), and where Mk. only has the delicate touch (Mar 9:17) that the man brought the cataleptic boy to Jesus and applied to the disciples only when he found that Jesus was absent, and other autoptic details; Mt. and Lk. greatly abbreviate this narrative. So Mark alone relates that in the dispute about precedence and in the blessing of the little ones Jesus took the children into His arms (, Mar 9:36, Mar 10:16), and in the latter case that He blessed them fervently (). Notice also how Mk. alone tells us of the searching glance of love cast by Jesus on the rich young man and the clouding over of the young mans brow (Mar 10:21 f.), and of the colt tied at the door without in the open street (Mar 11:4; probably Peter was one of the two disciples sent), of Jesus refusing to permit vessels to be carried through the Temple (Mar 11:16), of the command to bring a denarius, the Roman coin, into the Temple (where only Jewish coins were current) at the question of paying tribute (Mar 12:15). For the Agony in the Garden, see below, 3; but here again we note that the source must have been Peter, James, or John. The account of Peters denials is indecisive, as he must have been the ultimate authority for all the narratives; but the of Mar 14:72 (see below, 4 (h)) argues the priority of our Evangelist. Exceptional knowledge is evidenced by the mention of the names of Levis father (Alphaeus, Mar 2:14), of the father of the blind man at Jericho (Timaeus, Mar 10:46), and of the sons of Simon of Cyrene (Alexander and Rufus, Mar 15:21). These and other instances lead us to see in the Second Gospel a graphic account of one who had first-hand knowledge at his command, and, to a large extent, confirm Papias description of Mark as Peters interpreter. Mk. consists almost entirely of things of which Peter had personal knowledge. As Eusebius noticed long ago (Demonstr. Evangel. iii. 5, Cologne ed. p. 120 f.), it is silent on matters which reflect credit on Peter. It alone records several Petrine touches. We have, in fact, here in all particulars the Petrine tradition in a far more exact form than in the other Synoptics.

3. Description of the inner feelings of our Lord and of the Apostles.This is found in Mk. to an extent which argues an early narrative based on intimate personal knowledge of Jesus and of the Twelve. In Mt. and Lk. the painful emotions of our Lord are not mentioned, except in the case of the Agony, and even that disappears in the Westcott-Hort text of Lk. (Luk 22:43 f.); a fact probably to be accounted for by a feeling of reverence due to a slightly later age. In Mk. we find a more childlike boldness in describing Jesus feelings. See the following instances, which are found in Mk. only: Mar 1:43 (denoting sternness: not necessarily anger, but deep feeling); Mar 3:5 righteous anger and grief; Mar 6:6 wondering at the peoples unbelief (here Mt. retains , but omits ; on the other hand, Mat 8:10, Luk 7:9 have the wonder of Jesus human mind at the centurions faithan incident which was not part of the Petrine tradition and is not in Mk.); Luk 10:14, indignation when the disciples kept back the little children; and especially Luk 14:33 f., the Agony in the Garden, where Mk. alone speaks of the surprise () added to the distraction from grief () of Jesus human soul. Mt. changes the former to while retaining the latter, and Lk. omits the whole passage. If, as seems probable, the passage Luk 22:43 f. is not an original part of the Third Gospel, it is perhaps a fragment older than Lk. and reflects the same stage of thought as Mark. It is referred to in Justin, Dial. 103.It is not unlikely that the difference between Mar 10:18 (the rich young man) and Mat 19:16 f. in the best text (BD, Origen, etc.; see Westcott-Hort, Notes) is due to the same feeling. Possibly when the First Evangelist wrote, the Markan phrase, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God, may have been misunderstood to imply a merely human Christ. Or perhaps the Westcott-Hort text of Mt. is not original, but is due to an early scribe or editor who disliked the Markan form of the incident. Another example is the of Mar 15:43 (so BDL; Westcott-Hort with AC, etc., read ). This was a word used of the carcase of a dead animal or of a human being, with a touch of contempt. Mt. and Lk. have therefore altered to , as also have some scribes in Mk., from feelings of reverence.

The same thing is true of another matter almost peculiar to Mk., the account of the inner feelings of the Apostles. See mark Mar 4:38, showing the Apostles resentment against the Lord (Carest thou not?), and similarly Mar 4:41, showing their awe or holy fear at the revelation of Jesus power and Divinity (cf., however, St. Peter at the miraculous draught of fishes in Luk 5:8); Mar 10:32, showing their amazement and fear, apparently arising from our Lords manner as He went before them; and Mar 14:5 , here (unlike Mar 1:43) of anger.

A similar result follows from the passages where Mk. tells us that Jesus could not do a thing. The inability is, doubtless, relative and conditional. Jesus could not do that which was inconsistent with His plan of salvation. Yet here the other Synoptists, feeling that the phrases might be misunderstood as taking from the Masters glory, have altered or omitted them. See Mar 1:45, Mar 7:24, and the specially significant Mar 6:5 f., where , …, = Mat 13:58 , the two possible causes of offence being removed in Mt.

4. Comparison with the other Synoptics.The indications given in the last two subsections will lead us to believe that the Second Gospel, either in the form in which we have it now, or at least in a form very like that which we have, is chronologically the first of the Synoptics, and that it lay before the writers of the First and Third Gospels. This impression is greatly strengthened by the considerations which follow. We still postpone the question whether the Markan Gospel known to Matthew and Luke is the same as our Mark.

(a) Scope of Mark.Except about thirty verses, all the narrative that we find in Mk. we find also (and in the same order) in either Mt. or Lk., or in both. This might tell both ways. If Mark were only an abbreviator, borrowing from Mt. and Lk., without much independent information, it would stand to reason that he would have little to tell us that was not found in them. But, then, his Gospel would not be the fresh and vivid, first-hand and autoptic, composition that it is. Therefore we are led to the conclusion that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, and that one or other of them took almost everything that was found in his Gospel.

That Luke borrowed from Mark is seen from another fact. In the Third Gospel there is a long section which is not in the Second (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14). For this, Luke is dependent on some other source. But, having followed the Markan order somewhat closely up to the point where the section begins, he goes back, when the section ends, to within a few verses of the place in Mk. where he dropped it. Thus, Luk 9:50 = Mar 9:39 f.; Luk 18:15 = Mar 10:13. This looks as if Mk. (or something very like it) was lying open before the Third Evangelist as he wrote.

(b) Diffuseness and redundancy of Mk. as compared with parallel passages of Mt. and Luke.The idea that Mark is an abbreviator of Matthew is at once shown to be wrong when we compare parallels. When we do so, we shall find, in almost every case, that Mk. is much fuller than either Mt. or Lk. taken singly. The greater bulk of the two latter is due to their relating many incidents and speeches which are not in Mark. The style of Mk. is somewhat diffuse, and it was necessary for the other Synoptists, if they were to make room for the new matter which they desired to introduce, to prune it considerably. This they did. Instances are: Mar 1:32 (Mt. omits when the sun did set, Lk. omits at even); Mar 1:35 (= Lk. ); Mar 2:15 f., Mar 4:1 ff., where the shorter form in Mt. and Lk. really omits nothing from the sense; Mar 5:22 f., Mar 5:35 (Mt., abbreviating, puts together the arrival of Jairus who said that the child was dying, and of the messenger who said that she was dead); Mar 5:25 (Mt. omits all the Markan details about the woman with the issue of blood, Lk. omits some of them); Mar 6:17 ff. (the parenthetical explanation about the Baptists death interrupts the course of the narrative in Mt. and Mk., but is greatly abbreviated in the former; in Lk. the story is put in its proper place, but abbreviated to one or two sentences; note Mk.s redundant , Mar 6:25); Mar 8:1 (the feeding of the four thousand, shortened in Mt., left out in Lk.); Mar 8:14 (the omission to take bread, abbreviated in Mr., whence we should have gathered, if we had not had Mk., that they discovered the omission only after landing, instead of when in the boat, as Mk., which is much more likely); Mar 9:38 ff. (the stranger exorcist, omitted in Mt., shortened in Lk.); Mar 13:19 (= Mt. , Lk. different). Many other examples might be given, e.g. Mar 7:13, Mar 8:15; Mar 8:37 (cf. Lk.) Mar 12:14; Mar 12:44, Mar 14:68, Mar 15:1, Mar 16:8. See also Hawkins, Hor Synoptic, pp. 100 ff., 110.

A similar instance of redundancy is the use of pleonastic forms in Mk., e.g. Mar 9:21 (A omits , D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has ), Mar 5:6, Mar 8:3, Mar 11:13, Mar 14:54, Mar 15:40. These are very seldom found in Mt. and Luke.

(c) Correction of Markan details in Mt. or Luke.In two or three instances we find a small slip of the pen corrected, as when Mark (Mar 1:2 f.) cites as from Isaiah a passage which is really partly from Mal 3:1 and partly from Isa 40:3, perhaps through using a book of quotations in which these passages followed each other, with Isaiah at the top of the page; here the other Synoptists omit the Malachi passage (though they give it elsewhere, Mat 11:10 = Luk 7:27), thus silently correcting Mark. So Mar 2:26 has , which can only mean during the high priesthood of Abiathar (AC, etc., insert , which might give the meaning in the time of A., who was afterwards high priest; D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin, and some Old Latin Manuscripts omit the whole phrase; these are scribes corrections). The || Mt. Lk. have the Markan sentence almost exactly, with the exception of these three words which they omit, no doubt because it is not correct to say that the events happened when Abiathar was actually high priest. In the account of the women at the tomb (Mar 16:2) there is some confusion of time ( ), probably due to compression, different events being put together, unless, indeed, we accept Wrights suggestion (Synopsis of the Gospels2, in loc.) that has dropped out before . In || Mat 28:1 there is a similar obscurity: late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene. But this is corrected in || Luk 24:1. The women came on the first day of the week (so John 20 :1 , ).

Cases of explanations, or corrections of matter, as opposed to corrections of phraseology, may be seen in Mar 12:8, where the killing of the heir precedes the casting out of the vineyard, the order being inverted in Mt. and Lk. to make the parable fit the heavenly counterpart; in Mar 13:14 (abomination of desolation) where || Mat 24:15 adds spoken of by Daniel the prophet, and || Luk 21:20 explains by altering to Jerusalem compassed with armies; and Mar 15:39 where the words Son of God (so Mt.) are explained by Lk. as a righteous man. In this last case the Markan phrase is probably original, though the centurion would have borrowed it from the Jews without understanding it; Luke gives what the centurion meant in his own mind.

In several cases additions in Mt. or Lk. imply the priority of Mk., the added words probably coming from a non-Markan source, as in the confession of St. Peter, where the account in Mk. (Mar 8:29) could hardly have been derived from Mt. by abbreviation; and in the warning (Mar 13:18) to pray that the flight be not in the winter (), where Mt. (Mat 24:20) adds , changing the case. Or, in some instances, the added words are a gloss; e.g. Mar 8:34 (taking up the crossLk. adds daily), Mar 10:40 (to sit on Jesus right hand or left hand is for those for whom it has been preparedMt. adds by my Father), Mar 12:1 (the owner of the vineyard goes awayLk. adds , showing special knowledge of viticulture, as it would be several years before the grapes were allowed to ripen).

In some cases, by a turn of phrase, Mk.s accuracy in minute points is lost in Mt. and Luke. Thus in Mar 4:36 our Lord was already in the boat (Mar 4:1); the other Synoptists, by an oversight, make Him embark here. In the Charge to the Twelve Mar 6:8 has take nothin save a staff only; || Mt. and Lk. show an early exaggeration of the command (see Swete, St. Mark, in loc.). In Mar 10:1 Jesus comes into the borders of Judaea and beyond ( ) Jordan; Mt. (Mat 19:1) omits , as do some lesser Manuscripts . in Mk. (A, etc., have ); but doubtless Mk. is right here,Jesus went both into Judaea and into Peraea. The passage is not in Luke. On the general question of the alterations and omissions of Markan matter in Mt. and Lk. see Hawkins, Hor. Synopt. p. 96 ff. He suggests that several Markan passages might be misunderstood as derogatory to Jesus or to the Apostles, or might otherwise cause offence; and therefore were altered by Mt. or by Lk. or by both.

(d) Correction of Markan phraseology in Mt. or Luke.The Second Gospel is distinguished by a rough and unpolished style, reflecting the Greek commonly spoken by the Jews in the 1st century. In the parallels of the other Synoptics there are numerous instances of toning down and pruning Marks unliterary forms of speech.

As an example, take Mk.s frequent use of diminutives, often altered in Mt., almost always in Luke. Such are Mar 5:23; Mar 7:25 (not elsewhere in NT) = Mt. Lk. (no Lukan parallel to Mar 7:25); , (the latter a late colloquial word condemned by the Atticists) Mar 5:39 ff. = Mt. bis = Lk.; Mar 10:13 (so Mt.) = Lk.; Mar 8:7Mt. has it once, but soon corrects to (not in Lk.); Mar 3:9 (so Jn.), not in Mt. and Lk. (all the best Manuscripts in Mar 4:36 have as in Mt. and Lk., not as Textus Receptus ); BD Mar 14:47 (also in Jn.) = Mt. = Lk.; Mar 14:66; Mar 14:69 (so Mt. Lk. once, but Mt. soon changes it to , Lk. to ); Mar 7:27 f. (so Mt., no Lukan parallel); Mar 7:28 (so Mt., no Lukan parallel; in Luk 16:21 is not in the best Manuscripts ).

(e) Other colloquialisms are frequent in Mark. These are often corrected in Mt., oftener still in Luke. [Those here marked with an asterisk are expressly condemned by the Atticists]. Such are * or * Mar 2:4; Mar 2:9; Mar 2:11 (Mt. and Lk. , Lk. also ) and Mar 6:55 (Mt. omits, Lk. has no parallel, Jn. also has the word); [vv.ll. , ] Mar 3:6, . Mar 15:1, neither elsewhere in NT (Mt. has . five times, Lk. different); * Mar 5:7, avoided by Mt. and Lk. (Mat 26:63 has ); * Mar 5:23, corrected by Mt. and Lk. (Josephus has , Ant. ix. viii. 6); * [best reading] Mar 8:8; Mar 8:20 (so Mt.), colloquial for (see Deissmann, Bibl. Stud. p. 158, English translation ); Mar 8:15, Mar 12:38. probably colloquial or coined by Mark, corrected or avoided in Mt. and Lk.; * Mar 9:47 (so Mt., Lk. has no parallel); Mar 10:25 = Mt. . = Lk. best text (. is a late rare word, doubtless colloquial; * is colloquial); * Mar 11:15 (so Mt. and Jn.; Lk. omits; Joh 2:14 f. has in addition); Mar 12:4, . . in Greek, altered in Mt. and Lk. (see iii. 5 and vii. below); Mar 12:13 (= Mt. , both . . in NT; Lk. has ); Mar 14:14 (so Lk., but Mt. omits), a colloquialism, though the verb is classical in the sense of halting to rest; () Mar 14:19 (altered in Mt., no parallel in Lk., a colloquialism, being made an indeclinable numeral, or else an adverb, see Deissmann, Bibl. Stud. p. 138); * Mar 14:44 (= Mt. ); * Mar 14:65 (so Jn., but altered in Mt. and Lk.); * Mar 15:43 in the sense rich or of honourable estate (altered in Mt. and Lk.). It is noteworthy, however, that Luke is more particular when correcting Mark than when composing his later treatise, for we find in Act 5:15; Act 9:33, in Act 19:13 (cf. 1Th 5:27 best text), and in the above sense in Act 13:50; Act 17:12.

(f) Marks so-called Latinisms must probably be reckoned as being in reality colloquialisms; see iv. below. Such are centurio Mar 15:39; Mar 15:44 (= , Mt. Lk.); sextarius Mar 7:4, not in the best text of Mar 7:8 (Mt. omits, abbreviating; no parallel in Lk.); speculator Mar 6:27 . . in Greek (omitted in Mt., no parallel in Lk.); quadrans Mar 12:42 (omitted in Lk., no parallel in Mt., but the word is found in Mat 5:26); or legio Mar 5:9; Mar 5:15, i.e. a large number, which seems to have been its meaning in colloquial Greek (the || Luk 8:30 has it, but || Mat 8:29; Mat 8:34 omits it; Mat 26:53 has the word in its literal, military sense); census Mar 12:14 (so Mt., but Lk. ); satisfacere Mar 15:15 (omitted in Mt. and Lk., cf. Act 17:9 satis accipientes). To these must be added denarius Mar 6:37, Mar 12:15, Mar 14:5 and modius Mar 4:21, which both the other Synoptics have retained.

(g) The Aramaic transliterations in Mk. are a source of some perplexity when we ask the cause of their presence (see below, v.). But in this connexion they are significant, because almost all of them have been removed by the other Synoptists. Even in Mk. they are nearly always accompanied by an interpretation; the other Evangelists, writing later, probably thought it useless to retain them. They are marks of an early hand, desirous of retaining the ipsissima verba spoken.

(h) Corrections of grammar, awkward and difficult phrases, etc.Under this head we note many instances of smoothing an unpolished style. Thus in Mar 3:15 ff. Mark writes , …, forgetting that he had added a clause about Peter after (BC*, etc.) (Westcott-Hort insert a bracket in endeavouring to make Mk. grammaticalsurely a desperate expedient)the difficulty disappears in Mt. and Lk.; in Mar 4:11 is awkwardin Mt. and Lk. is inserted and makes the phrase easythis probably is not a correction proper, but a case of taking a smoother phrase from the non-Markan source of Mt. and Lk. rather than the rough phrase in Mk. (see vii. 2 below). Note also Mar 4:15 , …, for simplified in Mt. and Luk 4:21 where is very awkwardLuke removes it, as also Matthew, who narrates the passage in a different connexion; Mar 4:24 Lukes gloss is (for ), doubtless a true one (no parallel in Mt.); Mar 4:31, anacolouthon, removed in Mt. and Lk., which both insert , here probably following in preference their non-Markan source (as in Mar 4:11); Mar 7:11 f. , …, which is grammatical enough though the sense is rather strainedthis is smoothed in Mt. (no parallel in Lk.); Mar 9:1 more awkward than the || Mt. . . or the || Lk. . Mar 9:11; Mar 9:28 in the sense why? (i.e. how is it that ) = Mt. or , not in Lk. (so in Mar 2:16 = Mk. Lk. ); Mar 9:12, no corresponding to , being used insteadin Mt. the order is inverted and the provides the requisite antithesis; Mar 9:41 an awkward phrase for because = Mt. , (the converse change would be impossible; Swete finds a classical parallel to Mk. in Thuc. iv. 60; there is no parallel in Lk.); Mar 11:3 the words in the best text: And straightway he will send (, historic present) him back () hither, are part of the message, but (perhaps as being ambiguous) have been omitted in Lk., and altered in Mt. to a prediction that the owner of the colt would comply with the request; Mar 13:14 is made ungrammatically masculine (), because it is taken to be a man (the participle corrected in Mt. to Lk. completely different); Mar 13:19, the harsh phrase those days shall be tribulation (softened in Authorized Version to in those days, etc.) is altered and smoothed in Mt. and Lk. to there shall be, etc.; Mar 14:65, the difficult phrase is omitted in Mt. and Lk. (the reading of Textus Receptus in Mk. arises partly from confusion of – and -, partly from the harshness of the original); Mar 14:72, the difficult altered both in Mat 26:75 and Luk 22:62 to , but Westcott-Hort bracket the clause in Lk. as doubtful (it is wanting in some Old Latin Manuscripts )if it is genuine in Lk. (and it has almost overwhelming attestation) we probably have here a case not of correction proper, but (as before) of both Matthew and Luke preferring their non-Markan source to the ambiguous Mk., which was perhaps misunderstood in early times as much as now; whether it means when he thought thereon he wept, or covering his head he wept, or as D [Note: Deuteronomist.] and the Latin, Syrian, Armenian, and other versions have it, he began to weep.

The corrections under this head are most significant, and appear to be conclusive as to the early date of Mk. as compared with the other Synoptics. For no writer, having before him a smooth text, would gratuitously introduce harsh or difficult phraseology, whereas the converse change is natural and common.

(i) We may notice some changes made for greater precision, especially by Luke, who, as one would expect, uses more correct medical language. Cf. Mar 2:3 ff., Mat 9:2 ff. = Luk 5:18 ff. ; Mar 2:17, Mat 9:12 = Luk 5:31 . [In Mar 5:42 = Mat 9:25 = Luk 8:55, Lk. Mk. (not Mt.) add the command to give the maiden something to eat,cf. Luk 7:15 where Jesus gives the widows son back to his mother: in each case He intimates that nature is to resume its usual course (Plummer, St. Luke, on Luk 8:55)].

Similar corrections for precision are: Mar 6:14 (cf. Mar 6:22; Mar 6:26 f.) = Mt. Lk. H. (though Mt. has retained . in Mar 14:9); perhaps also Mar 6:22 if the reading of BD (so Westcott-Hort) be right, in which case either the girl was not Salome but her half-sister, or perhaps more probably is used in a loose way to denote that she was Herods step-daughterMat 14:6 has , which is more likely to be the truth (the Markan reading is, however, very doubtful); Mar 1:16 etc., where Mark calls the Lake of Gennesaret the sea () of Galilee (so Mt.), but Luke always, with his superior nautical knowledge, changes the word to ; and Mar 15:32 which says that they that were crucified (pl.) with him reproached him (so Mt.)the plural is perhaps used only impersonally, or possibly both robbers began to revile and one repented; but Luke, who had independent knowledge of this incident (for he alone relates the penitence of the robber), emphatically corrects the phrase to (Luk 23:39).

(j) Doubtful cases.We must finally consider some passages in which it is doubtful whether we must attribute to Mk. priority or posteriority. In Mar 6:3 we find ; where Mat 13:55 has and Luk 4:22 . Here the correction might be on the part of the First and Third Evangelists, who disliked the name the carpenter being given to Jesus, and the fact that they use different phrases points to the probability that they are not here borrowing from their common source or sources; while the correction might be on the part of Mark, who thought that the phrase son of Joseph might be misunderstood by his readers, inasmuch as they had not the birth-narrative before them to explain it. Origen asserts that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being the carpenter (adv. Cels. vi. 36), and perhaps this reading was not in his copy of Marka few authorities now extant have a different phrase (but see Westcott-Hort, Notes on Select Readings, p. 24). If the correction is on the part of the Second Gospel, it is probable that our Markan reading is the work of an editor later than Mt. Lk. (but see vii. below).In Mar 14:30; Mar 14:68; Mar 14:72 the cock is said to crow twice, according to the usually received readings; in Mt. Lk. Jn. only one cock-crowing is recorded. Some Manuscripts omit in Mar 14:30, many (BC syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin etc.) omit in Mar 14:68, some omit in Mar 14:72, others omit in Mar 14:72. If a second cock-crowing was in the Petrine tradition, it is difficult to understand why the other Evangelists should have so completely omitted all trace of it; but it is equally difficult to understand why, if it belongs to the original Mk., and if that Gospel was later than Mt. and Lk., the Second Evangelist should have introduced it; or again why, if it is an editorial addition to Mk., the editor should have introduced it. Perhaps Dr. Salmons solution is the right one (Textual Criticism, ch. v.)that originally Mk. had only one cock-crowing, that of Mar 14:72 (i.e., not in the same place as in Mt. and Lk.); that the omission of B, etc., in Mar 14:68 is right; and that some early scribe having by error put in these words, without intending to introduce two cock-crowings, other scribes added and in the other places to produce consistency. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the omissions in some Manuscripts of Mk. are easily explicable on the supposition that a harmonizing scribe, not finding two cock-crowings in the other Gospels, omitted these words in Mk.; if this be so, the enigma is inexplicable.In Mar 14:58 the words , may be a comment of the Evangelists, the simpler words of Mat 26:61 being what the false witnesses really said (Lk. has no parallel). If so, the Markan form would probably be later than the Matthaean (see Schmiedel in Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1851). But the introduction of comments such as these, however much in the style of Mt., is not in that of Mk., and there is no reason why Jesus should not actually have used the words, and, if so, why the false witnesses should not have quoted them; their false testimony lay in giving a wrong sense to our Lords words, rather than in quoting Him wrongly.

A case of possible correction of Mk. may be briefly noticed here, though it does not concern Mt. or Luke. In Mar 15:25 we read that the Crucifixion took place at the third hour; Joh 19:14 says that the trial was hardly over by the sixth hour ( ), and this looks like a correction of Mk. as to time. But probably this is no correction, whether we take Westcotts solution that Johns sixth hour is our 6 a.m., or that of Ramsay (Expositor, 4th ser. vii. 216, 5th ser. iii. 457) and others that the word hour is used in a loose and ill-defined way, or the more probable and ancient view (Euseb. ad Marin.) that there is an error of the digamma, (= 6) for (= 3) or vice versa, in the text of the Gospels. If so, our copies of Jn. are probably wrong, since Mk. has three separate notes of time which hang all together, Mar 15:1; Mar 15:25; Mar 15:33 (see Wright, Synopsis2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , in loc., and New Test. Prob. p. 147).

(k) Conclusion from the evidence.The detailed comparison of Mk. with Mt. and Lk. leads us to the conclusion that either Mk. as we have it now, or at least a Gospel which differs from our Mk. in unessential particulars only, lay before the First and Third Evangelists when they wrote. If the doubtful cases mentioned above, and the instances given below in vii., be held to argue the priority of Mt. or Lk. over Mk., that would apply only to editorial additions, and the main conclusion would not be affected. Some of the deductions made above may be questioned, yet the cumulative force of the whole is very great. And a careful study of them will at once dissipate the idea that Mark is an abbreviator of Matthew, and will lead us to the conclusion that here we come much closer to the bed-rock of the Gospel story than in either Mt. or Luke. This is the great value of Mk., and it has been left for modern scholars to discover it.

5. Other characteristics of diction in Mark.The style of the Second Gospel may be gathered to a large extent from what has preceded. For its Aramaic tinge see below, v. A few favourite modes of speech remain to be noticed. The use of the historic present is especially common, and this contributes largely to the vividness of the narrative. Yet there is great freedom of tenses; we find changes in the same sentence from a past tense to a historic present, and vice versa. Of a few particles Mark is very fonde.g. 41 times; as adverb, Mar 1:45; Mar 3:12; Mar 5:10; Mar 5:23; Mar 5:38; Mar 5:43; Mar 6:20 BL Mar 9:26, Mar 15:3; Mar 2:1; Mar 2:13, Mar 3:1; Mar 3:20 etc.; is used in exaggeration, e.g. Mar 1:5, Mar 2:13; accumulated negatives are common, e.g. Mar 1:44, Mar 2:3, Mar 3:20; Mar 3:27. In ch. 4 or is so frequent (8 times) that Swete has raised the question (on Mar 4:21) whether Mark had before him a number of detached sayings of Jesus which he here introduces.

Our Gospel has about ten somewhat striking words which are, as far as we know, in all Greek literature. Such are: Mar 1:35 (cf. A, etc., have ); Mar 2:21 (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has ); Mar 6:27 (see above, iii. 4 (b)); as adv. Mar 7:3, i.e. with arm and elbow (a late Greek meaningin classical Greek with the list), so completely or diligently (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has , frequently, and so several VSS [Note: SS Versions.] , obviously a correction); Mar 7:37 (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has .) and Mar 14:31 (A, etc., have ); Mar 8:25, i.e. clearly, though at a distance (*CL have -); Mar 9:25; Mar 12:4 (v.l. -), see below, vii.; Mar 13:11. There are also about 70 other words which occur nowhere else in NT, though many are found in the LXX Septuagint . This, as compared with the other Gospels, is a small number; Lk. has some 250 words not found elsewhere in NT (see Swete, l.c. p. xliv, for careful lists of words peculiar to Mk., or used by him in common with one or more of the other NT writers).

6. Matter peculiar to Mark.The Second Gospel relates very few incidents not given, or at least referred to, in Mt. or Luke. We have only one parable peculiar to Mk., that of the seed growing secretly (Mar 4:26 ff.), and only two miracles, the healing of the deaf stammerer (the v.l. , from thick-voiced, is not well supported) (Mar 7:31 ff.), and of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mar 8:22 ff.). Other paragraphs peculiar to Mk. are: the questions about the dulness of the disciples when they forgot to take bread (Mar 8:17 f.), and about the disciples disputing (Mar 9:33); and the incidents of the young man with the linen cloth (Mar 14:51 f.), of the smiting of Jesus by the servants () of the chief priests (Mar 14:65), and of Pilates wonder, and his question put to the centurion (Mar 15:44). See also vii. below.

iv. Authorship, Date, and Place of writing.There is no reason to dispute the Patristic statements ( ii. above) that Mark, the of Paul and Barnabas (Act 13:5) and the disciple of Peter, was the another of the Second Gospel. And there is much probability that the statement of Clement of Alexandria, that Mark wrote in Rome, is correct. We cannot, indeed, argue from the Latinisms (see iii. 4 (f)) that he wrote for the Romans, for these words are probably mere colloquialisms in common use in the whole Empire, and, moreover, the Christian Romans undoubtedly spoke, at least in the ordinary way, Greek and not Latin (see v. 2). But that it was written for Gentiles appears from the general absence of OT quotations, except when our Lords words are cited (Mar 1:2 f. is an exception; Mar 15:28 must almost certainly be expunged from the text, being omitted by ABC*D k syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin etc.); also from the interpretation of Aramaic transliterations and the explanation of Jewish customs: e.g. Mar 7:2 ff. (washing of hands, etc.) Mar 12:42 (two mites making a farthing; the or half quadrans, being a Jewish coin, has to be explained), Mar 15:42 (the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath); from the absence of mention of the Jewish law; and from the geographical description of Mar 13:3 (the Mount of Olives* [Note: uses here and in Mar 14:26; but in Mar 11:1 we must probably accentuate the last word as oxytone (B k r)i.e. the substantive is , an olive grove (as in Act 1:12 ). See Deissmann, Bibl. Stud. p. 208 f., and Swete, St. Mark on Mar 11:1.] over against the temple). Chrysostoms statement (Prom. in Matt.), that Egypt was the place of writing, is negatived by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen, and is probably a mistaken inference from Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica ii. 16, which says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the gospel which he had composed. Some moderns have supposed a double publication, one in Rome and one in Alexandria.

The question of date is more difficult. From internal considerations we should certainly assign an early date to Mk., at any rate before the Fall of Jerusalem. The Discourse on the End (esp. Mar 13:13 f., Mar 13:24; Mar 13:30; Mar 13:33) is reported as if the fulfilment were only in prospect, and in a manner that would be hardly possible if the siege of Titus had already taken place. This conclusion becomes still more likely when we compare Mk. with Mt. and Luke. The discourse seems to join together two separate things, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. All the Synoptics begin with the destruction of the Temple. In Mk. and Lk. follows a discourse which apparently speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, and then the passage Mar 13:24-27 seems to refer to the end of the world. But Matthew in his accustomed manner weaves together Jesus sayings which in the other Evangelists are distinct, and mingles together the two events spoken of. Thus the compiler of the Matthaean discourse (we need beg no question as to authorship) evidently thought that the two events would be synchronous, and therefore must have written his account of the prophecy (not necessarily the whole Gospel) before the Fall of Jerusalem. If so, the Markan discourse is earlier still.

So the reference to the shewbread (Mar 2:26 , present) seems to imply that the Temple was at the time of writing still standing, and that the presentation of the shewbread still went on. Also the considerations mentioned above in iii. 3, 4, as to the description of Jesus inner feelings, the style and details of the Gospel, point strongly in the same direction. If, again, we were to hold the theory of an Aramaic original (but see v.), we could hardly avoid supposing a still earlier date.

We have then to consider if the external evidence contradicts the internal. The date of two other NT books affects our judgment. (a) If we adopt the early date for Acts (c. a.d. 62), i.e. if we suppose that St. Luke tells us no more of St. Pauls history after the two years at Rome simply because nothing more at the time of writing had happened, we must assign a still earlier date to Lk., and a fortiori to Mark. There is much to be said for this early date of Acts, though many hold that Luk 21:20 (Jerusalem compassed with armies), when we compare it with Mar 13:14, Mat 24:15 (abomination of desolation), betokens a writing after the event described. (b) Papias by implication, and Irenaeus (iii. 1. 1) explicitly, say that Mark wrote after Peters death (see ii. above)Irenaeus also asserts that Matthew wrote firstwhile Clement of Alexandria and Origen say that he wrote in Peters lifetime. Now, if we take the former statement as true, the date of 1 Peter is a difficulty in the way of accepting the internal evidence for the date of Mark. For we can hardly assign a very early date to it (e.g. 1Pe 4:16 [suffer] as a Christian). There is no great reason for believing that St. Peter died in the same year as St. Paul, and it is quite possible that he survived him for some considerable time, during which St. Mark acted as his interpreter. The indications of a later date in 1 Peter do not then militate against the Petrine authorship of that Epistle. But if Mark wrote his Gospel after Peters death, the early date to which the internal evidence leads us becomes difficult. While, therefore, we might have agreed with Swete (St. Mark, p. xl) that the witness of Irenaeus and Papias is more probable than that of Clement and Origen, if we had nothing else to go by, in view of the strong internal indications of an early date, we are perhaps led to prefer the Alexandrian view that Mark wrote in the lifetime of Peter. Nevertheless Sweets date, just before a.d. 70, is chronologically possible (the order would then be 1 Peter; death of St. Peter; Mk.), but it allows very little time for the Mt. Discourse on the End to be written. Possibly the theory of a double publication might reconcile the Patristic testimony; but, if so, the second edition probably differed hardly at all from the first (see vi. vii. below).

v. The Aramaic characteristics and original language of Mark.The external evidence would not lead us to any other conclusion than that the Greek St. Mark as we have it is an original composition, and not a translation from any Aramaic document. We have, however, to consider a noteworthy phenomenon which the Gospel itself brings outthe strong Aramaic tinge which goes all through it. This tinge has led some to postulate an Aramaic original, and to suppose that the Gospel which we possess is a translation. We may first collect together and comment on instances of this characteristic, and then consider how they bear on the question of the original language.

1. Aramaisms.A characteristic of Mk. is the retention of several Aramaic words transliterated into Greek. Such are: Mar 3:17 (= ?, the or the being probably an intrusion in the text, or being perhaps the original reading, see Dalman, Words of Jesus, p, 49, Gramm. d. Jd.-Pal. [Note: Palestine, Palestinian.] Aramisch, p. 112; the syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin psh is , which the Nestorians pronounce bh raysh, the Jacobites bn [or bnai?] ryesh, both with mute yudhfor a possible origin of these forms see Burkitt, Evang. da-Mephar. ii. p. 280; the Armenian is Banereges); Mar 5:41 (= , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] psh with yudh quiescent, syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin wanting: some Greek Manuscripts read ; see also below); Mar 7:11 (= , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] psh , being the usual Syriac name for the Eucharist); Mar 7:34 (= ); Mar 14:36 (= , again in Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6, see Abba). These occur in Mk. only of the Gospels, as does the redundant ( .) Mar 10:46 (Mt. Lk. give no name; Bartimaeus could not be the blind mans own real name, though he may have been known by it; ef. Barjona, Barabbas). Two others are found also in Mt. and Jn., Mar 9:5; Mar 11:21; Mar 14:45 (= , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin cu puh ), Mar 11:9 (= , Syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin cu puh ); a third in Jn., Mar 10:51 (= , syrsin , syrcu waiting in Jn. also, syrpsh syr hkl , perhaps a diminutive); these three are not found in Luke. The Heb. Aram. Aramaic (, syr ) is retained by all the Evangelists, but much less often by Luke than by the others; note also that Mar 3:28 becomes in Mat 12:31 , and so sometimes elsewhere. The Aramaic Word from the Cross is remarkable, , , Mar 15:34 ( syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin puh with both yudhs quiescent; vv.ll. are D [Note: Deuteronomist.] and some old latt., and D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , zaphtani d, zaphani k). The Divine name here is a Hebraized form of the pure Aramaic (syr. ). recurs in the B text of Mat 27:46 (so Westcott-Hort), but the Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 text, following other Manuscripts , have or (so syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin ; syr [Note: yr Syriac.] psh syr [Note: yr Syriac.] cu wanting), and this would be a correction by Matthew, or (as Westcott Hort, Notes, p. 21) by a Matthaean scribe or editor, to suit the Hebrew form , which was no doubt familiar from liturgical worship. This reading is probably confirmed by pseudo-Peter, for it apparently underlies his strange phrase , ., , being mistaken for (syr. ) strength. The object of the Matthaean correction would be to make it more obvious why the people thought that Elijah was being invoked, the form being much farther from than is; and this consideration would point to our Lord Himself having used the pure Hebrew form of the Divine name rather than the Aramaic.

Certain Aramaic (or Hebrew) proper names should also be noted: Mar 3:18 (so Mt., = Lk. Ac. ; = Aram. Aramaic , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin pah ); Mar 3:19, also – (so also Mt. Lk.; Heb. , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin psh ; syr [Note: yr Syriac.] cu in Luk 22:3); or, as B, Mar 3:22 (so Lk., and so Mt. elsewhere), a word of uncertain meaning, perhaps lord of dung or lord of habitation (syr [Note: yr Syriac.] cu sin psh lord of flies); perhaps Mar 8:10 ( . = , the second word being inadvertently repeated and the real name being dropped (Harris, Study of Codex Bezae, p. 178; but see Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 60; D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has , d Magidan, syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] psh ; in || Mat 15:39 the best Greek text has , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin as above, syr [Note: yr Syriac.] cu , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] psh ); Mar 15:22 B, etc. ( ) = Mt. Jn. (Mt. Mk. translate it by , Jn. leaves it without translation, Lk. has only; the Aram. Aramaic is , syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin in Mk. but in Mt., and so syr [Note: yr Syriac.] psh throughout, syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin is wanting in Jn.; syr [Note: yr Syriac.] cu is wanting in all these places; in Lk. syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin cu psh have ).

The frequent use of a participle and the substantive verb in Mk. may well be due to Aramaic influence, the Aramaic participle with , for example, forming an imperfect (see W. C. Allen in Expositor, 6th series, vol. i. p. 436); e.g. Mar 1:6 , Mar 1:22 (so Mt.), Mar 1:33 , and so Mar 2:6; Mar 2:18; Mar 5:5; Mar 6:52; Mar 9:4; Mar 10:22; Mar 10:32; Mar 13:25; Mar 14:4; Mar 14:40; Mar 14:54; Mar 15:7; Mar 15:26; Mar 15:43; Mar 15:46; and in some Western texts of Mar 1:39 ( for .) Mar 2:4 ( for ); similarly also perhaps a participle with , as Mar 9:3 , Mar 9:7 . , both altered in Mt. and Lk.; and so whichever way we read Mar 1:4 ( , v.l. . ., altered in Mt. and Lk.).

The use of some prepositions after verbs, etc., is thought to be due to the same cause (Allen, loc. cit.), as Mar 1:7, Mar 1:11, Mar 1:15, Mar 1:30, Mar 2:16, Mar 5:29, Mar 5:34, Mar 5:34, Mar 6:2 (but the Aramaic would have the singular), Mar 6:50, Mar 12:2. Similarly also prepositions repeated after compound verbs, as Mar 1:25, and so Mar 1:26; Mar 1:42; Mar 1:45; Mar 2:1; Mar 5:2; Mar 5:8; Mar 5:13; Mar 5:17; Mar 6:54; Mar 7:17; Mar 7:26; Mar 7:29; Mar 7:31; Mar 9:25; Mar 9:28; Mar 9:45; Mar 9:47; Mar 10:15 etc.; the suggestion apparently being that these represent Aramaic forms like , .

Phrases like Mar 6:7, Mar 6:39, Mar 6:40 are Aramaic or Hebrew idioms. Also several other Aramaic phrases have been noted, as sons of the bridechamber Mar 2:19 (so Mt. Lk.), sons of men Mar 3:28 (see vii. 2 below), Mar 5:43, Mar 16:2 (positive for superlative), Mar 2:15 (so Mt., not Lk.), Mar 1:9 (Mk. only); and the indefinite use of (for ) Mar 9:17, Mar 10:17, Mar 12:28, Mar 13:1, Mar 14:18; Mar 14:66 (Allen, loc, cit.). Dalman also has made a collection of Hebraisms and Aramaisms in the Gospels (Words of Jesus, p. 20 ff.), though he considers that they do not constitute a proof of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Of these the following are found in Mk.: redundantly used with a finite verb Mar 7:25 (. ); with a term signifying departure where the idea of leaving is not emphasized Mar 4:36, Mar 8:13, Mar 12:12; and where they are superfluous Mar 2:14, Mar 11:25; used redundantly Mar 2:14, Mar 7:24, Mar 10:1; Mar 10:50 (AC); answer and say Mar 3:33, Mar 7:28, Mar 9:5, Mar 10:51, Mar 11:14, Mar 12:35, Mar 15:9, often when no question has been asked; Mar 6:50 (?); (-) with infinitive when nothing follows developing the action, 26 times; or , a favourite form in Mk. (45 times) = Aram. Aramaic ; the use of , not only in a quotation like Mar 1:2, but in the phrase . Mar 12:14, and some others.

2. Original language of Mark.The Aramaic tinge in our Gospel is thought by some, e.g. Blass (Philology of the Gospels, ch. xi.) and Allen (loc. cit.), to show that it was originally written in Aramaic. A large number of the real or alleged Aramaisms given above are found in Mt. and Lk.; but it is argued that as they had ex hypothesi Mk. before them, they merely retained a certain number of the Aramaisms of their source. Moreover, the Aramaisms are found not only in the words of our Lord, in which case they might be explained as being due to the faithful reporting of His ipsissima verba, but also in the framework of the Gospel. On the theory of an Aramaic original, Allen explains the frequent use in Mk. of as a connecting link (cf. Aram. Aramaic 1), and of five particles constantly used, (see above), , , , , other particles being rare. He also explains the favourite historic present in Mk. as coming from the use of an Aramaic present participle for this purpose. In Syriac it is so found only in the verb to say (Nldeke, Syr. [Note: Syriac.] Gramm. 274, p. 190), except in syr [Note: yr Syriac.] hkl, where it is a literal translation. But in the other Aramaic dialects this usage is not so limited; the idiom is found with other verbs, e.g. in Daniel and Tobit, and its presence in an original Aramaic Mk. would bring us to the frequent historic presents in the Greek Mk. The irregularity noticed above ( iii. 5) of their being mixed up with past tenses occurs also in Aramaic. It is also thought that the difficult (v.l. Westcott-Hort) (v.l. WH [Note: H Westcott and Horts text.] ) in Mar 4:8 (cf. Mar 4:20) is explained by the (i.e. ) representing , cf. Dan 3:19 (but equally well might represent an Aramaic at the rate of); and that the of Mar 4:21 and of Mar 9:41 and of Mar 14:72 (see above, iii. 4 (h)) come from a mistranslation of some (unknown) Aramaic original. In the JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] ii. 298, Allen suggests that the word (Mar 12:4) is due to a confusion of they injured with , which would be a puzzle to the translator, who rendered it by this coined word, taking it from Aram. Aramaic a head. Similarly, Prof. Marshall (Expositor, 4th series, iv. 377) thinks that Mar 5:10 and || Luk 8:31 (Mt. different) are the result of translations of one Aramaic original, meaning both earth or land and below.

Blass brings different arguments on the same side. They run in two lines. (a) He suggests that St. Luke in Acts 1-12 used an Aramaic source, while the rest of the book was his own independent work. In these twelve chapters Aramaisms abound, while in the rest of the book they are comparatively scarce; and the style of the twelve chapters is rough as compared with St. Lukes own. Blass conjectures that Mark, who, as son of a prominent Christian lady in Jerusalem, was well fitted for the task, wrote the Aramaic source. [With this we may compare Weisss idea that Mark ended his Gospel at Mar 16:8 because he went on to write a second work, which began with the Resurrection appearances]. If so, the first work, i.e. the Gospel, would be in Aramaic. (b) Blass thinks that the various readings in the present Manuscripts of Mk., and those shown by Patristic quotations, are relics of different translations of an original Aramaic.

In reviewing these considerations, we must remark that Dr. Blasss first argument rests on pure conjecture. Why should Mark be the writer of the supposed Aramaic source of Acts 1-12? And if so, why must he have written two books in the same language? He was confessedly bilingual, able to write in both Greek and Aramaic. This argument, then, is a halting one. And the second seems scarcely less precarious. The suggestions of Mr. Allen are more substantial. But these also appear to be inconclusive. They certainly show that the Aramaic tinge, strong in all the Synoptics, is strongest in Mark. But this need mean no more than that Aramaic was St. Marks native language, that in which he thought, as most of the Palestinian Jews would do. The Greek spoken in Palestine was doubtless saturated with Aramaic forms and idioms, and Mark, whose style is comparatively unpolished, discarded them less than the other Synoptists. The theory of an Aramaic original has some formidable difficulties to overcome. Papias had evidently never heard of any but a Greek Mk., and no ecclesiastical writer suggests that the latter is a translation. The external evidence is all against the hypothesis which we have been examining. But so, also, when we look closely, is the internal evidence. It is true that there are many Aramaisms in Mark. Of these, however, we may dismiss, for our present purpose, the proper names, which would be used in Palestine equally whether an author wrote in Aramaic or in Greek. The influence of Aramaic grammar and diction may also probably be dismissed, seeing that the writer doubtless thought in Aramaic. There remain, then, the suggestions of mistranslation, which, however, are too ingenious for verisimilitude, and the transliterations like Talitha Cumi. But the fact that practically in each case of transliteration a Greek interpretation is added, is fatal to the idea that we have here traces of a conservative translator who incorporated bodily the words which he found in the book before him. As Swete remarks (St. Mark, p. xlii), a translator might have either translated the Aramaic or transliterated it; but transliteration followed by interpretation savours of an original writer. A still more fatal objection is the freshness of the style of our Gospel. Even the best translation loses the individuality of the author. But here we have a book in which the individuality is most strongly marked. It can hardly be a second-hand reproduction of any ones work.

If the Aramaic-original theory be true, we must put back the date considerably, as Mr. Allen (loc. cit.) sees, probably to a date before a.d. 60; and then the Gospel is not likely to have been written in Rome. In this last detail the ecclesiastical testimony is again contradicted by the theory.

There is a line of argument which, though interesting, does not really bear on this question. In Mar 5:41, for or , D [Note: Deuteronomist.] has , supported by Old Latin tabitha, or thabitha, or thabitha as if the girls name were Tabitha (cf. Act 9:20). In a Syriac text the transition from to would be easy. The Old Latin MS e has the curious reading tabea acultha quod est interpretatum puella puella tibi dico exsurge. But these variations show nothing as to the original language of Mk.; they show only that D [Note: Deuteronomist.] and the Old Latin Manuscripts were directly or indirectly influenced by the Syriac versions (see Chase, Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 109 f.).

Finally, we must consider the statement of some cursive Greek Manuscripts , that the Gospel was written in Latin (). They add that it was written in Rome, and this is no doubt the explanation of the other statement. It was supposed that if Rome was the place of writing, the Gospel must have been written in Latin. But this deduction is known to be without warrant. Those in Rome for whom the Gospel was written would speak Greek. St. Paul wrote to the Christian community in Rome in Greek, and St. Clement wrote from Rome in the same language. Further, even a cursory examination of Mk. shows that, whatever it is, it is not a translation into Greek from Latin. Thus this idea may be very briefly dismissed.

vi. The last twelve verses.The question of the end of the Gospel is one of great difficulty, whatever view we take of the paragraph which now brings it to a close. An endeavour will be made in this section to state and weigh all the principal arguments; it would seem that neither the supporters nor the impugners of the present ending have quite done justice to the strength of the arguments on the other side. The facts to be considered are as follows. There are three ways of ending the Gospel. The first, here called the Short Ending, stops at Mar 16:8 . The second, here cited as the Long Ending, is that of our ordinary Bibles (Mar 16:9-20), the last twelve verses. But there is also a third, here called the Intermediate Ending, which runs as follows: . [ ] . And they immediately (or briefly) made known all things that had been commanded (them) to those about Peter. And after this Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out by means of them from the East even to the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of the eternal salvation. This ending is found in four minor uncials, L (Codex Regius, 8th cent.), 12 [Note: 2 designates the particular edition of the work referred] (Fragmentum Sinaiticum, 7th cent.), (Fragm. Parisiense, 8th cent.), and (Codex Athous Laurae, 8th or 9th cent.), in all of them as an alternative to the Long Ending, though it would appear that the archetype of the first three, at any rate, ended at Mar 16:8. The Intermediate Ending is also found in the Old Latin k, standing alone, in several Manuscripts of the Ethiopic prefixed to the Long Ending, and in the margin of syr [Note: yr Syriac.] hkl, of two Bohairic Manuscripts , and of a cursive Greek MS. No one maintains its genuineness; it is clearly written as an end to the Gospel, and is not an independent fragment. It is probably due to an early scribe, who wrote it either because he had before him the Long Ending and objected to it, or because he had before him the Short Ending and thought it abrupt. Swete (St. Mark, p. cviii) conjectures that he was a Western, because of the emphasis laid on the West. Nestle makes him an Egyptian, without giving reasons (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iii. 13). Dobschtz (TU [Note: U Texte und Untersuehungen.] xi. 1, p. 73 f., quoted by Swete) thinks that the ending is part of the Preaching of Peter; but the internal evidence is against this (see above). It is not found in any of the Fathers. Its presence, however, bears materially on the whole question. The only variation in the readings that need be mentioned is that , which the sense clearly demands, is omitted by L, is omitted by , and by all the Greek codices,it has to be supplied from the versions.

The Short Ending is found in B, syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin, and also in the oldest Manuscripts of the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. Eusebius says (ad Marin. QuaeJames 1, vol. 4) that the Long Ending was not in the accurate copies of his day; later writers copy Eusebius, and do not add to our knowledge. Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem are silent about the Long Ending; and this would be very significant if it were not that Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret are also silent, though they must have known verses which were in wide circulation in their time. Here we must note, further, that the fact that the Short Ending could scarcely have been the original close of the Gospel (see below), is no argument for the genuineness of the other two extant endings.

The Long Ending is found in practically all the authorities except those mentioned abovein almost all the uncials and cursives, the lectionaries, in the great majority of versions. It is explicitly quoted by Irenaeus as a genuine part of Mk. (Mar 3:10; Mar 3:6 : in fine autem evangelii ait Marcus, Et quidem Dominus Jesus, etc. = Mar 16:19). It is also probably referred to by Justin (Apol. i. 45: = Mar 16:20); possibly by Barnabas (xv. 9, ; cf. Mar 16:14 ) and Hermas (Sim. ix. xxv. 1, 2; cf. Mar 16:15). But these last two cases are quite uncertain, and there is no evidence at all that any Father before Irenaeus knew these verses as part of the Gospel; they may have known them from some other writer. Dr. Salmon argues with some force (Introd., appendix to Lect. ix.) that though B have not got these verses, yet in this part they are copied from one archetype which probably did contain them. The scribes seem to have purposely omitted something which was in the archetype, leaving a blank or distending the writing, and that something must have been of about the same length as the Long Ending. Salmon conjectures that the scribes of and B were of the school of Eusebius, and that they left out these verses, though they had them in their original, because Eusebius disapproved of them. No writer before Eusebius is known to have rejected them, and their presence in all later Manuscripts shows that the successors of Eusebius, in spite of his great authority, did not follow his judgment in the matter. If, however, Salmons argument on this part of the subject is sound, and if B when cross-examined give evidence, as he says, for the disputed ending and not against it, yet the absence of the ending in syr [Note: yr Syriac.] sin and in Eusebius more accurate copies remains a stumbling-block to accepting the further inference that the Long Ending is genuine. Mr. F. C. Conybeare has suggested (Expositor, 4th series, viii. 241) that these verses are the work of the Aristion mentioned by Papias as one of our Lords disciples. In an Armenian MS. of the Gospels written a.d. 986 (only discovered in 1891), the Long Ending is said to be of the presbyter Ariston, and it is not unreasonable to understand Aristion to be meant, the iota having fallen in transcription into Armenian. But the evidence is too late to be of much worth.

The internal evidence is important. It is freely admitted by the supporters of the Long Ending that its style and vocabulary are entirely different from those of the main part of the Gospel; and this consideration is decisive against the authorship being the same. But this does not at once bring us to a solution of all our difficulties. As far as style goes, it does not necessarily follow that the Long Ending is not by St. Mark. Salmon (loc. cit.) suggests that our Second Gospel is, in its present form, the latest of the Synoptics, St. Mark having, indeed, followed the written Petrine tradition more faithfully than the others, and having incorporated it in his Gospel almost in its own words, prefixing Mar 1:1-15 and adding Mar 16:9 ff., inserting also various editorial touches (for which see vii. 2 below). Certainly both the first fifteen and the last twelve verses of our Gospel show the same system of summarizing events,Salmon suggests that it was these two passages which led Augustine to call Mark an abbreviator of Matthew,and so far they might be by the same author. Yet the style of the preface and that of the appendix are not similar. A greater objection to this view is that it supposes in reality a Peter-Gospel not written by St. Mark; but ecclesiastical writers never represent St. Peter as writing a Gospel, either by himself or by any scribe or interpreter except St. Mark. For we notice that this theory will not bear the weight of the additional hypothesis (not Salmons), that St. Mark wrote a first edition, perhaps at Rome, and afterwards a later one, with added matter, perhaps at Alexandria. The style-argument is decisively against this; moreover, some traces of the original ending would have survived, and the Church to which he gave his first edition would have preserved the words with which that edition closed.

There is one consideration which seems to the present writer decisive against Dr. Salmons view. The Long Ending could not, like the Intermediate one, have been writtenwhether by Mark or by anotherexpressly to finish the Gospel left unfinished at Mar 16:8. For the beginning of Mar 16:9 is not continuous with Mar 16:8. The subject of had evidently been indicated in the sentence which had preceded; yet the necessary Jesus cannot be understood from anything in Mar 16:8. Further, Mary Magdalene is introduced in Mar 16:9 as a new person,she is indicated as one ,though she had just been mentioned by name in Mar 15:40; Mar 15:47, Mar 16:1, and though she was one of the women spoken of throughout the eight verses preceding the Long Ending. This paragraph, then, must be a fragment of a larger work, and could not have been composed on purpose to end the Gospel. It is, indeed, too much to say that it is a summary of events of the Forty Days, complete in itself, but at least it fits very badly on to the rest of the Gospel.

The presence of the Intermediate Ending also militates against the last twelve verses being the work of St. Mark. It shows that in very early times, how early we cannot say, these verses were not unanimously received. The evidence of Irenaeus, however, shows that they were adopted as an ending to the Gospel not later than the middle of the 2nd century.

We must probably, then, dismiss the idea that either the Long or the Intermediate Ending was the work of the Second Evangelist. We have, however, still to consider the problem suggested by the Short Ending.

It is inconceivable that Mar 16:8, with its abrupt and inauspicious , could possibly be the end of a Gospel; indeed, it seems to stop in the middle of a sentence. Against this it is said that abrupt terminations are not unknown in Greek literature (see Salmond in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iii. 253). Yet in this case such an idea is hardly tenable. It is very unlikely that the Gospel should deliberately end without any incident of the risen life of our Lord and with a note of terror. We have therefore to suppose a lost ending; and the difficulty of accounting for its total disappearance is the strongest argument of the supporters of the last twelve verses. It is not sufficient to pass it by, as is often done by those who impugn them, as a matter of little importance.

It is suggested that the last leaf of the original was early lost, and that the other extant endings were supplied to take its place. The last leaf of a MS is undoubtedly the very one which is most likely, after much use, to disappear. Dr. Salmon points out (loc. cit.) that this idea is based on the supposition that the original completely disappeared. The hypothesis of a lost leaf would account for a partial circulation of shorter copies, but for the complete disappearance of the old ending only if it was Marks own autograph that lost its leaf before any copy was made from it. But it is difficult to suppose that only one MS of the Gospel existed in Marks lifetime, and that his autograph was not copied till he died; and if the leaf fell in Marks lifetime before the autograph was copied, why did not Mark write another?

There is an equal difficulty in the kindred supposition that the Gospel was left accidentally unfinished at Mar 16:8. Salmon asks why, if Mark died before completing his work, the disciple who gave the work to the world did not add a suitable ending, as Tertius added something to Romans (Rom 16:22), and the presbyters (probably) to the Fourth Gospel (Joh 21:24)? If suitable endings were added afterwards, why not at the time when the Gospel was first published? And this supposition is against the ecclesiastical testimony, which makes Mark finish his Gospel, and in some cases makes him take it to Egypt.

It cannot be said that these difficulties have been very satisfactorily met. Perhaps in our present state of knowledge the best solution of them is that of Dean Armitage Robinson, who suggests (Study of the Gospels, p. 5) that the Second Gospel was not highly esteemed in the 2nd cent., and that all copies perished but one, which lost its leaf. We know that the Gospel was neglected later on (see above, ii.), chiefly on account of its shortness, and because it apparently adds little to our information. This may well have been the case early in the 2nd cent.; and if that be so, the circulation of it would not have been nearly so large as that of the other Gospels. It is not, however, necessary to put the loss of the leaf so late. The same state of things might well have existed immediately after St. Marks death.

The difficulties on neither side can be neglected. But our verdict must be given after weighing probabilities, and to the present writer they seem overwhelmingly to preponderate against the Markan authorship of the last twelve verses, or even against their being a real ending of the Gospel at all. But they are, nevertheless, like the Pericope Adulter, an exceedingly ancient and authoritative record of the words and deeds narrated in them.

vii. Is our Second Gospel the original which lay before the First and Third Evangelists?Those who in the present day answer this question in the negative usually take a different line from that taken by Baur and his school. They regard our present canonical Gospel as an edited and augmented form of the original, yet as retaining almost all the characteristic features of that original. This hypothesis is much more tenable than the Tbingen theory, which made all our Synoptic Gospels 2nd cent. productions, and held that the Mk. known to Papias was not our Mk., but something entirely different. These two hypotheses are, in reality, inconsistent, and must be considered separately. [For an attempt partially to combine them see Sandays Gosp. in Sec. Cent. v. 2, written in 1876, and not since reprinted. It is not known if Dr. Sanday would still maintain the opinions which he then held].

1. Baur, Schleiermacher, Wendt, Davidson, Renan, and others substantially agree in holding the latter hypothesis. Papias says that St. Mark wrote Christs words and deeds accurately but not in order (see above, ii.). From this it is concluded that the Mk. of Papias (Ur-Marcus) was not written in order, but was a disjointed collection of speeches and anecdotes; and, further, was not a Gospel in our later sense of the word, but something of the nature of the Clementine Homilies, a record of the sayings and teachings of Peter. Again, Papias says that Matthew composed the oracles () in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them (, aoristthe interpreting did not go on in Papias own day) as he could. We need not here discuss the question of the original language of Mt., but the argument which we are now considering is that, whereas our present Gospels resemble one another in general plan, and to a great extent in detail, the Mt. of Papias was very different from his Mk., the former being a collection of discourses, the latter a narrative of the words and deeds of Christ. Renan (Vic de Jsus, p. xxii) supposes that Matthew wrote the discourses and Mark the anecdotes about Christ, and that by assimilation our present Mt. and Mk. took their shape, the former assimilating the anecdotes and adding them to the discourses, the latter adopting the reverse process. A further argument on the same side has been drawn from the evidence of Justin Martyr (see above, ii.), who constantly quotes the Evangelic narrative, but in words that in many cases differ from our canonical Synoptics, so that if he had the latter before him, we cannot always be sure which he is quoting; we need not here consider whether he used the Fourth Gospel. The conclusion which at one time used to be drawn from Justins quotations, and from his mentioning one or two things not found in the canonical texts, e.g. that Christ was born in a cave, and that the Magi came from Arabia, was that he used Gospels different from those which we now have. Perhaps also we should insert under this head the fact that a comparatively long section in Mk. (Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26) is omitted by Luke, from which it is argued by some that Lukes Mk. was not the same as our own. It is also argued that the records of the Two Feedings show that our Mk. is a compilation from two separate originals, one of which narrated the feeding of the 5000, the other of the 4000, and that it cannot be the work, directly or indirectly, of an eye-witness.

When we consider these arguments, we are struck by the fact that they assume several disputable points. It is not at all clear that Papias meant that his Mk. was an unconnected collection of ancedotes; it is quite as probable that he meant that he did not approve of the chronological order of Mk.; and, as we have seen ( ii.), St. Luke was perhaps of the same opinion. It is also assumed as obvious that Papias meant only discourses by . Certainly that is the primary meaning of the word. But its use in the sense of oracles, i.e. the inspired Scriptures, is quite common in early Christian times. In Rom 3:2 may, indeed, refer only to Gods sayings (as Sanday-Headlam, in loc.; see also Sanday, Gosp. in Second Cent. p. 155), but it is more natural to refer it to the whole of OT. Sanday-Headlam remark that from the time of Philo onwards the word was used of any sacred writing, whether discourse or narrative. Thus, then, we cannot assume without argument that Papias meant only discourses by . Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 39) tells us that Papias own work was called (v.l. ), and Papias clearly did not deal only with our Lords sayings. It is at least quite possible that Papias uses the word as equivalent to our Gospel (so Westcott, Canon, p. 80 n. [Note: note.] ; Lightfoot, Ess. on Sup. Rel. pp. 155 n. [Note: note.] , 171 f.). If so, the argument from the dissimilarity of Papias Mt. and Mk. breaks down. But even supposing (as living scholars are more willing to grant than were Lightfoot and Westcott) that in Papias means discourses, his words do not necessarily mean that Matthew wrote sayings only; and we shall be led to the contrary opinion by a great difficulty that meets the hypothesis in question at the outset. There was no time for the process imagined by Renan to take place. Such a process would take a very much longer time in its development than can by any possibility be allowed. And a fatal objection to the hypothesis is that the result would not be that which as a matter of fact has taken place. We should have had a great number of variant Gospels, and the earlier the copies the greater would have been the variations. We should have had no certainty as to which Gospel could rightly claim any given incident, and there would have been in an aggravated form the textual conditions that we find in the case of the Pericope Adulter, which appears sometimes in one Gospel and sometimes in another. In reality the four Gospels are perfectly distinct, and have been so as far back as we have any copies of them, the earliest Manuscripts showing as distinct a division between them as the later ones (see Salmon, Introd. Lect. vii.; Lightfoot, op. cit. p. 172 ff.). Justin Martyr tells us that the memoirs of the Apostles (i.e. the Gospels) were read at Christian worship in his time (Apol. i. 67). If the Gospels then read were our canonical Gospels, there is not sufficient time between Papias and Justin for such a revolution to have taken place as is supposed. If, on the other hand, Justin used the supposed original Matthew and original Mark, there is not time between him and Irenaeus for the same thing to have happened. As a matter of fact, it is now generally held that Justin knew at least our Synoptic Gospels. This does not mean that he had no other sources of information, such as oral tradition, or even that he did not borrow from an apocryphal Gospel; the cave at Bethlehem, for example, may well have come from some one or other of such sources. But a careful analysis of his quotations from OT shows that he varies from the true text in these quite as much as in his Gospel quotations; and most of the variations probably arise from his trusting to memory. The difficulty of turning to a manuscript without divisions, even for words, is so great, that the memory would be trusted in a far greater degree than with us who have printed Bibles. And, as we should have conjectured, Justin is much more accurate in his longer quotations, where he would be obliged to refer to his manuscript, than in his shorter ones, where it would be less necessary to do so (see, further, Sanday, Gospels in Second Cent. ch. ii; Salmon, Introd. Lect. vi.). Moreover, we may remark that an original Mark could not have disappeared without leaving any trace; we should have found some quotations from it, or some reference to its being dispossessed by a more modern successor. And the autoptic argument (above, iii. 2) comes in here with overwhelming force. Our Mk. could not have had its fresh, lifelike character, its evidence of first-hand knowledge, if Renans idea were true.

The argument from the omission by Luke of a Markan section is inconclusive. He had a long section to introduce ( iii. 4 (a) above), and it was natural for him to omit something, to make room for his new matter. The section of Mk. is found, in the same order, in Mt., and therefore, if this argument held good, it would be necessary to suppose that, while Luke used an original Mark, the First Evangelist used our present one. Also, two incidents in this section are referred to shortly in Lk., the seeking of a sign and the leaven of the Pharisees (Luk 11:16; Luk 11:29; Luk 12:1). The conclusion from doublets is very insecure. There is no reason why there should not have been two Feedings.

2. The hypothesis that our present Mk. is an edited form of the Gospel which was used by Matthew and Luke, is in reality quite different from that which has just been considered. For it supposes that our Second Gospel is very like the original, differing from it only by the insertion of a few editorial touches, at the most by the addition of a few paragraphs; whereas the other hypothesis supposes our Mk. to be entirely different from the original Gospel. Dr. Salmon proposes one form of the hypothesis which we have now reached (Introd. Lect. ix. s.f.). He suggests that our Second Gospel is at once the oldest and the youngest of the three Synoptics; the oldest as giving most nearly the very words in which the Apostolic traditions were delivered, the youngest as respects the date when the independent traditions were set in their present framework. This opinion is largely influenced by his view that the Long Ending is really Markan (see above, vi.). He supposes that Mark added, besides the first fifteen and the last twelve verses, some other slight portions; and that the remarks about unbelief Mar 3:5, Mar 6:6; Mar 6:52, which are not found in the other Synoptics, are by the writer of the Long Ending (cf. Mar 16:11; Mar 16:13 f.), i.e. by St. Mark, as the editor of the Petrine Tradition. From an opposite standpoint, Schmiedel (Encyc. Bibl. ii. 1844, 1848, 1850 f.) thinks that the canonical Mk. is a later edition, and that several things in it are secondary to Mt. and Luke. One leading consideration urged by him (also by Sanday, Gosp. in Second Cent. v. 2, p. 149) is that Mt. and Lk. often agree against Mk.; therefore, unless the First Evangelist knew the Third Gospel, or the Third Evangelist the First (both of which suppositions are confessedly improbable), they must have had a form of Mk. which is not ours. But this assumes too much; it supposes that the First and Third Evangelists had no other source (besides Mk.) than a collection of discourses, i.e. that the non-Markan document could not have been a history parallel to Mark. As Schmiedel himself rightly says, this assumption is not necessarily true. But if so, his argument, given above, has little weight. There is no reason why Mt. and Lk. should not have got their agreements as against Mk. from the non-Markan source. There is no reason to believe that the latter carefully avoided everything contained in the Petrine tradition; and if it included some things which were in that tradition, there is no reason why Matthew and Luke should not sometimes have followed it in preference.

As this question of agreement of Mt. and Lk. against Mk. is of great importance in forming a judgment about the Second Gospel, it is necessary to consider some details. As examples, it will suffice to give instances from the first few chapters: Mar 1:8 = Mt. Lk. . . ; Mar 1:31, Mt. inserts , Lk. ; Mar 1:40 and Mar 2:3, Mt. Lk. insert (but in different ways) ; Mar 2:3 , Mt. Lk. insert (but in different ways) ; Mar 2:12 = Mt. Lk. ; ib. = Mt. = Lk. ; Mar 2:22 , …, Mt. inserts , Lk. , and both transpose .; ib. , …, Mt. inserts , Lk. , but both come from the (Mt. ) which had just preceded; Mar 3:18 a, Mt. Lk. insert his brother (Mt. nominative, Lk. accusative), and both transfer Andrew to a place just after Peter; Mar 3:23, Mt. inserts , Lk. ; Mar 4:11, Mt. Lk. insert (see above, iii. 4 (h)); Mar 4:31, Mt. Lk. insert ; Mar 5:27 , Mt. Lk. insert . The other chapters give similar results; e.g. Mar 14:65, Mt. Lk. insert ; Mar 14:72, Mt. and (?) Lk. insert (but see iii. 4 (h) above). These changes, or most of them, could not, as Sanday (loc. cit.) points out, have been accidental. The same cannot be said of the great majority of the instances often quoted of supposed agreement of Mt.-Lk. against Mk.; most of them are so minute and unimportant that they do not argue any common bond between the First and Third Evangelists except common sense.

Now, the argument which we are considering suggests that these inserted phrases were originally in Mk., but were omitted or altered by a later editor. Is this in the least probable? There is no reason that we can conceive why they should have been omitted or altered. In some cases it is most improbable that anything of the kind should have happened, for it would mean the introduction by a later editor of harsh or difficult phrases not found in Mt. or Lk. (see iii. 4 (h) above). On the other hand, the theory that the non-Markan source or sources used by Matthew and Luke contained narrative as well as discourses has all the marks of probability, to put the matter at the lowest. See, for example, the non-Markan paragraphs collected in the second division of Wrights Synopsis, which contains the narratives of the Temptation and of the Baptists preaching; and there are many others. If this be the case, the result is exactly what we should expect. Matthew and Luke sometimes follow Mark rather than the non-Markan source; sometimes one follows the one and the other the other; and sometimes both follow the non-Markan source. Probably no one would have thought otherwise but for presuppositions founded on the sentence of Papias.

But Schmiedel (loc. cit.) finds in certain passages indications of our Mk. being secondary to Mt. and Luke. Such are Mar 3:28 , where || Mat 12:31 f. has , but goes on to say: Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him. The supposition is that the editor of our Mk. did not like this latter phrase, which had been common to Mt. and the original Mk., and omitted it, but kept the words Son of Man by altering the of Mt. to . It seems much more probable that Matthew got the additional sentence from the non-Markan source; and Marks sons of men as equivalent to men, a common Semitic idiom, is on a par with his other Aramaisms (see vi. above). In Mar 7:27 occurs a phrase, Let the children first be filled, which is not in Mt., and is thought by Schmiedel to be an insertion in our Mk., showing some aversion to Jewish particularism, as toning down our Lords answer. Yet Mat 8:11 shows much more aversion. In Mar 9:1 the phrase the kingdom of God come () in (with) power is thought to be a correction of the Son of man coming () in his kingdom, Mat 16:28, as postponing the Parousia, which the result showed to be not so near as was at first believed. Here Luke (Mar 9:27) has the kingdom of God simply, which at least shows no priority to Mark. It is much more likely that the kingdom of God, with or without the addition come in (with) power, was our Lords own phrase, and that Matthew, as is his wont, gives the explanation, no doubt prompted by the belief of the first age that Jesus would return in the lifetime of those standing here (see Sanday in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ii. 635). The awkward turn of the wording in Mar 9:12, used above ( iii. 4 (h)) as an indication of Mk.s priority, Matthew smoothing down an awkward phrase, is held by Schmiedel to show our Mk.s secondary character; he thinks that our Mk. has introduced a sense-destroying parenthesissurely a very strange thing for an editor to do, whatever an original author might have done. In Mar 11:25 we find (where || Mt. has . . ), the only Markan instance (perhaps Mar 11:26 of Textus Receptus is an interpolation) of an express characteristic of Mt., and it is thought to be an editorial addition. This argument, however, would necessitate the supposition that the first clause of the Lords Prayer, as given in Mt., was an invention of the First Evangelist, which is very unlikely. It is true that the shorter or Lukan form shows much of Lukes style, and some of the differences between it and the Matthaean form seem to be due to Luke himself (see Plummer on Luk 11:1), the Matthaean form being probably nearer the original; and Dr. Chase supposes that the first Christians adapted the prayer for liturgical use (TS [Note: S Texts and Studies.] , Camb., i. 3). But it is quite unnecessary to suppose that the phrase Our Father which art in heaven was first found in Matthew. From Marks account of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mar 12:2 ff.), where one messenger is mentioned on each occasion, and then, in a quite unnecessary and even disturbing manner, many others, Schmiedel argues the priority of Mt., where several servants are sent on each occasion. It is hard to see any force in this. Matthew is as likely to have corrected Mark (if it be a correction) as our Mk. to have introduced a gratuitous inconsistency (if it be an inconsistency) under the influence of Matthew. In the discourse on the Coming of the Son of Man, after the account of the afflictions, Mar 13:24 has: In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, while || Mt. has immediately after, etc. This is said to show the posteriority of a supposed Markan editor who desires to postpone the Parousia, as in the case of Mar 9:1 (above); but as there, so here, it is more probable that Matthews is an explanation, and Marks is our Lords own phrase, or nearly so.

Thus, although there is nothing in the nature of things why our Second Gospel should not be an edited form of the original document that lay before Matthew and Luke, the reasons alleged by Schmiedel will hardly convince us that this is the case. Salmons argument really depends on the view taken of the last twelve verses (see above, vi.). If on other grounds we believe them to be by the writer who put our Second Gospel into its present shape, then we may accept his theory; but if otherwise, the theory falls.

If, however, we were to accept the hypothesis of a later editor, it would be of interest to trace the portions due to him. We may put aside Dr. Salmons suggestion (see above) of Mar 1:1-15, Mar 3:5, Mar 6:6; Mar 6:52, Mar 16:9 ff. unless we accept the appendix as a real ending to the Gospel. But we might hold that several paragraphs peculiar to Mk. are due to this supposed editor; such as Mar 3:19 b, Mar 3:20-21 (accusation of madness by Jesus friends: though here we might equally hold that the omission in Mt. and Lk. is due to the same feeling as in iii. 3 above), Mar 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly), Mar 7:3 f. (explanation about washings), Mar 7:32-37 (the healing of the deaf ), Mar 8:22-26 (the blind man of Bethsaida), Mar 14:51 f. (the young man who fled naked), Mar 15:21 (the names Alexander and Rufus). It might also be thought that the Aramaisms and Latinisms were due to such an editor (but see above, iii. 4 (f), (g), v.). These are points which are peculiar to our Gospel.

But a consideration which militates against such a large amount of editing is that our Mk. retains at once the original roughness and the original freshness of style. If the canonical Mk. is later than and influenced by Mt. and Lk., why did not its editor correct the mistakes and prune the vulgarisms and roughnesses as did Matthew and Luke? While, however, this seems to forbid the idea of any large amount of editing, it is certainly possible that a later editor has introduced a few phrases. Sir J. Hawkins (Hor. Synopt. p. 110) suggests the following as additions: Mar 1:1 [also ?], Mar 5:13 , Mar 6:37 , Mar 8:35 , Mar 9:41 (but see above, iii. 4 (h)), Mar 10:29 , Mar 10:30 , Mar 14:5 , Mar 14:56 , and so in Mar 14:59. But even this hypothesis is not necessary; and on the whole the more probable solution seems to be that our Second Gospel is that which was used by the First and Third Evangelists; in fact, that Mark wrote first of all the Four, and that his work was known to the others.

Literature.Commentaries: (1) On St. Mark specially: those by Swete, 1902 (the fullest Commentary in English, with text, apparatus criticus, introduction, and notes); A. Menzies, (The Earliest Gospel), 1901; A. B. Bruce, 1897; Could, 1896 (in the International Critical Commentary series); J. Knabenbauer, 1894; P. Schanz, 1881; J. Morison, 1873; B. Weiss, 1872; A. Klostermann, 1867; J. A. Alexander, 1858; K. Fritzsche, 1830; and several smaller ones on a popular scale. (2) As part of general Commentaries on the NT, those by Alford (1st ed. 1849); Chr. Wordsworth, Davidson, Cook (in Speakers Commentary), 1878; Lange (1st ed. 1858). (3) Old Commentaries, by Victor of Antioch (in Cramers Caten, 1840); Bede (Migne, P. L.), Theophylact (Migne, P. G.), Euthymius Zigabenus (Migne, P. G.), Bruno Astensis (Migne, P. L.), Rupertus Tuitiensis (Migne, P. L.), Thomas Aquinas (Catena Aurea, authorship not certain), Albertus Magnus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide. [For information about these, see Swetes St. Mark, p. cxiv ff.]

Relation of Mk. to the Synoptic problem: Wrights Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek (1st ed. 1896, 2nd, 1903; supports the Oral Theory; the first edition for mere purposes of comparison is the more useful as being simpler); Hucks Synopse; Rushbrookes Synopticon, 1880; Wrights Some NT Problems; Campbells First Three Gospels in Greek2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , 1899 (supports priority of Mt. and Lk. over Mk.); F. H. Woods in Studia Biblica, vol. ii. (Mk. the groundwork of Mt. and Lk.); Sir J. Hawkins Hor Synoptic, 1899 (esp. part iii.); Salmond, art. Mark (Gospel of) in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; Schiniedel, art. Gospels in Encyc. Biblica; Salmons Historical Introduction to the NT; Westcott, Canon of the NT and Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels; J. A. Robinsons Study of the Gospels, 1903; A. B. Bruces The Synoptic Gospels; Vincent Rose, O. P., Studies on the Gospels (English translation 1903, by Dr. Rob. Fraser); Zahn, Einleit. in das NT and Geschichte des NT Kanons; Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Tran mission, 1906.

The Second Gospel in the Early Church: J. B. Lightfoots Essays on the Work entitled Supernatural Religion (collected in one volume, 1889); Sandays The Gospels in the Second Century, 1876; Stantons The Gospels as Historical Documents, part i. 1903 (the rest not yet published); and most of the above works on Introduction.

The endings of the Gospel: The modern Commentaries, as above; Burgons The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark; Salmons Introd. Lect. ix.; Zahns Einleit. ii. 227, and Geschichte, ii. 910 ff.; Harnacks Bruch-stcke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , p. 33 (Text. u. Unt. ix. 2); Westcott-Hort, New Testament in Greek, Notes on Select Passages; Scriveners Introduction to the Criticism of the NT.

On special points: Blasss Philology of the Gospels (original language, and the text); Deissmanns Bible Studies, English translation 1901 (the language): Dalmans Words of Jesus, English translation 1902 (esp. on the Aramaisms); Westcott-Horts New Testament in Greek, as above, and Salmons Textual Criticism (the Greek text); Burkitts Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, 2 vols. 1904 (the Sinaitic Syriac text); Pusey-Gwilliams Tetracuangelium Sanctum, 1901 (the Peshitta Syriac text); also many articles in the Expositor and the JThSt. [Note: Journal of Theological Studies.] Of the latter may be mentioned: i. 278, Burkitt on Mar 15:34; i. 290, Lake on the text of Codex ; ii. 1, Stanton on pseudo-Peter and its bearing on Justin and Mk.; ii. 111, Burkitt on Mar 8:32; ii. 298, Allen on Aramaic Gospels; v. 321, Sanday on our Lords silence, esp. in Mk.; v. 330 and vi. 121, Burkitt and Bartlet on Mk. in the Early Church; v. 451, Burkitt on Mar 14:61; v. 628, Burkitt on St. Mark and Divorce (cf. v. 621, Lyttelton on Divorce); vi. 237, Jackson on Mar 10:40; vi. 563, Chapman on Irenaeus and the date of Mt. and Mark.

A. J. Maclean.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Mark, Gospel According To

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

1. External testimony.It is possible that the first reference to Mk. is the preface to Lk. (Luk 1:1-4), which implies that the narratives spoken of were, in St. Lukes opinion, incomplete and not in the best order. Mk. is certainly incomplete from the point of view of one who wished to begin from the beginning. From internal evidence it is probable that St. Luke used Mk. (see 35). Papias (quoted by Eusebius, HE iii. 39) gives the following account (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 140 or earlier), as derived from the Elder from whom he gleaned traditions:

Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ [cf. the Lukan preface]. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lords oracles [or words]. So then Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, nor to set down any false statement therein.

Here Papias vindicates Mark from in accuracy and from errors of omission as far as his knowledge went, but finds fault with his chronological order, which was due to his being dependent only on Peters oral teaching, He was Peters interpretera phrase which may mean that he translated Peters words into a foreign tongue during the Apostles lifetime, as a dragoman, or that, being Peters disciple, he made the Apostles teaching widely known through his written Gospel.Justin Martyr (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 150) says (Dial. 106) that Christ changed Simons name to Peter, and that this is written in his Memoirs, and also that He changed the name of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder. But the last words occur only in Mar 3:17, where also we read of Simons new name. It is reasonable (in spite of Harnack and Sandays opinion that Justin is here quoting the apocryphal Gospel of pseudo-Peter, which, as far as we know, did not contain these wordsit is only a fragment) to suppose that Justin by Peters Memoirs means our Second Gospel; he elsewhere speaks of Memoirsthe Memoirs composed by [the Apostles] which are called Gospels (Apol. i. 66, cf. also Dial. 103, where he uses the same name for the narratives written by followers of the Apostles).Tatian included Mk. in his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the four Gospels.(Irenus (Hr. iii. 1. 1 and 10. 6) speaks of Mark as Peters interpreter and disciple (cf. Papias), and says that he handed on to us in writing the things preached by Peter after the departure of Peter and Paul (note the indication of date).Tertullian calls Mark Peters interpreter.The Muratorian Fragment (c [Note: circa, about.] . 170200?) begins in the middle of a sentence which is generally believed to refer to Mk., and which may mean that the Evangelist was present at some of Peters discourses only, or perhaps that he heard some of our Lords discourses; but the latter interpretation is against the words that follow, which say of Luke: Neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh. The writer probably therefore had said that Mark had never seen our Lord.Clement of Alexandria (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 200) says that while Peter was preaching the Gospel at Rome (ct. [Note: t. contrast.] Irenus above), Mark wrote down what he said at the request of the hearers, Peter neither forbidding it nor urging it.Origen seems to bear this out, but in the Muratorian Fragment there is a similar story about John.Of later writers only Augustine need be quoted. He calls Mark Matthews follower and abbreviator. This saying, which is probably widely removed from the truth, has had great influence on ecclesiastical opinion, and to a great extent brought about the comparative neglect into which the Second Gospel fell for many centuries.There are probable allusions to Mk. in Polycarp (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 111) and pseudo-Clement of Rome (2 Clem, ad Cor.) and Hermas, all early in the 2nd cent.; it was used by Heracleon, the Valentinians, and the authors of the Gospel of (pseudo-) Peter and the Clementine Homilies, and is found in all the old versions. We conclude that there is valid evidence that Mk. was in circulation before the middle of the 2nd century. By ecclesiastical writers Mark is connected almost uniformly with Peter, but (see above) there is a difference of tradition as to whether he wrote before or after Peters death. Some make him go from Rome to Alexandria and take his Gospel there; but it is remarkable that the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen do not mention this.

2. The Second Gospel and the Petrine tradition.Internal evidence to a considerable extent confirms, however indirectly, the Patristic evidence ( 1) that Mark wrote down the preaching of Peter. Mk. tells us the facts of which Peter was an eye-witness. The vividness of description (especially in Mk.) in the scenes common to the Synoptics where only Peter, John, and James were present, suggests that one of them was the authority on which the common source restssuch as the raising of Jairus daughter (Mar 5:37-43), the Transfiguration (Mar 9:2-13; the story in Mk. is told from the point of view of one of the three: cf. Mar 9:14 they saw), and Gethsemane (Mar 14:33-42). The authority could hardly be James, who was martyred early (Act 12:2), or John, on whom another account depends (even if he were not the author of the Fourth Gospel, we might probably say this). Peter therefore remains, and he alone would be likely to remember the confused words which he spoke on awakening at the Transfiguration (Mar 9:5; cf. Luk 9:32 f.). Other passages suggesting a Petrine source are: Mar 1:36; Mar 11:21; Mar 13:3 (these are found only in Mk.); and the accounts of Peters denials (Mar 14:54; Mar 14:66-72). As Eusebius noticed, Mk. is silent on matters which reflect credit on Peter. These facts and the autoptic character of the Gospel ( 4) lead us to the conclusion that we have in Mk. the Petrine tradition in a far more exact form than in the other Synoptics.

3. Presentation of Christs Person and work.The Second Gospel describes shortly the Baptists preaching and the baptism of our Lord, and then records at length the Galilan ministry. It is noteworthy that in this account the proclamation of Jesus Messiahship in Galilee is very gradual (see art. Gospels, 3). Even in the discourses to the Apostles there is great reserve. After the Transfiguration, the future glory and the Passion of our Lord are unfolded (Mar 8:31; Mar 8:38, Mar 9:12; Mar 9:31 etc.), but it is only after the short account (ch. 10) of the journeys in Juda and Pera, and on the final approach to Jerusalem, that this reserve passes away. In describing our Lords Person, the Evangelist lays great emphasis on His Divinity, but still more on His true humanity, (a) For the former we note how in Mk. Jesus claims superhuman authority, especially to forgive sins (Mar 2:5 ff., Mar 2:28, Mar 8:38, Mar 12:8 ff., Mar 14:62); He is described as a Supernatural Person (Mar 1:11; Mar 1:24, Mar 3:11, Mar 5:7, Mar 9:7, Mar 15:39); He knows the thoughts of man (Mar 2:8, Mar 8:17, Mar 12:15), and what is to happen in the future (Mar 2:20, Mar 8:31; Mar 8:38, Mar 9:31, Mar 10:39, Mar 13:2; Mar 13:10, Mar 14:27); His death has an atoning efficacy (Mar 10:45, Mar 14:24). (b) For the latter we note not only (as with the other Evangelists) the references to Jesus human bodyweariness and sleep (Mar 4:33), eating and drinking (Mar 14:3, Mar 15:35), etc.but especially the description of His human soul and spirit (Mar 2:8, Mar 14:34; Mar 14:36), His human compassion (Mar 1:41) and love (Mar 10:21), and the more painful emotions which Mk. has in a pre-eminent degree, while in the parallels in Mt. and Lk. the phrases are almost uniformly altered or omitted. Instances are Mar 1:43 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] (the word denotes sternness, not necessarily anger but deep feeling), Mar 3:5, Mar 6:8, Mar 10:14; note especially Mar 14:33 f. where St. Mark alone speaks of the surprise, added to the distraction from grief, of Jesus human soul in the Agony. St. Mark also refers to the sinless limitations of Jesus human nature. Questions are asked, apparently for information (Mar 5:30, Mar 8:5, Mar 9:16). St. Mark relates the one perfectly certain instance of Jesus human ignorance, as to the Day of Judgment (Mar 13:32, so || Mt.). It is because so much stress is laid in Mk. on the true humanity of our Lord that Augustine assigns to the Second Evangelist the symbol of the man; by other Fathers the other Evangelic symbols are assigned to him. The Second Gospel represents an early stage of the Gospel narrative; it shows an almost childlike holdness in speaking of our Lord, without regard to possible misconceptions. An example of this is seen in passages where Mark tells us that Jesus could not do a thing (Mar 1:45, Mar 6:5, Mar 7:24). The inability is doubtless relative and conditional. Jesus could not do that which was inconsistent with His plan of salvation. Yet here the other Synoptists, feeling that the phrase might he misunderstood as taking from the Masters glory, have altered or omitted it.

4. Autopic character.Whereas Mk. was for centuries depreciated as telling us little that is not found in the other Gospels, we have now learned to see in it a priceless presentation of the story of our Lords life, inasmuch as no historical narrative in the Bible, except Jn., gives such clear signs of first-hand knowledge. Many of the instances lose much point in a translation, but even in English the fact is noticeable. An eye-witness is betrayed in such little details as the heavens in the act of opening (Mar 1:10the present participle is used), the incoherent remarks of the crowd at the healing of the Capernaum demoniac (Mar 1:27 RV [Note: Revised Version.] they are softened down by later scribes of Mk. and in Lk.), the breaking up of the mud roof in Mar 2:4 (see art. Luke [Gospel acc. to], 6), the single pillow, probably a wooden head-rest, in the boat (Mar 4:38 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), the five thousand arranged on the green grass like garden heds (Mar 6:40 : this is the literal translation; the coloured dresses on the green grassanother autoptic touchhad to the eye-witness the appearance of flowers), the taking of the children by Jesus into His arms (Mar 9:36, Mar 10:16), and His fervent blessing (Mar 10:16 : this is the force of the Greek), the searching glance of love cast by Jesus on the rich young man, and the clouding over of the young mans brow (Mar 10:21 f. RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). All these details, and many others, are found in Mk. only; many of the signs of an eye-witness throughout the Gospel are removed by the alterations introduced in Mt. and Lk. For the vividness of the scenes at the Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus daughter, and the Agony, see 2. Notice also the evidence of exceptional knowledge of facts in Mar 1:29 (Andrew and Peter living together, though the latter was married; Andrew omitted in || Mt. Lk.), and in the mention of some names not found elsewhere (Mar 2:14, Mar 10:45, Mar 15:21). We have then an eye-witness here; in this case we need not look for him in the writer, but the facts show that the latter was in the closest touch with one who had seen what is described.

5. Comparison with the other Synoptics.The facts which follow appear to prove that Mk., either in the form in which we have it, or at least in a form very closely resembling our present Gospel, was before the other Synoptists when they wrote, (a) Scope.Except about 30 verses, all the narrative of Mk. is found in either Mt. or Lk. or in both, and (especially as regards Lk.) in nearly the same order; though the other Synoptists interpolate matter from other sources. (b) Parallel passages.If we compare these, we see that though Mk. is as a whole shorter than Mt. and Lk., yet in the parallels it is longer. St. Marks style is diffuse, and it was necessary for the other Synoptists, in order to make room for the matter which they were to introduce from other sources, to prune Mk. considerably, (c) Correction of Markan details in Mt. and Lk.As we have seen, Mark describes our Lords painful emotions; these passages are softened down in Mt. and Lk. Sometimes a slip of the pen is corrected; e.g. Mar 1:2 f. RV [Note: Revised Version.] quotes as from Isaiah a passage which is a cento of Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3, but the others silently avoid this by omitting the Malachi passage here, though they give it elsewhere (Mat 11:16, Luk 7:27); the words in Mar 2:26 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , when Abiathar was high priest, are omitted in Mt. and Lk., for Abiathar was not yet high priest at the time in question. The alteration of abomination of desolation (Mar 13:14, so Mat 24:15) into Jerusalem compassed with armies (Luk 21:20) is clearly an explanation of a writer later than Mk.; and so the change from Son of God (Mar 15:39, so Mat 27:54) to a righteous man (Luk 23:47). In some cases, by the turn of a phrase the accuracy of Mk. in minute points is lost by the other Synoptists. Thus cf. Mar 4:36; our Lord was already in the boat (Mar 4:1); in || Mt. Lk. He is described by an oversight as embarking here. In Mar 10:1 Jesus comes into the borders of Juda and beyond Jordan; the parallel Mat 19:1 omits and, but doubtless Mk. is right here, and Jesus went both into Juda and into Pera. But the most striking corrections of Mk. in Mt. Lk. are found in the phraseology. The Markan style is rough and unpolished, reflecting the Greek commonly spoken by the Jews of the 1st cent.; many diminutives and colloquialisms are found, but are usually corrected in Mt. or in Lk. or in both. In Mk. there are many awkward and difficult phrasessometimes smoothed over in a translation like ours, and usually corrected in Mt. or Lk. or both: e.g. Mar 3:16, Mar 4:11; Mar 4:24 (see Luk 8:18) Mar 4:32 (the yet of RV [Note: Revised Version.] is and in Gr.) Mar 7:11 f. (grammatical but harsh) Mar 9:41, Mar 13:19, Mar 14:56 (note RV [Note: Revised Version.] in these cases). These facts are most significant, and appear to be conclusive as to the priority of Mk. For no writer having before him a smooth text would gratuitously introduce harsh or difficult phraseology, whereas the converse change is natural and common.

There are also some changes made for greater precision, especially in Lk.; thus in Mk. (e.g. Mar 1:16) and Mt. we read of the Sea of Galilee, but St. Luke with his superior nautical knowledge calls it a lake; Herod Antipas in Mar 6:14 is called king, but in Mt. Lk. more commonly tetrarch (but king is retained in Mat 14:9); in Mar 15:32 (so Mt.) we read that they that were crucified with him reproached him, but St. Luke, who had independent knowledge of this incident (for only he relates the penitence of the robber), emphatically corrects this to one of the malefactors (Luk 23:39).In two or three cases it is possible that the priority lies the other way. Thus in Mar 6:3 the carpenter = Mat 13:55 the son of the carpenter = Luk 4:22 the son of Joseph, the correction may be in Mt. Lk., the giving of the name the carpenter to Jesus not being liked; or it may be in Mk., the phrase son of Joseph being altered as capable of misconception by those who had not the Birth story before them. But as the phrases in Mt. and Lk. are not the same, the priority probably lies with Mk. Also the Second Evangelist alone relates the two cock-crowings (Mar 14:30; Mar 14:68; Mar 14:72), though the state of the text suggests that perhaps originally only one was mentioned in Mk., but in a different place from that of Mt. Lk. It is hard to see why a later writer should have omitted one cock-crowing and it is suggested that therefore our Mk. is later than Mt. Lk. in this respect. It is, however, equally hard to see why St. Mark, if he wrote after the others, should have added a cock-crowing. If in two or three such cases the priority be decided to lie with Mt. and Lk., the meaning would be that our Mk. had received some editorial additions (see 9). But this does not seem to be very likely.

The general conclusion is that Mk. as we have it now, or at least a Gospel which differs from our Mk. only in unessential particulars, lay before the First and Third Evangelists when they wrote.

The matter peculiar to Mk. is small:the parable of the seed growing silently (Mar 4:26 ff.), the healing of the deaf stammerer (Mar 7:31 ff.), of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mar 8:22 f.), the questions about the dulness of the disciples when they forgot to take bread (Mar 8:17 f.), about the dispute of the disciples (Mar 9:33), the incidents of the young man with the linen cloth (Mar 14:51 f.), of the smiting of Jesus by the servants of the high priest (Mar 14:65), of Pilates wonder, and of his question put to the centurion (Mar 15:44).

6. Authorship, purpose, date, and place of writing.There is no reason to dispute the Patristic statements ( 1) that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. Clement of Alexandria states that he wrote in Rome; Chrysostom (two centuries later) that he wrote in Egypt. The former statement, both as being earlier and as agreeing with the negative testimony of the Alexandrian Fathers, is more probable, though some moderns have supposed a double publication, one in Rome and one in Alexandria. In either case it is probable that, as in the case of the Third Gospel, Gentiles are specially addressed, though St. Mark as a Jew writes (unlike St. Luke) from a Jewish point of view. There is a general absence of OT quotations except when our Lords words are cited (Mar 1:2 f. is an exception; Mar 15:28 must almost certainly he expunged, with RV [Note: Revised Version.] , from the text). The Aramaic transliterations like Talilha cum(i) are interpreted, and Jewish customs and geography are explained [Mar 7:2 ff., Mar 12:42 (the mite was a Jewish coin) Mar 13:2, Mar 15:42]. The absence of mention of the Jewish Law points in the same direction.

The date is probably before the Fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. (For the argument from the Discourse on the End, see art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to], 5, and note especially Mar 13:13 f., 24, 30, 33, which point to the fulfilment of the prophecy being, at the time of writing, only in prospect.) The reference to the shewbread (Mar 2:26, it is not lawful) suggests that the Temple still stood when Mark wrote. The characteristics already mentioned, the description of Jesus inner feelings, the style and details of the Gospel, give the same indications. If the early date of Acts be adopted (see art. Acts of the Apostles, 9), Lk. and therefore Mk. must be earlier still. The external testimony, however, raises some difficulty when we consider the date of 1Peter . For Papias by implication and Irenus explicitly say that Mark wrote after Peters death, while Clement of Alexandria and Origen say that he wrote in Peters lifetime (see 1). If the former statement be correct, and if 1Peter be authentic, the Epistle must have preceded Mk.; but it is not easy to assign a very early date to it (e.g. 1Pe 4:18 suffer as a Christian; though Dr. Bigg disputes this inference and thinks that 1Peter was written before the Neronic persecution in a.d. 64). There is no need to dispute the authenticity of 1Peter because of supposed references to late persecutions, for there is no good reason for saying that St. Peter died in the same year as St. Paul, and it is quite possible that he survived him for some considerable time, during which Mark acted as his interpreter. If, then, we are led by internal evidence so strongly to prefer an early date for Mk., we must either choose an early date for 1Peter , or else prefer the Alexandrian tradition that Mark wrote in Peters lifetime [Dr. Swete gives c [Note: circa, about.] . 69 for Mk., Dean Robinson c [Note: circa, about.] . 65].

7. Was Mk. written in Greek or Aramaic?The Second Gospel is more strongly tinged with Aramaisms than any other. It retains several Aramaic words transliterated into Greek:Boanerges Mar 3:17, Talitha cum(i) Mar 5:41, Corban Mar 7:11, Ephphatha Mar 7:34 (these Mk. only), Abba Mar 14:36 (so Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6), Rabbi Mar 9:5, Mar 11:21, Mar 14:45, Hosanna Mar 11:9 (these two also in Mt. and Jn.), Rabboni Mar 10:51 (Jn. also), Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani Mar 15:34 (or as || Mt. Eli); and several Aramaic proper names are noticeable: Bartimus Mar 10:48 (a patronymic), Cananan Mar 3:18, Iscariot Mar 3:19, Beelzebub Mar 3:22, Golgotha Mar 15:22. Aramaisms are also found freely in the grammar of Mk. and in several phrases. From these facts it is argued (Blass, Allen) that Aramaic was the original language. Dr. Blass also suggests that St. Luke in Act 1:1-26; Act 2:1-47; Act 3:1-26; Act 4:1-37; Act 5:1-42; Act 6:1-15; Act 7:1-60; Act 8:1-40; Act 9:1-43; Act 10:1-48; Act 11:1-30; Act 12:1-25 used an Aramaic source, while the rest of that book was his own independent work. In these twelve chapters, unlike the rest, Aramaisms abound, and the style is rough. The argument is that Mark, the son of a prominent lady is Jerusalem, wrote the Aramaic source of Act 1:1-26; Act 2:1-47; Act 3:1-26; Act 4:1-37; Act 5:1-42; Act 6:1-15; Act 7:1-60; Act 8:1-40; Act 9:1-43; Act 10:1-48; Act 11:1-30; Act 12:1-25, and that if so his former work (our Second Gospel) would be in Aramaic also. This argument will probably be thought to be too unsubstantial for acceptance. There is no reason for saying that Mark wrote the supposed Aramaic source of Act 1:1-26; Act 2:1-47; Act 3:1-26; Act 4:1-37; Act 5:1-42; Act 6:1-15; Act 7:1-60; Act 8:1-40; Act 9:1-43; Act 10:1-48; Act 11:1-30; Act 12:1-25. and even if he did, he might, being confessedly bilingual, have written his Gospel equally well in Greek as in Aramaic. The Aramaic tinge is probably best explained by the fact that Mark thought in Aramaic. If our Greek were a translation, the Aramaic phrases like Talitha cum(i) might have been bodily incorporated by transliteration, or else translated; but they never would have been transliterated and then interpreted, as is actually the case. The Fathers, from Papias downwards, had clearly never heard of an Aramaic original. The most fatal objection to the theory, however, is the freshness of the style of the Gospel. Even the best translation loses freshness. The Greek of Mk. reads as if it were original; and we may safely say that this is really the language in which the Evangelist wrote.

8. The last twelve verses.The MSS and versions have three different ways of ending the Gospel. The vast majority have the ending of our ordinary Bibles, which is explicitly quoted by Irenus as a genuine work of St. Mark, is probably quoted by Justin Martyr, possibly earlier still by Barnabas and Hermas, but in the last three cases we are not certain that the writer knew it as part of the Gospel. The two oldest Greek MSS (the Vatican and the Sinaitic), the old Syriac version (Sinaitic), and the oldest MSS of the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, end at Mar 16:8, as Eusebius tells us that the most accurate copies of his day did. An intermediate ending is found in some Greek MSS (the earliest of the 7th cent.), in addition to the ordinary ending; and in a MS of the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, standing alone. It is as follows:And they immediately (or briefly) made known all things that had been commanded (them) to those about Peter. And after this Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out by means of them from the East even to the West the holy and incorruptible preaching of the eternal salvation. This intermediate ending is certainly not genuine; it was written as a conclusion to the Gospel by some one who had the ordinary ending before him and objected to it as unauthentic, or who had a MS before him ending at Mar 16:8 and thought this abrupt. It appears that the copy from which most of these MSS with the intermediate ending were made, ended at Mar 16:8.

Now it is confessed that the style of the last twelve verses is not that of the Gospel. There are, then, two possible explanations. One is that Mark, writing at a comparatively late date, took the Petrine tradition, a written work, as his basis, incorporated it almost intact into his own work, and added the verses Mar 1:1-15, Mar 16:9 ff., and a few editorial touches such as Mar 3:5, Mar 6:6; Mar 6:52, which are not found in the other Synoptics, and which resemble phrases in the last twelve verses (Mar 16:11; Mar 16:13 f.). This was Dr. Salmons solution. There are various objections to it; two seem fatal(1) that ecclesiastical writers never represent Peter as writing a Gospel either by himself or by any scribe or interpreter except Mack, and yet this theory supposes that the Petrine tradition was not first written down by Mark; and (2) that the last twelve verses seem not to have been written as an end to the Gospel at all, being apparently a fragment of some other work, probably a summary of the Gospel story. For the beginning of Mar 16:9 is not continuous with Mar 16:8; the subject of the verb appeared had evidently been indicated in the sentence which had preceded; yet the necessary Jesus cannot be understood from anything in Mar 16:8. Further, Mary Magdalene is introduced in Mar 16:9 as a new person, although she had just been mentioned by name in Mar 15:40; Mar 15:47, Mar 16:1, and was one of the women spoken of throughout Mar 16:1-8.On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Mar 16:8 with its abrupt and inauspicious they were afraid could be the conclusion of a Gospel.that the book should deliberately end without any incident of the risen life of our Lord, and with a note of terror. The other possible explanation, therefore, is that some verses have been lost. Probably the last leaf of the original, or at least of the copy from which all the MSS existing in the 2nd cent were taken, has disappeared. This is conceivable, the last leaf of a MS being that which is most likely to drop; and the difficulty that the original MS of Mk. must have been copied before it got so old that the last leaf fell may perhaps be satisfactorily met by supposing that (as we know was the case later) the Second Gospel was not highly prized in its youth, as not giving us much additional information, and as being almost entirely contained in Mt. and Lk. On the other hand, the last twelve verses are extremely ancient. Most scholars look on them as belonging to the first few years of the 2nd cent., and Aristion has been suggested as the writer, on the strength of a late Armenian MS. But it is quite possible that they are part of an even earlier summary of the Gospel story; and, like the passage about the woman taken in adultery (Joh 7:53 to Joh 8:11), they are to be reverenced as a very ancient and authoritative record.

9. Have we the original Mark?This has been denied from two different and incompatible points of view. (a) Papias speaks of Mk. being not in order and of Matthew writing the oracles or logia (see 1 above, and art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to]). It is objected that our Second Gospel is an orderly narrative, and cannot he that mentioned by Papias. Renan maintained that Mark wrote a disconnected series of anecdotes about Christ, and Matthew a collection of discourses, and that our present First and Second Gospels took their present form by a process of assimilation, the former assimilating the anecdotes and adding them to the discourses, the latter adopting the reverse process. This rests on the unproved assumption that Matthews original work consisted of Jesus sayings only, which is very improbable. But as a matter of fact there is no time for the process imagined by Renan to have taken place, and the result, moreover, would have been a large number of variant Gospelsa given passage appearing in some MSS in one Gospel, in others in another, as is the ease with the story of the woman taken in adultery. [For a more probable interpretation of Papias words, see 1.](b) It is sometimes argued that our present Mk. is an edited form of the original Mk., being very like it, but differing from it by the insertion of some editorial touches and additions. [For Salmons form of this theory, see above, 8; but the theory is held by many (e.g. Schmiedel) who reject the last twelve verses as Markan.]

The only argument of real importance urged by those who hold this theory is that Mt. and Lk. occasionally agree together against Mk. To take one example only, Mar 1:8 has with the Holy Ghost where || Mat 3:12 and Luk 3:16 have with the Holy Ghost and fire. If Mt. and Lk. are later than Mk.,unless the First Evangelist knew the Third Gospel or the Third Evangelist the First, both of which suppositions are confessedly improbable,we cannot, it is said, explain their agreements against Mk. Therefore we must suppose, it is urged, that these phrases where they agree were in the original Mk., but have been altered in our Mk. This idea in itself is grossly improbable, for it means in some cases that a later editor (our Mark) altered a smooth construction into a hard or a difficult one not found in Mt. or Lk. (see 5 (c)), which is hardly to be conceived. But this difficulty rests on the unproved assumption noticed just now, that the non-Markan document contained discourses only. If, as is almost certain, it contained narrative also, and if this narrative (as it is only reasonable to suppose) sometimes overlapped the Petrine tradition, the result is exactly what we should expect. Mt. and Lk. sometimes follow Mk. rather than the non-Markan source; sometimes one follows the one and the other the other; and sometimes both follow the non-Markan source. This fully accounts for their agreements against Mk.

It is indeed possible, as many think, that a very few phrases in our Mk. are later editorial additions; but even this hypothesis is unnecessary, and it seems on the whole most probable that our Mk. is the original Mk., and that it was used by the First and Third Evangelists.

A. J. Maclean.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible