MARK,
GOSPEL
ACCORDING
TO
account
(c.
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
waa
either
said
or
done
by
Christ
[cf.
the
Lukan
preface].
For
neither
did
he
hear
the
Lord,
nor
did
he
follow
Him,
but
afterwards,
aa
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
Lord's
oracles
[orwords].
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
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
Peter's
oral
teaching,
He
was
Peter's
'interpreter'
—
a
phrase
which
may
I
mean
that
he
translated
Peter's
words
into
a
foreign
tongue
during
the
Apostle's
lifetime,
as
a
dragoman,
or
that,
being
Peter's
disciple,
he
made
the
Apostle's
teaching
widely
known
through
his
written
Gospel.
—
Justin
Martyr
(c.
a.d.
150)
says
(Dial.
106)
that
Christ
changed
Simon's
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
Mk
3",
where
also
we
read
of
Simon's
new
name.
It
is
reason-able
(in
spite
of
Harnack
and
Sanday's
opinion
that
Justin
is
here
quoting
the
apocryphal
Gospel
of
pseudo-
Peter,
which,
as
far
as
we
know,
did
not
contain
these
words
—
it
is
only
a
fragment)
to
suppose
that
Justin
by
Peter's
'Memoirs'
means
our
Second
Gospel;
he
elsewhere
spealis
of
'Memoirs'
—
'the
Memoirs
com-posed
by
[the
Apostles]
wliich
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
liis
Diatessaron,
or
Harmony
of
the
four
Gospels.
—
(Irenaeus
(Hcer.
iii.
1.
1
and
10.
6)
speaks
of
Mark
as
'
Peter's
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).
—
Tertulhan
calls
Mark
'Peter's
interpreter.'
—
The
Muratorian
Fragment
(c.
170-200?)
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
Peter's
discourses
only,
or
per-haps
that
he
heard
some
of
our
Lord's
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.
a.d.
200)
says
that
while
Peter
was
preaching
the
Gospel
at
Rome
(ct.
Irenaeus
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
'Matthew's
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
wtiich
the
Second
Gospel
fell
for
many
centuries.
—
There
are
probable
allusions
to
Mk.
in
Polycarp
(c.
a.d.
Ill)
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
Clem-entine
Homilies,
and
is
found
in
all
the
old
versions.
We
conclude
that
there
is
vaUd
evidence
that
Mk.
was
in
circulation
before
the
middle
of
the
2nd
century.
By
ecclesiastical
writers
Mark
is
connected
almost
uniformly
with
Peter,
but
(seeabove)
thereis
a
difference
of
tradition
as
to
whether
he
wrote
before
or
after
Peter's
death.
Some
make
him
go
from
Rome
to
MARK,
GOSPEL
ACCORDING
TO
Alexandria
and
take
his
Gospel
there;
but
it
is
remark-able
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
rests
—
such
as
the
raising
of
Jairus'
daughter
(5"-"),
the
Transfigura-tion
(9^-1';
the
story
in
Mk.
is
told
from
the
point
of
view
of
one
of
the
three:
cf.
9"
'they
saw'),
and
Gethsemane
(lias-in).
The
authority
could
hardly
be
James,
who
was
martyred
early
(Ac
12^),
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
(9';
cf.
Lk
9'^'-).
Other
passages
suggesting
a
Petrine
source
are:
Mk
1S6
11"
13^
(these
are
found
only
in
Mk.);
and
the
accounts
of
Peter's
denials
(14"-
66-72),
as
Eusebius
noticed,
Mk.
is
silent
on
matters
which
re-flect
credit
on
Peter.
These
facts
and
the
autoptio
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
Christ's
Person
and
work.
—
The
Second
Gospel
describes
shortly
the
Baptist's
preaching
and
the
baptism
of
our
Lord,
and
then
records
at
length
the
Galileean
ministry.
It
is
noteworthy
that
in
tills
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
(8'i-
ss
912.
ai
etc.),
but
it
is
only
after
the
short
account
(ch.
10)
of
the
journeys
in
Judaea
and
Peraea,
and
on
the
final
approach
to
Jerusalem,
that
this
reserve
passes
away.
In
describing
our
Lord's
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
(2™-
«
gfi
i2»fl-
1462);
He
is
described
as
a
Supernatural
Person
(!"•
*<
3"
5'
9'
153=);
He
knows
the
thoughts
of
man
(2^
8"
12is),
and
what
is
to
happen
in
the
future
{2^"
8'i-
»«
9"
106'
132.
10
1427);
His
death
has
an
atoning
efficacy
(10«
14").
(6)
For
the
latter
we
note
not
only
(as
with
the
other
Evangelists)
the
references
to
Jesus'
human
body
—
weariness
and
sleep
(468),
eating
and
drinking
(146
156«)_
etc.
—
but
especially
the
description
of
His
human
soul
and
spirit
(2*
146'-
66)_
His
human
compassion
(1")
and
love
(1021),
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
!«
RVm
(the
word
denotes
sternness,
not
necessarily
anger
but
deep
feeling),
36
6»
10";
note
especially
1466'-
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
(56°
8'
9>6).
St.
Mark
relates
the
one
perfectly
certain
instance
of
Jesus'
human
ignorance,
as
to
the
Day
of
Judgment
(1362,
go
II
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
boldness
in
speaking
of
our
Lord,
without
regard
to
possible
misconceptions.
An
example
of
this
is
seen
in
passages
where
Mark
tells
us
that
Jesus
