The Origin and Peculiar Characteristics 
 
 of the Gospel of S. Mark, and its 
 
 Relation to the other Synoptists, 
 
 Being the Ellerton Essay 
 
 1896 
 
 BY 
 
 J. C. DU BUISSON, B.A. 
 
 LATE DEMV OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE 
 
 LIBRARY OF PRINCETON 
 
 NOV 1 5 20Q7 
 
 THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 O)cfor^ 
 
 AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
 
 1896 
 
OXFORD : HORACE HART 
 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PART I. 
 
 Origin of the Gospel. 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 Introductory. Former neglect of S. Mark's Gospel contrasted with 
 
 the recognition of its value at the present day .... 5 
 Origin of the Gospel : 
 
 I. Traditional accounts : 
 
 (i) Second century authorities : Papias, Justin Martyr, 
 
 Ircnacus, Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria . 7 
 
 (2) Third century : Tertullian, Origen . . . . .10 
 
 (3) Fourth century : Eusebius 10 
 
 II. The witness of the New Testament. Notices of S. Mark in Acts 
 and Epistles 11 
 
 III. Evidence of the Gospel itself ........ 14 
 
 Is it identical with the Gospel known to Papias? . . . .14 
 
 Indications that it is based on the testimony of an eye-witness . .19 
 This eye-witness S. Peter . . . . . . . . .22 
 
 S. Mark relates one experience of his own ...... 22 
 
 PART IT. 
 
 Relation to the other Synoptists. 
 
 Points of agreement between the three Gospels. Coincidences in 
 
 matter, order, and language 24 
 
 Theories to account for these coincidences : 
 
 (i) The oral hypothesis: this rejected as inadequate to explain 
 
 the facts 26 
 
 (2) Other theories. («) S. Mark an aliridgcment of S. Mattbew 
 and S. Luke. Contrary indications of S. Mark's priority. 
 {h) S. Matthew and S. Luke expansions of either S. Maik 
 or a document most nearly represented by it . . -29 
 
 . 34 
 . 37 
 . 38 
 • 39 
 . 40 
 
 This document coincident in order with S. Mark 
 
 Was it also identical in range ? 
 
 Supposed additions in the Canonical Gospel 
 
 The last twelve verses alone not part of the Marcan tradition 
 
 Sui»posed omissions in tlie Gosjjel ...... 
 
Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Conclubion. Tlir document identical with S. Mark in range and order 
 
 but not in language 43 
 
 Occasional signs of posteriority in language of S. Mark . . .44 
 Tlieories to explain these : 
 
 (i) Weiss 46 
 
 (2 Simons ........... 46 
 
 (3) The ' Urmarcus ' hypothesis 47 
 
 Classification of Marcan peculiarities : 
 
 (i) ' Secondary features ' wrongly so called. 
 
 (a) Linguistic points 48 
 
 (6) Supposed omissions of our Lord's sayings . . . 50 
 (2) * Secondaiy features ' proper. Signs of an editor's hand in — 
 
 (a) Explanatory supplements 52 
 
 (6) Supplements to heighten contnists . . . -53 
 (c) Possible insertions of independent matter from a 
 
 Johannean source ....... 54 
 
 (rf^i Modifications of language in eschatological discourse 55 
 
 Probable date of the editor 57 
 
 The editor not to be identified with the author of the last twelve verses 59 
 
 PAliT III. 
 Purpose and Characteristics of the Gospel. 
 
 (i) Object and leading ideas 61 
 
 (2) Plan : a series of scenes 64 
 
 (3) Stylo 66 
 
 (4) Pljice of the Gospel in the economy of revelation . . . .70 
 
The Origin and Peculiar Characteristics 
 of the Gospel of 5. Mark, 
 
 PAET L 
 
 The Origm of the Gospel, 
 
 For nearly eighteen centuries the Gospel of S. Mark introdm- 
 met with comparative neglect at the hands of theologians. Forj^er 
 Only one patristic commentary, the Catena, has come neglect of 
 down to us. Writers who have commented on all four Gospel. 
 Gospels have in most cases, when treating of S. Mark, 
 been content to refer their readers to the parallel passages 
 in S. Matthew or S. Luke. And the reason of this neglect 
 is not far to seek. Alike to theologian and to critic the 
 second Gospel, in comparison with the other three, seems 
 to offer but scanty material for study. To one familiar 
 with the other Synoptists the Marcan account of our Lord's 
 life, with its omission of the story of His birth and infancy, 
 of the details of the Temptation, of the Sermon on the 
 Mount, of the Lord's Prayer, and of the majority of the 
 parables, naturally leaves the impression of poverty and 
 incompleteness. Nor from a critical and literary point of 
 view did the Gospel fare any better. The fact that the 
 second Evangelist records little that is not also found in 
 the other Synoptical Gospels led S. Augustine to regard 
 him as a mere follower and epitomist of S. Matthew, and 
 the verdict of the great African father was until quite 
 recent years generally acquiesced in^. 
 
 ^ Aug. De Cons. Evv. i. 4. Marcus Matthaeum subsecutus, tamquam 
 pedisequus et breviator eius vidotur. 
 
The Oni:;iu and Characteristics 
 
 ioii 
 alii 
 
 Even the rise of modern criticism did not for a consider- 
 able time crtect any chan^-e in the phice accorded to 
 S. Mark. One of tlie earliest of modern critical writers, 
 Grieshach, pronounced it to be an epitome not only of 
 S. Matthew but of the other two Gospels as well, and this 
 view was endorsed by Paur and his followers, so that only 
 when the general revolt against the Tubingen school took 
 place did there follow the inevitable reaction in favour of 
 Pivseiit the second Gospel. The pendulum swung round, and 
 I! *1'" '!•';♦ there arose a tendency to find in S. Mark not the latest 
 
 I loll ( il lis J 
 
 but the earliest of the Gospels. Hence special attention 
 was directed to it, for it was felt that the settlement of 
 the questions of its date and of its relation to S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke would go far towards the solution of the 
 whole Synoptic problem. 
 
 Quite apart also from critical considerations the Gospel 
 of S. Mark has a peculiar beauty and attractiveness of its 
 own, which the keen scrutiny demanded by modern 
 methods of study has but brought into greater prominence. 
 Tlie plain, straightforward narrative, enriched at the same 
 time with a wealth of vivid detail, seems to bear on it the 
 stamp of personal recollections ; so that even regarded 
 merely as a biographical memoir the Gospel has all the 
 interest which attaches to the testimony of an eye-witness. 
 Theologically considered, S. Mark presents in the simplest 
 and most direct form 'the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son 
 of God,' depicting Him as the Divine Man living and 
 working among His fellow-men, and thus giving greater 
 proiiiiiM'iice to Ilis acts than to His words. It is essentially 
 a practical Gospel, admirably adapted to the practical 
 genius of the Roman Christians to whom, according to 
 ancient tradition, it was addressed. If it does not attain 
 to the theological heights of S. John, this is only in 
 accordance with the law of progressive revelation. The 
 history of our Lord's life, death, and resurrection had to 
 bt' firmly established before men were fit to receive the 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 
 
 loftier spiritual truths deduced from those facts in the 
 pages of the fourth Gospel ^ 
 
 The general consensus of opinion in favour of assigning 
 an early date to S. Mark's Gospel lends a special interest 
 to the consideration of the circumstances of its origin. 
 Why is the second Gospel known as the Gospel according 
 to S. Mark, seeing that his name is not mentioned in it, Origin of 
 and that there is no internal evidence to prove that he is pei. 
 the author ? The question is answered by the unanimous I- Tradi- 
 voice 01 early tradition, which attributes the authorship to counts. 
 the 'John whose surname is Mark' of whom we read in 
 the Acts of the Apostles 2. And tradition does not stop 
 here, but goes on to tell us something of the circumstances 
 under which the Gospel was composed. The first witness? 
 both in order of time and in the intrinsic importance of his 
 testimony, is Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, who 
 wrote c. A.D. 130-140 a work entitled Expositions 0/(1) Second 
 Oracles of the Lord, fragments of which have been preserved authori- 
 in the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius. Papias forms l^"^'"^'. 
 
 ■^ rapias. 
 
 a direct link with the apostolic age, having been a 'hearer' 
 of ' John the Elder,' who was himself ' a disciple of the 
 Lord.' The follow^ing are the words relating to S. Mark 
 which are quoted by Eusebius : ' And the Elder said this 
 also. Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote 
 down accurately everything that he remembered, without 
 however recording in order what was either said or done 
 by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he 
 follow Him ; but afterwards, as 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. 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, 
 or to set down any false statement therein ^' 
 
 ' Cf Wright, Composition of tfie Four Gospels, c. v. ^ Acts xii. 25. 
 
 ^ Eus. H. E. iii. 39 kox tovto 6 npiafivrtpos cAeye' M.dpKOS f^tv kpfiTjvevrrjs 
 
8 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 Few passages of aoy writer ancient or modern have 
 oiven rise to so imich controversy as this fragment. As 
 will be seen hereafter, it presents some difficulties which 
 in the absence of the complete work of Papias may remain 
 unsolved, but it is sufficient here to notice what is after 
 all the main fact which it attests, namely, the intimate 
 connexion between S. Mark and S. Peter. This is borne 
 out by the witness of later writers, while differences in 
 detail show that their statements are not based merely 
 on the authority of Papias. Some of the notices are very 
 obscure, and it is difficult to prove conclusively their 
 reference to our Gospel of S. Mark, although the balance 
 of evidence seems to point in that direction. 
 Austin Justin Mai-tyr (150-16^) mentions the name Boanerges 
 
 * " given to the sons of Zebedee, and adds that Christ changed 
 the name of one of the Apostles to Peter, and that this is 
 'written in his memoirs ^' Since S. Mark is the only 
 Evangelist who records the name Boanerges, it would be 
 a natural inference that the aiTofxvrifxoviVfj.aTa Tl^Tpov is only 
 the second Gospel under another name. On the other 
 hand a different conclusion has been suggested by recent 
 events. The recovery in 1887 from an Egyptian tomb of 
 a fragment of the apocryphal ' Gospel of Peter ' has 
 brought before us the possibility that Justin is here 
 referring to that work, and not to a canonical writing 
 at all. This view is borne out l>y certain points in the 
 language of the first Apology and Dialogue, which seem to 
 imply a knowledge of the Gospel ^. Unfortunately the 
 
 TlfTpcv yfVi'ififvns, orra ifit'i]^iuv*vatt>, anpiBwi typatpfv, ov nivroi rn^ft, ra vtto tov 
 ^pirJTvii fj \t\dKVJa ff -npaxOivTa. our* yap ijfcoi a( tov Kvpiov. ovTf naprjKoKovOj]- 
 otv avT^, voTfpoi' St, m i^-qv, Uirp<p, fis vpos ras xpfias iitoniro ras SiSaaKaKias, 
 dXK' ov^ ojaitfp avvTO^iv rujv k\ pinKuiv voioififvos Koy'iwv, wart ov5iu rinapTt 
 WipKo^, oi/T(w ivia ypnipn': tls &iTtnvrjm',v(vatv. iv<s ynp inoiTjaaro npovoiav, tov 
 fiTj^ii' (jjv fjKiwat nnpa\infiv fj ^tvaarrOai t« iv avroi^. 
 
 ' IHal. c. 106 ytypAipBai iv toTj AiropivquovfvpLamv avrnv. 
 
 ' Tho question whotluT Justin shows an acquaintanco witli the Gospel 
 of S. Peter is however still sub iudiw. Dr. Swete decides, although with 
 hesitation, in the negative, G'o.f;)<>/ of S. Peter, Introd. pp. xxxiii. f. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. g 
 
 recovered fragment contains only the history of the 
 Passion, so that we do not know whether the change of 
 S. Peter's name was recorded in the earlier part of the work. 
 
 We stand on firmer ground when we reach Irenaeus Ircnacus. 
 (i (So- 190), w^ho gives more exact information as to the 
 origin and date of the Gospel of S. Mark. ' After the 
 decease of these ' (S Peter and S. Paul), he says, ' Mark, 
 the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed 
 down to US in writing the things which were preached 
 by Peter ^' There is an alternative reading 'after the 
 publication of this ' (S. Matthew's Gospel), which is 
 interesting, as the date which it implies is in harmony 
 w^th a later tradition, recorded by Origen, that the first 
 Gospel was composed before the second. 
 
 The testimony of the Muratorian Canon (c. 200), the Murator- 
 earliest known list of the books of the New Testament, is ^-"^ ^''^"o"* 
 more fragmentary. The extant portion of the document 
 begins with a few words which evidently conclude a notice 
 of S. Mark, for it proceeds to treat of S. Luke which it 
 calls *the thiid book of the Gospel.' The words in 
 question are 'at which nevertheless he was present and 
 so recorded them 2,' and it is generally supposed that the 
 reference is to the Petrine origin of the Gospel, although 
 the absence of the context prevents us from speaking with 
 certainty. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria gives an explicit and detailed Clement 
 account, and is the first to connect the Gospel with Rome, andria. 
 He states on the authority of ' the elders of a former age ' 
 that ' when Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome, 
 and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, those who w^ere 
 present being many exhorted Mark, as one w^ho had 
 followed him for a long time and remembered his w^ords, 
 
 * Contr. Haer. III. i. i Mcrd 8e t^v tovtojv e^o^ov (al. toitov tKhoaiv) MdpKos 
 6 na$r]TTjs Kai (pfXT]V(VT^s IlfTpov Kcu avrds to. vttu Utrpov KT)pv(T(Tufi(ra kyypdipojs 
 ij^iiv TrapabfSojfCf. 
 
 ^ . . . . quibus tamen intcrfuit ct ita posuit. Tortium Evangelii librum 
 secundum Lucam, &c. 
 
lo The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 to writo down what he said ; and he, having made liis 
 Gospel, delivered it to those who had asked him, and Peter, 
 when he came to know of it, took pains neither to hinder 
 nor encourage him ^' 
 
 (2) Tliira Among writers of the third century Tertullian and 
 (•( ntiirv. Qj.i^^3jj carrv on the same tradition. The former remarks 
 
 IVitullian. Q J 
 
 that 'the Gospel which Mark brought out is maintained 
 Origcn. to be Peter's, whose interpreter he was ^,' while the latter 
 goes so far as to say that ' Mark made his Gospel as Peter 
 guided him •^' 
 
 (3) Fourth In the fourth century Eusebius tells the same story wath 
 century, {^jj.^j^g^. embellishments. His words are worth quoting, as 
 
 they claim to rest on the authority of Papias and Clement, 
 and also throw light on an interesting passage in the first 
 Epistle of S. Peter. After stating that the Gospel was 
 w^ritten by S. Mark in accordance with the wish of 
 S. Peter's disciples to have a written record of the 
 Apostle's teaching, Eusebius proceeds : ' They say that 
 when the Apostle knew what had been done (the Spirit 
 having revealed it to him), he was pleased at the zeal of 
 the men and sanctioned the writing for the use of the 
 Churches (Clement has recorded tlie story in the sixth 
 book of his liypotypObels, and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, 
 gives like testimony) : and that Peter makes mention of 
 Mark in his first Epistle, which it is also said that he 
 composed in Rome, and that he himself intimates this by 
 giving the city the metaphorical name of Babylon "^.' 
 
 * Fragiii, Hypotyp. 1016 P. in Eus. H. E. vi. 14 tov Uirpov drjfxoaia ku 
 PajfiT) KTjpv^avTus tov \uyov /cai iruev/xaTi to evayyiXcov e^enroVTos, tovs -napoi'ias 
 
 TToWovs uVTas irapaKaXiaai tov Mdp/cov, da av aKoXov9r]<yavTa avrS) TToppcuOev ical 
 fj.ifj.VTjfitvov Twv XixdivToiv, U.V ay pciipai to. dpT]p.eva, troi-qaavTa 5e to ivayyfXiov 
 fifTaSviii ai Tois Sfofxevois avTov, onfp kiriyi'oVTa tov UiTpov TTpoTpitTTiKOJs p^i]Te 
 K(v\vaai /x/'/Tf TTpoTpiipaoGai. 
 
 '^ Adv. Marc. iv. 5 Marcus quod cdidit Evangel ium Petri affirmatur, cuius 
 interprcs Mi reus. 
 
 ^ Comm. in Mt. I. Eus. H. E. vi. 25 h^vTipov Zl {ivayyiMov) to Kara 
 MapKoi'^ u)i TltTpoi V'prj'^-qaaTo auTw ncirjaavTa. 
 
 * II. K. ii. J 6. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. ii 
 
 Bej'ond Eiisebius, the peculiar features of whose account 
 will be subsequently considered, it is not necessary to g-o. 
 The further we get from the Apostolic age the more 
 apparent it becomes that multiplicity of detail is no 
 guarantee of the accuracy of a tradition, but ratlier the 
 reverse. The later writers know much more than the 
 earlier about the circumstances under which the Gospel 
 was composed, and it is especially noticeable how as 
 time goes on the influence of the Apostle on the Evangelist 
 is represented as more and more direct. All that can be 
 accepted as really authentic is the general statement that 
 S. Mark composed a Gospel on the basis of S. Peter's 
 preaching. Other details must be received with caution, 
 although some of them, like the statement of L-enaeus as 
 to the date of the Gospel, attain to a high degree of 
 probability. That Irenaeus is in this respect at variance 
 with the general voice of later tradition is not surprising, 
 since it is easy to imagine how the idea that S. Peter 
 himself authorized the composition of the Gospel would 
 grow out of the vague tradition that it was founded on 
 the Petrine teaching. 
 
 How far is the traditional view of the origin of the II. The 
 second Gospel borne out by the witness of the New the New* 
 Testament itself? The answer to this question can onlv'^^'*^^^ 
 be given after an examination of both the external 
 evidence, that is, the notices of S. Mark in the Acts and 
 Epistles, and the internal evidence presented by the 
 contents, structure, and language of the Gospel itself 
 
 Taking the external evidence first, we find that we are Notices of 
 enabled to construct from various passages a tolerably aVis ami" 
 distinct account of the life of S. Mark, although, as is Epistles. 
 the case with so many New Testament characters, there 
 are great gaps in his career, which can only be filled up 
 by conjecture. ' John, wdiose surname was Mark,' was by 
 birth a Jew, and perhaps came of a priestly family, since, 
 as we learn from the Epistle to the C'olossians, he was 
 
12 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 a cousin of Barnabas, the Le\ ite of Cyprus ^ His home 
 was at Jerusalem, where his mother's house seems to have 
 been a customary meeting-place for the persecuted members 
 of the early Church. When S. Peter was released from 
 prison by the angel, he at once repaired to this house, 
 where he found many gathered together and praying 2. In 
 all probability therefore S. Mark was at an early age 
 brought under Christian influences. He soon appears in 
 connexion with S. Paul and S. Barnabas, accompanying 
 them from Jerusalem to Antioch after the fulfilment of 
 their commission to the ' brethren that dwelt in Judaea ^.' 
 At this point his missionary cai-eer began. He went with 
 the two Apostles on their first journey in the capacity of 
 vwjph-qs, a term the meaning of which has been much 
 disputed, but which seems to imply some ministerial 
 function higher than that of a mere attendant. After 
 visiting Cyprus the little band proceeded to Perga in 
 Pamphylia, where for some unknown reason Mark left his 
 companions and returned to Jerusalem. The reticence of 
 the Acts leaves us in doubt as to the motive of this 
 desertion, but the most probable explanation is that he 
 shrank from the difKculties and dangers of missionary 
 work in the comparatively unknown country north of 
 the Taurus. But whatever the reason of his conduct was 
 S. Paul seems to have regarded it as blameworthy, since 
 at the outset of the second journey he refused to allow him 
 to accompany the party *. Hence arose a temporary 
 alienation between S. Paul and S. Barnabas, and the latter 
 sailed away to Cyprus, taking his cousin with him. From 
 this time we hear nothing of S. Mark until incidental 
 notices in two of S. Paul's Epistles of the first imprison- 
 ment show that he had been reconciled to the Apostle 
 and was with him at Rome. S. Paul mentions him in 
 the Epistle to Philemon in conjunction with Aristarchus, 
 
 * Col. iv. 10. ^ Acts xii. 12. 
 
 ^ Acts xii. 25. * Acts xv. 38. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 13 
 
 Demas, and Luke ; and commends him to the Colossians 
 as one of his ' fellow- workers unto the kingdom of God,' 
 who had proved a comfort to him \ Whether S. Mark ever 
 carried out the intended visit to Colossae implied in the 
 Epistle is not recorded ; but that he did go to Asia is 
 rendered probable by the fact that in the second Epistlo 
 to Timothy S. Paul begs his correspondent to bring Mark 
 with him (presumably from Ephesus) to Rome ^. 
 
 One more most interesting allusion to the Evangelist 
 occurs in the first Epistle of S. Peter, where the writer 
 speaks of ' Mark my son^.' The genuineness of the Epistle 
 has been most vehemently denied by many critics, but the 
 tendency of late years has been towards the removal of 
 the doubts attaching to it ^. The tone and contents of the 
 letter make it probable that it was written from Rome, 
 a supposition which is in harmony with the tradition 
 recorded by Eusebius that the Babylon which it mentions 
 is but a metaphorical name for the capital of the empire. 
 An ingenious argument has been brought forward to show 
 that this tradition rests ultimately on the authority of 
 Papias. It may be noticed that in the passage from 
 Eusebius quoted above the historian appeals both to 
 Papias and to Clement. Now he elsewhere quotes 
 Clement's words, which tell the same story as to the 
 origin of the Gospel with this difference, that when the 
 Apostle saw what was done he neither approved nor dis- 
 approved. It is probable therefore that the part of the 
 tradition which does not rest on the testimony of Clement 
 was derived from Papias. And since Eusebius also tells 
 us that Papias quoted the first Epistle of S. Peter, the 
 probability is great that what he did quote was the 
 verse mentioning Pabylon. If this be so we have high 
 
 • Pliilem. 24 ; Col. iv. lo. 
 
 ^ 2 Tim. iv. II, 
 
 3 I Pet. V. 13. 
 
 ' Cf. Eamsay, T/ic Church in the Roman Empire, c. xiii. V. infra, n. on 
 
 V 58. 
 
14 TJic Origin and Cluiracf eristics 
 
 authority both for the genuineness of the Epistle and for 
 the connexion of the Gospel with Rome ^ 
 
 So far therefore from there being any difficulty in 
 
 reconciling the New Testament notices of S. Mark with 
 
 the traditional origin of the Gospel which boars his name, 
 
 we may rather see in the John Mark of the Acts and 
 
 Epistles a special fitness for the work which ancient 
 
 authorities ascribe to him. As a native of Jerusalem, 
 
 a man probably of good education and social position, 
 
 a witness at any rate of the struggles and successes of 
 
 the infant Church, and perhaps also of the crowning 
 
 events of our Lord's life ; the devoted follower of S. Paul, 
 
 atoning for one youthful act of defection by years of 
 
 faithful service in the cause of the Gospel ; the disciple 
 
 and companion of S. Peter, earning from him the 
 
 affectionate title of son, S. Mark seems to have been 
 
 a man peculiarly suited for the task of recording in 
 
 a permanent form the facts which the Apostle set forth 
 
 before his Roman hearers. 
 
 III. Evi- But we are now met by a far more difficult problem, 
 
 ti"Gospci ^^^^^ presented by the internal evidence of the Gospel 
 
 itself. itself. Is the Gospel of S. Mark which we know identical 
 
 tical with with that to which Papias refers ? At first sight this 
 
 ki^ oSiT^To ^^l^^^tion seems eminently unreasonable. Why should the 
 
 rapiiis? existence of two Gospels be assumed, one of which must 
 
 have been substituted for the other at an unknown date 
 
 and without the slightest hint of the fact being anywhere 
 
 recorded? Uider modern literary conditions the idea 
 
 would be absurd, and in face of the short interval which 
 
 separates Papias from the Apostolic age, and of the fact 
 
 that the Gospels must have been used in the public services 
 
 of the Church, it is scarcely less unnatural to suppose that 
 
 ^ Cf. Salmon, Infrod. to N. T., Lect. XXII. Dr. Salmon concludes from 
 the wj i<pT]v in the fragment of Papias already quoted that he had previously 
 allnded to the subject. It seems more natuial, however, to refer the words 
 sinii)ly to tliu epfxijvivTTjs Tlirpov -yd'oud'os in the preceding sentence. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 15 
 
 a substitution of this kind can have taken place in the 
 early days of Christianity. Indeed in this crude form 
 the hypothesis has only been entertained by men who 
 were determined beforehand to prove the untriistworthi- 
 ness of the Gospels as historical records. And yet it 
 contains an element of truth, or at any rate of possibility, 
 which cannot be ignored. For it must be remembered 
 that in ancient times a literary product had far less fixity 
 than it has to-day. The functions of cop3dst and editor 
 were not always clearly distinguished from each other, 
 and, especially in Jewish circles, where the influence of 
 oral tradition was paramount, transcribers would not 
 scruple to alter, transpose, insert, and omit to a degree 
 which a later age would have regarded as quite inde- 
 fensible. To what extent this process could be carried 
 is a much debated question, but it will be sufficient here 
 to remark that we have no right to assume without proof 
 the absolute identity of the text of S. Mark which we 
 possess with that of the original Gospel as it left the 
 hands of its author. 
 
 With this proviso therefore we may proceed to inquire 
 whether there are any indications of date in the Gospel 
 itself which would preclude the possibility of its tra- 
 ditional authorship. On this point there is a general agree- 
 ment of opinion. No such indications can be found. None 
 even of the so-called 'secondarj^ features' of S. Mark — that 
 is, the points (to be considered hereafter) in which S. Mark's 
 narrative seems to show signs of posteriority to S. ]\latthew 
 and S. Luke — necessitate a date so late that it could not be 
 covered by the probable lifetime of the Evangelist. 
 
 But there are other considerations besides those of 
 chronology. It is contended that the Gospel of S. Mark 
 which we have can by no means be identical with the 
 loose collection of anecdotes implied in the description 
 of Papias. The order of the narrative in the canonical 
 Gospel is clear : the Gospel which Papias knew possessed, 
 
i6 TJie Origin and Characteristics 
 
 on his own showing, no order at all. The argument is 
 a plausible one, but a closer examination of the words 
 of Papias robs it of much of its force. Two points come 
 out very clearly in the fragment of that author preserved 
 by Eusebius. On the one hand he was firmly convinced 
 of S. Mark's accuracy, a fact which he emphasizes three 
 times, while at the same time he recognized and was 
 prepared to explain a want of order in the narrative. 
 Now although a man might conceivably insist on the 
 perfect accuracy of a loose collection of anecdotes, with- 
 out considering whether the order of these anecdotes 
 corresponded with that of the events themselves, it is 
 quite as reasonable to suppose that Papias is here 
 defending the canonical Gospel from objections which 
 had been raised against it. Such objections might 
 naturally fall under two heads: (i) its incompleteness 
 as compared with the other Gospels ; (2) differences in 
 the order of the narratives ; and these two charges if 
 unanswered would go far towards weakening its authority. 
 The first gains some colour from the absence in S. Mark 
 of nearly all our Lord's great discourses, and a defender 
 of the Gospel would be quite likely to point to the fact 
 that the author had not been himself a follower of the 
 Saviour, and therefore was dependent on the testimony 
 of others for the events he describes, while his principal 
 informant never professed to have made a complete col- 
 lection of these discourses, but only preserved such parts 
 of them as weve suited to form the groundwork of his 
 own preaching. The second criticism would probably 
 be based on an unfavourable comparison of S. Mark 
 with one of the other Gospels. Which of them is the 
 most likely ? In view of the fragmentary nature of the 
 extracts from Papias this question can only be con- 
 jecturally answered, and as a matter of fact each of the 
 three Gospels has had its advocates ^ Perhaps on the 
 
 ' For the list cf. Ilultzmaim, Einhitimy in das X. T. p. 383 (third td.). 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. i-j 
 
 whole, Dr. Salmon's suggestion^ that S. Luke's order 
 was regarded by Papias as the right one, has most to 
 recommend it, although from the fact that S. Luke is 
 not mentioned in any of the extant fragments of that 
 author, it has found )3ut few supporters. It certainly 
 looks as if Papias were alluding to S. Luke's claim to 
 write 'in order' [Kade^?]^) 'having traced the course of 
 all things accurately from the first,' when he puts in 
 a similar claim for the accuracy of S. Mark, allowing 
 at the same time that the second Evangelist did not 
 ' record in order {h rafet) what was said or done by 
 Christ, but only wrote down some things as he remem- 
 bered them.' And this view gains confirmation when 
 a comparison between the two Gospels is made, starting 
 from the point at which their narratives begin to run 
 in parallel lines. In the very first chapter of S. Mark, 
 as Dr. Salmon points out, the healing of S. Peter's wife's 
 mother is placed after the call of the Apostle, while in 
 S. Luke the order of the events is reversed ^. In the 
 third chapter the arrival of our Lord's mother and 
 brethren to seek Him precedes the parable of the Sower : 
 in S. Luke it follows it^. S. Mark relates the fact of 
 the Baptist's imprisonment by Herod in connexion with 
 the story of his death, and therefore out of its chrono- 
 logical order: S. Luke inserts it in its proper place*. 
 S. Mark (like S. Matthew and S. John) records among 
 the events of the Passion the anointino: of our Lord in 
 the house of Simon the leper : a very similar, if not the 
 same, incident in the house of Simon the Pharisee is 
 placed by S. Luke at the beginning of the ministry^. 
 With regard to our Lord's sayings and discourses the 
 differences are still more striking. The passages relating 
 to Beelzebub and to the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 
 ' 0. c, Loct. VII. * Mark vi. 17 f. ; Luk.- iii. 19, 20. 
 
 ^ Mark i. 30 ; Luke iv. 38. ^ Maik xiv. 3 f. ; Luke vii. 36 f. 
 
 ^ Mark iii. 31 f, ; Luke viii. 19 f. 
 
i8 Tlie Origin and Characteristics 
 
 whicli in S. Mark are closely connected, belong, according 
 to S. Luke's narrative, to a later occasion and are separated 
 from each other ^. S. Mark makes our Lord inculcate 
 the lesson of humility on His disciples in the course of 
 the final journey up to Jerusalem ; S. Luke introduces the 
 words as spoken at the last supper^. And there are 
 many more or less isolated sayings of our Lord, which 
 are recorded by the two Evangelists in quite different 
 contexts, as, for example, His words about the savour 
 of salt"^. His answer to the question which was the first 
 of the commandments ^ and His warnmg to the disciples 
 to watch and pray in view of His second coming ^. 
 
 It is, of course, also the fact that there are considerable 
 differences of order both between S. Mark and S. Matthew 
 and between S. Mark and S. John ; but in the first case 
 the differences are not so numerous and striking as those 
 of which examples have just been given ^, and in the 
 second there is scarcely enough matter common to the 
 two Gospels to render it probable that a comparison of 
 this kind had been made between them. 
 
 But before the statements of Papias can be accepted 
 as referring to the canonical Gospel of S. Mark, it is 
 necessary to see whether that Gospel fulfils certain con- 
 
 ' Mark iii. 22-30 ; Luke xi. 15-18 ; xii. 10. 
 ^ Mark x. 42-44 ; Luke xxii. 25, 26. 
 ^ Mark ix. 50 ; Luke xiv. 34. 
 
 * Mark xii. 28 f. ; Luke x. 25-27. 
 
 * Mark xiii. 33 ; Luke xxi. 36, 
 
 * The principal differences between S. Matthew and S. Mark are (i^ Our 
 Lord's going to Capernaum is placed in S. Matthew before, in S. Mark after, 
 the call of the four Apostles : Matt. iv. 13, Mark i. 21. (ii) In S. Matthew 
 the healing of the leper follows the healing of S. Petei-'s wife's mother, in 
 S. Mark it precedes it : Matt. viii. 2-4, Mark i. 40-45. (iii) The healing of 
 the paralytic, the call of S. Matthew, the feast in his house, and the 
 question of the Baptist's disciples, in S. Mark follow immediately the 
 healing of the leper, in S. Matthew they are placed after the story of 
 the Gadarene demoniac: Matt. ix. 1-17, Mark ii. i 22. (iv) Two verses 
 which occur in S. Matthew in the Sermon on the Mount have different 
 contexts in S. Mark. Matt. v. 13 - Mark ix. 50 j Matt. vi. 14 -Mark xi. 25. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 19 
 
 ditions demanded b}'' the hypothesis ^ A work based 
 immediately upon the personal recollections of one of 
 the most prominent of the Apostles must bear about it 
 some traces of its origin ; it must show some of tliat 
 minuteness and that vividness of detail whicli characterize 
 the testimony of an eyo-witness. Does the Gospel satisfy 
 these conditions ? In favour of an affirmative answer Indica- 
 to this question there is a well-nigh universal agreement, it is based 
 for the number of minute particulars which S. Mark gives tesUmonv 
 has been generally recognized as one of his distinctive <^f an eye- 
 
 ni • 1 witnes.s. 
 
 peculiarities. 'Ihere is perhaps not one narrative, says 
 Bishop Westcott, 'which he gives in common with 
 S. Matthew and S. Luke, to w^hich he does not con- 
 tribute some special feature.' Without any attempt to 
 give an exhaustive list of these special features, some of 
 the most striking of them may be mentioned here. For 
 instance, the Evangelist frequently records the effect of 
 our Lord's words and acts on the minds of those who 
 heard and saw them. When He came into ' His own 
 country ' and taught in the synagogue ' many hearing 
 Him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man 
 these things^?' After the healing of the deaf and dumb 
 man in Decapolis the witnesses of the miracle ' were 
 beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all 
 things well ^ ' The disciples were ' astonished exceed- 
 ingly ' at our Lord's saying about the difficulty of a rich 
 man entering the kingdom of God '*. Especially doe^ 
 
 * The loss of Papias' Expositions makes it impossible to decide the 
 question by reference to any quotations from tlie Cxospel wliich he may 
 have made. And even if it were discovered that tliese differed from the 
 Marcan text, the general freedom of citation in early writers would prevent 
 this from being conclusive evidence against the claims of the Gospel. It 
 is perhaps worth mentioning that a chronicler of the ninth century, 
 Georgius Harmartolus, refers to Papias as quoting Mark x. 38, 39, and 
 that in this writer the quotation, with one slight difference (rd noTT]pi6v 
 uov for TO iroT-qpiov h eyu> 7riv(v), agrees verbally with the canonical text. 
 The passage is quoted in Lightfoofs Apostolic Fathers (one volume edition) 
 among the fragments of Papias. 
 
 ■' vi. 2. ■ vii. 37. ♦ X. 26. 
 
 C Z 
 
20 TJie Orikriu and Cliaracten'sttcs 
 
 S. Mark bring out the slowness of the disciples to catch 
 the real meaning of our Lord's sayings and doings^, their 
 inability to understand His predictions of His death and 
 resurrection, and their vague forebodings of evil as the 
 appointed time drew nigh. After the feeding of the 
 live thousand and the stilling of the waters 'they were 
 sore amazed in themselves ; for they understood not 
 concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened \' 
 They * kept the saying ' about His resurrection, * ques- 
 tioning among themselves what the rising again from 
 the dead should mean 2.' In the final journey up to 
 Jerusalem 'Jesus was going before them and they were 
 amazed : and they that followed were afraid ^' Passages 
 Hke these almost force upon us the conviction that they 
 embody the recollections of one who vividly recalls his 
 first impressions of scenes of which the true significance 
 was only brought home to him in the light of subsequent 
 events. 
 
 Again, in his description of incidents S. Mark frequently 
 adds minute details, which place the whole scene before 
 his readers with photographic clearness, and which are 
 often, while devoid of any apparent importance, just those 
 to imprint themselves indelibly on the memory of an 
 eye-witness. Zebedee left behind ' in the boat with the 
 hired servants,' when his two sons obeyed our Lord's 
 call "* : the Httle boats accompanying the vessel into which 
 the waves beat while Jesus was asleep on the cushion '"' : 
 the five thousand sitting down 'in companies' (literally 
 garden-beds) upon the ' green grass ^ : ' Bartimaeus casting 
 away his garment and springing up to meet his Bene- 
 factor "^ : our Lord Himself sitting down over against the 
 treasury and watching the multitude casting money into 
 it ^ ; S. Peter among the oflficers in the court of the high 
 priest warming himself in the light of the fire ^ : such 
 
 ^ vi. 51, 52. 2 jx. 10. '< X. 32. * i. 20. •■' iv. 36-38. 
 
 ^ vi. 39. ' X. 50. ^ xii. 41. " xiv. 54. 
 
of tJic Gospel of S. Mark. 21 
 
 details as these arc peculiarly characteristic of the second 
 Gospel. 
 
 Further, with regard to the Person of the Redeemer 
 Himself, S. Mark has preserved a number of particulars 
 of infinite value*. In six passages he records the original 
 Aramaic words which our Lord used \ and frequently 
 refers to His feelings. His look, His gestures, thus hinting 
 at the immediate motive of His acts. So we are told how 
 Jesus, being moved with compassion, stretched forth His 
 hand and touched the leper who had besought His aid '^ ; 
 how He looked round on the Pharisees with anger, being 
 grieved at the hardening of their heart •'^; how He marvelled 
 because of the unbelief of His own countrymen ^ ; how 
 when He saw a great multitude He had compassion on 
 them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd'^; 
 how He sighed deeply in His spirit, when He refused to 
 satisfy the demand of the Pharisees for a sign ^ ; how He 
 took by the hand and raised up the boy possessed with 
 the deaf and dumb spirit^; how He was moved with 
 indignation at the disciples' rebuke of those who brought 
 little children to Him, and how He took the children in 
 His arms and laid His hands on them, and blessed them ^. 
 It is not unreasonable to conclude from such passages as 
 these, that the Gospel of S. Mark is based on the testimony 
 of one of our Lord's immediate disciples. Can we go 
 further and say who that disciple was? Now the de- 
 scription of certain scenes at which only three witnesses 
 were present — the raising of the daughter of Jairus ■', the 
 Transfiguration ^", and the Agony in the garden ^^ — at once 
 raises the presumption that the Evangelist owes his know- 
 ledge of these events to one of the three. Of the disciples 
 in question S. John is claimed as the author of an 
 independent narrative, and the early martyrdom of 
 
 * iii. 17 ; V. 41 ; vii. ii, 34 ; xiv. 36 ; xv. 34. - i. 41. 
 
 3 iii. 5. * vi. 6. •' vi. 34. "^ viii. 12. ^ ix. 27. ' x. 14-16. 
 
 •• V. 35 f. ''' ix. 2 f. '^ xiv. 32 i. 
 
22 Tlie Origin and Cliaractcristics 
 
 S. James renders it (although not impossible) unlikely 
 that the report emanated from him, so that the balance 
 This eye- of evidence inclines in favour of S. Peter ^ This con- 
 s. Peter, clusion is bome out especially by the record of the 
 Transfiguration, which seems to contain the Apostle's 
 own recollection of the half-unconscious words he had 
 uttered as he gazed in bewilderment at the scene. It 
 cannot be denied also that S. Peter does occupy a unique 
 position in the Gospel'-. It practically begins with the 
 story of his call, followed by our Lord's visit to his house. 
 The four disciples who formed the nucleus of the apostolic 
 band are spoken of as ' Simon and they that were with 
 him.' Obvious prominence is given to his confession 
 'Thou art the Christ,' to his rebuke of his Master when 
 He foretold His rejection and death, and to his threefold 
 denial. The authentic portion of the Gospel ends with 
 the message sent to him by the angel at the tomb. 
 
 On the whole then we may claim that the contents of 
 the second Gospel bear out the tradition of its Petrine 
 origin. But before we leave this part of the subject one 
 passage which presents a peculiar interest in relation to 
 the question of authorship demands a separate considera- 
 s. Mark tion. Peculiar to S. Mark are the two verses ^ which tell 
 experience the story of the young man clad in a linen cloth w^ho 
 
 ' Cf. Salmon, o. c, Lect. IX, where this point is well worked out. 
 
 ^ It must not be inferred from this that the second Gospel has, if we 
 may use the expression, a monopoly of S. Peter. The other Gospels, as 
 might be expected both from tbeir superior length, and from the un- 
 doubted pre-eminence of S. Peter in the apostolic band, tell us some 
 facts about the Apostle which are not mentioned in S. Mark. Cf. e.g. 
 Matt. xiv. 29 f, xvi. 17, 18, xvii. 24, 25 ; Luke v. 8, xii. 41 ; John xiii. 6 f., 
 xxi. 15 f. And there are three cases in which a saying or an act is de- 
 finitely attributed to S. Peter in one of the other Gospels, while S. Mark 
 simply refers it vaguely to ' the disciples ' or ' to a certain one of them 
 that stood by.' Matt. xv. i5 = Mark vii. 17 ; Luke viii. 45 = Mark v. 31 ; 
 John xviii. 10 = Mark xiv. 47. 
 
 ^ xiv. 51, 52. For an interesting attempt to identify Gethsemane with 
 the 'villa' (as the Vulgate translates xwpwv) of S. Mark himself, see an 
 article in the EyposHw for March, 1891. This would, at any rate, satis- 
 factorily explain the mention of the 'linen cloth,' which was probably 
 simply a sheet. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 23 
 
 attempted to follow our Lord at the time of the betrayal 
 at Gethsemane. The incident is apparently so trivial, 
 so devoid of interest to any one except the person con- 
 cerned, that it seems at first sight unworthy of its place in 
 the history of the Passion. Moreover, there is the further 
 difficulty of understanding who can have reported it, 
 since the disciples had already forsaken their Master and 
 fled. It is not surprising therefore that commentators of 
 very different schools have agreed in accepting the only 
 hypothesis which satisfactorily explains the motive of its 
 insertion, namely, that it is an autobiographical detail, the 
 young man being none other than S. Mark himself. 
 Regarded from this point of view the episode at once 
 gains a new and special significance. The one passage 
 in the Gospel which betrays the personality of the author 
 reveals also the fact that he was an eye-witness of the 
 events which form the climax of his narrative. 
 
PART II. 
 
 Jtelation to the other Spwpfists. 
 
 Points of Hitherto we have been considering the Gospel of 
 brtweon S. Mark mainly as an isolated work. That is to say, 
 till' tiireo Yiii\Q or no account has been taken of the fact that side 
 
 Gospels. 
 
 by side with it in the New Testament are found two 
 other Gospels, so closely resembling it and each other in 
 matter and in form that the three have earned the name 
 of 'the Synoptists,' in contrast to the Gospel of S. John, 
 which stands alone and represents a different side of 
 evanorelical tradition. The remarkable resemblances and 
 
 o 
 
 the not less remarkable differences between the Synoptic 
 Gospels make the question of their mutual relationship 
 an exceedingly intricate one, which is, however, of such 
 vital importance in connexion with the study of S. Mark 
 that it cannot be passed over. 
 Coinci- What are the facts which a comparison of the three 
 
 (I ('Flops 1 II 
 
 ni;itter, Gospels brings to light? In the first place, there is, as 
 iIr!"%'^o^ the name Synoptist implies, a general agreement between 
 the three as to plan : they give substantially the same 
 view of the same series of events. This agree jnent fre- 
 quently extends further to the narration of a number of 
 incidents in the same order, and also in many cases to 
 verbal identity. It has been calculated that if the total 
 contents of the Synoptists be represented by lOo, the 
 following table of peculiarities and coincidences is 
 obtained. 
 
 S. Mark has 7 peculiarities and 93 coincidences 
 S. Matthew 42 „ ,,5^ „ 
 
 S. Luke 59 „ „ 41 
 
 About two-fifths of the whole is common to all three 
 Gospels, while about one-third is peculiar to one or other 
 
The Gospel of S. Mark. 25 
 
 of them. S. Mark has (apart from the vivid details in 
 which he abounds) not more than twenty-four verses of 
 independent matter ^ 
 
 The verbal coincidences, although sufficiently striking, 
 naturally do not extend so far as the coincidences of 
 subject. They are most common in the case of our Lord's 
 words and are comparatively rare in simple narrative. 
 The examples of verbal agreement between S. Mark and 
 S. Matthew are more numerous than those between 
 S. Mark and S. Luke, but in the arrangement of events 
 these two frequently coincide, where the first Gospel 
 differs from them. Another interesting fact which was 
 pointed out by one of the earliest of English modern 
 critics, Bishop Marsh of Peterborough, is that in every 
 instance where S. Matthew and S. Luke agree verbally 
 in a section of which the matter is common to all three 
 Gospels, S. Mark also agrees with them. 
 
 Such in bare outline are some of the most striking facts 
 which form the basis of the Synoptic problem, although 
 general statements can give but the most inadequate idea 
 of that unity amid diversity and that diversity amid unity 
 which must impress any one who has studied the three 
 Gospels in relation to each other. How to account for 
 these facts is one of the most important and most difficult 
 questions of biblical criticism. 
 
 The Synoptic problem is essentially a modern one, 
 dating in reality from the latter part of the eighteenth 
 century. It seems surprising that the Christian world 
 waited so long before approaching a question of such 
 consummate importance, and yet an explanation of the fact 
 is not difficult to find. In the first centuries of the 
 Christian era men were comparatively little attracted by 
 literary questions which depend for solution rather on 
 internal analysis than on external testimony, and so the 
 scantiness of historical tradition concerning the relations 
 
 1 Cf. Webtcult, hiUod. to Study of flu GospJs, c. iii. 
 
26 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 of the Gospels to each other would account for the general 
 lack of interest in the subject. Again, at the Reformation 
 and post-Reformation periods the prevalence of a forced 
 and mechanical theory of inspiration acted as a deterrent. 
 There was a tendency to regard the very words of the 
 Bible as, so to speak, dictated by the Holy Spirit, a view 
 which made the Evangelists in effect the scribes and not 
 the authors of the works which bear their names. Hence 
 it was thought unnecessary, if not irreligious, to examine 
 the Gospels from a literary standpoint. At the present 
 day we have learnt by painful experience that criticism 
 is not incompatible with a belief in inspiration, but, at 
 least in the hands of Christian scholars presupposes, that 
 belief \ We feel now that, so far from being wrong, it 
 is the duty of biblical students to attempt to unravel 
 the problem of the origin of the Gospels by the aid 
 of the methods with which the increase of knowledge 
 and the growth of historical science has provided them. 
 Theories Broadly speaking we may divide Synoptic theories into 
 forThese" ^wo main classes: those which base the Gospels immediately 
 coinci- Qj^ ^j^Q Qj.g^| tradition of the early Church, and those which 
 
 deuces. *' 
 
 reject the oral theory as inadequate to explain the points 
 of agreement between the Gospel s^ and therefore suppose 
 either that the two later Evangelists copied from the 
 earlier one, whichever he may have been, or that all three 
 made use of some common document or documents which 
 have now perished, 
 (i) The The hypothesis of oral tradition was first put forward 
 
 thesis? ^'^ in detail by Gieseler in 1818 and up to the present time 
 has had many able advocates in England, while on the 
 Continent it has met with little favour. The theory rests 
 on the undeniable fact that the Jews at the time of Christ 
 were essentially a people of oral tradition. The Targums, 
 or paraphrases of the Old Testament, were transmitted 
 orally and it was forbidden to write them down. ' "Commit 
 
 ' Cf. Driver, Introd. to Literature of 0. T., Preface, p. xx. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 27 
 
 nothing to writing" was the characteristic principle of the 
 earlier Rabbins, and even those who like Gamaliel were 
 familiar with Greek learning faithfully observed it ^.' 
 
 Thus it came about that oral tradition among the Jews 
 acquired a fixed and stereotyped character which we in 
 modern times find it hard to realize. And since it may 
 be assumed that in connexion with the synagogues in- 
 tended for Greek -speaking Jews^, like 'the synagogue 
 of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians, and of the 
 Alexandrians^,' a cycle of Greek as well as of Aramaic 
 tradition would be formed, thei-e is no a priori reason 
 why the record of our Lord's life should not have been 
 preserved in a similar manner. In fact there can be little 
 doubt that for a considerable nuuiber of years it was so 
 preserved. But the real question in relation to the Gospels 
 is whether an oral tradition, however stereotyped, is enough 
 by itself to account for the resemblances between the 
 Synoptists. 
 
 It has been already remarked that these resemblances This iv- 
 include coincidences in the events narrated, in the arrange- '• Jj^.i^ie. '^"^ 
 ment of those events, and in details of language. With qu^te. 
 reefard to the first two classes it is clear that we must 
 assume a peculiar fixity in the oi-al tradition if it is to 
 account both for the identity of the incidents and for the 
 identity of their order. But even supposing that this 
 assumption were a justifiable one, there would remain 
 another and a more serious difficulty behind. Where did 
 this cycle of tradition grow^ up ? If, as is generally sup- 
 posed, at Jerusalem, why is our Lord's Judaean ministry 
 only so obscurely hinted at in the Synoptists-^? The 
 difficulty of accounting for the differences between the 
 Synoptists and the fourth Gospel is most seriously en- 
 hanced on the oral hypothesis, since at Jerusalem the 
 
 * Westcott, 0. c, c. iii. p. 167, 
 ' Acts vi. 9. 
 
 * Cf. Dr. Sandny's 'Survey <>f the Synoptie Question,' in tlie Exjwsi/or, 
 Feb.-June, 1891 (.e-sp. Paper II;. 
 
28 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 influence of S. John must have been very great, and he 
 would certainl}^ have contributed largely to the formation 
 of a body of tradition which accumulated there. The 
 omissions in the Synoptists make it almost incredible that 
 their narratives can represent a central tradition which 
 emanated from the mother Church. 
 
 Again, it is equally difficult to account for the coinci- 
 dences in language, since these extend beyond the record 
 of our Lord's words, where we should expect to find them, 
 to passages of pure narrative, and even to connecting 
 phrases which would be the first to fall out or be changed 
 in an oral Gospel. For instance, in the account of the call 
 of S. Peter and S. Andrew the parenthetical statement ' for 
 they were fishers ' is found both in S. Matthew and S. 
 Mark^. A still more striking example of the same kind 
 occurs in the story of the healing of the paralytic at 
 Capernaum, in which all three Evangelists insert into the 
 middle of our Lord's ow^n words the parenthesis ' He saith 
 to the sick of the palsy-.' The three agree again in having 
 the same phrase ^ and they laughed Him to scorn ' in their 
 report of the raising of Jairus' daughter^. S. Matthew 
 and S. Mark both end their account of the last supper 
 with the notice, 'And when they had sung a hymn 
 they went out unto the mount of Olives^.' In the 
 narrative of the betrayal all three Gospels insert the 
 apparently superfluous reminder that Judas was 'one of 
 the twelve ^.' 
 
 The frequent recurrence of points like these seems to 
 show that a body of oral tradition cannot be the main 
 factor in the composition of the triple Synopsis. On the 
 
 * Matt. iv. 1 8 ; Mark i. i6. 
 
 ■^ Matt. ix. 6 ; Mark ii. lo ; Luke v. 24. Tliere are sliglit verbal dif- 
 ferences in the parenthesis. S. Matthew has totc Kk'^u tw ■napahtTiKw . 
 S. Mark omits rort ; S. Luke has ('ne rw irapaXfXvfxtvw. 
 
 •' Matt. ix. 24 ; Mark v. 40 ; Luke viii. 53. 
 
 * Matt. xxvi. 30 ; Mark xiv. 26. 
 
 ^ Matt. xxvi. 47 ; Mark xiv. ^s ) Luke xxii. 47. 
 
of tlic Gospel of S. Mark. 29 
 
 other hand we are not justified in ignoring its existence so 
 entirely as many critics, especially in Germany, have done. 
 For after all there must have been many floating traditions 
 about our Lord's life current in the early Church, and it 
 would be strange if the Evangelists had been entirely 
 uninfluenced by these. To what extent, however, we may 
 introduce the oral hypothesis to supplement other theories 
 is a difficult question the discussion of which may be for 
 the present deferred. 
 
 If the oral theory be rejected as inadequate, we are (^2) otlier 
 driven to conclude either that the Evangelists copied one 
 from another, or that they all made use of a common 
 Avritten source. In the first case, it is clear that there is 
 room for six different theories according to the order in 
 which the Gospels are supposed to have been written. 
 The field, however, is considerably narrowed by the number 
 and extent of the differences in matter between S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke, differences which make it incredible that 
 either Evangelist can have made the work of the other 
 the basis of his own Gospel, although they might con- 
 ceivably be compatible with an occasional and subsidiary 
 influence of one on the other. Practically therefore all 
 we have to consider is the relation of S. Mark to these 
 two Gospels,, and so we are brought face to face with the 
 question, Is S. Mark the latest or the earliest of the three ? 
 Is it an abridged combination of S. Matthew and S. Luke, 
 or the common source to which each of the later Evanirel- 
 ists has added independent matter of his own? The former ffOS-Murk 
 hypothesis, which is connected mainly with the name of mVnt^flT 
 Griesbach, received a certain amount of support from the ^•'!*!^'^'^v 
 saying of S. Augustine that S. Mark was the follower and Luke, 
 abridger of S. Matthew, but was based chiefly on tlie 
 evidence of a few passages in which the second Gospel 
 appeared to combine the accounts of the first and third. 
 A good example of the passages in ([uestion is Mark i. 32, 
 where it was maintained that the phrase ' at even when 
 
30 TJic Origin and Characteristics 
 
 tlie sun did set ' was a combination of S. Matthew's ' when 
 even was come,' and S. Luke's ' when the sun was setting ^.' 
 It is obvious, however, that a phenomenon of this kind 
 is equally explicable on the supposition that the double 
 phrase is the earlier form, and that S. Matthew and S. Luke 
 have each preserved one-half of it, dropping the other 
 half as superfluous. 
 
 This 'combination theory' derived a fictitious import- 
 ance from the fact that it was adopted (although on other 
 grounds) by the Tubingen school of criticism. The his- 
 torical theory of Baur that the early Church was split into 
 two fiercely contending factions, the Ebionite or Judaistic, 
 and the Pauline, and that out of the ruins of their disputes 
 arose in the middle of the second century the fabric of 
 Catholic Christianity, compelled him to push down the 
 dates of the Gospels as late as possible, and as S. Mark 
 shows no traces of the supposed quarrels it was relegated 
 as a ' neutral ' document to about the year 1 70, when the 
 process of reconciliation was supposed to have been com- 
 pleted. No one could attribute so late a date to S. Mark 
 unless he were, as Aristotle says, ' maintaining a thesis/ 
 and in this extreme position Baur has been followed by 
 few even of his own disciples. 
 Contrary But quite apart from its Tiibingen developments there 
 tions of a^re serious objections against Griesbach's hypothesis. 
 S'^ Ai'^^k ^" ■'•^ ^^ ^^'^^ place, if the second Evangelist was acquainted 
 with the Gospels of S. Matthew and S. Luke, it is im- 
 possible to imagine what motive can have induced him to 
 omit so many things which they record. That a shorter 
 Gospel may have been expanded into two longer ones is 
 quite a credible supposition ; the reverse process is always 
 inconceivable. 
 
 Again, the multiplicity of vivid details, which, as has 
 been already pointed out, is one of the most striking 
 characteristics of S. Mark's Gospel, is utterly incompatible 
 
 ^ Matt. viii. r6; Luke iv. 40. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark, 31 
 
 with the tlieoiy that it is a late compilatiun from two earlier 
 works. It is true, of course, that abundance of detail is not 
 always a criterion of early date. But the kind of matter 
 which a writer living long after the events he describes 
 adds in order to atone by his historical imagination for 
 his want of real knowledge, is as different as possible from 
 the minute, unobtrusive touches, which lend such a unique 
 interest to S. Mark's narrative. One only needs to place 
 S. Mark side by side with any of the apocryphal Gospels 
 to feel at once the impassable gulf wiiich divides the two. 
 
 Thirdly, the theory fails to account for the absence in 
 S. Mark of a number of words and phrases which are of 
 frequent occurrence in the other Synoptists ^ 
 
 Another indication of the priority of S. Mark is his use 
 of expressions which are condemned by grammarians as 
 colloquial and vulgar ^. These expressions are for the 
 
 ' Cf Holtzmann. o. c, p. 354. The following are some of the ex- 
 pressions not found in S. Mark i^or found only in the lust twelve verses) 
 which are characteristic of the other Gospels : — 
 
 {a^ S. Matthew, ujairep, varepov. dpri, €v (Ke'ivo) rev Kaipai, napovaia, 6 Xvyos 
 (to evayy€\iov) ttjs PaaiXdas, 17 ^aaiXda tojv ovpavwv. ({yaiveaOai (in tlie sense 
 of 'to be manifested'), hiKaioavvq, avfj.(pep€iv (intransitive), hppiOrjv. 
 
 {h") S. Luke. jLtera ravra, TrnpaxpVfia, (niaTaTTji, u Kipios (of Christ\ X"P'^> 
 Xapi^eodai, aojTvp, aojrrjpia, iilnaTdvat,vnoaTpi(peu', vnapxfiVjdSiKia, evwniov, (vay- 
 ye\i^ta6ai, irpoadoKdv. 
 
 (c) Both S. Matthew and S. Luke, ov, vofxos, d^ios, trepos, dfxtpuTfpoi, SiKai- 
 ovv, dfxapTavdv, Kplvdi/, KpvTnav, KaOiaTavai, d-noKaKvimiv. epydrrjs, /xaKripios. 
 
 ^ Cf. Abbott, Encycl Brit, art. 'Gospels.' 
 
 In the account of the healing of the paralytic in c. ii., S. Mark four times 
 uses the word vpa^^aros for bed, while S. Matthew has kX'htj, and S. Luke 
 K\ivT], kXiviBiov, or the paraphrase kcp^ 6 fcareKfiTo. The grammarian Phryni- 
 chus says arKifxnovs ^^yf, dWd fi^ Kpd^^aros. 
 
 Mark v. 23 to Ovydrpiov fiov kaxaTOj'; e'x*'- Matt. ix. 18 dpn eTfKfvTTjafj'. 
 Luke viii. 42 dneOurjTKfv. Phrynichus errxoTcos c'xf' «7rt rod fioxOrjpiJus <x** 
 Kal (T<pa\€p(x)s TaTTOvciv 01 avp^paKis. 
 
 Mark xiv. 65 pairiafmaiv ika^ov. S. Matthew avoids the substantive, 
 but uses the verb pairi^eiv (xxvi. 68 , while S. Luke has waifiu (xxii. 64 ; 
 Phrynichus to fidniapia ovk kv xpV'^^'-' XP^ ^^^ "^V Kpt'iTTOvi. to ydp i^v yvd6ov 
 vKaTtia rri x^'Pt irXri^ai, kirl Kvpprjs vard^ai 'AOrjvaioi (fniaiv. 
 
 Mark xv. 43 (vaxVh°^'^ PovKfvrrjs. Matt, xxvii. 57 dvOpoj-no'S irXovaios. 
 Luke xxiv. 50 ^ovXtvTrjS vnapxojy, dv^p dyaOds Kal Siiiaio^. Plirynichus 
 TovTo fikv {(va xn piojv) oi dfxaOtis kirl tov nKovaiov Kal kf d^tuifiaTi uvroi rdiTovaiv 
 ol St upx^aToi knl tov KaXov Kal ai/xf.i(Tpov. 
 
32 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 most part absent in the parallel passages of S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke, and it is extremely unlikely that a lato 
 Gospel would exhibit a retrogression of this kind in point 
 of style. 
 
 Again, the second Gospel contains many expressions 
 which might be stumbling-blocks in the way of weak 
 believers, as seeming either to show a want of reverence 
 for the Lord, or to place a limit to His supernatural 
 powers, or again to reflect on the characters of the 
 disciples. Such expressions constitute a strong proof of 
 the antiquity of the Gospel in which they occur, especially 
 when we find them omitted or modified in the other 
 Gospels. For instance — 
 
 Mark i. 34. 'And He healed many i\i?ii were sick with 
 divers diseases.' S. Matthew tell us that He ' healed all 
 that were sick,' and S. Luke that He ' laid his hands on 
 every one of them and healed them^.' 
 
 Mark iii. 21. ' And when His friends heard it, they went 
 out to lay hold on Him : for they said, He is beside Himself.' 
 This is altogether omitted by both the other Evangelists. 
 
 Mark vi. 3. ' Is not this the carpenter ? ' S. Matthew 
 has ' the carpenter's son 2.' 
 
 Mark vi. 5, 6. ' And He could there do no mighty work, 
 save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk and 
 healed them. And He marvelled because of their unbelief 
 S. Matthew simply says, ' And He did not many mighty 
 works there because of their unbelief^.' 
 
 Mark vi. 51, 52. 'And they were sore amazed in them- 
 selves ; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but 
 their heart was hardened.' This is entirely omitted in the 
 parallel narrative of S. Matthew, who inserts instead, ' And 
 they that were in the boat worshipped Him, saying. Of 
 a truth Thou art the Son of God *.' 
 
 Mark x. ^^. S. Mark makes the request that S. James 
 
 » Matt. viii. 16 ; Luke iv. 40. 2 ^^^^ ^iii. 55 ; cf. Liike iv. 22. 
 
 =• Matt. xiii. 58. * Matt. xiv. 33. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark 
 
 33 
 
 and S. John might share our Lord's glory proceed from tlio 
 two disciples themselves, while S. ]\latthe\v's account seems 
 to attribute it to the ambition of their motlu r '. 
 
 From the foregoing considerations it seems a fair con- ih) S. 
 elusion that the * combination ' theory is untenable, and so !I^|)} s'*'^^ 
 by a process of exhaustion we are brought to the necessity ^^"•^•'. ^'-'^- 
 of deciding between the two remaining hypotheses, tlic one .f ^itiur 
 being that the second Gospel was used by tlie writers ofa'aoeu.^*'* 
 the first and third, the other that behind all three lies '^^"f '"''^*^ 
 
 nearly re- 
 
 a common document which has perished. In other words, picstiittd 
 the question is whether the common basis of tlie triple 
 Synopsis is the canonical S. Mark, or a still earlier 
 document on which that Gospel is itself founded^. The 
 possibility that the original S. Mark was not identical 
 with our Gospel has been already mentioned in connexi(jn 
 with the statements of Papias, and the conclusion was 
 draAvn that as far as the Gospel itself was concerned, there 
 Avere no indications in it of a date inconsistent with its 
 traditional authorship. We have now to ask whether 
 a comparison of S. Mark w^ith the other Synoptists confirms 
 that view or not. What does an examination of S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke tell us about the nature of the source or sources 
 from which their common matter is taken ? 
 
 Here the proljlem becomes complicated by the fact that 
 the agreement of these two Gospels goes a good way 
 beyond the limits covered by the second Gospel ; and so 
 the question arises whether this additional matter was 
 originally included in the Marcan tradition, and for some 
 reason or other had fallen out by the time the tradition 
 became fixed in its present form, or whether it can be 
 accounted for in some other way. 
 
 One of the peculiar difficulties of the Synoptic prolilem 
 lies in the close connexion existing between its various 
 
 ^ Matt. XX. 20. 
 
 2 For the sake of convenience, this supposed document will l)o referred 
 to as the 'Urniarcus,' or original Mark, which is the nanit- ;^iv« n t<> it in 
 Germany. 
 
 D 
 
34 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 parts. The decision arrived at on any one point almost 
 necessarily affects the view taken of the whole. And the 
 question just raised constitutes no exception to the general 
 rule. Nevertheless we must for the moment leave it 
 unanswered and confine our attention to the triple 
 Synopsis ; that is, to the matter which S. Matthew and 
 S. Luke have in common with S. Mark. 
 Tiiis (locu- In the second volume of Studia Blhlica Mr. F. H. 
 cidont in Woods has by a process of skilful reasoning elucidated 
 s MMrk^^^* a fact which has of late years been generally, but in most 
 cases only vaguely, recognized, namely, that (to quote his 
 own words) * the original basis of the Synoptical Gospels 
 coincided in its range and order with our S. Mark ^' He 
 grounds this conclusion on the following observations : 
 [a) The earliest and latest parallels in all three Gospels 
 coincide with the beginning and end of S. Mark. The first 
 is the ministry of S. John the Baptist, the last the visit 
 of the women to our Saviour's tomb, {h) With but few 
 exceptions we find parallels to the whole of S. Mark in 
 either S. Matthew or S. Luke and to by far the larger part 
 in both, (c) The order of the whole of S. Mark, excepting 
 of course what is peculiar to that Gospel, is confirmed 
 either by S. Matthew or S. Luke, and the greater part of 
 it by both, [d) A passage parallel in all three Synoptists 
 is never immediately followed in both S. Matthew and 
 S. Luke by a separate incident common to these two 
 Evangelists alone, {e) Similarly, in the parts common to 
 S. Matthew and S. Luke alone, no considerable fragments, 
 with some doubtful exceptions, occur in the same relative 
 order, so that it is unlikely that they formed part of the 
 original source. (/) To this we may add the fact that in 
 these parts the differences between S. Matthew and S. 
 Luke are generally greater than in those which are 
 common to all three. 
 
 ' i. e. excluding the last twelve verses, against the genuineness of which, 
 as will be seen below, there is strong evidence. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 35 
 
 It is undeniable that if those facts can be established, 
 the evidence which they present is extraordinarily strong, 
 and no one who has followed out in detail Mr. Woods' 
 reasoning: can fail to be convinced that in its main out- 
 lines at least he has proved his case. It is of course 
 impossible within the limits of this essay to do more than 
 show by a few examples the method by which he has 
 arrived at his conclusions. 
 
 Dividing S. Mark for the sake of convenience into three 
 parts, {A) i-iii. 6; [B) iii. 7-vi. 13 ; (C) vi. 14-xvi. 8, he 
 shows that in [A) the order of S. Mark exactly agrees 
 with that of S. Luke and mainly with that of S. Matthew ; 
 in [B) the order agrees with either S. Matthew or S. Luke 
 and in parts w4th both ; in (C) the order agrees exactly 
 w^ith S. Matthew and mainly with S. Luke. It is especially 
 noticeable that the parallelisms continually overlap one 
 another ; for instance, in {A) the parallelism with S. Luke 
 overlaps a new parallelism with S. Matthew, which begins 
 with Matt. xii. i=Mark ii. 23 and continues to a point in 
 the middle of {B) Matt. xiii. 34 = Mark iv. 34 a. This is 
 a proof that the source on which S. Matthew and S. Luke 
 drew was a whole Gospel in the Marcan order, and not 
 a number of independent documents which were after- 
 wards pieced together to form S. Mark's Gospel. That 
 this general identity of order is not more obvious is due 
 mainly to three causes. In the first place, both S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke interpolated into the Marcan tradition a large 
 amount of matter from other sources. Secondly, these 
 additions contain much that is identical with or veiy 
 similar to things recorded in S. Mark. Thirdly, where 
 this is the case both Evangelists frequently omit the 
 corresponding Marcan passages ^ As examples of the first 
 
 ' These considerations will also explain the apparent discrepancy 
 between the argument here and the illustrations of the differences in 
 order between S. Mark and S. Luke which were given on pp. 17 and 18 
 in connexion with the sayings of Papias. It must also be borne in mind 
 that differences in language and detail make it most provable that in 
 
 D 2 
 
36 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 cause of confusion it is sufficient to point to the dislocation 
 produced by the insertion of the Sermon on the Mount in 
 Si Matthew and of the ' Sermon on the Plain ' and the 
 great Peraean section in S. Luke, while a comparison of 
 the fourth chapter of S. Mark with the corresponding 
 thirteenth chapter of S. Matthew will serve to illustrate 
 the extent to which the later Evangrelist allowed himself 
 to deviate from the order of the Marean tradition. In the 
 first two paragraphs (Mark vv. 1-20 ; Matt. vv. 1-23), con- 
 taining the parable of the Sower and its explanation, the 
 two Gospels run parallel with each other, with the excep- 
 tion of the fact that S. Matthew, besides adding a verse 
 or two peculiar to himself, has taken v. 25 of S. Mark 
 and inserted it as v. 12 in what is perhaps a more 
 suitable context. Then come four verses of S. Mark, 
 21-24 inclusive, which are omitted in S. Matthew, 21 and 
 24 because they had already occurred in the Sermon on 
 the Mount \ 22 and 23 because they are found in a section 
 of S. Matthew (x. 15-xi. 30) which is probably not taken 
 from the Marean tradition^. Verse 25 has just been 
 accounted for. In place of 26-29, the parable of the seed 
 growing secretly, we have the more striking parable of the 
 tares; 30-35 correspond to 31-36 of S. Matthew, who has 
 here also added some matter of his own. The event 
 recorded in 35-41 is omitted here, because S. Matthew has 
 already related it in ch. viii., which forms part of a section 
 (viii-x. 14) of his Gospel, in which he has incorporated 
 a number of passages from S. Mark out of their proper 
 order, being influenced, as Mr. Woods says, partly ' by the 
 
 S. Luke many of the seeming parallels to S. Mark were taken from a 
 non-Marcan source. This is the case especially with the call of S. Peter 
 (Luke V. i-ii) and the anointing in the house of Simon (Luke vii. 36-50). 
 
 ^ V. 15 ; vii. 2. 
 
 ^ Because, with the exception of x. 17-22 and 42, there are no parallels 
 to this section in S. Mark, and the passage x. 17-22 is a doublet, i.e. it 
 occurs again in its proper Marean context (Matt. xxiv. 9-14 = Mark xiii. 
 9-13') which seems to imply that in this context it is taken from a 
 different source. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 37 
 
 desire to group the miracles together, but partly also by 
 the order and contents of the Marcan tradition upon which 
 his Gospel was based ^/ 
 
 The section chosen for comparison probal)ly conveys an 
 exaggerated impression of the amount of difference in 
 order between S. Mark and S, Matthew, and nught not 
 unreasonably give rise to the suspicion that a theory 
 which has to postulate so many omissions, transpositions, 
 and borrowings from other sources in order to explain the 
 phenomena it deals with, is too complicated and ingenious 
 to be true. 
 
 To allay this suspicion two considerations may bo 
 put forward. In the first place, the normal amount of 
 deviation in order is not nearly so great as might be 
 imagined from this chapter alone ; and secondly, where 
 S. Matthew has deviated from the Marcan order in this 
 chapter, S. Luke in the corresponding chapter of his 
 Gospel (ch. viii.) has preserved it. Similarly both in 
 this chapter and elsewhere it has been found that where 
 S. Luke deviates S. Matthew keeps faithfully to his 
 original. 
 
 Thus we seem to be justified in concludijig that the Wasitnlso 
 matter common to the Synoptists was derived from a j,i ,..i,i.,y v 
 document identical in order with our S. Mark. From this, 
 however, it does not inevitably follow that the Gospel of 
 S. Mark is exactly coextensive with the Marcan tradition. 
 And so it is necessary to face the question of possilde 
 additions or omissions in the canonical Gospel, a question 
 which a few pages back was raised but left undiscussed. 
 
 The number of possible additions is comparatively small, 
 since there -is so little in S. ^lark to which no parallel 
 occurs either in S. Matthew or in S. Luke. But besides the 
 minute details characteristic of S. Mark, there are also 
 a few passages peculiar to him, which deserve separate 
 mention. 
 
 ^ 0. c. p. 71, 
 
38 TJie Origin and Characteristics 
 
 Supposed (rt) i. I and 2 b. It has been thought that the first verse of the 
 
 additions Gospel is a later addition, but the reasons for this view are not very 
 
 ^" • obvious, unless like some critics we hold that a Gospel without an 
 
 (iospel, ' 6"^^ ought ■ also to be a Gospel without a beginning. The simple 
 
 exordium is quite in character with the style of S. Mark, and would 
 
 naturally be omitted by the later Evangelists. As regards 2b the 
 
 fact that it is ascribed to Isaiah instead of to Malachi, and also that 
 
 it is quoted in another connexion by both S. Matthew and S. Luke ', 
 
 is quite enough to account for its omission here. 
 
 (&) iv. 26-29. The omission by S. Matthew of the parable of the 
 seed growing secretly has been already noticed and accounted for by 
 his insertion of the similar but more striking parable of the tares. 
 The fact that S. Luke also omits it may be due partly to his 
 rearrangement of Marcan matter, partly to its general similarity 
 to the parables of the sower and the mustard-seed. The third 
 Evangelist seems intentionally to avoid recording two similar 
 incidents or sayings. 
 
 (c) vii. 2-4 is probably omitted by S. Matthew as unnecessary for 
 his Jewish readers. 
 
 {d) vii. 32-37. For this S. Matthew substitutes a general statement 
 about our Lord's miracles of healing (xv. 30-31). 
 
 [e) viii. 22-26 seems omitted by S. Matthew because of the similar 
 miracle which he records in ix. 27-3 1 ^. 
 
 C/) xii. 32-34 a. Mr. Woods suggests that this was omitted by 
 S. Matthew because the words of the lawyer and what immediately 
 followed were * partly in a certain sense a repetition of our Lord's 
 own language, and jDartly a merely personal incident.' 
 
 {g) xiv. 51-52. This incident, as has been already noted, might 
 easily fall out of the later Gospels, since it appeared to have no 
 interest for any one except the man concerned. 
 
 (/i) ix. 48, 49, 50b ; xi. 25. In addition to these passages there are 
 some verses which seem out of place in their contexts and may 
 possibly be marginal notes which have crept into the text. It is 
 curious that in both passages some manuscripts have additions which 
 are undoubtedly of this description ^. On the other hand, it is equally 
 possible, and perhaps on the whole more probable, that these verses 
 are isolated sayings of our Lord which S. Mark wished to incorporate 
 in his Gospel, and so inserted in discourses with the subjects of which 
 they were more or less closely connected, although they were not 
 originally spoken at the same time. If this be the case, it is quite 
 
 ^ Matt. xi. 10 ; Luke vii. 27. 
 
 ^ It is noticeable that c, rf, and e occur in the section of the Gospel (vi. 
 45-viii. 26) which is wholly omitted by S. Luke, so that no inference can 
 be drawn from a comparison with the third Gospel. 
 
 ^ To ix. 49 'Western' authorities add, 'And every sacrifice shall be 
 salted with salt,' and to xi. 26, ' But if ye do not forgive, neither will 
 your Father wliich is in heaven forgive your trespasses.' 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 39 
 
 natural that S. Matthew, with his love for grouping and arranging our 
 Lord's sayings, should omit the verses. 
 
 (/) xvi. 9-20. There remains to be considered one passage wliitli 'I'lio la«t 
 stands on a footing quite different from that of any of the other ^^^elvc 
 possible additions to the original Gospel. This is xvi. 9-20, the .^\^y^^^y „ot, 
 genuineness of which has been a disputed point from at k-ast the paitoi tlu 
 time of Kusebius onwards. There is now a fairly general agreement Marcan 
 that these twelve verses did not form part of the original Marcan ^^ ' '*^"* 
 tradition, 'i'he evidence against them is strong and of various kinds. 
 Thi'y are omitted in the two oldest uncial manuscripts, the Sinaitic 
 and the Vatican, and although the force of this conjoint testimony is 
 somewhat weakened by the fact that the leaf of the Sinaitic codex on 
 which the Crospel ends is one of six which were probably written by 
 the scribe of the Vatican, yet the witness of even one of such manu- 
 scripts cannot be lightly set aside. Besides these, two other later 
 uncials, L (Regius) and ^ (Athous), cast doubt on the genuineness of 
 the verses by adding an alternative shorter conclusion. A few manu- 
 scripts of versions omit them, such as k of the Old Latin, some of the 
 best Armenian, and, most important of all, the newly discovered 
 Sinaitic palimpsest of the Syriac Gospels. Eusebius, who tells us 
 that the ' accurate copies ' of the Gospel end with ver. 8, seems to 
 decide, though with hesitation, against the verses. The commentator 
 Victor of Antioch does not go beyond ver. 8, and there are no 
 references to the succeeding verses in writers who would have been 
 most likely to quote from them, notably Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertul- 
 lian. and Cyprian. 
 
 Besides this external testimony there are objections arising out of 
 the style and contents of the section itself. It lacks literary con- 
 tinuity with what precedes it. The phrase ' early on the first day 
 of the week ' {-npioX Trpcbr// (Tu^^iiTov) is unnecessary and awkward after 
 the ' very early on the first day of the week ' {\iav yrpcoi r/] fxia twv 
 a-afi^uTcov) of verse 2. Again, Mary Magdalene seems to be introduced 
 to the reader as though she had not been mentioned before, whereas 
 her name has already appeared once in the same chapter and twice 
 in the preceding. Further, there are in the section an unusual 
 number of words and phrases which do not occur elsewhere in the 
 Gospel '. The presence of these would not be sufficient by itself to 
 ])rove a difference of authorship, but they have apprecia])le force in 
 confirming suspicions which have been raised on other grounds. But 
 more striking than any of the above-mentioned facts is the cessation 
 
 * Tlie following is a list of these words and phrases :—(/>a/i'erT(?m (in tli(5 
 sense of ' to be man:fe^,ted '), i\yav(poia6ai (in the same sense, three times^, 
 ■nop^viaeai (three times), eeaaOai (twice), umoTeiv (twice, n(v6€iv, irapaKo- 
 \ov9(Tv, HaKoKovOflv, ^i^aiovv, avakan^avuv, avufpyuv, Ikuvos (emphatic, 
 t\vice\ iTfpos, voTfpov, Oavaaipios. puTa ravra, fitv ovv. Besides tlu-se tluTe 
 is found 6 Kipios, which never occurs as a title of our Lord in tlic nanativ.' 
 portions of S. Mark. 
 
40 TJic Origin and Characteristics 
 
 of the parallelism between S. Matthew and S. Luke at the point 
 conesponding to verse 8\ 
 
 I'he extreme improbability that both Evangelists would have so far 
 departed from their usual custom as to ignore a section of such 
 importance is a strong proof that it was known to neither of them. 
 
 Thus various kinds of evidence converge to prove that the con- 
 cluding verses are not contemporaneous with the rest of the Gospel. 
 But there is no indication that any pait of the canonical S. Mark, 
 with the exception of this section, was not included in the original 
 Marcan tradition. 
 
 It is necessary dow to inquire whether this original 
 tradition itself included anything which in the canonical 
 Gospel has been omitted. 
 Supposed It has been already observed that the agreement between 
 ill tht"^ ^ S- Matthew and S. Luke extends a considerable way 
 (}.)>P(1. beyond tlie matter common to them with S. Mark. In 
 the account of the Baptist's preaching, of the Temptation, 
 in parts of the Sermon on the Mount and of other dis- 
 courses, we find a general parallelism of matter which 
 occasionally passes into identity of language. Did this 
 commoD matter exist in the original Marcan tradition and 
 fall out before the Gospel reached its present form, or was 
 it taken from some other source or sources ? It is clear 
 that the mere fact of the inclusion of a passage in S. 
 Matthew and S. Luke is no proof that it was derived from 
 the Marcan tradition, unless it stands in the two Gospels 
 in a parallel sequence of narrative which goes backwards 
 or forwards to a point where both agree with S. Mark. 
 Eut although this principle excludes many passages which 
 might otherwise claini a Marcan origin, yet there arc a 
 certain nuudjcr which are unaffected by it. It will be 
 best therefore to examine these passages in order. 
 
 {a) Matt. iii. 7-10; Luke iii. 7-9, 17. The preaching of the Baptist. 
 Here the agreement between S. Matthew and S. Luke is exceedingly 
 close both in matter and language, and the context in all three 
 (Jospels both before and after agrees but for the verses peculiar to 
 S. Luke (5, 6, 10-15, 18-20). The parallelism is so remarkable that 
 it has led Mr. Woods to think that S. Mark has omitted some verses 
 from the original source, possibly as not being suited to his Gentile 
 
 ^ Matt, xxviii. 8 ; Luke xxiv. 10. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 41 
 
 readers. This is of course quite possible, but it is not a necessary 
 hypothesis. And S. Luke's words in verse i8, 'With many other 
 exhortations therefore preached he good tidings unto the people ' 
 suggest the idea that he was making selections from the 13ai»tist's 
 discourses, and might have reported them at greater length had he 
 been so disposed. If this be the case, the source from which he was 
 drawing is not so likely to have been the Marcan tradition, which 
 gives but a brief and compressed account of all events preceding the 
 call of S. Peter, as some independent record of the Baptist's 
 preaching. Again, it is curious that the verses under discussion 
 contain (^besides several rare words, which prove nothing) some words 
 not uncommon in the New Testament, but which are not found in 
 S. Mark ^ However, an argument of this kind is always precarious, 
 especially in a case where the words of a speaker are being reported, 
 so that no stress can be laid on it here. Still on the whole the 
 available evidence seems to favour the hypothesis that both the later 
 Evangelists supplemented the Marcan report from another source, 
 from which S. Luke has quoted most fully. The close agreement in 
 language between the two Evangelists suggests that this source was 
 a written and not an oral one. 
 
 (b) The Temptation. Mark i. 12, 13 ; Matt. iv. i-ii ; Luke iv. 1-13. 
 At first sight the extreme brevity of S. Mark's account of the 
 Temptation creates the impression that he has merely abridged the 
 fuller narratives of the two other Evangelists, omitting the mention 
 of the fasting and all the details of the three temptations. And yet 
 his version possesses certain peculiar features which seem incom- 
 patible with this view. According to him the temptation appears 
 to have been continuous, as also was the ministry of angels. He 
 alone mentions the Mdld beasts. Again, it is fiir more probable that 
 the phrase * the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness ' should 
 have been changed to 'Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the 
 wilderness ' and ' was led by the Spirit in the wilderness,' than that 
 either of these should have given place to the stronger but more 
 mysterious expression of S. Mark. Moreover, it is diHicult to under- 
 stand why the record of the three specilic temptations should have 
 dropped out : no satisfactory reason for the supposed omission seenis 
 ever to have been suggested. 
 
 {c) The Sermon on the Mount. Matt. v. i-vii. 28 ; Luke vi. 20-49. 
 It has been supposed, although there appears to be now a general 
 tendency to abandon the idea, that the Sermon on the Mount formed 
 a part of the original Gospel. But the ditticulties in the way of tliis 
 supposition are very serious. In the first place, while all three 
 Gospels relate the gathering round our Lord of multitudes who came 
 from widely ditferent quarters, S. Mark distinctly says that the 
 reason of their coming was the widespread fame of His powers of 
 
 ' iiiroddKuwai, (icKvnTCiv. KfiaOai, d'^to?, Knprruv [icapnovs nuieh'. icapno'i docs 
 not occur in 8. Mark, oxcrj.t in the litonil sriise. 
 
42 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 healing, and gives no hint of the fact that they were desirous to hear 
 Him speak. Again, His withdrawal from the crowd into a ship, an in- 
 cident which the other Gospels omit, seems to negative the idea that 
 according to S. Mark He had any intention of delivering a discourse. 
 It is therefore most natural to suppose that S. Matthew and S. Luke 
 both saw in this passage of S. Mark a suitable occasion for the 
 insertion of the Sermon, the report of which they got from other 
 sources, and that each in his own way slightly modified the language 
 of S. Mark in order to lead up to it. It may be added that the 
 differences between the two versions of the Sermon are far greater 
 than is usually the case in places where the two later Evangelists are 
 both using S. Mark, if indeed they are compatible with the use of 
 a common document at all. The occurrence also of two sayings out 
 of the Sermon in other contexts in S. Mark is another fact of some 
 significance ^. 
 
 If the Sermon was derived from a source other than the Marcan 
 tradition, it naturally follows that the healing of the centurion's 
 servant, which is closely connected with it both in S. Matthew and 
 S. Luke, was also not part of the tradition. 
 
 {d) The Beelzebub Discourse. Matt. xii. ; Mark iii. ; Luke xi. Here 
 the agreement in matter between S. Matthew and S. Luke extends 
 some way beyond S. Mark's account, which does not contain parallels 
 to vv. 27, 28, 30, of S. Matthew = vv. 19, 20, 23, of S. Luke. 
 
 It must be observed in the first place that the Lucan parallel 
 occurs in the great central section of the Gospel which takes the 
 place of Mark ix. 41-x. 12, and which, although it contains some 
 parallels to S. Mark, was almost certainly not taken from the Marcan 
 tradition^. Secondly, the agreement in language between S. Luke 
 and S. Matthew is much closer than that between S. Luke and 
 S. Mark, a state of things which is very unusual. It is probable 
 therefore that both S. Matthew and S. Luke derived their reports 
 from a non-Marcan source, and that S. Matthew substituted this 
 version in place of the less complete account of S. Mark. 
 
 {e) The Missionary Discourses. Matt. x. ; Mark vi. 7-1 1 ; Luke ix. 
 l-ii, x. 1-16. In this case the question is complicated by the exist- 
 ence in S. Luke of two very similar discourses, one addressed to the 
 twelve and the other to the seventy, and both showing affinities in 
 different ways to the single accounts of S. Matthew and S. Mark. 
 The first agrees very closely with S. Mark, the second adds consider- 
 ably to it, most of the additional matter being found also in 
 S. Matthew. The fact that the second discourse in S. Luke occurs 
 in the central section makes it improbable that the additional matter 
 in it was derived from a Marcan source, and so the most natural 
 explanation of the facts of the case is that S. Luke borrowed his first 
 discourse directly from S. Mark, and that for the second he was 
 
 ^ Matt. V. 13 =^ Mark ix. 50 (cf. Luke xiv. 34 . Mutt. vii. 2 = Mark iv. 24, 
 Luke vi . 38. 
 
 '-' See Mr. Wuod'b exhaustive pruof of this. 0. c. pp. 77-7?. 
 
of the Gospel of S. A/ark. 43 
 
 indebted to some other source, which was also made use of by 
 S. Matthew. 
 
 (/) The Parable of the Leaven. Malt. xiii. 53; Luke xiii. 21. 
 This parable may have been omitted in S. Mark, but tlic fact tlial 
 S. Luke's version is found in the central section of the Gospel and 
 that his language in the preceding parable of the nuistard-seed 
 resembles S. Matthew's more closely than S. Mark's makes it probable 
 that both S. Matthew and S. Luke took it from a non-Marcan source. 
 (g) Matt, xviii. 7 ; Luke xvii. i. This verse also occurs in the 
 central section of S. Luke, and moreover the difference in languagi; 
 between the two versions of the saying is greater than is usually the 
 case when both Evangelists are following S. Mark. 
 
 {ht The Eschatological Discourses. Matt, xxiv., xxv. ; ISIark xiii. ; 
 Luke xxi. 5-36 ; cf. xii. 35-48 and xvii. 2C -37. The case of these 
 discourses closely resembles that of the missionary discourses, but 
 forms perhaps a still more complicated problem. Matt. xxiv. 1-36. 
 Mark xiii. 1-32, and Luke xxi. 5-35, are in the main parallel, although 
 there are striking differences in language. S. Matthew makes several 
 insertions : vv. 11, 12 ; 27, 28 corresponding to Luke xvii. 24 and 37 ; 
 and 37-41 corresponding to Luke xvii. 26-30, 34, 35. 
 
 S. Luke, on the other hand, makes some omissions, notably 
 vv. 21 and 22 of S. Mark. In the discourse in ch. xvii. S. Luke has 
 besides the parallels to S. Matthew's insertions, two verses, 25 and 33, 
 which are parallel to Mark viii. 31 and 35. Since, however, these 
 verses of S. Mark have closer parallels in Luke ix. 22, 24, there is 
 every probability that the discourse in ch. xvii. is not derived from 
 the Marcan tradition. After ver. 32 S. Mark has in xiii. 33-37 
 'a triple injunction to watchfulness, ayiwirvcWe (ver. 33), yprj-yo/jtlre 
 (ver. 35*, and yprjyojjflTe (ver. 37) in connexion with a single short 
 parable or trope illustrating the duty.' In place of this S. Matthew 
 has three parables, which more or less closely illustrate the injunc- 
 tions in S. Mark. All three parables have parallels in S. Luke in 
 other connexions, the two first in ch. xii. and the third in ch. xix. 
 Probably therefore S. Luke in chs. xii. and xvii. and S. Matthew in 
 ch. xxiv. have derived their common matter from the same non- 
 Marcan source, and in ch. xxi. S. Luke has omitted certain parts ot 
 the Marcan tradition because of their similarity to the matter which 
 he has already inserted. 
 
 If the foregoing examination of passages, Avhicli has (•..u.-iu- 
 been based almost entirely on Mr. Woods' essay, ^»'^' !j,j|"",,„..„. 
 even in its main features correct, it is clear that the nunt id.ui- 
 
 . tii-Jil witli 
 
 conclusion to which it leads is one ot the greatest s. Mark 
 importance. For it proves that the difference between '"„;';||X.. 
 the canonical Gospel and the ' ITrmarcus ' must be ai 
 any rate much smaller than has nfim Lien suj.i.osc.l. 
 
44 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 The two must have been identical both in matter, Avith 
 the possible exception of one or two passages, and in 
 the order in which that matter was presented. There 
 is no room left for changes more radical than the 
 insei-tion or omission of a sentence here and there, an 
 alteration in the turn of a phrase, the addition of 
 a word or expression to expand, illustrate, or explain. 
 In a word, the differences must have been almost entirely 
 linguistic. Why then, we naturally ask, is it necessary 
 to suppose that any change at all has taken place? 
 May not the Gospel which we possess be word for word 
 the same as that which was written down by the Evan- 
 gelist? The reason why we cannot admit this is as 
 Occasional follows. Although a comparison of the language of 
 pSerior- S- Mark with that of the other Synoptists confirms on 
 ity in the ^^ whole our belief in the priority of the second Gospel, 
 
 language . _ . 
 
 ofs.Mark.it docs not confirm it in every particular. There are 
 signs of posteriority as well as of priority. Again and 
 again throughout the Gospel, but with special frequency 
 in the last few chapters, S. Mark's language differs from 
 that of S. Matthew and S. Luke in points in which the 
 two last agree. This agreement of the two later Evan- 
 gelists against the earlier constitutes ooe of the greatest 
 dithculties of the Synoptic problem. As an average 
 example of its nature and extent we may take the 
 verses which describe how the disciples were plucking 
 corn on the sabbath. 
 
 Matt. xii. I, 2. Mark ii. 23, 24. Luke vi. i, 2. 
 
 'Ev eKcivcp Tea Kriipw Kai eyevcTO airov iv 'E-yeVfro be iv cra/3- 
 
 eTrnpfvdr) 6 'Irjaoiis tois toIs aal3j3naiv 8i,a7ropeve- /Sato) diaTTopeveaOai av- 
 
 aii^tiacnv hia rSiv <nropi- (xSat dui tmv cnropi/jicoVf ruv 81a. anopifxoiv, Ka\ 
 
 p.(x)v' OL fie padiiToi uvtov K(u 01 padrjrai aiiTov eriXKov ci padrjTcii av- 
 
 eneipaaau, kul /jp^nvTO rjp^nvTO odov noie'iv tlX- tov tovs (TTCixvas KAI 
 
 Ti'XXeii' aTdxva<i KAI Xovt€S tovs (TTcixvas. Kai rj^Qlov •\|/'a);^ovr6f rnls 
 
 f2Ql(iv. 01 AE ^npL~ nl <t>(ipicralui eXeyov uiiTca ;^fp(riV. TLvis AE tcou 
 
 o-ntoi tfiojTef EiriAN au- "ibe ri noLuiaiu Tuls aal-i- ^apLaaiu)p EIIIAN, Ti 
 
 T(o' 'iSoi' at padrjTui rrov iiaaiv o oiiK e^ecTTiu ; noieire o ovk e^eoTiv 
 
 TTvwva-iv 6 ov< e^fOTiu [nOlEIN] tois (jiii:iiia- 
 
 nOlElN iv (juiiiiaTCi. aiu] 
 
of tJic Gospel of S. Mark. 45 
 
 In these two verses the lanoruajxe of the three Evan- 
 gelists is to a large extent identical, and where it is not 
 so, S. ^lark is usually supported by either S. Matthew 
 or S. Luke. Still there is a residuum of points in which 
 these two are agreed against him. Tiiis agreement is 
 of two kinds. On the one hand the Marcan narrative 
 contains certain words which are absent from S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke; on the other, the two later Evans^elists 
 have in common some words which do not appear in 
 S. Mark. The former class of w^ords is naturally of 
 much less importance than the latter, since two writers 
 wlio use with freedom a common document are far more 
 likely to modify the language of that document by the 
 same omissions from it, than by the same additions to 
 it. In the passage just quoted the points which S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke agree in omitting are very small and unim- 
 portant, practically consisting of nothing more than the 
 phrase ohov Tiotetz', which may so easily have been omitted 
 by the later Evangelists as an unnecessary detail, that it 
 is quite superfluous to seek any other explanation of its 
 appearance in S. Mark alone. In other passages, however, 
 as will be seen presently, some of the peculiarities of 
 S. Mark cannot be so easily accounted for. Again, the 
 identical insertions of S. Matthew and S. Luke are also 
 small and unimportant : they consist of the words koX 
 €(tOl€lv [yaOtov), Se, el-nav, and irouiv, the last word 
 being omitted in some of the best manuscripts of S. Luke. 
 But one passage can give no idea of the nature of the 
 problem presented by these minute differences between 
 S. Mark and his fellow Evangelists. It is the continual 
 recurrence of such points that demands explanation : a few 
 instances might bo attributed to accident ; but with each 
 addition to the number of cases the adequacy of this 
 explanation proportionately decreases. 
 
 Of the various theories which, besides tlie ' Urmarcus ' TlK'oii<-s 
 liypothesis, have been put forward to account for these tiu'si- 
 
46 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 'serontl- 'secondary features' of S. Mark, as they are called, the 
 
 tuios.' best known are probably those of Weiss and Simons. 
 
 (ij Weiss. Weiss holds that in compiling his Gospel S. Mark 
 made use not only of the Petrine preaching, but also of 
 the 'Logia\' a collection of discourses mingled with 
 narrative, which is generally supposed to lie behind the 
 canonical S. Matthew, and to have been used also by 
 S. Luke. In some cases, he thinks, the first and third 
 Gospels have preserved the language of the Logia more 
 faithfully than S. Mark has, and in this way the coinci- 
 dences between them are explained. The theory is an 
 awkward one, since it postulates a double use of the 
 Logia, which must have been employed by the compiler 
 of the first Gospel once in its original form, and once as 
 incorporated into S. Mark. But there are still more 
 serious objections to the view. In the first place, it is 
 extremely unlikely that S. Mark would use the Logia 
 and then omit from it the discourses which were its 
 most characteristic feature. Again, the extreme difficulty 
 of determining what parts of S. Mark were taken from 
 the Logia and wdiat from the Petrine preaching gives 
 rise to a great deal of arbitrariness in the decision of 
 the question ^. Further, w^hatever may have been the 
 exact extent of the Logia, it is not probable that it con- 
 tained the history of the Passion, so that, as Holtzmann 
 says, the 'Apostolic source dries up just where it might 
 be called upon to render most important service ^/ 
 
 (2)Simons. The other theory, that of Professor Simons of Bonn, 
 
 ^ The term is derived from the saying of Papias that '^adQaios .... 
 'EPpaiSi SiaXi/iTaj to. Aoyia ovveypaipaTO, ■qpfn'jvevae d' avrd ws rjv Zvvarus eKaaros. 
 For a statement of the problems connected with this document, see the 
 ai-ticles by Dr. Sanday referred to on p. 27. 
 
 '^ It is almost impossible to understand the principles on which Weiss 
 reconstructs the Logia. It seems as if one of his main criteria were the 
 word idou. Whei-ever that occurs he refers the passage to the 'apostolic 
 source,' and claims superiority for the Gospel (usually S. Matthew) which 
 contains it. Cf. his Marcuserangelimn, on (e.g.) iii. 32, ix. 4, x. 33. 
 
 ' 0- c., p. 357. 
 
of tJic Gospel of S. Mark. 47 
 
 has of lato years found many siipportei-s on the Continent, 
 among them Professor Holtzmanu, who has in consequence 
 given up his allegiance to the 'Urmarcus' hypothesis. 
 Simons accounts for the coincidences between the first 
 and third Gospels by supposing that the writer of 
 S. Luke was acquainted with the canonical S. Matthew. 
 The great charm of this theory is its simplicity. But 
 it is the fate of simple theories on the Synoptic question 
 to break down when applied to the facts, and in this 
 case there seems to be no exception to the rule. To 
 begin with, it makes it necessary to assign a very late 
 date to S. Luke — both Simons and Holtzmann relegate 
 it to the second century — and also it gives no adequate 
 explanation of the gi-eat divergences between S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke, some of which, as for instance those in the 
 Sermon on the Mount, are only just compatible with the 
 hypothesis that the two versions are independent modi- 
 fications of the same original narrative, while on Simons' 
 tlieory the task of accounting for them is rendered harder 
 still. It is indeed contended that S. Luke only used 
 S. Matthew slightly and cursorily, quoting perhaps from 
 memory. But we have already seen that his coinci- 
 dences with S. Matthew mainly consist of small linguistic 
 points ; and these are just wdiat such a view fails to 
 explain. 
 
 The onlv remaining alternative seems to be the (s") The 
 
 " , . ' Urm.ir- 
 
 ' Urmarcus' theory. And in order to determine the cus' hypo- 
 nature and extent of the changes which have taken 
 place in the Gospel, it will be necessary first to attempt 
 the difficult task of classifying the ' secondary features,' Classifica- 
 or, as they should be called in order not to beg the Marcan 
 question of their posteriority beforehand, the ' peculiari- f^'J^" ''''^' 
 tics' of S. Mark. (OSecond- 
 
 nry fea- 
 
 At the risk of appearing to draw arbitrary distinctions turcs 
 we must first examine some supposed secondary features, ^^ caUiAi. 
 which in reality are not secondary at all. 
 
48 TJie Origin and CJiamdcridics 
 
 {a) Lin- {i() Linguistic points. In place of an inelegant or 
 
 poin*ts. obscure expression of S. Mark, S. Matthew and S. Luke 
 often agree in having one which is free from these 
 defects ^. 
 
 They simplify a needlessly complicated phrase^, add 
 for clearness a definite subject to a sentence^, and 
 substitute a better equivalent for an incorrect term, or 
 an Aramaic word, or a Latinism which detracts from 
 the purity of the Marcan style*. Again, they insert 
 a Avord or phrase to bring out clearly an idea implied 
 but not expressed in S. Mark's narrative I Another 
 point in which the first and third Gospels frequently 
 combine against the second is in having dn^v in place 
 of Xeyei. There are nine cases where this occurs, besides 
 four in which S. Matthew alone can be appealed to. there 
 being no Lucan parallel to the passage ^. The last is 
 a change that w^as almost inevitable unless S. Matthew 
 
 ^ Mark ii. l6 o\ ypainiaTcTs . . . eKeyov . . . on fiera rwv rtXcovoji' Kal 
 a^xafyrcvXcjv kaOUi KOI irivei. S. Matthew (ix. ii) and S, Luke (v. 30) make 
 the statement into a question and change on to diari. 
 
 Mark iv. 11 vfj.iv to (xvar-qpiov deSorai Tjys Paoikdas tov Qeov. Tlie other 
 Evangelists (Matt. xiii. 11, Luke viii. 10) insert yvwvai and change to 
 fxvaTTjpiov to TO txvffT-fjpia, thus slightly altering the meaning of the saying, 
 hut making it easier to understand. 
 
 Murk xi. 32 aWd (irrojfiev' (^ dvOpanrojv. Matt. xxi. 25, and Luke xx. 6, 
 liave edv for dKKa. 
 
 Mark xii. 37 \4yei . . . troOev. Matt. xxii. 45, Luke xx. 44 Ka\(i . . . 
 
 ^ Mark iv. 10 ol vepl avrbv avv rois dcuSfKa. Matt. xiii. 10, Luke viii. 9 
 01 p.aOr}Tat avrov. 
 
 Mark ix. 6 €K(polioi kyivovro. Matt. xvii. 6, Luke ix. 34 ((jioPriBTjaav. 
 
 Mark xiii. 5 i^p^aro Xeyfiv. Matt. xxiv. 4, Luke xxi. 5 (Tne. 
 
 Mark xv. 41 ore ^v kv rj? Va\i\aia, Matt, xxvii. 55, Luke xxiii. 49 dirb 
 7rjs TaXikaias. 
 
 ^ With Mark xii. 3 cf. Matt. xxi. 35, Luke xx. 10 ol yewpyoL 
 
 With Mark xii. 12 cf. Matt. xxi. 45 oi dpxifpfis koi ol ^apiaaToi, Luke 
 XX. 19 ol ypapLfiarus Kal ol dpxi-^p^Ts. 
 
 * Mark vi. 14 fiaaiKivs. Matt. xiv. i, Luke ix. 7 TfTpdpxrjs. 
 
 Mark x. 51 pa&fiovi Matt. xx. 30, Luke xviii. 41 Kvpu. 
 
 Mark xv. 39 KfVTvpiojv. Matt, xxvii. 54, Luke xxiii. 47 kKaTuvrapxas. 
 
 ^ With Mark ii. 23 cf. Matt. xii. i Kal kaOUiv^ Luke vi. i Kal rjaOiov. 
 
 With Mark iv. 41 cf. Matt. viii. 27, Luke viii. 25 k6aviM.oav. 
 
 With Mark xiv. 65 cf. Matt. xxvi. 68, Luke xxii. 64 rtv kanv rraiaasae ; 
 
 ^ Mark ii. 5 -Matt. xi. 2, Luke v. 20; Mark ii. 17^- Matt. ix. 12, Luke 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 49 
 
 and S. Luke had been particularly anxious to perpetuate 
 one of the distinctive peculiarities of S. Mark's style, 
 namely, the use of the present instead of the past tense. 
 Again, there are cases where a vivid and forcible expression 
 seems to have been softened down in the later Gospels 
 with the view of giving a greater flow and smoothness to 
 the narrative ^. It is a significant fact that we never 
 find S. Matthew and S. Luke a^reeino: aofainst S. Mark 
 in the support of a harder or less elegant reading. So 
 the question arises, Which is the more probable, that 
 these harder readings of S. Mark are later in origin 
 than the easier ones of S. Matthew and S. Luke, or 
 that S. Matthew and S. Luke have chanced to make 
 the same alterations in the language of S. Mark in 
 a certain number of cases, a number which is very 
 small in proportion to the frequency with w^hich they 
 modify that language in diflferent ways? It can hardly 
 be denied that the balance of probability is in favour of 
 the latter hypothesis. 
 
 We must also not forget another fact which textual 
 criticism has of late years brought out with increasing 
 force. Early copyists of the New Testament books must 
 have used considerable freedom with the texts which lay 
 before them ^. A notorious example of this is found in 
 the 'Western' readings, especially in the case of S. Luke 
 and of the Acts. And if manuscripts which we possess 
 
 V. 31 ; Mark iii. 4 = Matt. xii. 11, Luke vi. 9 ; Maik iii. 34 = Matt. xii. 48, 
 Luke viii. 21 ; Mark ix. 5 = Matt. xvii. 4, Luke ix. 33 ; Mark ix. 19 Matt. 
 xvii. 17, Luke ix. 41 ; Mark x. 23 = Matt. xix. 23, Luke xviii. 24 ; Mark x. 
 
 27 = Matt. xix. 26, Luke xviii. 27 ; Mark x. 42 = Matt. xx. 25, Luke xxii. 25. 
 The four cases in which iTinv is found in S. Matthew only are Mark vii. 
 
 28 = Matt. XV. 27; Mark viii. i = Matt. xv. 32; Mark viii. 17 - Matt. xvi. 8; 
 Mark xi. 22 = Matt. xxi. 21. 
 
 ' Mark i. 10 axt-^oyLivovi = Matt. iii. 16 avfwxOrjaav, Luko iii. 21 (ii'fo;- 
 xOrjuai; Mark ix. 18 toxvoau ^lAixti. xvii. 16, Luke ix. 40 i)hvirq6-qaav; Mark 
 xiii. 2 ov /xt) /caTaAue77=--Matt. xxiv. 2, Luke xxi. 6 ov KnTa\v$T)a(Tai. It u 
 worth noting also how the hyperbolical expression in Mark x. 30 kicarovTa 
 TiKaoiova, is softened down to -noKXa-nXaalova in Matt. xix. 29, Luke xviii. 30, 
 
 ^ Cf. Sanday, Bampton Lectures, pp. 295 f. 
 
 K 
 
50 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 give evidence of such a tendency on the part of copyists, 
 it is, to say the least, possible that many changes vrere 
 made in the first few copies of the Gospels which have 
 left no traces of themselves in extant codices. Thus the 
 well-known tendency to alter the words of one Gospel 
 into harmony with another may well account for some 
 of the coincidences between S. Matthew and S. Luke. 
 Still, to lay much stress on this consideration is dangerous, 
 since, like so many similar arguments, it is a double- 
 edged weapon. For if in some instances a fictitious 
 agreement in language between S. Matthew and S. Luke 
 has been produced by a copyist, the possibility must 
 also be recognized that peculiarities of S. Mark have 
 been in the same way obliterated in order to bring the 
 second Gospel into verbal agreement with the two others. 
 
 {h) Sup- {h) There is a second class of Marcan peculiarities far 
 
 more important and interesting than those which have 
 just been dealt with. Occasionally it seems as if whole 
 
 sayings, sentences had fallen out of the text of S, Mark. A fre- 
 quently quoted example is the saying of our Lord to 
 the Syro-Phoenician woman, 'I was not sent but unto the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel,' which is preserved by 
 S. Matthew but not by S. Mark ^ : S. Luke does not 
 record the incident. The words are so striking, so 
 undoubtedly genuine, that it a great temptation to 
 suppose that they were included in the original text 
 of the second Gospel. But then it is difficult to explain 
 why they should have fallen out. Moreover, it is to be 
 noticed that S. Matthew's account of the interview with 
 the woman, although in the main parallel to S. Mark's, 
 has yet in point of language little in common with it, 
 so that unless we suppose that the variations of the first 
 Evangelist are merely arbitrary, we can hardly help 
 concluding that he was influenced by some other version 
 
 ^ Matt. XV. 24, cf. Mark vii. 24-30. 
 
 posed 
 omissions 
 of our 
 Lord's 
 
of the Gospd of S. Mark. 
 
 of the story, either written or oral. May not the ditier- 
 ences be explained by the supposition that S. Matthew 
 incorporates into his own narrative elements both from 
 the Marcan version, and from an oral account current 
 in Jerusalem, which would be more likely than the 
 Petrine teaching to preserve a saying directly referring 
 to our Saviour's mission to the Jewish people ? The 
 objections which exist against the 'oral' theory as 
 a whole do not apply to its occasional appearance as 
 a factor in the explanation of the Synoptic difficulties. 
 And if, as is rendered probable by the known habits of 
 the Jews of that age, there was current in Palestine 
 a definite C3'cle of oral teaching, it would have been 
 strange if it did not sometimes coincide with the teaching 
 of S. Peter at Rome. 
 
 There are other sayings recorded in S. Matthew, which 
 are probably to be attiibutcd to the same source, especially 
 as they are absent both from S. Mark and from S. Luke. 
 Such are, ' Go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire 
 mercy and not sacrifice^;' 'Verily I say unto you, Except 
 ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise 
 enter into the kingdom of heaven ^ ; ' ' Verily I say unto 
 you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration 
 when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His 
 glory, ye shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the 
 twelve tribes of Israel ^.' 
 
 It would greatly simplify the task of Synoptic criticism r2^Socon(l. 
 could all the peculiarities of S. Mark be explained in tures^ 
 a similar manner. Unfortunately, however, there remain P'''*P^'*'- 
 certain peculiarities which do not readily lend themselves 
 to any such explanations, and these constitute the 'secondary 
 features ' proper, which it seems only possible to account 
 for by the supposition that they represent changes made 
 in the text at some date after it was used by the writers 
 of the other Gospels. Two classes of secondary features 
 
 ' ix. 13. '^ xviii. 3. ^ xix. 28. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 I'liv Origin and Cliaracf eristics 
 
 can be more or less clearly distinguished, while there are 
 
 others of a less definite character. 
 Signsotan Context supplements ^ A common feature of the style 
 haiui in of the second Gospel is the presence of short explanatory 
 ii'itorv ^ sentences, connecting links in the narrative, which seem 
 supple- inserted merely to make it more intelligible. As a rule 
 
 nu'iits. " , . ° 
 
 these sentences convey no new information, and are couched 
 almost wholly in the words of the immediate context. The 
 account of the healing of the paralytic in the second 
 chapter contains some excellent examples, five of them 
 occurring in four consecutive verses, and all absent from 
 the parallel narratives of the other Synoptists. In ver. 15 
 we read the words, ' for they were many and they followed 
 Him' ; in ver. 16,' when they saw that He was eating with the 
 sinners and publicans'; in ver. 18, 'And John's disciples 
 and the Pharisees were fasting,' and ' as long as they have 
 the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.' If these had 
 been in the original text of S. Mark, why should both the 
 other Evangelists have agreed to omit them alU There 
 is nothing, as far as we can see, in the words or construction 
 which could give offence. 
 
 Other instances of such supplements are not infrequent, 
 although perhaps none are so clear and definite as those 
 just mentioned-. Great caution is needed in the selection 
 of examples, since it is impossible to assign all such ex- 
 planatory sentences to the hand of an editor of the Gospel. 
 They are to a large extent inherent in the style of the 
 Gospel, as may be seen by reference to passages where 
 the other Evangelists perpetuate them in their own 
 narratives. The general circumstantiality of S. Mark's 
 style naturally leads to the repetition of words and 
 clauses ^. 
 
 ^ This term, as well as much of what is said on the subject, is due to 
 a lecture by Prof. Armitage Robinson on *The Editor's Hand in S. Mark.' 
 
 ^ Cf. e.g. vi. 35 ; vii. 19 ; viii. i ; ix. 34 ; x. 27 ; xii. 15, 21, 23 ; xiv. 16. 
 
 2 Cf. e.g. i. 25, 26; ii. 7, 8 ; iv. 5, 30-32 ; v. 28 ; viii, 12 ; ix. 17 ; x. 8 ; 
 xi. 28, 29 ; xiv. 21. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 53 
 
 Supplements added to heighten the sense of the narrative (/> Supplo- 
 or to enhance contrasts. It is very striking how frequently hoigi.h.ii 
 words like Tray, ciTraj, noKvs, \iiyas and oXiyoy, and again contniats. 
 conjunctions and adverbs such as aAAa, (55e and TraAii; 
 occur in S, Mark, while they are absent in the other 
 Synoptists: ttSj (or Imas) occurs sixty-nine times in 8. Mark 
 and in nineteen cases it is unattested by 8. Matthew and 
 8. Luke, account being only taken of those passages in 
 which one or other of the later Evangelists closely follows 
 in other respects the language of the earlier ^ Similarly 
 of fifty-nine instances of -noXvi twenty-one are unattested-^. 
 
 80 the conclusion is suggested that these two classes 
 of supplements are additions to the original text of 
 S. Mark, and the work of an editor whose aim was to 
 make the Gospel at once more intelligible and more 
 interesting to its readers by the insertion of explanatory 
 clauses, connecting links between the sentences, and words 
 intended to bring into still stronger relief the light and 
 shade of the already vivid narrative. In carrying out this 
 design he seems to have followed closely the style and 
 vocabulary of 8. Mark, and only to have intensiHed its 
 peculiarities, thus giving to the revised Gospel such an 
 appearance of unity that were 8. Matthew and 8. Luke 
 not extant no one w^ould over have suspected that it was 
 not wholly the work of the same hand. 
 
 But was this the sole object of the editor or only a pait 
 of his object'^ That is to say, did he go further and add 
 any really independent matter of his own? The more 
 important passages peculiar to S. Mark have already Ijeen 
 examined in some detail, and it has been seen that there 
 is no evidence to prove that they were not in the original 
 text. Probably, however, there will always be some doubt 
 
 1 i. 5, 32 ; ii. 12 ; iv. ii, 32 ; v. 40 ; vi. 30, 33, 50 ; vii. 14, 23 ; x. 44 ; 
 xi. 17 ; xii. 28 : xiii. 4, 23 ; xiv. 36, 53, 64. 
 
 •^ i. 34 ; ii. 15; iii. 8, 10; iv, 33; v. 10, 21, 23, 24, 26, 38, 43 ; vi. 2, 33, 
 35 ; ix. 12 ; X. 48; xii. 5. 41 'twice ; xv. 3. 
 
matter 
 from a 
 Johan- 
 neaii 
 !>uurce. 
 
 54 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 as to the originality of one or two verses, especially the 
 account of the ceremonial washings of the Pharisees 
 (vii. 2-4), which on the one hand reads like an explana- 
 tory gloss such as an editor might insert, and on the other 
 may equally well have been omitted by S. Matthew as 
 unnecessary for his Jewish readers. Leaving therefore out 
 of sight such passages as this, let us see whether there ai-e 
 any indications of fresh matter being added in smaller 
 points. It is of course most improbable that of the vivid 
 details so characteristic of S. Mark all those which are not 
 found in the other Evangelists are to be attributed to 
 (cjPossible a later editor of the Gospel. On the other hand the pos- 
 of imio- sibility niust be admitted that some are to be referred to 
 m'ttor '^ him. There is, for instance, a passage where S. Matthew 
 and S. Luke combine in a peculiar way against S. Mark. 
 Li the account of the feeding of the five thousand S. Mark 
 has the words ' two hundred pennyworth of bread,' while 
 S. Matthew and S. Luke have merely ' food ' (/3pwMara). 
 Why should the later Evangelists agree to substitute 
 a vague word for the more precise expression of S. Mark 1 
 It is far more probable that the word in the original text 
 of the Gospel was /3pw/xara and that this was altered by 
 an editor who had before him an independent account 
 of the event. When we turn to the narrative of S. John, 
 the w^ords ' two hundj-ed pennyw^orth of bread is not 
 sufficient for them' make us suspect what the source of 
 this independent information was ^ Our suspicions are 
 confirmed by a study of another of the few passages where 
 the narratives of the Synoptists and of S. John coincide. 
 In the story of the anointing at Bethany, S. Mark and 
 S. John both use the expression ' pistic nard,' the exact 
 
 ' Mark vi. 37 ; Matt. xiv. 15 ; Luke ix. 13 ; John vi. 7. The use by 
 S. Mark and S John of the word avam-nTuv for Ho sit down,' in contrast 
 with the avaKKiviaOm of S. Matthew and KaiaKXivfiv of S. Luke, is perhaps 
 too small a point to be insisted on. For another linguistic coincidence 
 between the two, cf. the use of iraULv in Mark xiv. 47, John xviii, 10. 
 Matt. xxvi. 5T and Luke xxii. 50 have naraocrHV. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mivk. 
 
 DO 
 
 meaning of which has always been a matter of controvers}'. 
 Both mention the value of the ointment, S. John saying 
 that it w^as worth ' three hundred ponce,' S. Mark ' more 
 than three hundred pence,' while S. Mattliew only informs 
 us vaguely that it ' might have been sold for much.* Both 
 preserve in almost the same words our Lord's command 
 to ' leave the woman alone ' (S. Mark cu/jere avTi]v, S. Jolin 
 a(/)€s avTi]v) \ To assert that these coincidences imply 
 tliat the editor of S. INIark knew the Gospel of S. John 
 w^ould be to go further than the evidence warrants, but 
 they do suggest what is in itself by no means improbable, 
 namely, that he was influenced by the Johaunean cycle 
 of teaching, which is generally believed to have preceded 
 the actual composition of the fourth Gospel. 
 
 It seems also possible to discern traces of an editor in OO^l<'<^'fi- 
 quite a different connexion, namely, in the discourse about lanjrua^u 
 the end of the world, which is recorded in chapter xiii. {"^i'^'^^rdis' 
 The difficult question of the origin and mutual relationship course. 
 of the various discourses on this subject, contained in the 
 three Synoptists, has been already mentioned. All that 
 concerns us here is the difference in the language of the 
 three Evangelists in certain parallel passages. According 
 to S. Matthew it is foretold that the Second Advent will 
 be 'immediately after the tribulation of those days,' 
 S. Mark dates it more vaguely ' in those days, after that 
 tribulation ' ; while S. Luke gives no note of time whatever'-^. 
 Again, with regard to the fall of Jerusalem, S. Matthew has 
 the words, ' When therefore ye see the abomination of 
 desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, 
 standing in the holy place'; S. Mark, 'But when ye see 
 the abomination of desolation standing where he ought 
 not ' ; S. Luke, ' But when ye see Jerusalem encompassed 
 with armies ^J 
 
 ' Mark xiv. 3-6 ; Jolin xii. 3-7 ; Matt. xxvi. 6-10, 
 2 Matt. xxiv. 29 ; Mark xiii. 24 ; Luke xxi. 25. 
 ^ Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Mark xiii. h ; Luke xxi. 20. 
 
56 Tlie Origin and Characteristics 
 
 Such elaborate theories as to the dates of the Gospels 
 have been built on these discourses, a strain has been laid 
 on them so much greater than they will bear, that one 
 feels a natural hesitation in appealing to them at all. Bub 
 if ' abusus non tollit usum,' a comparison of the language 
 of the three Evangelists suggests at fii'st sight the con- 
 clusion that S. Matthew has preserved most closely the 
 original report, which was modified to a certain extent 
 by S. Mark and still more by S. Luke in order to bring 
 it into harmony with later events. There appears a ten- 
 dency in the two latter Gospels both to dissolve the 
 immediate connexion between the fall of Jerusalem and 
 the second Advent, and to make the references to the 
 former more explicit^. This therefore is one of the 
 puzzling cases which seem to conflict with the general 
 priority of S. Mark to S. Matthew. And yet, on the 
 assumption that one or two slight alterations have been 
 made in the text of S. Mark, that Gospel still preserves 
 its originality. In fact, the changes in question may 
 really have consisted of nothing more than the omission 
 of the word t^^ews in ver. 24, since as to the relative 
 priority of the words ottod ov bel and h totto) aytw critics 
 are not agreed ; Meyer, for instance, defending the Marcan 
 phrase, and Weiss the Matthaean ^. 
 
 To sum up, therefore, it seems as if the work of an editor 
 of S. Mark may be discerned in four different connexions ; 
 (a) in explanatory supplements ; (d) in single words added 
 to heighten effects and strengthen contrasts ; (c) in a few 
 details added from an independent source, which is probably 
 Johannean ; (d) in the change of a word or two in the 
 
 ^ Cf. Mark xiii. 19 with Luke xxi. 23, 24. 
 
 2 Further signs of posteriority in S. Mark have been thought to exist in 
 the words irpuiTou in xiii. lo and TrdcLv roh eOvtaiv in xi. 17. But the former 
 Beems to make no real difference to the meaning of the verse (cf. Matt. 
 xxiv. 14), and the latter (^from Is. Ivi. 7) has a special appropriateness 
 when it is remembered that the words were probably spoken in the court 
 of the Gentiles. See Weiss ad locum. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 57 
 
 eschatological discourse designed to bring it into closer 
 harmony with cnrrent events. 
 
 Do these constitute the sum total of the editorial 
 changes? Probably not, and yet when the attempt is 
 made to determine which of the other peculiarities of 
 S. Mark represent later modifications of and additions to 
 the text of the original Gospel, and which are due simply 
 to a free handling of it by S. Matthew and S. Luke, the 
 arguments for each view are so evenly balanced that it 
 seems better to leave the question an open one for the 
 present. Closer study of the text or the discovery of new 
 manuscripts may, and probably will, throw fresh light on 
 the methods of the editor and the extent of the chancres 
 he introduced, but he would be a bold man who in the 
 present condition of our knowledge would undertake to 
 reconstruct the text of the ' Urmarcus.' And if the result 
 here arrived at seems meagre and disappointing, if we are 
 inclined to reject any theory of the history of S. Mark's 
 Gospel which is not, like Horace's wise man, 'in se ipso 
 totus, teres atque rotundus,' it w^ill be well for us to remind 
 ourselves that at least in the sphere of New Testament 
 criticism the usual way of attaining exactness and com- 
 pleteness is to ignore the presence of inconvenient facts 
 which will not adapt themselves to preconceived theories. 
 
 Two more questions with regard to the editor of S. Mark 
 still remain, but they can only be treated briefly here. 
 The first is, ' What was his probable date ? ' the second, 
 ' Can he be identified with the author of the last twelve 
 verses % ' 
 
 The answer to the first question depends partly on tlio rmi.aMo 
 date assigned to the original Gospel, partly on the amount editor, 
 of importance attached to the supposed alterations in the 
 text of the eschatological discourse. If we may follow the 
 tradition preserved in Irenaeus, S. Mark composed his 
 Gospel soon after the death of S. Peter, an event which, 
 according to the usual reckoning, took place in the year 
 
58 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 67 ^ Other authorities, such as Clement of Alexandria, 
 Origen, and Eusebius, tell us that S. Mark wrote during 
 the lifetime of the Apostle. In any case the Gospel was 
 probably written within a few years of the death of S. 
 Peter, cither before or after. The ' terminus a quo ' we 
 have no means of fixing; the 'terminus ad quern' would 
 naturally be the year 70, the date of the fall of Jerusalem ^. 
 Allowing a sufficient interval after its publication for 
 copies of it to come into the hands of the compilers of the 
 first and third Gospels, we may hazard c. 73-76 as the 
 most probable date of the redaction. For if we may draw 
 any inference from the omission by the editor of the ev^cwj 
 which S. Matthew preserves, it suggests that he was 
 engaged in revising the Gospel after Jerusalem had fallen, 
 but not so long after as to make the vaguer expression, ' in 
 those days,' irreconcilable with the facts. At any rate it 
 seems certain that the second Gospel (as indeed was the 
 case with the first and third also) reached its final form 
 within the lifetime of the generation to which our Lord 
 had addressed His discourse. Otherwise, since the com- 
 pilers of all three Gospels appear not to hesitate to make 
 slight alterations and omissions in our Lord's discourses, 
 in order to bring them into closer correspondence with the 
 events which they seemed to predict, all of them would 
 hardly have preserved the saying, ' This generation shall 
 not pass away till ail be fulfilled,' since that seems to 
 refer not only to the fall of Jerusalem, but also to the 
 Second Coming. 
 
 * Cf. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, c. xiii. Prof. Famsay 
 accepts the genuineness of i Peter, but maintains that it cannot have been 
 written before about a. d. 8o. If this be so, ' the usual view according to 
 which Peter perished at Rome in the Neronian persecution, is not correct.' 
 In this case we must reject Irenaeus' tradition, and hold that the Gospel 
 \vas composed some years before the death of the Apostle. 
 
 ^ The parenthetical warning of the Evangelist in xiii. 14, 6 avayivwoKCLv 
 vodrco, might lead us to conclude that he was writing during the period of 
 expectation Ijotween the fall of Giscala at the end of 67 and the appearance 
 of Titus before the walls of Jerusalem at the beginning of 70. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 59 
 
 With regard to the second question nienti nod al)Ovc it 
 has already been shown that the last twelve verses of 
 the Gospel did not form part of the original text. It is Tiir cdiio 
 extremely improbable that S. Mark intended ver. 8 to be "li.ntiiir.l 
 the conclusion of his Gospel. No writer of Greek would ^^'^'' ^'"' 
 have ended a paragraph with the words k(.\>o{^o'vvro yap ; no ti»<' last 
 historian would have concluded his work with a minute vorsos. 
 detail of an unimportant incident ; no Evangelist would 
 have closed the joyful account of the Resurrection with 
 words which strike a note of unmitigated fear. We may 
 assume, therefore, cither that S. Mark left his Gospel 
 unfinished, or, with more probability, that the end of the 
 papyrus roll on wdiich the Gospel was originally written 
 perished at an extremely early date. Under these circum- 
 stances it would be a natural supposition that the editor 
 who revised the text of the Gospel, being possessed of 
 independent sources of information, added also a conclusion 
 of his own. In favour of such a hypothesis are the con- 
 tents of the verses in question, which while in general 
 harmony with the accounts in the otlier Gospels do not 
 seem to be based on them ^ On the other hand, there aro 
 two objections against it. In the first place, while some 
 of the oldest manuscripts omit the concluding verses 
 entirely, there are no traces of any corresponding hesitation 
 to accept the editor's additions to the text of the Gosprl 
 itself, and secondly, none of the peculiarities of st^le wliicli 
 characterize those additions are to be found in the passage 
 where we should expect to see them most strongly exhibited, 
 
 ' Ver. 9 scorns to luror to the ai»i>eai;inco to Mary Magdak-no rccordod in 
 Jolin XX. 14-17 ; ver. lo is in agreement with John xx. i8, hut the lourth 
 Evangelist does not mention the incredulity of the disciples rec«ird(<l in 
 ver. II, which, however, seems to be alluded to in Luke xxiv. ii ; vv. 12 13 
 probably give a condensed account of the walk to Emmaus, but a late 
 writer who drew solely on the canonical Gospels for his inforniatinn 
 would have been careful not to contradict Luke xxiv. 34 by adding 
 'neither believed they them ' in ver. 13 ; ver. 15 mu^st refer to tlie appearance 
 recorded in Luke xxiv. 36-42, although varfpov would naturally .su^^gest 
 a later event. With ver. 18. cf. Acts xxviii. 3-7. an incident which may 
 well have been fresh in tin- luemorv i>f tlu' wriltr. 
 
6o The Gospel of S. Mark, 
 
 The explanatory clauses, the heightened contrasts are both 
 absent, and the verses convey the impression that they 
 are from the hand of one who had considerable mastery 
 over the Greek language, while the editor's own supple- 
 ments and, still more, the apparent absence of any attempt 
 on his part to enrich the vocabulary or improve the style 
 of the Gospel itself, as, for instance, by the removal of 
 anacolutha, forbid us to entertain the idea he was in any 
 degree a stylist. 
 
 On the whole then it is best to regard the last verses of 
 S. Mark not as the work of the editor, but as a still later 
 addition, which perhaps originally formed the conclusion 
 of an independent Gospel. Mr. F. C. Conybeare's discovery 
 of an Armenian manuscript of the tenth century ^ in which 
 the name of 'Ariston the elder' is prefixed to the verses, 
 would enable us to assign them to the last years of the 
 first century, could we be sure, in the first place, that any 
 real importance can be attached to the evidence of a single 
 codex, and that such a late one, and, secondly, that the 
 Ariston in question can be identified with a certain 
 Aristion, 'a disciple of the Lord,' who is mentioned by 
 Papias as one of his informants, and who also, so Eusebius 
 implies, was the author of certain ' narratives of the words 
 of the Lord ' (St7/y?io-eis rSiv tov Kvpiov koyoiv) ^. But in 
 default of further testimony this solution of the problem 
 must remain a brilliant and attractive conjecture. There is 
 no a 2^rlori reason against it : what we require is stronger 
 evidence for it. 
 
 * See Expositor, Oct., 1893. » Euseb. 11. E. iii. 39. 
 
PART ITT. 
 
 Purpose and CJiaracter'isfics of the Conpel. 
 
 Many of the peculiar features of the Gospel of S. Mark 
 have been already noticed in the course of the preceding 
 discussion, but as some of them seem to require a more 
 definite treatment, it may be convenient to gather up here 
 the threads of what has been said, and to consider (a) the 
 object of the Gospel and the leading ideas which run 
 through it, {h) the plan, (c) the style, (t^) the place of the 
 Gospel in the economy of revelation. 
 
 {a) The Object. S. Mark, as we have seen, wrote for Ti»e oV>jt'ft 
 Gentile Christians, and especially for the Romans. With ),,„ id,'..,^, 
 the growth of the Church the need began to be felt of ^^^t*'^"^""- 
 
 ° & pel. 
 
 an authoritative written account of our Lord's life, and 
 the faithful follower and disciple of S. Peter had peculiar 
 capacities and opportunities for compiling such a record. 
 ' Mark,' says Weiss, ' first undertook to convert into coin 
 (venverthen) all the treasured-up reminiscences which were 
 placed at his disposal by communications from a prominent 
 eye-witness belonging to the innermost circle of the com- 
 panions of Jesus, and with the help of those oldest 
 records to sketch out a general picture of the life of Christ, 
 which might proclaim to the Church the joyful news of 
 the appearance of the Messiah in Him ^' Indications 
 of the Gentilic character of the Gospel may be found in 
 the general absence of quotations from and references to the 
 Old Testament 2, as well as in the translation or paraplirase 
 of Aramaic words \ and the explanation of Jewish customs'* 
 
 ^ Marcusevcoigelinm, p. 21. 
 
 2 After tlje introductory quotations from Malaclii and I^aiali tlic O. T. 
 is never quoted in the Gospel except by our Lord IIiins«lf. 
 
 3 iii. 17, 22 ; V. 41 ; vii. 11 ; ix. 43 ; xiv. 36 ; xv. 22. 34. 
 * vii. 1-4 ; xiv. 12 ; xv. 6. 42. 
 
62 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 and Jewish opinions, such as the peculiar tenets of the 
 Sadducees \ It may not even be fanciful to see in a few 
 references to things specifically Roman, traces of its Roman 
 origin -, 
 
 In the days when the Tendenzkrltik was rife, various 
 endeavours were made to assign a narrow and partisan aim 
 to the Gospel, but the contradictoriness of the results 
 arrived at showed the futility of such attempts. Hilgenfeld, 
 for instance, found in S. Mark a mitigated Judaeo-Chris- 
 tianity, Volkmar, on the other hand, pure Paulinism ; but 
 the usual character assigned was that of ' neutrality,' a. 
 verdict which was equivalent to a confession of failure on 
 the part of those critics who pronounced it. 
 
 The opening words of the Gospel, ' The Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ the Son of God,' strike the keynote of the work ^. 
 The aim of S. Mark was to give to the world a living 
 picture of Jesus, as Man, as the Messiah, as the Son of 
 God ; to record with direct simplicity the story of His life, 
 death, and resurrection, leaving what may be called the 
 theological interpretion of those facts to be brought out by 
 the later Evangelists, and especially by S. John. The 
 aspect of our Lord's Person and work which comes out 
 most strongly in the Gospel is of one who was a living 
 ' power of God unto salvation.' The force that went forth 
 from Him was enough to heal those who touched but the 
 border of His garment, and this apparently without any 
 special act of will on His part ^. He claims and exercises 
 
 • xii. i8. 
 
 ' X. 12 seems to refer to the Roman custom of divorce ; xii. 42 the 
 *quadrans' ; xiii. 35 (cf. vi. 48, and contrast with Luke xii. 38), adoption 
 of the Roman division of the night into four watches. In xv. i a know- 
 ledge of Pilate's official position seems to be assumed. 
 
 ^ It is true that there is a doubt as to the genuineness of the words 
 ' the Son of God.' Westcott and Hort omit them in the text, but say that 
 neither reading can be safely rejected. Since, however, the divine Son- 
 ship finds full recognition in the Gospel (cf. e.g. i. 11, 24, xiv. 61) the 
 omission of the words makes no essential difference to the argument. 
 
 * V. 25-34; vi. 56. 
 
)f the (iospcl of S. Mark. 63 
 
 supremacy alike over the pliysical and over the spiritual 
 world. The stilling of the waters of the lake is innnediately 
 followed by the expulsion of the Legion IVoni the Gadarene 
 demoniac ^ S. Mark seems indeed to lay especial stress 
 on the power of Jesus over evil spirits ^. The first miracle 
 recorded in the Gospel is the healing of the man with 
 the unclean spirit at Capernaum-*; and particular uk ntion 
 is made of the quickness of the spirits to recognize our 
 Lord^ 
 
 To S. Mark our Lord is not primarily the Messiah as in 
 S. Matthew, nor the Saviour as in S. Luke. Not that the 
 Evangelist was indifferent to the fulfilment of the Old 
 Testament in Christ. Besides the introductory quotations, 
 he preserves many of our Lord's own allusions to the 
 Scriptures and to the history of the Jews, emphasizes His 
 recognition of the law^. His assertion of its authority 
 against that of the Pharisaic traditions which prevented 
 obedience to it^, and His jealousy for the sanctity of the 
 Temple, even at the time when He was announcing its 
 destruction"^. Still, on the whole it is true, as Bishop 
 Westcott says, that * the living portraiture of Christ is 
 offered in the clearness of His present energy, not as 
 the fulfilment of the Past, nor even as the foundation 
 of the Future. His acts prove that He is both, but 
 this is a deduction from the narrative and not the subject 
 of it«.' 
 
 In accordance with this leading idea is the great 
 prominence of incident over discourse, of miracle over 
 parable in the second Gospel. S. Mark relates almost 
 as many miracles as the other Synoptists, but only fuur 
 
 ^ iv. 35 ; '^'^ 20. 
 
 2 i. 23-28, 34, 39; iii. II, 15, 22; V. I 2o; vi. 7, 13; vii.25 30; ix. 17 27. 
 
 ' i 23 28. 
 
 * i. 23, 34 ; iii- u- 
 
 ' eg, ii. 25, 26; ix. 12, 13; xii. 10, 11 ; xiv. 21, 27, 49. 
 
 * vii. 9, 13. 
 
 ' xi. 15, 16 ; xiii. 2. 
 
 * 0. c. cli. vii. \K 365. 
 
64 The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 parables ^ The contrast in the first chapter between 
 the detailed account of the healing of the demoniac at 
 Capernaum, and the cursory notice of the teaching in 
 the synagogue which precedes it, is eminently character- 
 istic of the Evangelist's subordination of our Lord's words 
 to His acts '^. He seems indeed to aim at recording only 
 such sayings and discourses as he could connect with 
 a definite situation and illustrate through that situation, 
 a fact which su«:e:ests that he was more concerned with 
 our Lord's method of teaching than with the matter 
 which He taught. The Gospel is as far as possible 
 from being: either a collection of discourses or a com- 
 plete biographical record : it is a series of scenes. 
 The plan. {1j) The Plan. We have seen that S. Mark's chief 
 concern was with the active ministry of the Lord, and 
 this fact explains the omission of the story of His birth 
 and infancy, a point which affords a strong contrast to 
 the detailed narratives in S. Matthew and S. Luke. 
 After only thirteen verses of introductory matter relating 
 briefly the ministry of the Baptist ^, the Baptism, and 
 the Temptation, the Evangelist plunges in medias res 
 with the account of our Lord's arrival in Galilee. In 
 its main outlines the Gospel is chronological ; that is to 
 say, it recounts the principal events of our Lord's life 
 in the order in which they took place ; but within those 
 limits, and especially with regard to the different divisions 
 of the ministry, there is considerable vagueness. S. Mark's 
 interest was not in chronology : the notes of time which 
 he gives are vague — ' again,' ' after some days,' ' in those 
 days.' Only on occasions is he more precise, as when 
 
 * I. The sower (iv. 1-20) ; 2. The seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29^ 
 peculiar to S, Mark ; 3. The mustard-seed \^iv. 30-32) ; 4. The husband- 
 men (,xii. I- 12). 
 
 ^ i. 21, 22, 23-28. 
 
 ^ The correspondence is worth noting between the contents of the 
 second Gospel and the limits of the apostolic testimony which are laid 
 down by S. Peter in Acts i. 22. 
 
of flic Gospel of S. Mark. 65 
 
 he dates the Transfiguration six days after S. Peter's 
 confession, and again in his account of the events 
 immediately preceding the Passion ^ 
 
 But if it is difficult to regard S. Mark's narrative as 
 based on purely chronological principles, it is no les-s 
 difficult to discover any one leading idea which can 
 have guided the Evangelist in the selection and arrange- 
 ment of his facts. Various schemes have been proposed, 
 but all strike us as more or less arbitrary and unsatis- 
 factory. It seems best, therefore, to abandon the endeavour 
 to trace out a dogmatic plan in the Gospel, and to content 
 ourselves with indicating one point which, whether the 
 Evangelist as he wrote was conscious of it or not, is 
 strongly brought before us by a study of the Marcan 
 narrative. This point is the gradualness of our Lord's 
 revelation of Himself as the Messiah. The earlier period 
 of the ministry, when our Lord's popularity was scarcely 
 clouded by the shadow of approaching opposition, is 
 marked by great reserve on His part. He withdraws 
 Himself from the multitude^, and enjoins strict silence 
 on the demoniacs whom He had healed, and who 
 according to S. Mark were the first persons to recognize 
 and openly proclaim Him as the Messiah ^. The same 
 desire for secrecy appears when He checks the exuberant 
 gratitude of Jairus and his family, and treats with equal 
 sternness the friends of the deaf mute at Decapolis, and 
 the blind man at Bethsaida"^. As, however, His fame 
 spread and speculations as to His character and claims 
 became rife, while the antagonism of the Pharisees 
 increased in a corresponding ratio, He became less 
 and less careful to preserve this attitude of concealment. 
 The first exception to His rule of reserve seems to l)e 
 found in the case of the Gadarene demoniac''. Up to 
 
 ix. 2 ; xiv. r, 12. '' 1. 45 ; '"• 7- >• 24 ; >'i. 11; v. 7. 
 
 * V. 43 ; Yii.36; viii. 26. * v. 19,20. 
 
66 • The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 the time of His wanderings in the villages of Caesarea 
 Philippi, He had only hinted as it were at His Messiah- 
 ship by His use of the title ' Son of Man ^ ;' the disciples 
 had received the commission not to announce Him as 
 the Messiah, but to preach repentance to the people, 
 and to heal the sick 2. Not until after the great breach 
 with the Pharisees and the retirement into heathen lands ^ 
 — a retirement which probably gave opportunities for 
 closer and more continuous intercourse between the dis- 
 ciples and their Master — did the time arrive for S. Peter's 
 confession at Caesarea. Even then the disciples are com- 
 manded not to proclaim His Messiahship to the world, 
 and at the same time they are warned of His impending 
 Passion and Death *. - But the secret could no longer be 
 confined to the narrow circle of our Lord's immediate 
 followers. During the last journey to Jerusalem He was 
 openly hailed by Bartimaeus as the ' Son of David,' and 
 this time a rebuke was administered by the multitude 
 and not by our Lord Himself^. Then followed the 
 triumphal entry into the city, and the final proclamation 
 of the Messiahship first in a parable, afterwards openly^. 
 ' Again the high priest asked Him and saith unto Him, 
 Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? and Jesus 
 said, I am.' 
 
 (c) Style. The style of S. Mark is in perfect harmony 
 with the distinctive peculiarities of the ' Gospel of action.' 
 He has not the literary purity and finish of S. Luke, 
 and writes the ordinary Hellenistic Greek of his day, 
 
 * ii. 10, 28. ^ vi. 12, 13. ^ vii. 24 ; viii. 27. 
 
 * viii. 30, 31 ; cf. ix. 9. ^ x. 48. 
 
 ® xii, 1-9; xiv. 61. Holtzmann (Einleihmfj, p. 359) points out that in 
 S. Matthew our Lord is recognized as the Messiali from the beginning. 
 He is recognized by the Baptist and proclaimed by the voice from heaven 
 (iii. 14, 17 ; contrast Mark i. 11). Twice also S. Matthew omits the in- 
 junction of secrecy (cf. Matt. ix. 26, xv. 31 with Mark v. 43, vii. 36), and 
 he further obliterates the gradual character of the revelation by inserting 
 before S. Peter's confession the designation of our Lord by the blind and 
 afflicted as tlie ' Son of David,' and by the disciples as the ' Son of God.' 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mivk. 67 
 
 but with no special . leaning towards Hebraistic con- 
 structions. In fact, actual Hel)raisnis are rare in the 
 Gospel^, although the Evangelist does not shrink from 
 incorporating Aramaic words and expressions, to which, 
 however, he usually appends a Greek translation'-. On 
 the other hand there is a striking number of Latin forms, 
 which seem to point to the Roman origin of the Gaspel •'. 
 Wo have already seen how he uses colloquial and inelegant 
 words which were condemned by grammarians. Other 
 characteristics of Hellenistic Greek which appear in 
 S. Mark are the ' constructio ad sensum ' in the use of 
 gender and number*, the use of dvai with the participle 
 instead of the simple verb ^, the construction with Iva 
 in place of the infinitive*^, and a general neglect of the 
 fine distinctions which classical Greek drew with regard 
 to the meaning of a preposition when used with different 
 cases '. 
 
 As regards the form and structure of the sentences, 
 they are as a rule simply co-ordinated with Kai, for 
 which sometimes hi is substituted without any apparent 
 
 ^ Ho 5uo vi. 7 (cf. vi. 39, 40) ; fiXiiruv airo viii. 15, xii. 38. Tlie nominative 
 with the article in place of the vocative, v. 41, ix. 25, xiv. 36 ; €t express- 
 ing a strong negative assertion, viii. 12. Possibly also there should be 
 included in the list redundant expressions such as ov . . . avrov (i. 7, cf. 
 vii. 25', otos . . . ToiovTos vxiii. 19), olos . . . ovtojs (ix. 3). 
 
 2 iii. 17 ; V. 41 ; vii. 11, 34 ; x. 46 ; xiv. 36 ; xv. 22, 34. 
 
 ^ aneKOvKciTajp vi. 27; KfVTvpicuv xv. 39, 44, 45; ^iarr^i .scxtarius) vii. 4. 
 These are peculiar to S. Mark. In common witli other N. T. writers ho 
 has KodpavTTjs (Matt.), ktjvctos (Matt.), ippa-yiKKovv (Matt.), Xi-^tuv (Matt., 
 Luke), -npaiTwpiov (Matt., John, Acts'*, Z-qvapiov Matt., Luko, Jolin). To 
 these may perhaps be added icpa^^aros (.John, Acts), and tlie expressions 
 rd iKnvov TToieiv (xv. 15 = sati.sfacere, cf. Acts xvii. 9 Ikovuv Kan^avuv), 
 pania fxacl Tiva \api0dv(iu (xiv. 65 = verberibus aliquem acciperc), and u5uy 
 noiuv (ii. 23 = iter facerc'. 
 
 * e.g. ii. 13; iii. 8; iv. i ; v. 24 ; ix. 15, 20; xiii. 14. 
 ^ e. g. i. 6, 22, and ixissim. 
 
 • e.g. iii. 9 ; V. 10, 18 ; vi. 25 ; vii. 26 ; ix. 9, 12, 18, 30; x. 35, 37, 51 ; 
 xi. 16; xiv. 35. 
 
 ' e.g. firi with the accusative wlitn no th<.ii;;lit uf motion is iiiv(.l\<<l ; 
 ii. 14 ; iv. 38; xi. 2; xiii. 2; napa iv. i ; v. 21 ; x. 46. Cf. the 'pnguanf 
 use of <ts in i. 9; x. 10; xiii. i6. 
 
 ¥ 2 
 
68 TJie Origin and Characteristics 
 
 intention on the part of the author to point a contrasts 
 Like S. John, S. Mark often resolves a single clause 
 into two or more co-ordinate ones, instead of appending 
 participles according to the ordinary Greek idiom ^. In 
 long sentences anacolutha are by no means a rarity^. 
 Not infrequently we find in place of a pronoun the 
 subject or principal word of the sentence repeated'*, 
 but this is not so noticeable a featu]-e of the second 
 as it is of the fourth Gospel, and S. Mark can by no 
 means be said to avoid pronouns, for the continual 
 repetition of avro^ is a distinctive characteristic of his 
 style ^. Sometimes again we find that the subject or 
 the object of the sentence is completely absent^. They 
 seem to have been so vividly present to the writer that 
 he as it were passes them over unconsciously. 
 
 We may, perhaps, take these last two peculiarities, 
 the repetition and omission of the subject, as repre- 
 sentative of the two main features of S. Mark's style, 
 cii'cumstantiality and vividness. There is a breadth and 
 completeness about his sentences which arises partly 
 from the fact that he does not hesitate to repeat a w^ord 
 again and again in cases where a more finished Greek 
 writer would have altered the phrase ^^ partly from his 
 fondness for explanatory clauses (some of w^hich, however, 
 as we have seen, are to be referred to a later hand), and 
 most of all from his habit of coupling together similar 
 phrases in order to heighten and define his meaning. 
 
 ^ e.g. in X. 1-7, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26. 
 
 2 e. g. i. 36 ; iv. 8, 38 ; v. 33, &c. 
 
 ^ e.g. iv. 31, 32; vi. II ; vii. 11, 12 ; xiii. 34, 35. Cf. also constructions 
 like l^cA^wTos avTov . . . VTrrjVTTjaev avrw (v. 2; cf. v. 18, 21 ; ix. 28; x. 17; 
 xi. 27). 
 
 * e.g. i. 16; ii. 19, 20; iii. 23, 27 ; v. 40, 41, 42, &c. 
 
 5 e.g. i. 41-44; iii. 9? 12, 13^ 3I7 32; iv. 2; v. 19, &c. 
 
 ® e.g. ii. 18, 21 ; iii. 2; v. 14, 35; viii. 14, &c. 
 
 ' e. g. ii. 6-8, 19 ; iv. 37 ; v. 13 ; vi. 35 ; ix. 37 ; x. 49 ; cf. also expressions 
 like a.TTi.ari'yaoav <TT(y7]v (ii. 4) ; e^eaTrjaav iKardaii fjLtya\r) {y. 42; ; jy kin-ypa<prj 
 eiTiycypafifxh'r] (xv. 26. 
 
of the Gospel of S. Mark. 69 
 
 For instance, 'at even when tlie snn <li(l set;' * straight- 
 way with haste;' 'from within, out of the lieart of 
 men;' 'the wind censed, and there was a great calm'.' 
 It was this characteristic which gave some colour to the 
 theory that the Gospel was an epitome of S. j\fatthow 
 and S. Luke, a hypothesis which completely fell to tho 
 ground when it was seen that instances of this ' duality ' 
 occur in places wdiere S. Mark could not possibly havo 
 combined phrases from the other Gospels, and that it is 
 therefore an integral element in his style. Perhaps the 
 most striking as well as the commonest form which this 
 duality takes is the conjunction of a positive and a nega- 
 tive statement. Thus, ' He tauoht them as one havinej 
 authority and not as the scribes ; ' ' The sabbath was 
 made for man, and not man for the sabbath ; ' ' He cannot 
 stand, but hath an end;' 'But he held his peace and 
 answered nothing ^ : ' and it w^ould be easy to multiply 
 instances. 
 
 The second main characteristic of the style of S. Mark 
 is its peculiar vividness. The interest of the reader is 
 kept up by the recurrence of such phrases as ' straight- 
 w^ay/ ' He began to say unto them,' and the like, wdiich 
 direct the attention to a particular point of time, and so 
 materially assist the imagination in the realization of 
 the scene. But still more striking in this connexion is 
 the effect produced by the employment of the historic 
 present. Again and again in the Gospel the present 
 tense appears to mark the point of an incident, the centre 
 in which the interest of the story culminates^. Many 
 of our Lord's most striking sa}ings are introduced hy 
 the words 'He saith unto them,' or a similar formula'. 
 And it is noticeable how even where S. Mark ai)pears 
 
 ' i. 32; vi. 25; vii. 21 ; iv. 39. 
 
 * i. 22 ; ii. 27 ; iii. 26 ; xiv. 61. 
 
 " ii. 1-3; ii'- 13-35; iv. 37. ^''^ 
 
 * ii. 8, 10, 17; iii 3} ; vi. 31. 50; vii. 31 ; viii. 12, 33, &u. 
 
yo The Origin and Characteristics 
 
 to be giving merely a condensed summary of a conver- 
 sation or a discourse, he presents this summary in the 
 form of one or two striking sentences such as woukl 
 indehbly imprint themselves on the memories of his 
 readers ^. 
 riaco of ((/) One word more remains to be said as to the place 
 in'tiie"^'^^ wliich the second Gospel occupies in the ' economy of 
 eronomy i-gyeiation.' It contains little which is not told us else- 
 
 ot revela- 
 tion, where ; it lacks the didactic wealth of S. Matthew, the 
 
 pathos and grace of S. Luke, the theological depth of 
 S. John; and yet when it is realized that it is the 'original 
 Gospel' ^ar excellence, the earliest record of our Lord's 
 life of which we have any knowledge, its supreme value 
 becomes at once apparent. It is the foundation-stone of 
 the Gospel history, the necessary substructure on which 
 the whole fabric rests. Theology still suffers from the 
 effects of a former tendency to depreciate the Syn- 
 optic Gospels and especially S. Mark in comparison with 
 S. Paul and with S. John, a tendency which had fatal 
 results in many quarters, and especially in apologetics. 
 It seemed to many as if the figure of our Lord had become 
 dim and faded : they lost the power of realizing Him as 
 He lived and moved on the earth, and in consequence 
 lost also all faith in Him as a still living Being who 
 stands to us in the closest of all relations. The saying 
 of a modern writer that one of the chief problems of 
 education is how to present Christ to children without 
 'introducing Him to them in a buckram of ecclesiastical 
 dogma ' was profoundly representative of a general feeling. 
 A cry arose for the historical Christ. And however irra- 
 tional it may have seemed to men whose faith remained 
 undisturbed in the midst of the prevailing distress, yet 
 
 * The use of on to introduce the ' oratio recta,' which is not a feature 
 peculiar to S. Mark, seems often to indicate such condensed reports ; cf. 
 e.g. i. 15, 37; ii. 16; iii. 22; v. 23; vi. 4, 18, 35; vii. 20; viii. 16; ix. 11, 
 31; X. 33; xiv, 58, 69, 71, 72. 
 
of tlic Gospel of S. Mark. 71 
 
 it was on the whole a justifiable and oven a noble demand. 
 It sprang from one of the most deeply rooted aspirations 
 of our nature, the desire to got behind traditional beliefs 
 and systems and bring them to the test of truth itself as 
 embodied in actual historical fact. 
 
 Unfortunately just at the time when this desire was 
 perhaps most keenly felt, about forty years ago, the 
 dominance of the Tubingen school of criticism prevented 
 an appeal to the Gospel of S. Mark. It is a matter rather 
 for regret than for surprise that when a false historical 
 theory led critics to bring down the dates of all the 
 Gospels well into the second century, doubts should arise 
 about the possibility of knowing Christ as He really was. 
 But the progress of criticism has taught us much: it has 
 placed S. Mark in its true relation to the other Gospels, 
 and by doing so it has presented us with a picture of 
 our Lord, which to any unbiassed mind must bear the 
 stamp of faithful portraiture. And the portrait which 
 it gives is not that of a merely human Christ. For if 
 one result has emerged more clearly than another from 
 our increased knowledge of the origins of Christianity, 
 it is that nothing but the most violent wrenching of 
 the evidence can leave us with a merely human or even 
 with an Arian Christ. Indeed in S. Mark, owing to the 
 general absence of discourses, the miraculous element liolds 
 a larger proportionate place than it does in any of tho 
 other Gospels. And if the account which has been given 
 of the origin of the Gospel is correct, if it represents one of 
 the earliest cycles of apostolic preaching, then it follows 
 that nothing can be further from the truth than to hold 
 that our Lord appeared to His contemporaries as only 
 a great moral teacher ; to regard the Sermon on the 
 Mount as the sum total and essence of early Cliristianity 
 and everything else, all theology properly so callfMl, as 
 a later accretion. To S. Mark Jesus Christ was a man 
 'speaking in ngliteousness,' but He was also more: He 
 
72 
 
 The origin and peculiar characteristics 
 
 was 'mighty 
 world and tJ 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library L 
 
 f.ord of the 
 
 1 1012 00056 7547 
 
 And so the* uui^u^ -Y«,iiiv. vx v.^v. ^.^^.^ — dispel lies in 
 the fact that it forms the basis of one great branch of 
 
 the evidences for the Cliristian faith, the historical testi- 
 mony of the Gospel records. Insistence on this point 
 involves no depreciation of the other three Gospels, for 
 each has its place, and each contributes its share to the 
 historical and dogmatic whole. Nor again should it lead 
 us to undervalue the presentation of the apostolic belief 
 in the Epistles, nor the validity of other branches of 
 evidence such as are afforded by the ^'stence of the 
 Catholic Church, and by the spiritual experience of in- 
 dividual believers. 
 
 But to some minds at least the moral beauty of the 
 figure of our Lord in the Gospels will always be the 
 most cogent of arguments for Christianity ; to many more 
 it will be the starting-point of their faith. From the 
 contemplation of Jesus as He appears in S. Mark they 
 will gradually advance to higher views of His person 
 and work : they will begin to understand the deeper 
 teaching of S. Paul and S. John on the mystery of the 
 Incarnation, until at length they come to grasp, as far 
 as limited humanity may, ' the measure of the stature of 
 the fulness of Christ.'