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.
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 |
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
The Gospel has met some severe misfortune.
Despite the sturdy attempt of Dean Burgon (see
bibliography) to defend them as original, the verses
185 |
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.
![]() | Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. | ![]() |