II. The Gospel

3. External Testimony

Universal tradition ascribes to Mark the authorship of the shortest of the Gospels, and almost as unanimously regards Peter as the authority behind Mark (Tertullian, Adv. Mar cion, IV., v.). Bound up with this is the legend that Mark was the convert of Peter. Irenæus (Hwr., III., i. 2) reports that Testimony Mark wrote the Gospel after Matthew was written and after the death of Peter, and Origen adds (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xxv. 5) that it was written before the Gospels of Luke and John. Clement of Alexandria reports (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xiv. 6-7) that the writing was undertaken at the request of the converts at Rome, and that Peter neither favored nor hindered the undertaking. These reports may well be based upon the words of Papias recorded in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III., -ix. 15). This celebrated passage asserts that the Gospel was based not on Mark's own knowledge of Jesus, whom he had not heard, but on the preaching of Peter, and that this Mark faithfully recorded but did not observe chronological order. This is not to be pressed farther than is legitimate as the report of a well-informed man of the Church of Asia Minor in the immediate postapostolic period; it is evident both that the Gospel is not a full record and that the order of events is not that of history. Papias says nothing of the method or occasion of writing the Gospel, only it is clear that he thinks of it as composed in Greek, and he calls Mark " the interpreter of Peter." " Interpreter " has often been understood as a synonym of "author" of the written expression of Peter's teaching; but it is better to take the word in its nearer sense of "translator," since the fact that the Gospel contains reports of Jesus' words and the other fact that Mark is expressly said not to have heard Jesus seem to demand a documentary basis. There is no necessity, however, to doubt the Marcan origin of the second Gospel, especially in view of Justin Martyr (Trypho, cvi.) and of the fact that it is ascribed to a man of the second rank when tradition might have assigned the authorship to an apostle.

2. Internal Testimony

The Gospel contains no title which gives the author's name. Some scholars regard i. 1 as a title; but since verses 2-3 are not in the style of the citations usually employed in this Gospel, it is better to take verse 1 as the predicate after "John came," verse 4. Then the report of "the beginning of the Gospel" reaches through i. 13, while verses 14-15 report Jesus' assumption of the work begun by John. The rest of chapter i. reports the initial success of Jesus; with ii. 1 is registered the beginning of conflict with scribes and Pharisees; iii. 6 notes the purpose of these opponents to destroy Jesus; in rapid succession follow the story of recognition of him as Son of God by the demons, his teaching of the disciples, his wonder-working, the sending of the twelve to preach and heal, his celebrity (reaching even to Herod's court), his Galilean activity and his journey through Persea, his announcement of his coming death, his last conflicts with the ecclesiastical authorities, his final instructions to the disciples, his suffering and death and resurrection. Evidently the intent of the evangelist was to detail in chronological order the facts of Christ's life, and time notes (viii. 1, cf. vi. 34, ix. 2) show that this purpose was kept in mind, though sometimes the relation of cause and connection is preferred to that of time. Thus the impression the whole Gospel gives is that of a development which proceeds inevitably to the end. But the evangelist never asserts himself as an eye-witness of the events which he narrates; there is no more reason to connect him with the " certain young man "of xiv. 51 than with the" certain one " of verse 47. Of greater consequence is the matter of trustworthiness. To be noted are the lively freshness of tone, the loving lingering on little episodes, the definiteness of reference to details of place, time, and person, the result of which is to impress the reader with the fact that this book is

184

a triumph of the writer's art and with the antiquity and originality of its account. Attempts to make out of the Gospel a "tendency writing" are failures; one view makes it the production of the mediating party, another sees in it a Pauline production, another would make it Petrine-all of which contain a portion of the truth. The author was certainly not a Judaizer, as certainly the Gospel was meant for the heathen; Pharisaism was condemned, while the Davidic origin of Jesus is asserted, not proved. The universalism of the author is Pauline in its emphasis upon faith and upon the effect of Christ's death. The fundamental interest of the Gospel in the Messiahship of Jesus and in him as the completion of salvation through suffering and death is of early Christian cast. The legendary elements make it difficult to assume Peter's responsibility for all the details, though a leading interest in that apostle may be granted. He is first mentioned (i. 16), and last (xvi. 7), and most frequently, while of certain episodes he is the center; yet some matters can hardly go back to him as the reporter (viii. 33, xiv. 54-72). If Peter was so important in the councils of the twelve as appears from the Pauline epistles, this alone might account for the frequency with which he figures in the Gospel. Without the report of Papias no one would with so great assurance have ascribed the virtual authorship to Peter. It can not be granted that the evangelist related without arrangement and with omissions what he gives, since a very definite plan fully carried out is evident in the book. That a man who had dwelt in Jerusalem and had in the first decade associated with all the apostles, Paul included, should set down in his Gospel merely what he received from Peter and what Peter used in his preaching seems not at all to fit with probabilities. John Mark, the friend and companion of a Peter and a Paul, whom tradition names as the author of this Gospel, presents the figure of the person whom, apart from tradition, the Gospel itself presupposes-a man born a Jew but acquainted with Greek, well but not rabbinically educated, wishing to further the speedy conquest of the world by the Gospel. He wrote not as a historian but as a propagator of religious ideas, and put forth his Gospel with the same independence as he showed in his first missionary journey, not to fit with a Pauline or a Petrine statement but to suit the needs of those whose requirement was salvation. If Mark is the author; the date is probably not later than 75 A.D. On the other hand, the development of the material given seems to require several decades. It is debated whether Jerusalem had fallen, since, e.g., chap. xiii. seems to contain reminiscences of the beginning of the Jewish War. The earliest tradition names Rome as the place of writing. Chrysostom's mention of Alexandria seems connected with an attempt to gain honor for that city by relating to it the Gospel of the traditional first bishop. Latinisms favor the Roman origin (xii. 42, xv. 15). The story, first appearing in Ephraem Syrus, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin needs no refutation, however; the book was evidently written for readers of Greek. Explanations of facts or expressions which for Jews would need no explanation appear with considerable frequency (iii. 17, v. 41, vii. 11, xii. 18, xiv. 12).

The hypothesis of Griesbach, accepted in substance by Strauss, Baur, Schwegler, and $eim, makes of Mark an abbreviated compilation from Matthew and Luke. It is based principally upon the fact that Mark has little peculiarly his own apart from single verses and the sections iv. 26-29,

vii. 32-37, viii. 22-26. Such literal 3. Relation agreement between works can not be to the fortuitous, literary relationship alone Other explains. In that case the priority of

Synoptics. Mark is most probable, and that is the

conclusion strongly supported by scholarship. The arguments in favor of Marcan priority are: (1) the arrangement of Mark prevails in Matthew and Luke; (2) this hypothesis best explains the omissions by the other Synoptica of details found in Mark; (3) in the verbal agreements of Matthew and Luke with Mark, the turns of phrasing and expression are Marcan; (4) the dissonance of Matthew and Luke in the history of the infancy and of the passion strongly confirms the hypothesis of their dependence on Mark where the matter is common to all three. On the other hand, the arguments of the opponents of the priority of Mark have some force, since there are Marcan passages which seem to be excerpts or to be in form of statement grounded upon misconception or references to an earlier text. Moreover, there are to be explained the agreements of Matthew and Luke in passages not found in Mark and not containing the words of Jesus. Accordingly there has been supposed an early Mark, and an early Matthew used by Mark, or at least one written source used in both, and indeed these hypotheses have been combined. While it is possible that the original text of Mark is to be distinguished from that which received official recognition, tradition gives no basis for this supposition such as would be afforded by dissonance in reports regarding the book. Fully as difficult to decide is the question whether there were written sources in Mark's possession, or at least prior works of which he knew. Unless the work of a century of investigation is worthless, the present Matthew can not be a source. On the other hand, a collection of the words of Jesus (" apostolic source," " Logia," " Ur-Matthew," " Urevangelium," see Matthew), alleged to have been compiled by Matthew, might have lain before Mark as early as 70 A.D.; but there is no proof that such was the case. While passages like Mark iv. 1-34 and chap. xiii. impress one as the result of a working over or editing, they do not necessarily presuppose a prior documentary basis. The impression which the book makes is that the author wrote not after books but from the heart and with all the joy that attends a new project. He doubtless knew of many words of Jesus which he did not record, not because they were dissonant from his purpose, but because his ideal was not that of completeness.

The Gospel has met some severe misfortune. Despite the sturdy attempt of Dean Burgon (see bibliography) to defend them as original, the verses Mark xvi. 9-20 appear as a compilation from Luke and John. The manuscripts B and X close the

185

Gospel with xvi. 8, so also the Sinaitic Syriac and the best manuscripts of the time of Eusebius and Jerome. An alternative ending is 4. Mark known to exist in shorter form, and in xvi. g-so. deed appears in some manuscripts along side the longer form of conclusion. This testifies to the need felt for a fitting ending, and shows also that whoever composed the shorter form did not know of the longer. The shorter ending can be traced to the fourth century, the longer per haps into the second. The suspicion that Aristion wrote it (so Conybeare, Resch, Rohrbach, Harnack) has little support outside of a manuscript of the Armenian version. Yet Mark hardly closed his book with the words "for they feared." Equally unsat isfactory are the hypotheses that Mark died before he finished and gave it to his friends who published it and that the last leaf was lost from the original copy. It is most probable that the original close was in times before Papias stricken out by some ecclesiastical authority because its account of the resurrection conflicted with that of the other Gos pels. In manuscripts where it still existed it was marked with the obelus, and like so many other obe lizel passages has perished.

(G. A. Jülicher.)

Bibliography: A large amount of pertinent matter is to be found in the literature cited under Gospels; Luke; Matthew. The reader should consult also the pertinent sections of the works on N. T. introduction (see Biblical Introduction), particularly those of Holtzmann, Weiss, Zahn, and Jülicher. Works on the cpostolic age are also to be consulted, such as E. Renan, Les tvangiles, Paris, 1877; C. Weizsbeker, Das apostolische Zeitalter, Freiburg, 1892, Eng. transl., London, 1894-95; A. C. McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York, 1897. On the man consult: R. A. Lipeius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten and Apostellegenden, 12. pp 321-353, Brunswick, 1884; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., ii. 199-220, Leipsic, 1899; DB, iii. 245-248; EB, iii. 2937 2941. H. B. Swete, in his commentary, London, 1902, has an illuminating chapter on " the personal history of St. Mark." On questions of introduction, besides the general works already referred to, the following are suggested: F. Hit zig, Ueber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, Zurich, 1843; F. C. Baur, Das Mareuaevangelium nark seinem Ureprung and Charakter, Tübingen, 1851; K. R. Köstlin, Der Ursprung und die Kompoaition der synoptischen Evan gelien, Stuttgart, 1853; A. Klostermann, Das Marcue Evangelium, Göttingen, 1867; J. H. Scholten, Het oudate Evangelie, Leyden, 1868; G. Volkmar, Das Evangelium, oder Marcus und die Synopsis der . . . Evangelien, Leip sic, 1869; W. Weiffenbach, Die Papiasfragmente über Marcus, Berlin, 1878; P. Corssen, in TU, xv. 1, 1896; A. Link, in TSlf 1896, pp. 405 sqq.; W. Hadorn, Die Entatehung des Marcus-Evangeliume, Gifitersloh, 1898; T. Calmes, Comme as, aont form& les 6vangiles, Paris, 1899; P. Wernle, Die aynoptische Frage, Tübingen, 1899; E. A. Abbott, Diateasarica, part 2, Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke, London, 1901; A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel; Historical Study of . . Mark, ib. 1901; A. Bolliger, Marcus der Bearbeiter des MattMus-Evan Gelium, Basel, 1902; R. A. Hoffmann, Dae Marcuaevanr gelium und seine Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur Losung der Ur marcusfrage, Königsberg, 1904; E. Wendling, Ur-Marcua. Verauch einer Wiederherstellung der dlWten Mitteilungen über das Lebe» Jesu, Tübingen, 1905; idem, Die Eutatehung des Marcus-Evangeliuma, ib., 1908; B. W. Bacon, in JBL, xxvi., part 1, 1907 (on the prologue); idem, The Begin nings of Gospel History, New Haven, 1909; Harnack, 1%t teratur (consult the indexes); DB, iii. 248-262; EB, ii.1761 1898. On the last twelve verses: P. Rohrbaoh, Der Schluaa des Marcus Evangeliuma, Berlin, 1894; J. W. Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of . . Mark, Oxford, 1871; F. C. Cony beare, in Expositor, 1893, 241 sqq., vf. 1894, 219 sqq., 1895, 401 sqq.

Of the host of commentaries the following may be mentioned: J. Calvin, in Eng. transl., 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1845-46; C. F. A. Fritzsche, Leipsic, 1830; J. Ford, Oxford, 1862; A. Klostermann, Göttingen, 1867; B. Weiss Berlin, 1872; idem Die tier Evangelien im berichtigten Text, Leipsic, 1900; R. Wenger, Stuttgart, 1879; C: A. Keil, Leipsic, 1879; L. Bonnet, Lausanne, 1880; M. Riddle, New York, 1881; P. Behan., Freiburg, 1881 (Roman Catholic, excellent); R. F. Weidner, Philadelphia, 1881; G. F. Maclear, in Cambridge Bible, London, 1883; E: H. Plumptre, New York, 1883; J. A. Alexander, ib. 1884; T. M. Lindsay, ib. 1884; G. A. Chadwick, London, 1887; E. Bickersteth, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., ib. 1888; C. S. Robinson, Studies in Mark's Gospel, New York, 1888; H. S. Solly, London, 1893; J. Morison, London, 1894 (regarded as one of the best); E. Gould, in International Critical Commentary, New York, 1896; F. L. H. Millard, ib. 1901; J. Weiss, Das SZteate Evangelium, Göttingen, 1903; J. Wellhausen, 2d ed., Berlin, 1909; A. Maclaren, 2 vols., London, 1906; W. H. Bennett, The Life of Christ according to St. Mark, ib. 1907.