MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

'could not' do a thing (1« 6' 7"). 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 be misunderstood as taking from the Master's 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 Lord's Ufe, 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 Uttle details as the heavens 'in the act of opening' (l"i — the present participle is used),-the incoherent remarks of the crowd at the heaUng of the Capernaum demoniac (1" RV — they are softened down by later scribes of Mk. and in Lk.), the breaking up of the mud roof in 2* (see art. Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 6), the single pillow, probably a wooden head-rest, in the boat (4== RV), the five thousand arranged on the green grass 'like garden beds' (6": this is the Uteral translation; the coloured dresses on the ' green grass ' — another autoptic touch — had to the eye-witness the appearance of flowers), the taking of the children by Jesus into His arms O'" 10"), and His fervent blessing (10'»: 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 man's brow (lO^"-RV). All these details, and many others, are found in Mk. only; many of the signs of an eye-witness through-out 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 excep-tional knowledge of facts in 1«' (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 (2» 10« 15«'). 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. (6) 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. Mark's 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 Lord's painful emotions; these passages are softened down in Mt. and Lk. Sometimes a slip of the pen is corrected; e.g. Mk l^'' RV quotes as from Isaiah a passage which is a cento of Mai 3', Is 40', but the others silently avoid this by omitting the Malachl passage here, though they give it elsewhere (Mt 11'°, Lk 7"); the words in Mk ^ RV, 'when Abiathar was high priest,' are omitted in Mt. and Lk., for Abiathar was not yet high priest at the time in question. The altera-tion of ' abomination of desolation ' (Mk 13", so Mt 24") into 'Jerusalem compassed with armies' (Lk 21'°) is clearly an explanation of a writer later than Mk.; and so the change from 'Son of God' (Mk 15™, so Mt 27") to 'a righteous man' (Lk 23"). In some cases, by the turn of a phrase the accuracy of Mk. in minute points is lost by the other Synoptists. Thus cf. Mk. 4'«; our

MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

Lord was already in the boat (4'); in || Mt. Lk. He is described by an oversight aa embarking here. In Mk 10' Jesus comes 'into the borders of Judsea and beyond Jordan'; the parallel Mt 19' omits 'and,' but doubtless Mk. is right here, and Jesus went both into JudEea and into Perffia. But the most striking correc-tions of Mk. in Mt. Lk. are found in the phraseology. The Markan style is rough and unpoUshed, 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 phrases — sometimes smoothed over in a translation like ours, and usually corrected in Mt. or Lk. or both: e.g. 3" 4"- " (see Lk. 8'") 4?^ (the 'yet' of RV is 'and' in Gr.) 7'"-(grammatical but harsh) 9" 13" I486 (note RV 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. 1'*) and Mt. we read of the 'Sea' of Galilee, but St. Luke with his superior nautical knowledge calls it a ' lake '; Herod Antipas in Mk 6" is called ' king,' but in Mt. Lk. more commonly ' tetrarch ' (but ' king ' is retained in Mt 14') ; in Mk 15'^ (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 roober), emphatically corrects this to 'one of the malefactors' (Lk 23""). — In two or three cases it is possible that the priority lies the other way. Thus in Mk 6' ' the carpenter' = Mt 13^ ' the son of the carpenter' = Lk422'thesonof Joseph,' the correction may be in Mt.Lk,, the giving of the name 'the carpenter' to Jesus not being Uked; 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 (14™- ''■ "), though the state of the text suggests that perhaps originaUy only one was mentioned in Mk., but in a different place from that of Mt. Lk. It is hard to see why a later writershould 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 (i^"-), the heaUng of the deaf stammerer (7™), of the bUnd man at Bethsaida (8»'-), the questions about the dulness of the disciples when they forgot to take bread (8'"), about the dispute of the disciples (9''), the incidents of the young man with the linen cloth (146"-). of the smiting of Jesus by the servants of the high priest (14^'), of Pilate's wonder, and of his question put to the centurion (15").

6. Authorship, piupose, 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 (unUke St. Luke) from a Jewish point of view. There is a general absence of OT quotations except when our Lord's words are cited (!"■ is an exception; 16^8 must almost certainly be expunged, with RV, from the text).

580