MARKET,
MARKETPLACE
This
rests
on
the
unproved
assumption
that
Matthew's
original
work
consisted
of
Jesus'
sayings
mily,
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
Gospels—
a
given
passage
appear-ing
in
some
MSS
in
one
Gospel,
in
others
in
another,
as
is
the
case
with
the
story
of
the
woman
taken
in
adultery.
[For
a
more
probable
interpretation
of
Papias'
words,
see
§
1.]
—
(6)
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
Salmon's
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,
Mk
1^
has
'with
the
Holy
Ghost'
where
||
Mt
S'^
and
Lk
3'=
have
'
with
the
Holy
Ghost
and
fire.'
IfMt.
and
Lk.
are
later
than
Mk.,
—
unless
the
First
Evangelist
knew
the
Third
Gosjjel
or
the
Third
Evangelist
the
First,
both
of
which
suppositions
are
confessedly
improbable,
—
we
cannot,
it
is
saicf,
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,
f
or
i
t
means
in
some
cases
that
a
later
editor
(our
M^rk)
altered
a
smooth
construction
into
a
hard
or
a
difficult
one
not
found
in
Mt.
or
Lk.
(see
5
5
(c)),
which
is
hardly
to
be
conceived.
But
this
difficulty
rests
on
the
unproved
assxmiption
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
foUow
Mk.
rather
than
the
non-Markan
source:
sometimes
one
follows
the
one
and
the
other
the
otherj
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.
MARKET,
MARKETPLACE.—
The
former
is
found
in
OT
in
Ezk
27"-
"
etc.
as
the
rendering
of
a
collective
noun
signifying
'
articles
of
exchange,
'
hence
RV
through-out
'merchandise,'
this
last
in
v."
being
AV
rendering
of
another
word
for
which
RV
gives
'mart.'
In
NT
'market'
has
disappeared
from
RV
in
favour
of
the
uniform
'marketplace'
(Gr.
agora).
Here
we
must
distinguish
between
the
'markets'
of
Jerusalem
(Mt
11'",
Mk
7*
etc.),
which
were
simply
streets
of
shops
—
the
'bazaars'
of
a
modern
Eastern
city,
—
and
the
'market'
(AV)
or
'marketplace'
(RV)
of
a
Greek
city
(Ac
16i»
17").
The
latter
was
the
centre
of
the
pubhc
Ute
of
the
city,
and
was
a
large
open
space
adorned
with
colonnades
and
statues,
and
surrounded
by
temples
and
other
public
buildings.
A.
R.
S.
Kennedy.
MARKS.
—
1.
The
mark
of
circumcision.
—
This
is
an
instance
(among
many)
of
the
taking-over
of
a
pre-existing
rite,
and
adapting
it
to
Jahweh-
worship;
whatever
it
may
have
meant
in
its
origin
—
and
opinions
differ
very
widely
on
this
point
—
it
became
among
the
IsraeUtes
the
mark
par
excellence
of
a
Jahweh-worshlpper
(ct.
Gn.
17"),
the
symbol
of
the
covenant
between
Him
and
His
people
(see,
further.
Circumcision).
2.
Themarkof
Cain
(Gn4is).
—
In
seeking
to
discover
the
character
of
this
sign
or
mark,
the
first
question
that
obviously
suggests
itself
is,
why
should
there
be
any
protective
efficacy
in
such
a
sign?
On
the
assump-tion
of
its
being
a
tribal
mark
(so
Robertson
Smith,
Gunkel,
and
others),
men
would
know
that
any
injury
done
to
its
bearer
would
be
avenged
by
the
other
members
of
the
tribe
(see
art.
Cain).
But
this
answer
is
unsatisfactory,
because,
if
it
was
a
tribal
mark,
it
MARKS
would
be
common
to
all
the
members
of
the
tribe,
whereas
this
one
is
spoken
of
as
being
specifically
for
Cain's
benefit,
and
as
having
been
given
to
protect
him
qua
manslayer;
a
tribal
mark
would
have
been
on
bim
before
the
murder
of
Abel.
But
then
again,
any
mark
designed
to
protect
him
on
account
of
his
being
a
murderer,
would,
as
proclaiming
bis
guilt,
rather
have
the
opposite
effect.
Another
point
to
bear
in
mind
is
that
from
the
writer's
point
of
view
(if
the
narrative
is
a
unity)
there
really
was
nobody
to
hurt
Cain
except
his
parents.
It
is
clear,
therefore,
that
the
contra-dictory
elements
in
the
narrative
show
that
it
has
no
basis
in
fact;
it
is
more
reasonable
to
regard
it
as
one
of
the
'
aetiological
'
stories
with
which
the
Book
of
Genesis
abounds,
i.e.
it
purports
to
give
the
cause
of
some
custom
the
real
reason
for
which
had
long
been
forgotten.
One
can,
of
course,
only
conjecture
what
custom
it
was
of
which
this
story
gave
the
sup-posed
origin;
but,
taking
all
its
elements
into
con-sideration,
it
was
very
probably
the
answer
to
the
inquiry:
'Why
do
man-slayers
within
the
tribe
bear
a
special
mark,
even
after
the
blood-wit
has
been
furnished?'
The
reason
given
was
quite
wrong,
but
it
accounted
satisfactorily
for
a
custom
of
which
the
origin
had
been
forgotten,
and
that
was
sufficient.
3.
The
mark
of
the
prophet.
—
In
1
K
20«5-"
there
is
the
account
of
how
one
of
the
prophets
'disguised
himself
with
a
headband
over
his
eyes';
the
king
does
not
recognize
the
man
as
a
prophet
until
the
latter
takes
away
this
covering
from
his
face,
whereupon
the
king
'discovered
him
as
one
of
the
prophets.'
Clearly
there
must
have
been
some
distinguishing
mark
on
the
forehead
of
the
man
whereby
he
was
recognized
as
belonging
to
the
prophetic
order.
This
conclusion
is
strengthened
by
several
other
considerations.
(1)
It
is
a
fact
that
among
other
races
the
class
of
men
cor-responding
to
the
prophetic
order
of
the
IsraeUtes
are
distinguished
by
incisions
made
on
their
persons.
(2)
There
is
the
analogy
of
circumcision;
just
as
among
the
Israelites
this
was
the
distinguishing
mark
of
the
people
of
Jahweh,
so
those
who,
Uke
the
prophets,
were
more
especially
His
close
followers
also
had
a
special
mark,
a
distinctive
sign,
which
differentiated
them
from
other
men.
(3)
The
custom
of
putting
a
mark
upon
cattle
to
denote
ownership,
and
for
the
purpose
of
differentiatingfrom
other
herds,
wasevidently
well
known
in
early
Israel.
When
one
remembers
how
rife
anthropomorphisms
were
among
the
IsraeUtes,
it
is
perhaps
not
fanciful
to
see
here
an
analogy:
just
as
the
owners
of
herds
marked
their
own
property,
so
Jahweh
marked
His
own
people;
and
as
the
prophets
were
differentiated
from
the
ordinary
people,
so
they
would
have
their
special
mark.
(4)
There
is
the
passage
Zee
13*-'.
These
considerations
point
distinctly
to
marks
of
some
kind
or
other
which,
either
on
the
fore-head
or
on
the
hand
—
possibly
on
both
—
were
distinctive
characteristics
of
a
prophet
among
the
IsraeUtes.
4.
Cuttings
for
the
dead.
—
The
custom
of
making
cuttings
in
the
flesh
and
other
marks
upon
the
body
for
the
dead
(Lv
19^8;
cf.
21^
Dt
140
was
practised
by
the
IsraeUtes,
but
forbidden
on
account
of
its
being
a
heathen
rite.
This
was
not
a
sign
of
mourning,
as
is
often,
but
erroneously,
supposed;
it
was
an
act
of
homage
done
to
the
departed,
with
the
object
of
inducing
the
spirit
not
to
molest
those
left
behind.
In
Dt
14'
the
prohibition
runs,
'
Ye
shall
not
cut
yourselves,
nor
make
any
baldness
(the
cognate
Arabic
root
means
'wound')
between
your
eyes
for
the
dead.'
This
was
done
in
order
the
more
easily
to
be
seen
by
the
spirit.
5.
Marks
connected
with
Jahweh-worship.—
There
can
be
Uttle
doubt
that
originally
the
signs
on
the
hand
and
the
memorial
between
the
eyes
(Ex
13'-
")
were
marks
cut
into
hand
and
forehead;
this
custom
was
taken
over
by
the
IsraeUtes
from
non-Jahweh-worshipping
an-cestors,
and
was
regarded
as
effectual
against
demoniacal
onslaughts;
hence
in
later
days
the
use
and
name
of
