I 
 
 ■t-"?\. 
 
 
 i I 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 HI 
 
 |HHL 
 
 __Hwlffi rt -Ji<ft''£ i wag 
 

 M 
 
 111* 
 
 ffe J 
 
 <i« 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 Division SZ) ^)..j^.Zj. O O 
 Section., . » . . .f.?.t. ...Lj...l...*J 
 
 Number 
 
 
 

 ■ 
 
 
 
 ■C'*rr • ■ ■ 
 
 B 
 
 ,<v 
 
 ■ 
 
 I 
 
 i K -*% 
 
 H 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 TO S. MATTHEW 
 
S. Mark's Indebtedness 
 
 to S. Matthew 
 
 F. P. BADHAM, M.A. 
 
 EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD 
 
 LONDON 
 
 T. FISHER UNWIN 
 
 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 1897 
 
[All rights reserved] 
 
PROFESSOR HILGENFELD 
 
 BY ONE OF HIS DISCIPLES. 
 
" Marcus Pedisequus et Breviator Matthtci." 
 
 Augustine. 
 
Contents, 
 
 Preface ....... 
 
 Introduction, S. Luke's S. Mark . 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. Un-Judaic Character of S. Mark 
 
 II. Later Eschatology of S. Mark . 
 
 III. Glosses and Inflation . 
 
 IV. Picturesque Details 
 
 V. S. Matthew Twice Corrected in S 
 
 Mark 
 
 VI. Injunction of Secrecy (Mark v. 43) 
 
 VII. Abruptness of S. Mark 
 
 VIII. Omission of Peter Incidents (Matt 
 xvii. 24-27 ; xiv. 28-31) 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ix 
 
 8 
 12 
 
 38 
 
 5i 
 
 59 
 64 
 
viii CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 IX. Patchwork in Mark iii. 7-20 . . 75 
 
 X. Apostolic Mission and Charge (Mark 
 
 vi., xiii.) . . . . . .81 
 
 XI. Doublets and Incongruities in S. Mark 87 
 XII. Omission of Parables .... 93 
 
 XIII. Traces of Matt, i., ii 98 
 
 XIV. Guards at the Sepulchre . . .107 
 XV. Design and Style of S. Mark . .113 
 
 XVI. Evidence of Papias . . . .120 
 
 Conclusion . . . . . . .128 
 
Preface. 
 
 The object of this work is to prove that 
 S. Mark is generally posterior to S. Matthew. 
 There is of course nothing really novel in 
 such a view — S. Mark's posteriority was long 
 ago proclaimed at Tubingen. But Baur's 
 Tendenzkritik led the Tubingen pioneers to 
 the untenable position that S. Mark was 
 posterior to S. Matthew universally, posterior 
 also to S. Luke ; and a violent reaction 
 ensued, of which the effects still continue. 
 In Germany indeed the old tradition, modi- 
 fied at these extreme points, has been con- 
 sistently and uncompromisingly maintained 
 by Professor Hilgenfeld — to quote his own 
 
x PREFACE 
 
 words recently written, " The preference at 
 present shown for S. Mark is opposed to 
 the most certain conclusions of science " — 
 but Professor Hilgenfeld is the spokesman 
 of a minority, a minority which Dr. Davidson 
 represents in England almost solitarily. 
 
 As an exposition of the view now dominant 
 we may conveniently turn to the article 
 " Gospels," by Dr. Sanday, in Smith's Bible 
 Dictionary \ 2nd edition. Dr. Sanday declares 
 that the greater originality of S. Mark is, 
 " if not an assured result of criticism yet 
 rapidly becoming so ; " but he is obliged to 
 recognise that the claim " cannot be made 
 without reserve ; " and he follows with a 
 tentative conclusion that " there are distinct 
 layers in our present S. Mark, one layer 
 (commonly called 'ur-Marcus') that is earlier 
 than our S. Matthew, and another ('deutero- 
 Marcus ') that is later." 
 
 Thus Dr. Sanday. But even the most 
 
PREFACE xi 
 
 convinced of S. Mark's partisans can scarcely 
 regard the present situation as satisfactory, 
 for " ur-Marcus " and " deutero-Marcus " 
 have been in stock for a considerable period, 
 and the difficulty of separating them is just 
 as much a difficulty now as it was forty years 
 ago. Matters appear to be at a deadlock. 
 No one has ever succeeded in distinguishing 
 the two layers solidly, or in discovering any 
 internal signs of duality in S. Mark which 
 correspond with the variation of aspect to- 
 wards S. Matthew, or in subtracting from 
 S. Matthew any considerable amount of the 
 matter common to S. Mark without leaving 
 the remainder of S. Matthew unmanageable. 
 Besides, it has never been more than an 
 assumption, one of several explanations pos- 
 sible, that the dual aspect of S. Mark towards 
 S. Matthew is an index of duality of source. 
 The only essential difference in the situation 
 to-day from what it was forty years ago 
 
xii PREFACE 
 
 is the formidable increase of S. Mark's 
 supporters, — it is apparently their number 
 that convinces Dr. Sanday of S. Mark's 
 approaching triumph, — but the significance 
 of this increase may easily be over-rated. 
 The doctrine of S. Mark's originality, it so 
 happens, has appealed to a diversity of in- 
 terests ; and that Westcott, Abbott, and 
 Renan should have coincided in advocating 
 S. Mark's claims is a phenomenon which 
 loses in effect when we discover that the 
 reasons for their preference are to a great 
 extent internecine. 
 
 In the ensuing pages I have endeavoured 
 to collect instances of S. Mark's posteriority 
 sufficient to prove that posteriority to S. 
 Matthew is not the exception, but the rule ; 
 and I have also endeavoured to prove that 
 there are certain signs of duality in S. Mark 
 which do not at all correspond with the 
 variation of aspect towards S. Matthew. If 
 
PREFACE xiii 
 
 the proofs are adequate, there is no room 
 left for " ur-Marcus." 
 
 My thanks are due to the editors of the 
 Scottish Review and the Expository Times for 
 allowing me to reprint such portions of the 
 book as have already appeared in those 
 periodicals. 
 
 Reform Club, Pall Mall. 
 January 29, 1897. 
 
Introduction, 
 
 S. LUKE S S. MARK. 
 
 The sponsors of " ur-Marcus," drawing a 
 distinction between those sections of our 
 Second Gospel which re-appear in S. Luke 
 and those which do not, often maintain 
 that S. Luke was indebted not to our 
 canonical S. Mark, but to " ur-Marcus." l 
 An examination, therefore, of S. Luke's 
 
 1 That S. Luke is posterior to S. Mark with regard 
 to those sections which they have in common is now 
 generally admitted. One may notice that the unusual 
 vocabulary employed in the Second Gospel is modified, 
 and that glosses attach such as "could not come at 
 Him for the crowd," " for all live unto Him." Notice, 
 too, that the Second Advent is referred to more 
 vaguely, the siege of Jerusalem more definitely (Luke 
 
xVi INTRODUCTION 
 
 S. Mark forms an appropriate preliminary to 
 any attempt at determining the relationship 
 of S. Mark to S. Matthew. 
 
 S. Luke's Gospel, it must be remembered, 
 is composite. This is implied in the pre- 
 face, and, indeed, is evident from the 
 breaches of continuity in his work, and the 
 numerous repetitions and incongruities. But 
 composite though the Third Gospel is, it 
 is evidently far from being a mere compila- 
 tion, and one may fairly assume that when 
 S. Luke found his documents overlapping 
 he would sometimes make a sacrifice. Here, 
 then, we have adequate justification for many 
 of the gaps in S. Luke's S. Mark, viz., that 
 S. Luke's other document or documents 
 provided him with parallel accounts. For 
 example, we find in his Gospel different 
 accounts of the call of Peter, the Baptist's 
 relationship to Elias, the distinction of the 
 
 ix. 27 ; xxi. 7, 14, 20, 31), and that the owner of the 
 vineyard departs " for a long season." But the argu- 
 ment from such differences becomes superfluous if, as 
 I am endeavouring to show, the sections of S. Mark 
 repeated in S. Luke involve those omitted. 
 
INTRODUCTION xvii 
 
 greatest commandment, the warning to Peter, 
 the trial before the Sanhedrin, the military 
 outrages, and the attitude of the people 
 during the crucifixion (Luke v. i— 1 1 ; 
 i. 17 ; x. 25-28 ; xxii. 31-38, 66 b -jo ; 
 xxiii. 11, 35 a ). 
 
 Now for direct proof of excision. In the 
 seven cases above mentioned the contexts 
 from the Second Gospel which S. Luke 
 reproduces involve the matter omitted. 
 
 1. Simon's appearance as Christ's disciple 
 and host in Luke iv. 38 is abrupt and un- 
 explained. He ought to have been called 
 previously, as in Mark i. 16-20. 
 
 2. The statement in Luke ix. 36, with 
 regard to the Transfiguration, " the disciples 
 told no one in those days," leaves us wonder- 
 ing why not, and why the duration of their 
 silence should be mentioned. All is ex- 
 plained by reference to Mark ix. 9-13, 
 where Christ enjoins silence until after His 
 passion, this intimation that the Elias who 
 has just vanished will not reappear forming 
 direct preface to the important declaration 
 about the Baptist. 
 
xviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 3. "The scribes answered, Master, Thou 
 hast well said. For they durst not any more 
 ask Him any question " (Luke xx. 39, 40), 
 requires that a scribe should have questioned 
 Christ previously, as in Mark xii. 28-34. 
 
 4. In Luke xxii. 61 Peter calls to mind 
 Christ's warning rather after the form given 
 in Mark xiv. 30. And in Luke xxiv. 6, 7, 
 the quite unnecessary mention of Galilee, 
 carrying us as far back as the announcements 
 in Luke ix., receives its explanation from 
 Mark xiv. 28 ; xvi. 7. 
 
 5. In Luke xxii. 63-65 Christ is mocked 
 before His condemnation has supplied the 
 opportunity ; and in verse 71 the question 
 is asked, after a trial at which no witnesses 
 have been produced (contrast Mark xiv. 
 55"59)> "What further need have we of 
 witness ? " 
 
 6. The prophecy in Luke xviii. 31-34 
 requires that Christ should be mocked by 
 Romans, and spit upon, and scourged, as in 
 Mark xv. 15-20. 
 
 7. The "also" of Luke xxiii. 35 — "and 
 the rulers also scoffed " — is unjustified. We 
 
INTRODUCTION xix 
 
 ought to have some previous scoffers as in 
 Mark xv. 29. 
 
 Things being thus, deliberate omission 
 may be reasonably suspected whenever we 
 find a gap in S. Luke's S. Mark supplied 
 by his other document or documents. The 
 visit to Nazareth, the parable of the mustard 
 seed, " With what measure ye mete," the 
 request of James and John for the seats of 
 honour, the blasting of the fig tree, the 
 unction at Bethany, the prophecy of the 
 Apostles' dispersal (Mark vi. i-6 a ; iv. 
 
 30-32, 24; x. 35-45; xi - i2 -h> 20-25 ; 
 
 xiv. 3-9, 26-31) — all this is missing in the 
 Third Gospel, and we find the deficiency 
 supplied by Luke iv. 16-20; xiii. 18, 19; 
 vi. 38 ; xxii. 24-30; xiii. 6-9 ; vii. 36-50 ; 
 xxii. 31-38. But it is not only in the case 
 of documents overlapping that S. Mark 
 might be expected to make sacrifices. Sacri- 
 fices would also be called for by the exigencies 
 of dovetailing ; and, as before observed, the 
 Third Gospel is evidently no mere slavish 
 compilation. This much premised, to resume 
 our list of demonstrable omissions. 
 
xx INTRODUCTION 
 
 8. The close sequence observable in Mark 
 iii. 7-19 ; iv. 1-36 l is disturbed in Luke 
 vi. 12-19 ; v ^ n - 4> 22 > an d it may be 
 added that in Luke vi. 12-19 tne sequence 
 resulting is unnatural. Besides, in omitting 
 the boat pulpit S. Luke is omitting a detail 
 which occurs in the Second Gospel twice 
 (Mark iii. 9 ; iv. 1). 
 
 All this is explicable enough. A proper 
 context had to be constructed for the foreign 
 wedge (Luke vi. 20-viii. 3 a ). S. Luke was 
 already provided with a boat pulpit, and 
 could not have Christ in a boat for the 
 arrival of His relatives. Further, there was 
 a convenient locality for some of the dis- 
 persed matter to gravitate to. 2 
 
 9. A similar reason, the intrusion of a 
 foreign wedge (Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14), will 
 account for the sacrifice of Mark ix. 42- 
 
 1 Multitudes assemble. Therefore Christ appoints 
 twelve assistants. Christ embarks for the parables, 
 and in the evening, wearied, issues the command 
 to sail. 
 
 2 For a similar example of gravitation cf. Mark 
 xv. 41 with Luke viii. 3. 
 
INTRODUCTION xxi 
 
 x. 12. It ought to be added that S. Luke's 
 other document or documents provided him 
 with the divorce decision, also with the mill- 
 stone and salt metaphors (Luke xiv. 34, 35 ; 
 xvi. 18; xvii. 2). And it was "a hard 
 saying " that about cutting off hand and 
 foot. 
 
 Now for direct proof. This section sacri- 
 ficed contains a notice of Christ's journey 
 beyond Jordan (Mark x. 1). From thence 
 to Jerusalem He subsequently passes through 
 Jericho. But the omission of this journey 
 beyond Jordan in the Third Gospel leaves 
 Christ passing through Jericho on His way 
 from Galilee to Jerusalem, although it lies 
 quite out of the route. 
 
 10. Respect for S. Peter will account for 
 the sacrifice of his remonstrance and the con- 
 sequent rebuke (Mark viii. 32, 33). But 
 the absence of the remonstrance and rebuke 
 in Luke ix. leaves the severe tone of the 
 subsequent utterances quite unexplained. 
 
 1 1 . The account of the Baptist's imprison- 
 ment in Mark vi. being related quite out of 
 chronological order, it was very natural that 
 
xxii INTRODUCTION 
 
 S. Luke should attempt a rectification (Luke 
 iii. 18-20). But the result of rectifying is 
 that Herod's opinion about Christ (Luke 
 ix. 7-9) is left extraordinarily isolated ; and, 
 seemingly, a bit of the debris remains with 
 a wrong application (" Suiiropti" " fidiwg" 
 cf. Mark vi. 20). Notice, too, the pheno- 
 menal discrepancy of " John I beheaded, but 
 who is this ? " with " This is John whom I 
 beheaded ; " S. Luke's departure obviously 
 arising from the fact that under the altered 
 circumstances a direct assertion of John's 
 death was preferable to a reference. 
 
 12. S. Luke's procedure seems to have 
 been regulated, too, by a tendency to 
 abbreviate. He had to be careful in join- 
 ing two or more documents together that 
 his work did not exceed certain limits. A 
 comparison of the general style and phrase- 
 ology of the Second Gospel and the Third 
 tends to prove that S. Luke considered dis- 
 pensable much of the minute picturesque 
 detail in the Second. 1 But the points on 
 
 1 For example, notice mpipkhireaBai. This word occurs 
 six times in S. Mark (iii. 5, 34 ; v. 32 ; ix. 8 ; x. 23 ; 
 
INTRODUCTION xxiii 
 
 which I prefer to lay stress are more definite. 
 (#) The demand for Barabbas is not preceded 
 by a notice that the release of a prisoner was 
 customary. (F) Judas comes to kiss without 
 any notice that the kiss had been pre-arranged 
 as a token of identification. (Y) The stone 
 which the women find rolled away has not 
 previously been set in position, (d) Christ's 
 exclamation, " With swords and staves," is 
 unprepared for by a notice that the guard 
 were sent so armed. True that in some 
 MSS. these over-hasty erasures (except the 
 last) are supplied, but, considering the 
 authority of the MSS. which do not supply, 
 the variety of reading serves rather to 
 emphasize the original deficiency. 
 
 Let us now review our present position. 
 These twelve proofs of omission considered 
 together bring S. Luke's S. Mark very near to 
 our canonical S. Mark. But one consider- 
 able omission remains, Mark vi. 45-viii. 26 
 the walk on and stilling of the waves, 
 
 xi. 11), once in S. Luke (vi. 10 correspondent to Mark 
 iii. 5), and nowhere else in the New Testament. 
 
xxiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 the unwashed hands, the Syro-phoenician child, 
 the deaf stammerer of Decapolis, the 4000, 
 the demand for a sign, the caution against 
 leaven, and the blind man of Bethsa'ida. 
 This is the longest of all S. Mark's omissions, 
 and the sponsors of ur-Marcus have been 
 specially tempted to obelise the whole section. 
 Now the integrity of S. Mark is one question, 
 the integrity of S. Mark in relation to 
 S. Luke quite another, and we must keep 
 the two questions distinct. It may be 
 admitted that the narratives of the 4000 
 and the 5000 probably proceed from dif- 
 ferent sources. It may be admitted, too, 
 that there are breaches of continuity in 
 Mark vi. 35, 45, 53, 56 ; viii. 22 — the 
 disciples starting for Bethsa'ida and landing 
 at Gennesaret ; seeking for rest and quiet 
 (consider their arrival at Bethsa'ida subse- 
 quently, and its abruptness), and then tour- 
 ing through " cities and villages ! " But 
 it by no means follows because things are 
 thus that therefore S. Luke's S. Mark was 
 deficient. It by no means follows — quite 
 the reverse ! For the breach of continuity 
 
INTRODUCTION xxv 
 
 is not where S. Luke's omission begins, 
 between the 5000 and the walking on the 
 sea — there the connection is very close — but 
 between the walking on the sea and the 
 arrival at Gennesaret. Moreover, what 
 seems at first sight a singularly unpropitious 
 coincidence to allude to, the mention of 
 Bethsaida (for in Mark vi. 45 the disciples 
 sail to Bethsaida, while according to Luke ix. 
 10 they are at Bethsaida already), proves on 
 second examination a most signal proof of 
 S. Luke's reliance on Mark vi. 45. The 
 discrepancy, most phenomenal in its way, 
 for independent information just at this point 
 is quite the last hypothesis to resort to, is 
 all explained by reference to the Greek — 
 
 "tig to 7Tf/octv irpbg Brj0<rau}a(v)" which might 
 
 mean "to the side opposite from Bethsaida." 1 
 
 1 Bt]Qaaicav may just as well be a genitive as an 
 accusative. Cf. oval col Bt}6craieav, Matt. xi. 21 ; similarly 
 S, E Luke x. 13. Although it is more natural to 
 take BiiOaaiSav in Mark vi. 45 as an accusative, it must 
 be remembered that S. Luke may have been influenced 
 by the fact above noted that this interpretation is 
 difficult to reconcile with verse 53. 
 
 A similar lesson is taught by the discrepancy between 
 
xxvi INTRODUCTION 
 
 Thus S. Luke's omission of Mark vi. 45- 
 viii. 26 does not coincide with the line of 
 cleavage, which the phenomena in that section 
 perhaps require. But we may go further. 
 This section is stamped throughout with all 
 the peculiar characteristics of the Second 
 Gospel, characteristics which S. Luke often 
 reproduces. Notice especially the peculiar 
 phraseology and minute detail of the miracles 
 of Bethsa'ida and Decapolis, the medium em- 
 ployed in both cases, the wonder word, the 
 graduation of the blind man's recovery. Cha- 
 racteristic too, the report of Christ's gestures 
 and emotions, "lorlvalc," " avaaTEvatag" and 
 the Aramaic " Corban," " Ephphatha." 
 
 Thus S. Luke's acquaintance with Mark 
 vi. 45-viii. 26 appears inevitable ; and, when 
 we come to examine the section in detail, 
 and inquire into the reasons for S. Luke's 
 procedure, this impression is confirmed. S. 
 Luke was otherwise provided with accounts of 
 
 Luke xxii. 58 and Mark xiv. 69 : As the maid had 
 addressed not Peter, but " them that stood by," S. 
 Luke assumes that Peter's response was to one of these 
 bystanders, not to the maid. 
 
INTRODUCTION xxvii 
 
 the unwashed hands, the caution against leaven, 
 and the demand for a sign (see Luke xi. 29, 
 37-41 ; xii. 1). He had already recited 
 proof of Christ's power to still a storm and 
 multiply loaves. The violent conflict of 
 early traditions with regard to the blind- 
 deaf-dumb cures (cf. Matt. ix. 27-34 ; 
 xii. 22-24) rendered accuracy (see Luke 
 i. 1-4) impossible. And the Syro-phcenician 
 narrative, besides being particularly harsh 
 sounding for Gentile readers, was, as to every 
 edifying feature, — the mercy shown to a 
 Gentile, the Gentile's faith, the efficacy of 
 Christ's power from a distance — anticipated 
 by the miracle wrought for the Roman 
 Centurion. 
 
 In fine then, considering that so much 
 of the Second Gospel is involved by what 
 S. Luke repeats, and considering that 
 adequate reason for omission is never far 
 to seek, and, in addition, considering that 
 no distinction of diction or tendency has 
 ever been detected between the sections 
 repeated and those omitted, all things con- 
 sidered, it may be fairly concluded that no 
 
xxviii INTRODUCTION 
 
 proof of the existence of an ur-Marcus is 
 afforded by the Third Gospel. Setting apart 
 the last twelve verses (Mark xvi. 9-20), there 
 appears reason to believe that the S. Mark 
 which S. Luke employed was our canonical 
 S. Mark, whole and entire. We are left 
 to examine S. Mark's relationship to 
 S. Matthew untrammelled, unaided. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 UN-JUDAIC CHARACTER OF S. MARK. 
 
 One of the chief differences between S. Mat- 
 thew and S. Mark is the distinctly un-Judaic 
 character of the latter. It is a difference of 
 which advocates of S. Mark's priority have 
 scarcely realised the full import ; for though 
 it is conceivable that a Gospel prepared for 
 Gentiles should afterwards have received 
 some Judaic colouring, it is almost impos- 
 sible to imagine a colourist so attentive to 
 minutiae as the present case would require. 
 True that some of the most Judaic features 
 of S. Matthew occur in passages altogether 
 peculiar to that Gospel, and may perhaps be 
 derived from quite another source than the 
 sections paralleled in S. Mark ; but the 
 sections paralleled in S. Mark contain too 
 
2 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 many for this avenue of escape to remain open 
 very long. On one side or the other there 
 must have been deliberate alteration of the 
 text. 
 
 In reporting the incident of the corn- 
 plucking and the cure of the withered hand, 
 our Second Evangelist omits all mention of 
 " the Law," and of the priestly exemption 
 for purposes of ritual ; and in place of the 
 Rabbinical rule about sheep falling into pits, 
 he gives us the general principle as to saving 
 life or killing. He again omits all mention 
 of " the Law " in reporting the lawyer's 
 question. " Some say thou art Elijah" — he 
 omits " and others, Jeremiah " ; " that your 
 flight be not in the winter " — he omits " nor 
 on a Sabbath " ; " the abomination of desola- 
 tion " — he omits " spoken of by Daniel " ; 
 " no sign given you " — he omits " save the 
 sign of Jonah." 
 
 The omission last mentioned is especially 
 interesting, for the reference to Jonah is one 
 of those things that occur in the First Gospel 
 twice (Matt. xii. 39 ; xvi. 4), and in the 
 eyes of many critics these doublets are 
 evidence of the combination of two distinct 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 3 
 
 documents. In any case, the fact of the 
 double occurrence renders it very unlikely 
 that " save the sign of Jonah " is a post- 
 addition. Similar remarks apply to S. 
 Mark's omission of the twice quoted pas- 
 sage, "mercy not sacrifice" (Matt. ix. 13 ; 
 xii. 7). 
 
 He omits the name of the High Priest 
 who condemned Christ, presumably because 
 of little interest to his readers (Mark xiv. 
 1, 53) ; and for those ignorant of the topo- 
 graphy of Jerusalem, he explains that the 
 Mount of Olives overlooked the Temple 
 (Mark xiii. 3). Aramaic words are used, 
 not casually, as in Matt. v. 22 ; xxvii. 6, 
 but at calculated points, and with the mani- 
 fest object of impressing an audience un- 
 familiar with Aramaic (see Mark v. 41 ; vii. 
 1 1 ; viii. 34) ; I and though " Eli, Eli," 
 in Matt, xxvii. 46, may seem analogous, it 
 is not really so, being requisite to explain the 
 jibe about Elias. 
 
 Notice again S. Mark's omission of the 
 prophecy quoted in Matt. xiii. 14, 15. 
 
 1 That Aramaic phrases are no token of primitive- 
 ness is proved by the Acta Pilati. 
 
4 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 Surely we find a relic of this prophecy in 
 Mark iv. 12 : " That they may not perceive, 
 lest haply they should turn again and it 
 should be forgiven them." The quotation 
 being from the lips of our Lord Himself 
 it seems, prima facie, far likelier that the 
 shorter form in S. Mark is an abbreviation 
 than that the lengthier form in S. Matthew 
 is an expansion. 
 
 In his report of the rich ruler's inquiry 
 S. Mark omits the Chiliastic promise, " In 
 the regeneration ye shall sit on twelve 
 thrones judging the twelve tribes " — an 
 omission which makes the subsequent re- 
 quest of James and John for the two chief 
 thrones sudden and abrupt. In the brief 
 denunciation of Scribes and Pharisees (Mark 
 xii. 38-40, contrast Matt, xxiii.) his intro- 
 ductory phrase l v rrj S&axy avrov f'Acyf, " said 
 in the course of teaching," is suggestive of 
 his knowing more than it was to his purpose 
 to report. By omitting Christ's declaration 
 about the need of fulfilling all legal righteous- 
 ness he leaves Him undistinguished from 
 the penitents who come " confessing their 
 sins." By omitting " then shall appear the 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 5 
 
 sign of the Son of man in heaven : and then 
 shall all the tribes of the earth mourn/ ' he 
 leaves the subsequent o^povrm (" then shall 
 they see ") without a subject. 
 
 Still more significant is his treatment of 
 the Syro-phcenician narrative. He omits the 
 first repulse and Christ's declaration of being 
 sent only to " the lost sheep of Israel " 
 (Matt. xv. 24) ; and thus plunging in medias 
 res he leaves the woman's abject attitude 
 unaccounted for, and also, to some extent, 
 Christ's commendation. But especially notice 
 the statement with which he replaces the 
 matter omitted : " Jesus entered into a house, 
 and would have no man know it, and He 
 could not be hid " ; for here the narratives 
 in S. Matthew and S. Mark are running too 
 parallel for independent information to be 
 reasonably expected, and while it is obviously 
 impossible to derive S. Matthew's description 
 from S. Mark's, the reverse process is easy. 
 S. Mark's new detail looks like an excuse for 
 and explanation of what he does not relate : 
 the request of the disciples, " Send her away 
 for she crieth after us," being interpreted as 
 a desire to avoid publicity, not a reflection 
 
6 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 on the woman's Gentile birth, it would seem 
 natural that her second approach should be 
 timed when the privacy of a house afforded 
 the opportunity needed. 
 
 If it be admitted that our Second Evan- 
 gelist had Matt. xv. 21-28 in his hands, 
 then it seems probable that he also had the 
 analogous passage in Matt. x. 5, 6: "Go 
 not into any way of the Gentiles : go rather 
 to the lost sheep of Israel. " 
 
 Before quitting the subject of the un- 
 Judaism of our Second Evangelist, attention 
 is due to his constant explanation of Jewish 
 customs and softening down of Jewish termi- 
 nology. The Preparation is explained as 
 " the day before the Sabbath," and the first 
 day of unleavened bread as that " on which 
 the Passover must be slain." We are in- 
 formed that " common " is synonymous with 
 " unclean " ; that John's disciples and the 
 Pharisees were in the habit of fasting ; that 
 amongst Jews it was of traditional obli- 
 gation to wash the hands before eating and 
 after marketing. (In passing, notice what an 
 awkward repetition this long digression about 
 ablutions necessitates : "had seen that some 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 7 
 
 of His disciples ate with defiled hands " ; 
 "Why do they eat with defiled hands ? "). 
 "Greek" takes the place of " Canaanite" ; 
 " healed " is twice explained by " taught " ; 
 " long robes " replace the large fringes and 
 broad phylacteries of Matt, xxiii. 5 ; and for 
 the Oriental metaphor of bearing the shoes 
 is substituted " unloose the latchet." Such 
 differences between S. Matthew and S. Mark 
 are of course merely superficial, but cumula- 
 tively they have force. 
 
 In fine, the un-Judaism of S. Mark is con- 
 sistent, systematic, and eminently artificial. 
 We have no artless scribe, writing down all 
 he knows without regard to the impression 
 he will produce, but one who is distinctly 
 eclectic. 
 
S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 LATER ESCHATOLOGY OF S. MARK. 
 
 A comparison of the Eschatology of S. 
 Mark and S. Matthew reveals some signifi- 
 cant differences which tell strongly for the 
 priority of S. Matthew. 
 
 In Matt. x. 23 Christ promises that the 
 Messianic reign shall commence before His 
 disciples have visited all the cities of Israel, 
 but just at this point the replica in Mark 
 xiii. 9-13 stops short. It is conceivable, of 
 course, that this verse is a post-addition ; but 
 its peculiarly Judaic character, its close con- 
 nection with what precedes (cf. " To the lost 
 sheep of Israel "), and the fact that it com- 
 pletes the parallel to Matt. xxiv. 14-19, 
 render the idea of post-addition exceedingly 
 improbable. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 9 
 
 In Matt. xvi. 28 Christ declares that 
 " some stand here which shall in no wise 
 taste of death till they see the Son of man 
 coming in His kingdom ; " but in Mark 
 ix. 1, "in no wise taste of death till they 
 shall see the kingdom of God come with 
 power." The original idea was surely of the 
 personal advent, for it is of His coming with 
 the angels that Christ has just spoken, and 
 of rendering to every man according to his 
 works. Does not the interpretation in an 
 impersonal sense — " some standing here shall 
 see My gospel triumph " — indicate a time 
 when the expectation that Christ would 
 return during the lifetime of His immediate 
 followers was already disappointed ? 
 
 So, again, with regard to the great final 
 charge in Matt. xxiv. We are told that 
 " this gospel shall be preached to all 
 nations ; and then shall the end come." 
 The ovv in the next verse (" When there- 
 fore ye see ") makes the setting up of the 
 great abomination a sign of the beginning 
 of the end. And, further on, the darken- 
 ing of the sun and the appearance of the 
 Son of man on the clouds of heaven follow 
 
io S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 the desolation of Jerusalem evOiwg — " imme- 
 diately after the tribulation of those days." 
 But in Mark xiii. these prophecies appear 
 with such difference as to suggest that a 
 difficult interval after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem has already elapsed. "The gospel 
 must first be preached to all nations," re- 
 peats the Second Evangelist, but in a covert 
 sort of way, and without telling us that when 
 missionaries to all nations have gone forth, 
 " then shall the end come." The setting up 
 of the great abomination is introduced by SI 
 instead of ovv. And the advent of Christ fol- 
 lows the destruction of Jerusalem indefinitely 
 — " In those days after that tribulation." 
 
 It is perhaps worth noticing, too, that 
 instead of S. Matthew's " standing in the 
 holy place," we have in Mark xiii., "stand- 
 ing where it ought not." The variation 
 may be merely due to S. Mark's un-Judaic 
 design, but it may also be due to the fact 
 that the flight to Pella was not occasioned 
 by the setting up of any idol in the Temple 
 itself. The general expectation of an idol 
 in the Temple was never realised, and ex- 
 pounders of prophecy appear to have been 
 
TO S. MATTHEW n 
 
 thrown back on the Roman eagles that 
 encircled Jerusalem (cf. Luke xxi. 20). 
 
 With regard to the final paragraph (Mark 
 xiii. 33-37) it is difficult to conclude any- 
 thing definitely, for its place in S. Matthew 
 is taken by matter apparently derived from 
 another source altogether (see pp. 130, 131). 
 Still there are points that may be noticed. 
 The extended exhortation, "What I say unto 
 you, I say unto all, Watch," seems to 
 carry us beyond Apostolic times. And the 
 words, " whether at cock-crow or in the 
 morning," would have been most fittingly 
 addressed to men already wearied with the 
 midnight vigil. 
 
S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 GLOSSES AND INFLATION. 
 
 The following table of parallel passages 
 speaks for itself. It will be perceived that 
 S. Mark develops his material, softens 
 asperities, explains ambiguities, heightens 
 effects, and generally strains after emphasis 
 and intensity. Of course, in many of these 
 cases, considered separately, the obligation 
 might be in either direction — S. Matthew 
 might have pruned, toned down, &c. — but 
 considering them altogether one can see 
 that there is a unity on the positive side 
 and not on the negative. To suppose that 
 S. Matthew had predilections exactly anti- 
 thetical to those of S. Mark is to suppose 
 a literary miracle. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 ■3 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " How hardly they that 
 have riches." 
 
 " Shall receive a hun- 
 dred-fold, and inherit 
 eternal life." 
 
 " They which rule." 
 
 " He prayed, Father, 
 let this cup pass from 
 Me." • 
 
 Father, if it be pos- 
 
 ible.' 
 
 "A renowned prisoner' 
 (ambiguously). 
 
 He shall not honour." 
 
 s. MARK. 
 
 Qualified, "That trust 
 in riches." 
 
 Precluding Chiliastic in- 
 terpretation, " A hundred- 
 fold more in this time with 
 persecutions, and in the 
 world to come eternal 
 life." 
 
 Reserving the real sove- 
 reignty to God, "They 
 which seem to rule." 
 
 With explanation, " He 
 prayed that the hour might 
 pass from Him, saying." 
 
 Lest the Divine power 
 should seem to be limited, 
 " Father, all things are 
 possible unto Thee, if it 
 be possible." 
 
 Renowned, but for his 
 crimes, " Lying bound 
 with them that had made 
 insurrection, men who in 
 the insurrection had com- 
 mitted murder." 
 
 Subdued, "Ye no longer 
 suffer him to do anything 
 for." 
 
H 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 He granted the body." 
 
 " M.7]dk pa(3cov, [iTjdk vTrodi)- 
 /tara.' 1 
 
 " Then come the dis- 
 ciples of John, saying, 
 Why do we fast and Thy 
 disciples not?" 
 
 "The disciples had in- 
 dignation, saying, To what 
 purpose is this waste ? " 
 
 s. MARK. 
 
 Precluding any cavil 
 that Christ merely re- 
 vived from a swoon, " He 
 marvelled if he were 
 already dead, and calling 
 unto him the centurion, 
 he asked him whether he 
 had been any while dead. 
 And when he had learned 
 it of the centurion, he 
 granted the corpse." 
 
 Mitigated, "Ei /m) papcov 
 
 fiovov, d\\d vTTocecEfievovg 
 oavddXia" Notice in this 
 case the two awkward 
 ruptures of construction 
 that the alteration in- 
 volves, "He charged them 
 that they should not take 
 . . . but shod with san- 
 dals . . . and do not put 
 on two coats." 
 
 Acquitting John's dis- 
 ciples, " They come and 
 say, Why do John's dis- 
 ciples ? " 
 
 Softened, " There were 
 some that had indigna- 
 tion." 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 *5 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " Why do ye also trans- 
 gress the commandment of 
 God that ye may keep your 
 tradition. . . . Well did 
 Isaiah prophesy of you, 
 1 Teaching as their doc- 
 trines the precepts of 
 men.' " 
 
 Avoiding the self- in - 
 criminating "also;" ap- 
 plying the prophecy di- 
 rectly ; and altering the 
 order so as to graduate 
 Christ's condemnation, 
 " Well did Isaiah pro- 
 phesy, ' Teaching as their 
 doctrines the precepts of 
 men.' Ye leave the com- 
 mandment of God, and 
 hold fast the tradition of 
 men. And he said, Full 
 well do ye reject the com- 
 mandment of God that ye 
 may keep your tradition." 
 
 Herod the tetrarch. 
 
 Inaccurately, Herod the 
 king. 
 
 " There went out Jeru- Improved, " They of 
 
 salem." Jerusalem." 
 
 " Answered nothing." Noticing that Christ 
 
 had already answered, 
 " No more answered any- 
 thing." 
 
 " Digged a winepress." More exactly, "a pit 
 
 for the winepress." 
 
i6 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " Whosoever shall put 
 away his wife." 
 
 s. MARK. 
 
 Further providing for 
 a contingency impossible 
 under the Jewish law, but 
 common enough in Greece 
 and Rome, " And if she 
 herself shall put away her 
 husband." 
 
 "The other Mary," With specification, 
 
 "James," "the sons of "Mary of Joses," " James 
 Zebedee," "Simon of the Less," "James and 
 
 Cyrene.' 
 
 " Preached saying, Re- 
 pent." 
 
 " Began to preach. 
 " Repent." 
 " For My sake." 
 " The Spirit." 
 
 John the sons of Zebe- 
 dee," " the father of Alex- 
 ander and Rufus." 
 
 " Preached a baptism of 
 repentance unto remission 
 of sins." 
 
 " Preaching the gospel 
 of God." 
 
 " Repent, and believe 
 in the gospel." 
 
 "For My sake and the 
 gospel's" (twice). 
 
 "The Holy Spirit" 
 (twice). 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 *7 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " Seeing a fig-tree, He 
 came." 
 
 " If a man die 
 the second . . , 
 seventh." 
 
 , . . and 
 unto the 
 
 s. MARK. 
 
 " Seeing a fig-tree with 
 leaves, He came if haply 
 He might find anything 
 thereon." 
 
 " Die and leave a wife 
 behind him . . . and the 
 second ; neither left he 
 any seed ; and the seven, 
 and left no seed." 
 
 " He saw Peter's mother- 
 in-law sick of a fever." 
 
 He called them." 
 
 White as the light. 
 
 "And Simon's mother- 
 in-law was sick of a fever, 
 and straightway they tell 
 Him of her. And He 
 came." 
 
 " He said, Call ye him. 
 And they call the blind 
 man, saying unto him, Be 
 of good cheer, rise, He 
 calleth thee. And he 
 sprang up and came." 
 
 " Glistering, exceeding 
 white, so as no fuller on 
 earth can whiten them." 
 
 " And Jesus was going 
 up to Jerusalem." 
 
 " They were in the way 
 going up to Jerusalem, and 
 Jesus was going before 
 them." 
 
i8 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " Asking a certain thing. 
 And He said, What wouldst 
 thou ? " 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 " Saying, Master, we 
 would that Thou shouldest 
 do for us whatsoever we 
 shall ask of Thee. And 
 He said, What would ye 
 that I should do for you ? " 
 
 " Say to such a one, I 
 keep the passover in thy 
 house." 
 
 " Say to the good man 
 of the house, Where is my 
 guest-chamber ? And he 
 will himself show you a 
 large upper room, fur- 
 nished and. ready : and 
 there make ready for us." 
 
 " Did as Jesus appointed 
 them." 
 
 " Went forth, and came 
 to the city, and found as 
 He had said unto them." 
 
 Said to them." 
 
 " Began to tell them the 
 things that were about to 
 happen to Him, saying." 
 
 "Take up thy bed. And 
 he arose and departed." 
 
 "Take up thy bed. And 
 he arose and straightway 
 took up the bed, and went 
 forth before them all." 
 
 "When Herod's birth- 
 day came." 
 
 "When a convenient 
 day was come that Herod 
 on his birthday." 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 Pleased Herod. 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 "Pleased Herod, and 
 them that sat at meat with 
 him." 
 
 " She being put forward 
 by her mother, saith, Give 
 me here the head of John 
 the Baptist." 
 
 " She went and said to 
 her mother, What shall I 
 ask ? And she said, The 
 head of John the Baptist. 
 And she came in straight- 
 way with haste unto the 
 king and asked, saying, I 
 will that thou forthwith 
 give me the head of John 
 the Baptist." 
 
 " He sent and be- " Straightway he sent a 
 
 headed." soldier of his guard, and 
 
 commanded to bring his 
 head." 
 
 " Knowing 
 thoughts." 
 
 their 
 
 " For the sake of his 
 brother's wife. For John 
 said, It is not lawful to 
 have her." 
 
 " Straightway perceiv- 
 ing in His spirit that they 
 so reasoned within them- 
 selves." 
 
 Emphatic repetition, 
 "For the sake of his 
 brother's wife. For John 
 said, ' It is not lawful to 
 have thy brother's wife.' " 
 
20 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 "Many publicans and Emphatic repetition 
 
 sinners sat down with again, " Saw that He was 
 
 Him. And when they eating with publicans and 
 
 saw it." sinners." 
 
 " Every one that hath 
 left houses, brethren, sis- 
 ters, father, mother, chil- 
 dren, or lands shall receive 
 a hundred-fold." 
 
 " This generation. No 
 sign given unto it." 
 
 " Simon, and Andrew 
 his brother." 
 
 "James, and John his 
 brother." 
 
 "To what purpose is 
 this waste ? " 
 
 " No man hath left 
 houses, brethren, sisters, 
 mother, father, children, 
 or land, but he shall 
 receive a hundred-fold, 
 houses, brethren, sisters, 
 mothers, children, and 
 lands." 
 
 " This generation. No 
 sign given unto this 
 generation. 
 
 " Simon, and Andrew 
 brother of Simon." 
 
 "James, and John 
 brother of James." 
 
 " To what purpose hath 
 this waste of ointment been 
 made ? And they mur- 
 mured at her." 
 
 "Who gave thee this 
 authority ? " 
 
 " Who gave thee this 
 authority to do these 
 things?" 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 Offer." 
 
 " This man." 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 "Offer for thy cleans- 
 ing." 
 
 "This man of whom 
 ye speak." 
 
 " Save in his own 
 country." 
 
 " Save in his own 
 country and among his 
 own kin." 
 
 Cried." 
 
 "Cried with a loud 
 voice." 
 
 This wisdom." 
 
 "This wisdom that is 
 given to him." 
 
 In the beginning.' 
 
 "In the beginning of 
 the creation." 
 
 " Thefts, false witness, 
 railings." 
 
 Completing the cata- 
 logue, "Thefts, covetings, 
 wickednesses, deceit, las- 
 civiousness, an evil eye, 
 railing, pride, foolishness." 
 
 " When therefore they 
 were gathered together." 
 
 Unnecessarily explain- 
 ing the purpose, " They 
 went up and began to ask 
 him to do as he was wont 
 unto them." 
 
22 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " How many baskets ? 
 
 " Have ye not read ? 
 
 What David did?" 
 
 At even.' 
 
 As it dawned." 
 
 " Not many mighty 
 works." 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 " Baskets full of broken 
 pieces ? (twice). And they 
 say, Twelve . . . seven." 
 
 To readers but slightly 
 acquainted with the O. T., 
 " In the book of Moses, 
 in the place concerning 
 the Bush?" 
 
 More definitely, but 
 
 inaccurately, "In the 
 
 days of Abiathar the high 
 priest ? " 
 
 "At even when the sun 
 had set." 
 
 " Exceedingly early, 
 when the sun was risen." 
 
 " No mighty work, save 
 that He laid His hand 
 upon a few sick folk and 
 healed them." " 
 
 1 The greater harshness of S. Mark at this point 
 " ovk ISvvaro . . . mi LQavfiaZev" has led to a prejudice 
 in his favour. But " ko.1 k9avnaZ,tv" is not unique (see 
 Matt. viii. 10 ; Luke vii. 9) ; nor is " ouk icvvaro" (see 
 Luke v. 17) ; and an idea of the limitation of Christ's 
 power appears specially characteristic of our Second 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 23 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " They came to the 
 other side." 
 
 " Saying." 
 
 " His disciples came." 
 
 "And as they went 
 from Jericho." 
 
 "If ye have faith and 
 doubt not." 
 
 Cares of this world." 
 
 s. MARK. 
 
 " They came to the 
 other side, and when they 
 were come out of the 
 boat " (twice). 
 
 " When they were come 
 they say." 
 
 "When His disciples 
 heard thereof, they came." 
 
 " They came to Jericho. 
 And as they went from 
 Jericho." 
 
 "Have faith. Whoso- 
 ever shall not doubt in his 
 heart, but shall believe 
 that what he saith cometh 
 to pass." 
 
 "Cares of this world, 
 and the lusts of other 
 things entering in." 
 
 Evangelist (see Mark vii. 33, 34; viii. 23-25). " Ovk 
 lovvcLTo " may be merely an inference from " ovk kTroirjaev " ; 
 and " Kal lOav/xa^ev " and the other extra matter dividing 
 off " Sia tt)v a-Kmriav avruv " is marked by no hiatus 
 whatever in S. Matthew. 
 
24 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 " Less than all seeds." "Less than all seeds 
 
 that are upon the earth." 
 
 " Yielded fruit." » Yielded fruit, spring- 
 
 ing up and increasing and 
 brought forth." 
 
 "Must suffer many "Must suffer many 
 
 things and be killed." things, and be rejected 
 
 and killed." 
 
 "Afterwards He sent "He had yet one, a 
 
 unto them His son." beloved son : He sent him 
 
 last unto them." 
 
 "Thou son of God." "Jesus, thou Son of the 
 
 Most High God." 
 
 " Brought all who were " Began to carry about 
 
 sick." on beds those that were 
 
 sick." 
 
 "Told it in the city." "In the city and in the 
 
 country." 
 
 " I will make you fishers "I will make you to 
 
 of men." become." 
 
 "And followed Him." "And followed Him in 
 
 the way." 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 25 
 
 Emphatic Pointing. 
 
 s. matthew. s. mark. 
 
 " Out of the heart." " From within, out of 
 
 the heart." 
 
 " Whatsoever." "Whatsoever from with- 
 
 out." Cf. Mark iv. II, 
 " tKEivoig toIq tlfto." 
 
 "Passeth into the belly." "Cannot defile him, 
 
 because it goeth not into 
 his heart, but into his 
 belly." 
 
 " Taketh from it." " Taketh from it, the 
 
 new from the old." 
 
 "Destroy this temple "This temple made 
 
 and build in three days." with hands, and in three 
 
 days build another made 
 without hands." 
 
 " Sleep on now." " Sleep on now : it is 
 
 enough." 
 
 " Be not anxious." " Be not anxious before- 
 
 hand." 
 
 " Why trouble her ? " "Let her alone: why 
 
 trouble her ? She hath 
 done what she could." 
 
26 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 "For my burial." "Beforehand for my 
 
 burial." 
 
 "The kingdom of "The time is fulfilled, 
 
 heaven is at hand." and the kingdom of God 
 
 is at hand." 
 
 " Behold, I have told " Take ye heed ; behold 
 
 you." I have told you." 
 
 " Then shall they fast." " Then in that day." 
 
 " This night." " To-day, even this 
 
 night." 
 
 "From heaven or from "From heaven or from 
 
 men ? " men f Answer me." 
 
 " Saw no one save Jesus " Saw no one any more 
 
 only." save Jesus only with them- 
 
 selves." 
 
 "But with God all "But not impossible 
 
 things are possible." with God ; for with God 
 
 all things are possible." 
 
 " I have observed." " I have observed from 
 
 my youth." 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 27 
 
 EXCESSIVENESS. 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 " Peter saith." " Saith exceeding vehe- 
 
 mently." 
 
 "Wondered." "Wondered exceeding- 
 
 ly." (Cf. " Xiav Ik TCtpiooov " 
 Mark vi. 51.) 
 
 " Cried out the more." " Cried out the more a 
 
 great deal." 
 
 "Was grieved." "Was exceedingly 
 
 grieved." 
 
 " Saying." " Besought Him much, 
 
 saying " (twice). 
 
 " They marvelled." " Marvelled greatly," 
 
 R.V. 
 
 " Many followed." "The multitude cometh 
 
 so that they could not so 
 much as eat bread " 
 (twice). 
 
 " He saw the heavens " Rent asunder." 
 
 opened." 
 
 " Lifting up their eyes." " Suddenly looking 
 
 round." 
 
28 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 " There came one to u There ran one to Him 
 
 Him." and kneeled to Him." Is 
 
 there not something un- 
 natural in the ruler's 
 rushing forward so sud- 
 denly ? 
 
 "They followed from "They ran there to- 
 
 the cities." gether from all the cities 
 
 and outstripped them." 
 This simultaneous racing 
 "from all the cities " is still 
 more artificial. 
 
 " They sent into all " They ran about 
 
 that region." through all that region." 
 
 Reduplication and Redundancy. 
 
 "When they deliver "When they lead you 
 
 you up." and deliver you up." 
 
 " Take Him." " Take Him and lead 
 
 Him away safely." 
 
 " That she may live." " May be made whole 
 
 and live." 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 29 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 "I know not." "I neither know nor 
 
 understand." 
 
 "Was silent." "Was silent and an- 
 
 swered nothing." 
 
 " Do ye not yet per- " Not yet perceive 
 
 ceive ? " neither understand ? " 
 
 " Said." " Taught and said." 
 
 " Saying." " Beseeching Him and 
 
 saying." 
 
 " Was an hungred." " Had need and was an 
 
 hungred." 
 
 " Where wilt Thou " That we go and make 
 
 that we make ready ? " ready ? " 
 
 " Not go down into his " Not go down or enter 
 
 house." into." 
 
 " Send us into the " Into the swine that 
 
 swine." tnat we may enter into 
 
 them." 
 
 f " In the resurrection." " In the resurrection 
 
 when they rise." 
 
 " For the elect's sake." " For the elect's sake 
 
 whom He chose." 
 
3° 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " Your tradition. 
 
 " From the beginning 
 of the world." 
 
 " Show Me the tribute 
 money." 
 
 " Casting lots." 
 
 " They beat." 
 
 44 She arose." 
 
 " Who followed." 
 
 " They were astonished 
 exceedingly." 
 
 " The boat was covered 
 with waves." 
 
 s. MARK. 
 
 " Your tradition which 
 ye have delivered." 
 
 " From the beginning 
 of the creation which 
 God created." 
 
 " Bring Me a penny 
 that I may see it." 
 
 " Casting lots, what 
 each should take." 
 
 " They beat, and sent 
 away empty." 
 
 "Arose and walked." 
 
 " Who followed, and 
 came up with Him to 
 Jerusalem." 
 
 " They were amazed 
 
 at His words . . . they 
 
 were astonished exceed- 
 ingly." 
 
 " And the waves beat 
 
 into the boat, insomuch 
 
 that the boat was now 
 filling." 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 3i 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 " His leprosy was " His leprosy departed 
 
 cleansed." from him, and he was 
 
 made clean." 
 
 "And the woman was 
 made whole from that 
 hour." 
 
 " Is it lawful to give ? " 
 
 "Can they mourn as 
 long as the bridegroom is 
 with them ? " 
 
 " Promised with an 
 oath to give her whatso- 
 ever she should ask." 
 
 " Straightway the foun- 
 tain of her blood was 
 dried up, and she felt in 
 her body that she was 
 healed of her plague." 1 
 
 " Is it lawful to give ? 
 Shall we give, or shall we 
 not give ? " 
 
 " Can they fast while 
 the bridegroom is with 
 them ? As long as the 
 bridegroom is with them 
 they cannot fast." 
 
 " Saith, Ask of me 
 whatsoever thou wilt and 
 I will give it thee. And 
 he sware, Whatsoever 
 thou shalt ask of me, I 
 will give it thee, even 
 unto the half of my king- 
 dom." 
 
 1 Compare also S. Matthew's "He spake and saw" 
 with Mark vii. 35 ; viii. 25. 
 
32 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 " Besought Him saying, 
 If Thou cast us out." 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 " Besought Him much 
 that He would not send 
 them away out of the 
 country. And they be- 
 sought Him, saying." 
 
 After-thoughts. 
 
 " The poor ye have 
 always with you." 
 
 " Always with you, and 
 whensoever ye will ye 
 can do them good." 
 
 Will faint by the 
 
 way. 
 
 ' Will faint by the way, 
 for some of them come 
 from afar." 
 
 Herod heard." 
 
 "Heard, for his name 
 had become known." 
 
 " For the sake of 
 Herodias." 
 
 " For the sake of 
 Herodias, for he had 
 married her." 
 
 " He blasphemeth." 
 
 " He blasphemeth. Who 
 can forgive sins but 
 God?" 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 33 
 
 S. MATTHEW. S. MARK. 
 
 "False witnesses came." " False witnesses came, 
 
 and their witness agreed 
 not together " (twice). 1 
 
 " Drink ye all of it." "And they all drank 
 
 of it." 
 
 "Many publicans and "Sat down with Jesus, 
 
 sinners sat down with for there were many, and 
 Jesus." they followed Him." 
 
 " Brought to Him." " Began to carry where 
 
 they heard He was." 
 
 "When they saw Him." "When they saw Him, 
 
 for they all saw Him." 
 
 "When the multitude "And the people saw 
 
 heard." them go, and many knew 
 
 them." 
 
 Postscripts. 
 
 " Not of the dead, but " Not of the dead, but 
 
 of the living." of the living. Ye do 
 
 1 The non-agreement might easily be inferred from 
 St. Matthew's "They sought witness, and found it not, 
 although many false witnesses came." 
 
 4 
 
34 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 S. MATTHEW. 
 
 S. MARK. 
 
 greatly err." In this and 
 the four following cases 
 notice the impotency of 
 the conclusion. 
 
 And choked it." 
 
 " How shall his king- 
 dom stand ? " 
 
 "Choked it, and it 
 yielded no fruit." 
 
 ' "Cannot stand, but 
 hath an end." 
 
 " But the blasphemy 
 against the Spirit shall 
 not be forgiven." 
 
 " Making void the word 
 of God." 
 
 " Whosoever shall blas- 
 pheme against the Holy 
 Spirit hath never forgive- 
 ness, but is guilty of an 
 eternal sin : because they 
 said, He hath an unclean 
 spirit." 
 
 " Making void the 
 word of God : and many 
 such like things ye do." 
 
 In S. Matthew, " Herod said, This is John 
 the Baptist. He is risen"; in S. Mark, 
 " Herod said, John the Baptist is risen. But 
 others said, It is Elijah. And others, It is a 
 prophet even as one of the prophets. But 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 35 
 
 Herod said, John whom I beheaded, he is 
 risen." The extra matter in S. Mark looks 
 very like a slavishly-conceived justification 
 for the opinions held about Christ which the 
 disciples are presently to report. And notice 
 the awkward repetition of Herod's opinion 
 which this intercalation necessitates. 
 
 In S. Matthew, Herod desires to kill John, 
 but fears the people, for all account him a 
 prophet. In S. Mark, it is Herodias who 
 desires to kill, and Herod's respect for John 
 that prevents. The discrepancy is pronounced, 
 but the two Gospels at this point are running 
 too parallel to allow our taking refuge in the 
 hypothesis of independent traditions. We are 
 obliged then to infer the existence behind 
 both Gospels of a text susceptible of either 
 interpretation; but while, to arrive at it, we 
 have only to alter the text of S. Matthew 
 slightly (£•£"•, teal i']9eXev avrbv cnroKT&vai ' teal 
 Ityofiifir), on ttcivtsq tog Trpo(j>r}Tyv avrbv u\ov x ) y 
 we are obliged in the case of S. Mark to dis- 
 pense with several extra details, which are thus 
 shown to be secondary, — " She set herself 
 
 x Cf. Matt. xxi. 26. 
 
36 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 against him;" " He kept him safe;" "He was 
 perplexed and heard him gladly." 
 
 Again, it is surely a sign of posteriority 
 that the Second Evangelist should twice excuse 
 the Apostles' attitude, " For they wist not 
 what to say " ; should supply the moral to 
 be drawn from the Draught of Meats, " This 
 He spake making all meats clean ; " should 
 explain the Gadarene demoniac's ejaculation, 
 " What have I to do with Thee," by adding, 
 " For Jesus had said, Come forth, thou unclean 
 spirit ; " should give motive for Christ's 
 touching the leper, " Being moved with com- 
 passion ; " should extenuate the apparent 
 unkindness of, " They left their father in the 
 ship," by adding "with the hired servants;" 
 should account for Christ taking the Twelve 
 apart (Matt. xx. 17), by explaining that the 
 rest of the company were in a state of panic ; 
 should qualify the harshness of "It is not 
 meet to take the children's bread," by pre- 
 fixing " Let the children be fed first;" should 
 illustrate " Straightway ye shall find," by 
 making the disciples in very fact find the ass 
 in a gateway, and should represent the con- 
 tingency provided for, "If any man say aught," 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 37 
 
 as actually arising ; should illustrate " Go into 
 the city to such a man," by adding a note 
 for identification ; should account for the stern- 
 ness of " Behind me, Satan," by representing 
 the prediction of the Passion as uttered 
 Trapf>r)aia y and Peter as remonstrating in the 
 presence of the disciples (In this last case 
 there are awkward consequences, for our 
 Second Evangelist, requiring some enlargement 
 of audience for the utterances that follow, 
 avails himself of " the multitude," — forgetful 
 that Christ is in retirement at Caesarea 
 Philippi). Again, those statements in 
 Mark iv. 10, 33, 34, that Christ was " alone " 
 when questioned about the sower, and ex- 
 plained all things to the disciples " privately," 
 are they not due to a mistaken interpretation 
 of Matt. xiii. ? — for at the close of day Christ 
 is still sitting in the boat in the presence of the 
 multitudes ; and the notion of His selecting 
 an audience frustrates the invitation " He that 
 hath ears to hear, let him hear," and also the 
 reproach, " They close their ears." 
 
38 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE PICTURESQUE DETAILS. 
 
 Our consideration of the lengthier text in 
 S. Mark now brings us up facing that elabora- 
 tion of detail which S. Mark's champions never 
 weary of appealing to as infallible proof of 
 originality and eye-witness. There are, how- 
 ever, as Strauss and Davidson have recognised , 
 good grounds for a view quite contrary. 
 
 What an extraordinary conception of S. 
 Matthew we are driven to by the hypothesis 
 that the precise vivid details of S. Mark are 
 original ! For these details are absent from 
 S. Matthew one and all, and if the Matthasan 
 narratives are to be derived from those in S. 
 Mark, the conclusion is inevitable that the 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 39 
 
 author of the former was imprecise, unpictu- 
 resque deliberately ! 
 
 Again, on the hypothesis that the precise 
 vivid details are not the outcome of deter- 
 mined artistic design, but a natural result of 
 eye-witness, how strangely they sometimes 
 occur ! The first, " Kv\pag" in an utterance of 
 the Baptist's. The second, "with the wild 
 beasts," belonging to a time when Christ was 
 alone. From the exactitude of " even to the 
 half of my kingdom," are we to infer that the 
 artless eye-witness was actually present at 
 Herod's banquet ? Did he rush after Salome 
 from the banqueting-hall in order to overhear 
 her dialogue with Herodias ? Mark vii. 30, 
 "She found the child laid upon the bed," 
 would make the narrator the Syro-phoenician 
 herself; for who but she could describe the 
 scene that presented itself when she got home ? 
 Similarly, the scene in Mark v. 15 ("They 
 come to Jesus, and behold him that was pos- 
 sessed with devils sitting, clothed and in his 
 right mind, even him that had the legion : and 
 they were afraid ") is depicted from the point 
 of view of the Gadarenes. And all the eye- 
 witness in the world cannot account for S. 
 
4° 
 
 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 Mark's knowledge of the internal sensations 
 of the woman with the issue. 
 
 As a rule the sequence of events is definitely 
 noted ("on that day," " straightway after "), 
 and gestures and emotions are continually 
 reported (" looking round," " frowning," 
 " embracing," " sighing," " moved with in- 
 dignation," "with anger," "being grieved," 
 " looking on him loved him ") ; but let any 
 one consult his own memory as to events a 
 few years back. How often can he really 
 assign events to a day, to an hour ? How 
 often can he recall the exact expression on a 
 person's lips, the direction of his eyes, the 
 tone of his voice ? No ! in any case we are 
 forced to infer a certain self-consciousness 
 and a deliberate artistic design on the part 
 of the Second Evangelist. 
 
 The Second Evangelist's details are often 
 purely ornamental, rather awkwardly distract- 
 ing attention from the main idea, and quite 
 dispensable. Such are his statements that, 
 when Christ started for Gadara " there were 
 other boats with them"; that there were four 
 men carrying the paralytic's mattress, one at 
 each corner ; that the cock crowed twice 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 41 
 
 before Peter remembered ; that the angel of the 
 sepulchre sat on the right side ; that it was in 
 the stern of the boat, on the cushion, that 
 Christ lay asleep ; that a child whom Christ 
 raised was precisely twelve years old ; that the 
 pedigree of the Tyrian woman, whose daugh- 
 ter Christ healed, was Syro-phcenician ; that 
 the exact quality of the precious ointment 
 was " pistic nard"; that the number of rabid 
 swine was two thousand ; that the sum 
 requisite for the purchase of loaves was two 
 hundred pence, and the market value of the 
 precious ointment, three hundred. In the 
 case of the pricing of the loaves and of the 
 precious ointment, is there not something 
 untrue to nature in making the disciples so 
 ready with their figures ? Did onlookers 
 in Gadara really occupy themselves in ascer- 
 taining the exact number of swine that 
 perished ? 
 
 How few of the details really require any 
 special knowledge ! How many are suggested 
 by, or might be inferred from the briefer 
 narrative in S. Matthew ! It need not be an 
 eye-witness who tells us that the feeding 
 multitudes arranged themselves in groups, 
 
42 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 and that the grass on which they sat was 
 green. The epileptic's symptoms described 
 in Mark ix. — " It dashes him down ; he 
 foameth and grindeth his teeth and pineth 
 away " — are quite ordinary, and the narrator 
 need not have been present on this particular 
 occasion in order to describe them. Any one 
 might naturally conclude for himself that the 
 ruler's daughter required nutriment when she 
 revived; that the epileptic's paroxysm left 
 him in a state of collapse ; that a blind man 
 who had taken his station by the roadside 
 had done so for the purpose of begging, and 
 that when he hurriedly arose, he threw aside 
 the wrap across his knees; that when Peter 
 was recognised he was exposed to some artifi- 
 cial light ; that to get out the ointment, the 
 alabaster cruse was broken or unsealed ; that 
 when the disciples arrived in port " they 
 moored to the shore "; that Herod's birthday 
 guests, whose good opinion he valued, were 
 " his lords the chiliarchs and the chief men 
 of Galilee." S. Matthew's brief statement, 
 "There met him from the tombs," is a 
 sufficient germ for all S. Mark's extravagance, 
 " There met him from the tombs, . . . who had 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 43 
 
 his dwelling in the tombs : and always night 
 and day in the tombs and in the mountains 
 he was crying out and cutting himself with 
 stones." Similarly, from S. Matthew's brief 
 description, "Exceeding fierce, so that no man 
 could pass that way," might not any one 
 naturally guess that constant efforts had been 
 made to abate such a serious nuisance ? — "and 
 no man could any more bind him, no not with 
 a chain ; because that he had been often bound 
 with fetters and chains, and the chains had 
 been rent asunder by him, and the fetters 
 broken in pieces. And no man had strength 
 to tame him." The legion of possessed swine 
 would naturally suggest the idea that the 
 demoniac's possession was multiple. The fact 
 that the swineherds were "afar off" might 
 easily lead a writer, straining after verisimili- 
 tude, to represent their report as being supple- 
 mented by that of nearer witnesses. The 
 fact that in Matt. xxi. 19, the wither- 
 ing of the fig tree takes place " immedi- 
 ately " might well lead to a commentatorial 
 notice that the foliage appeared drooping on 
 the day subsequent ; and that such is the 
 relationship of Mark xi. n-23 to Matt. xxi. 
 
44 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 1 9 is proved by the fact that this desideration 
 of a second day for the curse to take outward 
 effect leaves our Lord on the first day of His 
 arrival in Jerusalem with nothing whatever to 
 do except TrzpifiXiirzaOai (one of our Second 
 Evangelist's mannerisms), and also involves 
 an awkward repetition of the evening retire- 
 ment to Bethany (Mark xi. n, 19). 
 
 Consider the frequently trivial character of 
 these details. It is a rule in biography that 
 later biographers employ what the earlier 
 disdain : crumbs are swept up only when the 
 feast is finished. Consider, too, the tendency 
 to emphasise the marvellous. With the 
 phenomena of the Apocryphal Gospels before 
 our eyes it ought surely to be reckoned a 
 sign of decadence that our Second Evangelist 
 dilates so exuberantly on the Gadarene's 
 ferocity and the epileptic's paroxysm. 
 
 And sometimes the new details do not 
 seem conceived quite in the character of the 
 narratives to which they are added. " The 
 time of figs was not yet " explains the tree's 
 barrenness, but is inharmonious with Christ's 
 expectation of finding fruit. The ornate 
 description of the epileptic's fit obscures the 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 45 
 
 fact that it was not his recovery from this 
 particular attack that really constituted the 
 miracle, but his immunity in the future. 
 " He bought a linen cloth," but it was a day 
 of Sabbatical obligation ! After the very 
 vigorous expulsion of the money-changers, 
 there is bathos in " He would not suffer 
 that any man should carry a vessel through 
 the temple " ; and, moreover, this remark 
 awkwardly separates the money-changers 
 from Christ's address to them. It is strange 
 to hear that " He wanted to pass them by " 
 after c< seeing them distressed He came to 
 them walking on the sea " ; strange that 
 the demoniac about to cry out against inter- 
 ference " ran to meet Him " ; strange, and, 
 from its needless exactitude, grating, " and 
 they had only one loaf" after "they had 
 forgotten to take bread." 
 
 Of course it is easy to carry the objections 
 to S. Mark's picturesque details too far. For 
 example, with regard to the young man in 
 the linen cloth (Mark xiv. 51, 52), the 
 startling bizarrerie of the incident gives one 
 confidence that it is no invention. But the 
 authenticity of the incident is one matter, 
 
46 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 and the relationship of the narrative which 
 contains it to the one which does not, quite 
 another. It is a mere assumption, common 
 enough, but unreasonable, that only the 
 earliest Evangelists would be original, that 
 the editors would be unoriginal completely ; 
 and all that this authentic-looking incident 
 ought to lead us to is the reflection whether 
 it is likelier that in S. Matthew something 
 has been expunged, or in S. Mark something 
 added. Similarly with regard to the letting 
 down of the paralytic's mattress, one instinc- 
 tively feels that such a detail is something 
 more than a mere artistic flourish. But here, 
 when instead of utilising the ordinary Syrian 
 inner court, S. Mark actually makes the 
 bearers " dig through " and break up solid 
 tiling, forgetful of the people's heads under- 
 neath, one feels again that the description is 
 other than first-hand. Surely the likeliest of 
 S. Mark's new details may be explained by 
 supposing that he had heard comments on the 
 Matthaean narrative by some occasional eye- 
 witness. 
 
 All the characteristics above noted in S. 
 Mark's elaboration of detail are especially 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 47 
 
 conspicuous in the Jairus history. Let us 
 consider the extra items separately. Firstly, 
 as to the woman with the issue. In S. 
 Matthew we are simply told that " she came 
 behind, and touched : but Jesus turned and 
 saw her." In S. Mark the opportunity for 
 her furtive act is improved by surrounding 
 Christ with a great crowd, and Christ's 
 sentience is rendered more striking. But 
 the crowd has had no opportunity to gather, 
 for Christ has only just disembarked from 
 Gadara (a difficulty underlined by our Third 
 Evangelist's transparent device of keeping a 
 previous crowd waiting on the shore, Luke 
 viii. 40). Further, Christ's address to the 
 woman is rendered remarkably ineffectual by 
 the awkward interval of investigation which 
 separates it from her cure — " Thy faith hath 
 made thee whole : be whole of thy plague." 
 Secondly, notice the redundancy, " begging 
 and praying," " fearing and trembling ; " 
 also the nervous explanations of motive, 
 " having heard the things concerning Jesus," 
 "perceiving that the power from Him had 
 gone forth," " overhearing the word which 
 was ispoken," " knowing what had been done 
 
48 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 to her ; " and the replacement of the Oriental 
 " flute-players " by the elucidatory para- 
 phrase, " many weeping and wailing." 
 Thirdly, from the First Evangelist's statement 
 that the hemorrhage was of twelve years' 
 standing, might not any one infer that the 
 sufferer had had recourse to medicine, of 
 course without beneficial results, and had 
 been put to ruinous expense ? It is little 
 more than mere embellishment then, when 
 the Second Evangelist adds, "And she had 
 suffered many things of many physicians, and 
 spent all she had, and was nothing bettered, 
 but rather made worse." Fourthly, the 
 ruler's amazingly trustful request — as re- 
 ported in Matt. ix. — that Christ will come 
 and work such an unprecedented wonder as 
 raising the dead is one that to a later writer, 
 straining after verisimilitude, would naturally 
 seem to require some shading off. That this 
 is our Second Evangelist's motive in at first 
 representing the child as merely sick is shown 
 by Christ's speech to Jairus, when death has 
 actually supervened, " Fear not, only believe." 
 Fifthly, " Talitha Cumi." It is a thing to 
 be felt, not argued about, that it was a later 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 49 
 
 generation that required here and elsewhere 
 the actual wonder-words. But it may be 
 observed that in another case where the 
 Second Evangelist, as against the First, 
 supplies an Aramaic expression, viz., 
 " Boanerges " (Mark iii. 17), the remark- 
 able disturbance occasioned in the construc- 
 tion extrudes it as unoriginal. And " "kfifia 
 6 naTi'ip" explicable enough when we trace it 
 back to its origin in the mixed language of 
 a tongue (Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6), is 
 as inappropriate in Mark xiv. 36, as if one 
 were to commence the Lord's Prayer with 
 " Pere Padre." 1 Sixthly, " He charged them 
 (Jairus and his wife) that they should say 
 nothing to any one." But Christ was 
 accompanied by a great crowd, let us 
 remember, when He started for Jairus's 
 house. The message of the child's death 
 was publicly delivered. And He found the 
 
 1 If Mr. N. Herz's conjecture be correct, that the 
 very curious and hitherto unexplained word in Codex 
 Bez<e "p«/3/3 t » ( c f. "TABEACULTHA," Codex 
 Palatinus) represents the Aramaic "Riyba" ( = maiden), 
 then we have evidence of an early alternative to Talitha : 
 yet these are " ipsissima verba" 
 
 5 
 
5 o S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 house full of mourners. What possibility 
 was there of secrecy ? Where the prohibition 
 comes from will appear presently (see pp. 
 59-61). Sufficient here to notice that it is 
 entirely out of keeping with its context. 
 
 Thus the Ja'irus history of Mark v. seems 
 to stand in the same relation to the corre- 
 spondent section of Matt. ix. as a developed 
 picture to an original sketch. Though twice 
 as long, it contains few features really new. 
 The name Ja'irus looks original, but here once 
 more originality must be distinguished from 
 priority. Would the First Evangelist have 
 omitted the name if he had known it ? With 
 this exception, we have little more reason to 
 assume that our author was independent, 
 than to infer from the ordinary uncanonical 
 details of a sacred picture that the artist had 
 any exceptional source of information. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 51 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 S. MATTHEW TWICE CORRECTED IN 
 S. MARK. 
 
 In the preceding chapter it was pointed out 
 that after making all due deductions, there 
 remained a certain residuum of detail in 
 S. Mark which looked genuinely original, 
 but at the same time was of the nature of 
 comment on and sub-addition to S. Matthew. 
 To the two examples there given one may 
 perhaps add S. Mark's peculiar information 
 about the lawyer's answer, and the Gadarene 
 demoniac's request to accompany Christ. It 
 is certainly easier to understand the favourable 
 view taken of the lawyer (" not far from the 
 kingdom of God," Mark xii. 34 ; contrast 
 " tempting him," Matt. xxii. 35), as subse- 
 
52 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 quent to the unfavourable. And how natural 
 that a commentator should preclude the idea, 
 left possible in S. Matthew, that the demoniac 
 was guilty of the superlative ingratitude of 
 not protesting in some way against his fellow- 
 countrymen's prayer that Christ would depart. 
 
 But we now come to cases that are more 
 important. On two occasions S. Mark corrects 
 S. Matthew clearly and deliberately. 
 
 Firstly, we find S. Mark singularising the 
 pairs of Matt, viii., ix., xx., — two blind men 
 near the house of Jairus, 1 two Gadarene 
 demoniacs, two blind men at Jericho. 
 
 It is generally supposed, in fact no other 
 reasonable explanation has ever been suggested, 
 that the duplication in Matt, viii., ix., xx. is 
 a harmonist's device for reconciling conflicting 
 traditions ; 2 and, at any rate in the case of the 
 
 1 It seems reasonable to identify the miracle at 
 Bethsaida, Mark viii. 22-26, with that in Matt, ix., 
 considering how rarely the Second Gospel omits any 
 incident of the First. Besides, there is resemblance as 
 to the privacy of the occasion, the manual action, the 
 injunction of secrecy, and the modulation of the cure. 
 
 2 One may compare the appearance of two rich men 
 in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, due pre- 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 53 
 
 cures at Gadara and Jericho, it is certain that 
 neither of these conflicting traditions can 
 possibly have been derived from S. Mark, 
 since all and everything predicated in S. 
 Matthew of the two Gadarene demoniacs, 
 the two blind men at Jericho, is predicated 
 in S. Mark of the single Gadarene demoniac, 
 the single blind man at Jericho. It may 
 be also noticed that the Second Evangelist's 
 definite personal descriptions of the Gadarene 
 and of the blind man at Jericho would preclude 
 subsequent duplication. Thus, although in 
 singularising the pairs of Matt, viii., ix., 
 xx., the Second Evangelist seems to stand on 
 superior ground to the First, the form of his 
 narrative shows that he singularised with the 
 narrative of the pairs before his eyes. 
 
 Secondly, we find S. Mark deliberately 
 improving on the introduction to the charge 
 "by Beelzebub" (Matt. ix. 27-34; xii. 
 22-24). 
 
 With regard to this introduction, every- 
 
 sumably to the discrepancy between Matt. xix. 16, 17 ; 
 Mark x. 17, 18 ; Luke xvi. 14, 15 : also the two angels 
 of Luke xxiv. 
 
54 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 thing in S. Matthew is in the greatest 
 confusion. In ix. 27-34 we have the pair 
 of blind men, already mentioned, and a 
 dumb man (y.r. " and deaf"); and in 
 xii. 22-24, evidently a doublet to the above, 
 a man blind and dumb (v.r. "and deaf"). 1 
 In S. Mark, on the other hand, we have 
 clear, definite descriptions of a deaf mute 
 in Decapolis (Mark vii. 32-37), and, as said 
 before, of a blind man at Bethsaida ; but 
 neither of these narratives corresponds in 
 position to the blind-deaf-dumb cures of 
 S. Matthew, and their place as introduction 
 to the charge " by Beelzebub " is taken by 
 ' ' His friends went out to lay hold on Him ; 
 
 1 "And two blind men followed. . . . And there 
 was brought to Him a dumb man. And the dumb 
 spake : and the multitudes marvelled saying, It was 
 never so seen in Israel. But the Pharisees said, By 
 the prince of the devils casteth he out devils " (Matt. 
 ix. 27-34). 
 
 " There was brought to Him one blind and dumb : 
 and the dumb spake and saw. And the multitudes 
 were amazed, and said, Is this the son of David ? But 
 the Pharisees said, This man doth not cast out devils, 
 but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils" (Matt, 
 xii. 22-24). 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 55 
 
 for they said, He is mad." Let us examine 
 these three new passages separately. 
 
 The cure of the deaf mute in Decapolis, 
 standing where it does, is demonstrably a 
 foreign intrusion ; for (a) It eats away a 
 necessary preface to the congregation of the 
 4000 (cf. Matt. xv. 29-31). How abruptly 
 the 4000 appear in Mark viii. 1 ! They have 
 already been with Christ three days. (J?) A 
 surviving fragment of the Matthasan preface, 
 "He doeth all things well" (Mark vii. 37), 
 requires for its justification some wider proof 
 of power than a single cure (cf. Matt. xv. 
 30, 31). (<:) The appearance of two multi- 
 tudes (Mark vii. 33, viii. 1), which the private 
 withdrawal for the mute's cure involves, is 
 awkward in the extreme : (d) and so is the 
 " they " in verse 37, for Christ and the mute 
 are alone. 
 
 But though the Decapolis miracle is not 
 at all of a piece with its context, it is easy to 
 perceive the attraction which that context 
 presented, viz., the reference (Matt. xv. 31) 
 to " the dumb speaking." Similarly with 
 regard to the miracle at Bethsaida, the 
 disciples' imperceptiveness suggested a con- 
 
56 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 text, one that could be improved by the 
 addition, " Having eyes see ye not " ; x and 
 though in this case there is nothing actually 
 resentful in the context, for the miracle stands 
 isolated, yet it is so obviously from the same 
 pen as the miracle in Decapolis, that the two 
 narratives must be extruded together. It 
 may be added that both are shown to be 
 editorial by the fact of their being entirely 
 couched in the general style of the Second 
 Gospel, the style common to all parts in- 
 differently. 2 
 
 And now let us look back on the decapi- 
 tated Beelzebub section in Mark iii. That 
 new and independent-looking introduction, 
 6n JSttTTTj, " They said, He is mad," so im- 
 pressive at first sight on account of its 
 startling crudeness, is it new and independent 
 in reality ? Turning to the parallel passage 
 
 1 In Mark xii. 38-40 (if what has been said as to the 
 relation of that section to Matt, xxiii. be admitted), 
 the addition, "Which devour widows' houses," seems 
 to be similarly motived. It is the only clause not found 
 in Matt, xxiii. ; and in Mark xii. it serves to introduce 
 the new narrative of the widow's mite. 
 2 See Introduction, p. xxvi. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 57 
 
 in the First Gospel, we find that there the 
 multitudes l^iaravro (the only instance of 
 l^iGTavai in S. Matthew), and the coinci- 
 dence between the two Gospels, cannot reason- 
 ably be set aside as fortuitous. Possibly it is 
 the multitude, not Christ, that ought to be 
 supplied as the subject of Iglm-ij, a sup- 
 position rendered likelier by the fact that 
 mention has just been made of frenzied con- 
 course. But the text at this particular point 
 is in great confusion, and there is much in 
 favour of the Codex Bezae and the old Latin, 
 u eXtyov yap oti l^tcrrarai avrovg," "exentiateOS. 
 Whichever explanation be correct, one thing 
 is clear, that the on l^iarn of Mark iii. 21 is 
 not independent of Matt. xii. 22-24. 
 
 Thus, by many considerations, we are 
 brought to a conclusion which the doublet 
 Matt. ix. 27-34 ; xii. 22-24 Dv itself renders 
 inevitable. For it is obvious that the 
 introduction to the Beelzebub section given 
 in Matt, ix., xii., and that given in S. Mark, 
 are, as literary devices, antagonistic ; and the 
 coincidence between the two Matthasan intro- 
 ductions (both narratives stating that Christ 
 cured blindness and dumbness, that the 
 
58 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 multitudes were amazed, and that their 
 amazement provoked the Pharisaic charge 
 " by Beelzebub "), precludes any reasonable 
 suspicion of unoriginality in S. Matthew. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 59 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE INJUNCTION OF SECRECY (Mark V. 43). 
 
 In Matt. ix. Christ raises the daughter of 
 J aims, and then heals two blind men — "and 
 He strictly charged them (ive^pifiridri) saying, 
 See that no man know it. But they went 
 forth, and spread abroad His fame (S^/^ffav) 
 in all that land." As the two blind men are 
 omitted in the Second Gospel (see preceding 
 chapter) it results that the injunction of 
 secrecy is left applying to the persons men- 
 tioned just previously, viz., to Ja'irus and his 
 wife — " He charged them much that no man 
 should know this" (Mark v. 43). 
 
 Now it may be answered that the addition 
 of an injunction of secrecy to the longer 
 
60 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 account of the raising of Jairus's daughter 
 in S. Mark is independent of the injunction 
 to the blind men, and that here we have only 
 a curious coincidence. But the absolute 
 impropriety of the injunction as delivered 
 apropos of the raising of Jairus's daughter, 
 a case in which secrecy was absolutely im- 
 possible (see pp. 49, 50), stands in the way of 
 such an escape. 
 
 Again, this view of the matter is confirmed 
 by the evidence of language. The combina- 
 tion of the words Ififipifiaadai and dia(j>vfJLi^eiv 
 is peculiar to the passage in point, and to 
 Mark i. 43, 45 — " He strictly charged him 
 [the leper], See thou say nothing to any man. 
 But he went out and began to spread abroad 
 the matter." Things being so, it seems that 
 in Matt. ix. 30, 31 we have no mere 
 editorial addition, but that behind both the 
 First Gospel and the Second there was a 
 document which contained matter peculiar to 
 each. 
 
 If the injunction of secrecy in Mark v. 43 
 be admitted as a veritable relic of the cure of 
 the two blind men, then once more we have 
 occasion to recognise the priority of S. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 61 
 
 Matthew's pairs to the narratives of single 
 cures in S. Mark ; for, the doubleness being 
 evidently systematic, the cure of these two 
 blind men cannot but come from the same 
 hand as the double cures at Gadara and 
 Jericho. Once more we have occasion to 
 recognise the priority of the three simple 
 narratives of Matt, viii., ix., xx., to the 
 ornate narratives in S. Mark with all their 
 picturesque details. And if in these three 
 cases the priority of S. Matthew be admitted, 
 then it must be admitted also in the case of 
 the other miracles simply recounted in S. 
 Matthew, embellished in S. Mark, e.g., in 
 the case of the cure of the epileptic (Matt, 
 xvi. 14-20, Mark ix. 14-29). 
 
 Thus the arguments for the posteriority of 
 S. Mark overlap, confirming and re-confirm- 
 ing one another. 
 
 Before closing this chapter it may be 
 noticed that a very similar lesson to that of 
 Mark v. 43 is taught by Mark ix. 13, — 
 "And they did to him [John the Baptist] 
 whatsoever they listed, even as it is written of 
 hirn" One searches the Old Testament in 
 vain for a hint, even of the remotest cha- 
 
62 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 racter, that Elias redivivus was to suffer 
 martyrdom ; and though the idea that we 
 find in Rev. xi. 3-13, where he is slain by 
 Antichrist, may well have been pre-Christian, 
 yet it is clearly impossible to bring this into 
 connection with the death of a merely figura- 
 tive Elias at the hands of Herod. What 
 then is the meaning of " Even as it is written 
 of him " ? The explanation is surely to be 
 found in the parallel passage Matt. xvii. 9-12, 
 which concludes with a reference to the pro- 
 phesied sufferings of the Son of man — " Thus 
 also shall the Son of man suffer of them " 
 (v.r. necesse habet pati). S. Mark desired to 
 bring out more clearly the point that although 
 prophecy necessitated an effective Elias 
 mission, prophecy also necessitated a certain 
 limit to its effectiveness ; l and he therefore 
 
 1 The connection of ideas in Matt. xvii. and Mark 
 ix. is as follows. Christ enjoins secrecy until after His 
 Passion, thus indirectly intimating that the Elias who 
 has just vanished will not reappear. But the apparition 
 had been so transient, whereas it was an effective mis- 
 sion that was expected of Elias ! How could the 
 Messiah suffer if the work of restoration was to be 
 accomplished ? Would not Elias save Him ? And so 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 63 
 
 transposed the reference to the Son of man's 
 sufferings ; with the result that a clause 
 properly applying to Christ's sufferings was 
 left applying to the Baptist's. It was a 
 mistake of course to leave the clause so 
 applying, but that S. Mark's acquaintance 
 with the Old Testament was defective is clear 
 from the mistake about Abiathar (Mark ii. 26); 
 and it is evident that he was misled by S. 
 Matthew's " Thus also." 
 
 the disciples answer, "How then say the scribes?" 
 Christ replies that the effective work expected — and 
 justifiably expected — of Elias has been otherwise 
 accomplished by the Baptist, and that it has terminated. 
 " Thus also," no less than in the case of an effective 
 Elias imission, prophecy requires that the Son of man 
 should suffer. 
 
64 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ABRUPTNESS OF S. MARK. 
 
 It is always difficult for one writer to abbre- 
 viate another's work quite successfully. Sub- 
 joined are certain reasons for inferring that 
 the frequent abruptness, forcedness, and 
 inconsequentiality of the Second Gospel are 
 due to abbreviation and excision. 
 
 Champions of S. Mark's originality gene- 
 rally explain this abruptness by adducing a 
 very late tradition ! that S. Mark made hasty 
 notes of S. Peter's discourses, an explanation 
 which breaks down entirely when worked out 
 in detail. For (a) the instances of abrupt- 
 
 1 Reported by S. Jerome. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 65 
 
 ness, as will appear presently, are not at all 
 of a superficial or irregular character such as 
 one might expect in a reporter's notebook, 
 but are uniform and often intricate. (J?) The 
 Second Gospel, far from being a haphazard 
 collection of notes, exhibits both in substance 
 and style unmistakable tokens of art and 
 design (see pp. 11 3- 119). 
 
 No ! it is in the fuller Matthasan text that 
 the explanation of S. Mark's abruptness is to 
 be found. 
 
 The Apostolic mission (Mark vi. 7-13) 
 lacks occasion ; we require the shepherdless 
 multitudes of Matt. ix. 36. The prohibition 
 against any viaticum appears unmotived in 
 the absence of " For the labourer is worthy 
 of his food." That reference to the inhospi- 
 tality of Sodom, unsuited to our un-Judaic 
 Evangelist's Gentile audience, what an im- 
 potent climax its omission leaves us with ! — 
 " Shake off the dust for a testimony against 
 them." That challenge of the high priest's 
 servants, " Prophesy unto us," is scarcely 
 intelligible in the absence of "Who is he that 
 smote thee ? " The centurion's sudden excla- 
 mation, " Surely this man was a son of God," 
 
66 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 requires phenomena like the earthquake and 
 opening of the tombs to justify it, for of the 
 rending of the veil the centurion would of 
 course know nothing. The four thousand 
 appear quite unexpectedly in the absence of 
 any prefatory statement like Matt. xv. 29-31 
 (see p. 55). " But one of them that stood by 
 smote the servant of the high priest " stands 
 isolated, and without literary motive, whereas 
 in S. Matthew it forms a natural introduction 
 to Christ's utterance about the legions of 
 angels and drawing the sword. " He will 
 send His angels to gather His elect " is surely 
 no fitting climax to the eschatology of Mark 
 xiii., but leads us to expect a higher note, 
 such as is struck in Matt, xxv., " Then 
 shall He sit on the throne of His glory." 
 The "also" of Mark vii. 18, "Are ye also 
 without understanding," if it does not abso- 
 lutely require a previous notice of misunder- 
 standing on the part of the Pharisees (see 
 Matt. xv. 12-14), at any rate seems much 
 more natural in such connection. There is a 
 singularly maimed appearance about Mark 
 xii. 37 ; for Christ's question, "How is he 
 then his son ? " is one which requires the 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 67 
 
 effect produced in Matt. xxii. 46, " No 
 man could answer Him one word." 1 Taken 
 by itself, the skeleton account of the Tempta- 
 tion (Mark i. 12, 13) is scarcely intelligible ; 
 and the ministration of angels, in the absence 
 of any allusion to fasting and hunger, is left 
 unexplained. Christ's suddenly reproachful 
 address to the disciples, " O faithless genera- 
 tion," explicable enough in S. Matthew, where 
 the disciples' failure to cure the epileptic is 
 due to their want of faith, 2 stands without 
 point in S. Mark, where the failure is at- 
 tributed to other causes than faithlessness. 
 The extreme awkwardness of " After two 
 days was the passover ; and the chief priests 
 sought," appears due to the Evangelist's 
 incorporating Matt. xxvi. 2 (" Ye know 
 that after two days the passover cometh ") 
 
 1 The omission is obviously due to S. Mark's trans- 
 ferring the other clause of Matt. xxii. 46, "Neither 
 durst any man ask Him any more questions " to what he 
 considered a more correct position in Mark xii. 34. 
 
 - " If ye had faith as a grain of mustard-seed," perhaps 
 omitted by our Second Evangelist because another 
 authority provided him with the text elsewhere (see 
 Mark xi. 23). 
 
68 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 into the narrative. 1 Such a climax as Peter's 
 confession seems to require some com- 
 mendatory reply to emphasise it, and with- 
 out such reply the severe rebuke ensuing 
 is left unbalanced. (By the way, notice 
 the close correspondence between commen- 
 dation and rebuke in Matt, xvi., " art a 
 rock," " art an offence ; " " revealed to 
 thee by God," " savourest of men." Notice, 
 too, the extreme awkwardness of Mark iii. 
 1 6, "and Simon he surnamed Peter," due, 
 apparently, to a combination of Matt. x. 2 
 and xvi. 18. Besides, the promise about 
 binding and loosing is given in S. Mat- 
 thew twice.) How disappointing, " He 
 entered into Jerusalem into the temple " 
 (Mark xi. u), not followed by any inci- 
 dent whatever ! 2 How superfluous, "And 
 
 1 It is difficult to imagine the reverse process, an 
 Evangelist's putting part of the narrative into a speech 
 of Christ's. 
 
 2 In S. Matthew this entry is followed by the ex- 
 pulsion of the money-changers, and the introduction 
 into the Temple of "the blind and the lame" ; but 
 the extra day desiderated in the Second Gospel (see 
 pp. 43, 44) attracts the money-changers ; and the intro- 
 duction of "the blind and the lame," significant merely 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 69 
 
 they came to Capernaum. And when He 
 was in the house" (Mark ix. 33), for the 
 incident subsequent, the contention who 
 should be greatest, is not one that requires 
 any localisation ; whereas, when we turn 
 to S. Matthew, we find that there the 
 mention of Capernaum and the house are 
 thoroughly appropriate, prefacing as they do 
 the demand on S. Peter for the didrachma — 
 a demand which would naturally have been 
 made in Capernaum, where Peter's house was 
 situated. 
 
 as pointing a contrast between David and the Son of 
 David (cf. 2 Samuel v. 6-8), would have been inhar- 
 monious with the Second Evangelist's un-Judaic design. 
 Apropos of the excision of " the blind and the lame," 
 compare Matt. xxi. 15, 16 with Mark xi. 18. The 
 latter might be derived from the former, but the former 
 could scarcely be derived from the latter. 
 
7o S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OMISSION OF PETER INCIDENTS. 
 
 (Matt. xvii. 24-27 ; xiv. 28-31.) 
 
 At the end of the last chapter it was pointed 
 out that " Capernaum " and " the house," 
 natural features of the didrachma incident, 
 appear quite unnecessarily in S. Mark, 
 apropos of the Apostles* contention. Simi- 
 larly it may be noticed that Christ's intuitive 
 power, illustrated in S. Matthew, and quite 
 casually, by His anticipating Peter's question 
 (Trpoi(f>Oa(TEv avrbv), is underlined in S. Mark 
 by His acquaintance with the subject of 
 the Apostles' debate after they have refused 
 to enlighten Him (cf. Luke ix. 47, "saw 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 71 
 
 the reasoning of their hearts.") J Thus it 
 seems that in dropping the didrachma inci- 
 dent (from its Judaic character, quite un- 
 suited to his design), our Second Evangelist 
 has allowed some of its colouring to run into 
 the narrative subsequent. 
 
 Regarding the narratives from another 
 point of view, here again we have pheno- 
 menal discrepancy between S. Matthew and 
 S. Mark, such as has been noticed in the 
 Herodias and Syro-phcenician sections (see 
 pp. 5, 6, 35, 36), and, as there, so also here 
 the two Gospels are running too parallel to 
 allow the notion of independent traditions. 
 
 The highly miraculous character of the 
 didrachma narrative has often induced critics 
 to brand it as belonging to an extreme cycle 
 of tradition. But, as Strauss points out, it 
 was just while the Temple was standing, 
 
 1 The survival of colour from the didrachma in- 
 cident accounts for everything except the point that 
 in S. Matthew the disciples question Christ, and in 
 S. Mark secretly question among themselves ; but this 
 discrepancy may be easily explained by an anterior 
 text capable of either interpretation, " They ques- 
 tioned who should be greatest. And Jesus said." 
 
72 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 and the question of the obligation of Jewish 
 Christians to contribute to its support con- 
 tinually arising, that the precedent of Christ's 
 payment would have been of real import- 
 ance ; and it must be remembered that the 
 fact of being based on rumour, or of having 
 passed through several mouths, might deter- 
 mine the narrative's position in this extreme 
 cycle just as effectually as mere lateness. This 
 much at least is certain, that when at last a 
 sudden necessity I arose for written Gospels 
 they appeared in tolerably rapid succession, 
 mere local accidents determining the order ; 
 hence there seem to be only slender grounds 
 for any identification of nearer or further 
 cycles of traditions with earlier or later docu- 
 ments. To repeat what has been said before, 
 the earliest writing Evangelist was not at all 
 necessarily the best informed. 
 
 What has been said of the highly miraculous 
 
 1 Taking our Lord's age as an index, one may infer 
 that circ. a.d. 65 only three or four of the Apostles 
 were left. And it is easy to see what an impetus must 
 have been given to the demand for some permanent 
 record when the great crisis of a.d. 70 was passed, and 
 still Christ did not return. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 73 
 
 character of the didrachma narrative applies 
 also to the next passage to be discussed — 
 Peter's walking on the sea (Matt. xiv. 28-31). 
 Miracle-minimisers have been tempted to 
 regard as a post-addition verses which pre- 
 clude any non-miraculous explanation. Post- 
 addition to the tradition they may be — I am 
 only concerned in showing that they are no 
 post-addition to the narrative in its literary 
 form. Notice (a) that the absence of Peter's 
 attempt (illustrative of the danger of doubt) 
 leaves the miracle of Christ's walking on 
 the sea in Mark vi. 45—52 without moral 
 import ; (J?) that the paragraph contains 
 distinctly Matthaean words, KaTairovri^eaOai, 
 SlgtuZuv ; (c) that it completes a doublet to 
 the previous example of Christ's control of 
 the sea ; J (d) that the extraordinary addition 
 in S. Mark, " He would have passed them 
 by" (see p. 45), receives explanation as an 
 
 1 " Save, Lord, we perish." " Why are ye fearful, 
 O ye of little faith ? " " There was a great calm. 
 And the men marvelled " (Matt. viii. 23-27). 
 
 " Lord, save me." " O thou of little faith, wherefore 
 didst thou doubt ? " " The wind ceased. And they that 
 were in the boat, worshipped Him" (Matt. xiv. 30-33). 
 
74 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 inference — a mistaken inference indeed, but 
 not an unnatural — from the fact of Peter's 
 leaving the ship to go to Christ when Christ 
 is just coming on board. 
 
 There is no difficulty in finding a motive 
 for the omission of such verses as Matt. xiv. 
 28-31 in S. Mark. As in the case of Peter's 
 blessing (see p. 68), an un-Judaic Evangelist 
 might well omit a passage with S. Peter for 
 its central figure. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 75 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PATCHWORK IN MARK III. 7~20. 
 
 Mark iii. 7-20 is in some respects one of 
 the most important passages in S. Mark. 
 That remarkable abruptness and forcedness 
 which has before been noticed here reaches 
 a climax. 
 
 How strangely and suddenly the scene 
 shifts — " He spake that a boat should wait 
 on Him," "He goeth up into the mountain," 
 " He cometh home." The ascent of the 
 mountain is surely but inadequately accounted 
 for by the mere intention to appoint apostles ; 
 and the huge assemblage from every quarter 
 leads us to expect some greater result than a 
 general notice that the sick among them were 
 healed. How strange that Christ should be 
 
76 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 said to appoint twelve with the object of 
 conferring on a future occasion the functions 
 for which He appointed them ! * Is there 
 not some strain observable in " He calleth 
 unto Him whom He would Himself, and 
 they went unto Him " ? Why the awkward 
 repetition of 7rArj0oe in verses 7, 8 — " A 
 multitude from Galilee followed Him. And 
 from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and beyond 
 Jordan a multitude, hearing what great things 
 He did, came to Him " ? " Hearing what 
 great things " — but none have been recorded 
 at this particular juncture. 
 
 But all these peculiar phenomena receive 
 explanation when we consider Mark iii. 7-19 
 in connection with the correspondent verses 
 in the preface to the Sermon on the Mount 
 (Matt. iv. 23-v. 1). There the congrega- 
 tion of the multitude from Galilee and the 
 remoter districts follows naturally on a great 
 
 1 " He appointed twelve that He might send them 
 forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out 
 devils" (Mark iii. 14, 15). 
 
 " He called the twelve, and began to send them 
 forth, and He gave them authority over the unclean 
 spirits" (Mark vi. 7). 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 77 
 
 circuit during which Christ " healed all 
 manner of disease ; and the report of Him 
 went forth into all Syria ; " but separated as it 
 is from that circuit in our Second Gospel (cf. 
 Mark i. 39), the 7r\rj0oc, ttXTiOoq, becomes 
 necessary ; the distinction, that is to say, be- 
 tween a multitude of Galilasans who followed 
 from a particular town and a multitude from 
 the remoter districts who, " hearing what 
 great things He did," came. Again, con- 
 sidering the preface to the Sermon en bloc, 
 we can see that the coming of the disciples 
 to Christ in Matt. v. 1 forms a clear 
 doublet to their coming in Matt. ix. 35, 
 36 ; x. 1 ; l and thus we obtain adequate 
 
 1 " Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their 
 synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, 
 and healing all manner of disease and all manner of 
 sickness. And seeing the multitudes, He went up into 
 a mountain : and His disciples came unto Him " (Matt. 
 iv. 23-v. 1). 
 
 " Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching 
 in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the 
 kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner 
 of sickness. And seeing the multitudes, He was moved 
 with compassion for them. And He called unto Him 
 His twelve disciples " (Matt. ix. 35-x. 1). 
 
78 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 motive for the nervously awkward gloss 
 above noted in Mark iii. 14, 15, "that 
 He might [presently] send them forth," &c. 
 Further, considering the combination in Mark 
 iii. 12, of "His disciples came unto Him" 
 (Matt. v. 1) with " He called unto Him His 
 twelve disciples" (Matt. x. 1), we find ade- 
 quate motive for that other nervously awk- 
 ward gloss, that the disciples who came to 
 Christ were " whom He would Himself." 
 Again, the close connection observable in 
 Matt. iv. 23-v. 1 between circuit and multi- 
 tude and disciples forbidding any doubt that 
 the arrangement there is original, it follows that 
 Mark iii. 13-19, interrupting the narrative 
 so sadly, is a section out of place. Once 
 having broken the continuity of his narra- 
 tive by inserting this mountain section our 
 Second Evangelist was obliged to pick up 
 the thread from the point where it was 
 broken, and hence we are told, " He cometh 
 home " and " the multitude cometh together 
 again." 
 
 Thus it appears that the peculiarities of 
 Mark iii. 7-20, far from evidencing origi- 
 nality, constitute, on the contrary, a striking 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 79 
 
 exhibition of elaborate mechanism. Other 
 peculiarities pointing in the same direction 
 are noticed elsewhere (pp. 49, 56, 57, 68, 91). 
 And the importance of the passage is greatly 
 increased when we consider that Matt. iv. 
 23-v. 1, thus fragmentarily repeated in S. 
 Mark, is the preface to the Sermon on the 
 Mount, and presumably involves some por- 
 tion of the Sermon itself. 
 
 Apropos of this last point, that Mark iii. 
 7, 8, 12 represents the preface to the Sermon, 
 one may notice further that there is some 
 probability that Mark i. 22 represents its 
 termination — " And they were astonished at 
 His teaching, for He taught as having 
 authority, and not as the scribes." It seems 
 unlikely that so particular a comment on 
 Christ's teaching should have been originally 
 designed for a context in which no specimen 
 of that teaching is given. 1 
 
 1 St. Mark omitted the Sermon perhaps because it 
 presupposes the Law — " Ye have heard how it was said 
 by them of old time." It may be noticed, too, that he 
 was otherwise supplied with several of the important 
 utterances (Mark iv. 21 ; ix. 43-50 ; x. II, 12, ; xi. 
 25, 26 ; xii. 40) ; and, as further lessening the extent of 
 
So S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 his omission, that there is doubt whether he possessed the 
 Sermon entire (see pp. 130, 131). But in this and similar 
 cases we must beware of exaggerating the difficulty of 
 omission. S. Mark's elaboration of miracle shows that 
 his view of the relative importance of things was not the 
 same as ours. Above all, it must be borne in mind that 
 we do not know to what extent he intended to supersede 
 previous documents. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC MISSION AND CHARGE. 
 
 (Mark xiii. 9-13 ; vi. 7-13.) 
 
 In the primary apostolic charge of Matt. x. 
 Christ forewarns disciples they will be perse- 
 cuted, will be hated of all, will be delivered 
 up by their own kindred, " But he that 
 endureth unto the end shall be saved. Verily, 
 I say unto you, ye shall not have gone 
 through the cities of Israel until the Son of 
 man be come." There is a doublet to 
 this passage in the great final charge of 
 Matt, xxiv., the only important difference 
 being that there a further horizon is con- 
 templated than the cities of Israel, " This 
 7 
 
8z S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 gospel shall be preached in the whole world 
 for a testimony to all the nations. And then 
 shall the end come." In S. Mark the warn- 
 ing is only found once, viz., in the final 
 charge (Mark xiii.), and, strangely enough, 
 the words in which it is couched are the 
 words not of Matt, xxiv., but of Matt. x. ; 
 but in one important particular the language 
 of Matt. xxiv. peeps through, "The gospel 
 must first be preached to all nations." 
 
 Now, a little consideration will show that 
 both passages in S. Matthew must be prior 
 to that in S. Mark. For it is inconceivable, 
 of course, that Mark xiii. 7-13 should have 
 been copied into S. Matthew twice, and it is 
 inconceivable, too, either that the narrow 
 Judaic horizon of Matt. x. should have been 
 derived from the world-wide horizon of 
 Mark xiii., or that the single sentence, "The 
 gospel must first be preached to all the 
 nations," l should have been expanded into 
 
 1 This verse is dislocated in Mark xiii. for reasons 
 before mentioned (see p. 10). It will be noticed that 
 Matt. x. 18 offered a convenient opportunity for the 
 remove. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 83 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 9-14. Apropos of the different 
 position which this sentence "To all nations" 
 occupies in Mark xiii., it may be further 
 noticed that the close correspondency between 
 Matt. x. and xxiv. (doublets, presumably de- 
 rived from distinct documents), precludes any 
 reasonable suspicion of unoriginality in either. 
 And thus we are forced to the conclusion that 
 Mark xiii. 9-13 is a combination and com- 
 pression of the passages in Matt, x., xxiv. 
 
 One difficulty only remains, Why should 
 the author of our Second Gospel have trans- 
 ferred a portion of the primary charge to 
 the occasion of a later charge ? There is 
 the fact, of course, that Matt. xxiv. 9-14 
 (considered as belonging to a document dis- 
 tinct from that to which Matt. x. belonged) 
 would partially justify such transference ; but 
 close scrutiny of the differences between the 
 primary apostolic charge in Matt. x. and 
 Mark vi. will show that our Second Evan- 
 gelist had, in fact, no choice left but to 
 proceed as he did. This, however, brings 
 us to the second part of our subject, the 
 peculiarities of Mark vi. 7-13, and it is 
 necessary to start quite afresh. 
 
84 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 We notice, then, in contrasting the primary 
 charge of Matt. x. with that in Mark vi., 
 that the First Evangelist and the Second 
 took quite different views of its nature. In 
 S. Matthew the Apostles receive their com- 
 mission, the marching orders which are to 
 govern Christian conduct to the end of time ; 
 but it is never stated that they leave Christ's 
 side, and subsequent narratives imply their 
 continued presence. In S. Mark, on the 
 other hand, the Apostles are actually there 
 and then despatched. In place of S. Matthew's 
 statement that, when Christ had made an end 
 of charging the disciples " He departed 
 thence to preach," we are told that " They 
 [the Apostles] went out and preached that 
 men should repent, and they cast out many 
 devils, and anointed many that were sick ; " 
 and in place of St. Matthew's further state- 
 ment, that after the Baptist's execution " his 
 [the Baptist's] disciples took up his body and 
 buried it. And they [the Baptist's disciples] 
 came and told Jesus what had been done. 
 And, when Jesus heard, He withdrew to a 
 desert place apart," we are told that " The 
 apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 85 
 
 and they told Him all things whatsoever they 
 had done, and whatsoever they had taught. 
 And He saith, Come ye apart into a desert 
 place and rest awhile" (Matt. xi. 1 ; xiv. 12, 
 13 ; Mark vi. 12, 13,29-31). Thus the dis- 
 crepancy between S. Matthew and S. Mark 
 is pronounced ; but when we come to scruti- 
 nise the discrepancies closely, we find that, 
 while the text of the Second Gospel may 
 easily be explained by the brief ambiguous 
 text of the First, the reverse process is ren- 
 dered quite impossible by S. Mark's eluci- 
 datory details. 
 
 The different position occupied in the two 
 Gospels by the visit to Nazareth (in S. Matthew, 
 following the apostolic charge, and, in S. Mark, 
 preceding), points in the same direction. 
 For the visit of Christ to Nazareth apparently 
 involves the accompaniment of the disciples 
 (see Mark vi. 1) ; and, at any rate, the 
 literary articulation forbids such an incident 
 intervening between any despatch of the 
 Apostles and their return. In short, there 
 is obvious reason why S. Matthew's order 
 should have been altered in S. Mark, but no 
 reason is perceivable for the reverse process. 
 
86 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 Reverting to the previous question, the 
 transposition of Matt. x. 16-23 in S. Mark, 
 we can now see that the transposition was 
 necessary. Our Second Evangelist, regarding 
 the primary charge as an actual dismissal, 
 was obliged to omit or postpone such portions 
 as did not tally with this conception. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 87 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 DOUBLETS AND INCONGRUITIES IN S. MARK. 
 
 That there are some doublets and incon- 
 gruities in S. Mark is almost incontestable. 
 Thus, for example, the incident of the 
 exorcist intrudes between two verses very 
 closely connected ; and the idea that the 
 affixion to the Cross took place at the third 
 hour is scarcely harmonious with the com- 
 mencement of the miraculous darkness at the 
 sixth. Again, there are curious repetitions 
 about the crowd (iii. 20, 32 ; iv. 1), the 
 healing property of Christ's garments (iii. 
 10; vi. 56), the recognition by the devils 
 (i. 34 ; iii. 11, 12), the boat pulpit (iii. 9 ; iv. 
 1 ), the popularity of Christ and the design of 
 
88 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 apprehension (xi. 18 ; xii. 12, 37), the need 
 of being last and minister of all in order to be 
 first (ix. 35 ; x. 43, 44). But passing over 
 these merely superficial phenomena, which 
 may be explained by editorship, there remains 
 a second class of doublets and incongruities 
 which point to something deeper. 
 
 There are the two miraculous feedings, the 
 disciples' attitude in the second case being 
 scarcely reconcilable with their having wit- 
 nessed a multiplication of loaves already. 
 Christ twice manifests His power over the 
 sea, and the disciples are twice astounded 
 (iv. 39-41 ; vi. 51, 52). Christ's Divine 
 Sonship is twice attested from heaven. In ix. 
 30, 32, despite viii. 31 ; ix. 9-13, the Passion 
 is announced as though for the first time, and 
 so received by the disciples. In vi. 45, 53, 
 we hear of the disciples setting sail for Beth- 
 sa'ida, and arriving at the land of Gennesaret. 
 In vi. 31, 32, Christ is represented as anxious 
 for privacy, yet verse 56 represents Him as 
 courting publicity. It is strange to find the 
 disciples repelling children just after Christ's 
 disposition towards children has been so 
 clearly manifested (x. 13-16 ; ix. 36, 37). 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 89 
 
 Christ is mocked and spit upon twice — first 
 by the high priest's officers, then by Pilate's — 
 and though there is nothing actually un- 
 natural in the fact of this repetition, yet the 
 double fulfilment of Isa. 1. 6 suggests different 
 authors. 1 Why the second congregation of 
 the Sanhedrin in Mark xv. 1 ? The offer of 
 " wine and myrrh " — if, as Strauss suggests, 
 it is a naturalistic gloss on S. Matthew's 
 " wine (y.r. ' vinegar ') and gall " — must 
 surely come from another source than the 
 subsequent offer of vinegar on the reed. 
 The mention of the two women, xv. 47, is 
 strange between the mention of the three, 
 xv. 40 ; xvi. 1 (even Alford notices a 
 documental suture here), and it is strange 
 that the same woman should in xv. 47 be 
 distinguished by her relationship to Joses, 
 and in xvi. 1 to James. In the extraordinary 
 conclusion (xvi. 8), " They said nothing to 
 any one, for they were afraid," we apparently 
 
 1 It is worth observing that in the Gospel of Peter 
 the trial before the Sanhedrin appears blended with the 
 trial before Pilate, and the mockery by Pilate's officers 
 with that of the high priest's. Does not this suggest 
 that the author found his facts in different documents ? 
 
90 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 have preparation made for a repetition of the 
 injunction about Galilee, like that in Matt, 
 xxviii. 9, 10, with its renewal of " Fear not," 
 " Go, tell" (see pp. 108-111). No ; if our 
 Second Gospel were the only Gospel in 
 existence there Would still be a strong pre- 
 sumption of a dual base ; but when we come 
 to consider the doublets and incongruities in 
 their relation to S. Matthew, this presump- 
 tion becomes a practical certainty. For this 
 is what we find : — 
 
 Firstly, that some of the doublets of S. 
 Matthew are absent from S. Mark conjointly. 
 Instances of this double absence have already 
 been given (see pp. 2, 3, 54, 57), "Save the 
 sign of Jonah" (Matt. xii. 39; xvi. 4); 
 "Mercy not sacrifice" (Matt. ix. 13; xii. 
 7); "The dumb spake and the multitudes 
 marvelled ; but the Pharisees said, By the 
 prince of the devils casteth He out devils " 
 (Matt. ix. 27-34 ; xii. 22-24) > an ^ another 
 instance will be noted presently (pp. no, in, 
 cf. pp. 6$, 66). In the case of Matt. ix. 
 27-34 ; xii. 22-24 at an y rate tne doublet 
 is unmistakable. 
 
 Secondly, that some of the doublets repeated 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 91 
 
 in S. Mark are conjointly posterior to S. 
 Matthew. Such posteriority has been shown 
 with regard to the two narratives of miracu- 
 lous feeding (see pp. 55, 66, 84, 85) ; also with 
 regard to the two forewarnings of tribulation 
 (Matt. x. 16-23 y xxiv. 9-14), compressed 
 and combined in Mark xiii. 9-13 (see pp. 
 81-86). It has been shown, too, with regard 
 to the two circuits of Galilee, followed by 
 the appointment of the Twelve (Matt. iv. 23 
 -v. 1 ; ix. 35-x. 1. See pp. 65, 75-80), 
 these sections reappearing in Mark i. 39 ; 
 iii. 7°, 8, 13-15 ; vi. 6 b , 7, in such a broken 
 and attenuated form that the doublet is 
 scarcely recognisable. 
 
 Thus it is evident that the doublets and 
 incongruities in S. Mark are to be consider- 
 ably reinforced by the analogous phenomena 
 in S. Matthew, and that the fact of the 
 doublets and incongruities in S. Mark being 
 fewer and fainter is to some extent at least 
 a record of spent force. 
 
 But there is a corollary of immense im- 
 portance to be added. The doublets and 
 incongruities in S. Mark proving to be 
 substantial, and providing us with a valid 
 
92 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 principle for bisecting, it inevitably follows 
 that the idea of an ur-Marcus and a deutero- 
 Marcus (or, to use Dr. Sanday's expression, 
 " A layer prior to S. Matthew and a layer 
 posterior ") is thoroughly unsound. For 
 clearly the conjoint absence of certain of the 
 Matthasan doublets, and the conjoint pos- 
 teriority of some repeated, involve a bisection 
 of the Second Gospel altogether cross to any 
 based on its relationship to the First. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 93 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 OMISSION OF PARABLES. 
 
 The lengthiest of S. Mark's omissions are 
 speeches and parables, which, from the nature 
 of the case, might be excised from S. Matthew 
 without leaving any conspicuous gap. It is 
 no objection therefore to our Second Evan- 
 gelist's acquaintance with these speeches and 
 parables if the evidence of his acquaintance 
 is only slight ; and as we have seen (see pp. 
 75-80) that he deliberately excised such 
 an utterance as the Sermon on the Mount, 
 there is prima facie no improbability in his 
 having acted similarly elsewhere. 
 
 Let us consider how the case stands in 
 Mark iv. Our Second Evangelist stops 
 
94 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 short in the middle of a series of parables 
 given by S. Matthew, omitting the explana- 
 tion of the Tares, 1 and the parables of the 
 Treasure, the Pearl, the Drag-net, and the 
 Store-keeper. But was he therefore ignorant 
 of this section ? The phrases with which he 
 concludes indicate not. " With many such 
 parables spake He unto them," is surely a 
 sign of acquaintance with more parables in 
 this connection than it was to his purpose to 
 report. And it can scarcely be a fortuitous 
 coincidence that he supplies " But privately 
 to His disciples He expounded all things " 
 (see p. 37) just at the point where the ex- 
 planation of the Tares occurs in S. Matthew. 
 This impression that our Second Evan- 
 gelist was acquainted with Matt. xiii. 36-52 
 is confirmed when we come to examine the 
 
 1 The place of the Tares is taken in Mark iv. by 
 the Wheat growing secretly, and it has often been 
 observed that there is considerable correspondence 
 between the two parables. It is perhaps easier to 
 suppose that S. Mark obtained his parable inde- 
 pendently, and placed it in its position on account of 
 this correspondence, than that he simply derived it 
 from S. Matthew. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 95 
 
 language of that section. We find several 
 of S. Matthew's favourite expressions — 
 amongst others (jwriXtia altJvog. This ex- 
 pression occurs five times in the First 
 Gospel, and nowhere else in the New Testa- 
 ment ; and we find it represented by 
 awTsX^aOai in Mark xiii. 4 (cf. Matt, 
 xxiv. 3). 
 
 It may be presumed, then, that Matt, 
 xiii. 36-52 was in the hands of our Second 
 Evangelist. And when we proceed to 
 examine the other peculiar Matthagan 
 parables — viz., the Unmerciful Servant, the 
 Labourers, the Two Sons, the Marriage- 
 feast, the Ten Virgins, the Talents, the 
 Sheep and Goats — it is with a presentiment 
 that what our Second Evangelist has done 
 once we may find him doing again. 
 
 Consider the connection of these parables 
 with their contexts. Though the parables 
 may not be involved by the contexts (see, 
 however, an exception in the case of the 
 Sheep and the Goats, p. 66), the contexts are 
 more or less involved by the parables. In 
 the case of the Two Sons, the direct address 
 to the Pharisees and the tone of that address 
 
96 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 demand, if not the circumstances of Matt. 
 xxi., Mark xi., then circumstances closely 
 analogous. So again in the case of the 
 Labourers, the very special lesson inculcated 
 that reward is of grace not desert, and that 
 future disciples will not be mulcted for time 
 lost, demands just such an exceptional occa- 
 sion as that provided by Peter's question, 
 " What shall we have therefore ?" (Matt, 
 xix. ; Mark x.). 
 
 Thus, then, it is exceedingly difficult to 
 think of the Two Sons and the Labourers 
 as existent in a literary form apart from the 
 occasions provided in S. Matthew and S. 
 Mark. It is equally difficult to think of 
 the Unmerciful Servant except as occasioned 
 by Peter's question, " How oft shall my 
 brother sin against me ? " And the fact 
 that in the case of the Unmerciful Servant 
 the occasion as well as the parable is omitted 
 in S. Mark goes far towards disproving the 
 assertion, so frequently made by those who 
 would except these parables from S. Mark's 
 ken, that our Second Gospel has supplied the 
 framework in which the Matthaean parables 
 have been set. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 97 
 
 With regard to the last point, if we could 
 imagine the existence of a collection of 
 "Logia" without any thread of narrative 
 to explain the various occasions and applica- 
 tions, the difficulty in the way of admitting 
 such foreign setting would be considerably 
 lessened. But, by general admission, the 
 idea of Logia without any narrative is im- 
 practicable ; and it seems likelier that the 
 setting that we have is original than that a 
 later writer absolutely ignored the original 
 setting in favour of quite another document. 
 
 Finally, we are thrown back on the test 
 of style and language. The seven parables 
 above mentioned present several points of 
 contact with Matt. xiii. 36-52 (e.g., compare 
 the separation of the Sheep and the Goats to 
 the separation of the Wheat from the Tares, 
 the Good Fish from the Worthless), and 
 with other portions of S. Matthew (e.g., 
 compare Matt. xxv. 31, K a0i<r« Iwl Qpovov 
 So£rjc avrov, with Matt. xix. 28, a verse 
 which is involved in S. Mark, see p. 4). 
 Besides, some of them appear to be cast 
 in the same mould as a parable which 
 S. Mark repeats — the Husbandmen. 
 
98 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 TRACES OF MATT. I., II. 
 
 We now approach the most precarious part 
 of the argument. At no point has the 
 priority of S. Mark been insisted on more 
 strongly than with regard to Matt, i., ii. 
 The Baptismal Consecration, so it is usually 
 urged, forms an older starting-point than the 
 Nativity ; and the peculiar phraseology and 
 style of Matt, i., ii. give these two chapters 
 the appearance of a post-addition. Post- 
 addition let them be, but it does not neces- 
 sarily follow that their absence in S. Mark is 
 a note of priority to S. Matthew. The very 
 fact of their being a post-addition might lead 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 99 
 
 a later Evangelist to revert to the earlier 
 pattern. 
 
 The main objection of course to our 
 Second Evangelist's acquaintance with Matt, 
 i., ii. is the transcendental consequence of 
 that section. How could he have passed by 
 the Parthenic Conception ? But to this the 
 answer is ready, that there is no evidence that 
 the Parthenic Conception was regarded as of 
 such transcendental consequence at the time 
 that our Gospels were written. On the con- 
 trary, all the evidence forthcoming goes to 
 prove that, except as an example of prophecy 
 fulfilled, it was of very little consequence 
 indeed. Notice that there is no allusion to 
 it in the Epistles, or in the sermons of Acts, 
 or in any Patristic document earlier than the 
 Apology of Aristides. Notice that it forms 
 no centre-point in Matt, i., ii., or Luke i. 
 5-ii., merely occupies the same amount of space 
 and attention as the Magi and the Shepherds. 
 
 At first sight this indifference appears ex- 
 ceedingly strange, but at first sight only. It 
 was a fairly common belief among the Jews 
 of the first century that several heroes of the 
 Old Testament, purely human of course, had 
 
ioo S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 been " begotten by God," without any com- 
 merce between their parents. 1 Further, we 
 find various early Christian sects, notably 
 the Nazarenes, acknowledging Christ's virgin- 
 birth, but not acknowledging His Divinity. 2 
 And certainly there is no clear indication of 
 Christ's Divinity either in Matt, i., ii. or 
 Luke i. 5-ii. ; for, with regard to the only 
 two expressions which bear on the point, " By 
 the Holy Spirit," and " Therefore shall be 
 called the Son of God," the former, taken 
 according to the common parlance of the 
 time,3 merely denotes " by divine opera- 
 
 1 Numerous illustrative passages in Philo have 
 recently been brought forward by Mr. F. C. Conybeare. 
 Philo's evidence is corroborated by the " Testaments of 
 the Twelve Patriarchs," the " Book of Jubilees," and 
 perhaps by Galatians iv. 24 (see Academy, June 8 and 
 July 10, 1895). 
 
 2 Eusebius, H. E., iii. 27 ; Hippolytus, Philosoph. 
 vii. 23, x. 19; Tertullian,Adv. Omnes Haereses,viii. One 
 may compare Pseudo-Matthaei Ev. ii., iii., where S. Anne 
 conceives {v.r. by "the Holy Ghost ") while her husband 
 is a month's journey distant. 
 
 3 See Dr. Edersheim's " Life and Times of the 
 Messiah." It was a fashion of the time to say that the 
 Breath of God did what previous generations would 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 101 
 
 tion " ; and the latter is restricted in sense 
 by Luke iii. 38, where Adam is called God's 
 son because immediately owing his existence 
 to Divine agency. 
 
 No, it is not as the corollary of Christ's 
 Divinity that the miraculous conception is 
 related in Matt. L, ii., but merely as an 
 example of prophecy fulfilled, among other 
 examples of prophecy fulfilled, " out of Egypt," 
 " called Nazarene." Things being so, our 
 Second Evangelist, addressing Gentiles, might 
 well brush the whole section aside. Davidic 
 descent, virgin-birth, fulfilment of Old Testa- 
 ment type and prophecy — this would be 
 nothing to his purpose. 
 
 Thus much premised, we may proceed, 
 without any foreboding that our quest will 
 be fruitless, to search for traces of Matt, i., ii. 
 in S. Mark. As a matter of fact such traces 
 are to be found. 
 
 Firstly, there is the introductory sentence 
 (Mark i. 1), ''Beginning of the gospel of 
 
 have spoken of as done simply by God. Compare Luke 
 xi. 20 "by the finger of God," with Matt. xii. 28 "by 
 the Spirit of God." 
 
loz S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 Jesus Christ (the son of God)," correspondent 
 to the introductory sentence of S. Matthew, 
 " Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the 
 son of David." An Evangelist writing for 
 Gentiles might well change " Book of genera- 
 tion " into " Gospel " ; but the reverse pro- 
 cess is inconceivable. And Matthew i. i at 
 any rate carries with it the genealogy. On 
 the inseparability of the genealogy from 
 Matt. i. 18-ii., see Academy \ December 15, 
 1894. 
 
 Secondly, the main-stock of S. Matthew 
 is connected with the first two chapters by 
 certain Old Testament quotations (prefaced 
 in the same manner as those in Matt, i., ii., 
 "a/a irXyptoOii to pvdtv" and stamped with the 
 same peculiar character ; namely, Matt. iv. 
 15, 16 ; viii. 17 ; xii. 18-21 ; xxvii. 9, 10; 
 xiii. 35 ; xxi. 5) ; and although none of 
 these quotations are repeated in S. Mark, 
 yet probable traces of three may still be 
 detected. For the definite settlement in 
 Capernaum (Matt. iv. 13 ; ix. 1), men- 
 tioned presumably in consequence of the 
 Zebulon-Naphthali prophecy, is referred 
 to in Mark ii. 1 by the expression ac 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 103 
 
 oltcov. 1 The statement in Mark iv. 33, 
 " Without a parable spake He not unto 
 them," seems to lead up to and require the 
 reason, " That it might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken, I will open My mouth in parables." 
 And if, as generally thought, the appearance 
 of a colt in Matt, xxi. 2, 3, 7, is due to the 
 prophecy inserted, " Riding upon an ass, and 
 upon a colt, the foal of an ass," an ass alone 
 having been mentioned originally, then in 
 Mark xi. 2, where the colt is mentioned by 
 itself, we have, as Strauss points out, a still 
 further development — a development ac- 
 counted for by the consideration " whereon 
 no man ever yet sat." 2 
 
 Another of S. Matthew's Old Testament 
 
 1 If Mark ii. 1 stood alone, C i£ oIkov might be 
 taken merely as "into a house"; but in iii. 19, 
 where it recurs, the sense of home is requisite, for there 
 is no mention of Capernaum at all, though Capernaum 
 is evidently understood. 
 
 2 A very general preference is shown for S. Mark's 
 narrative. The two animals of S. Matthew are so 
 obviously due to prophecy. But, in fact, it is far 
 likelier that two animals were actually employed than 
 that an unbroken colt was chosen on such a solemn 
 occasion. 
 
io4 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 quotations may be noticed in this connection, 
 " The voice of one crying," repeated in 
 Mark i. 2, 3. In this case, indeed, the 
 quotation is not marked by that peculiarity 
 of character which stamps the quotations 
 above mentioned ; but being as it is of a 
 commentatorial nature, completing the list 
 above given, it does not seem quite reasonable 
 to distinguish it from all the others : besides, 
 the manner of introduction is very similar, 
 
 " ovtoq Igtlv 6 pr\Qiig vtto Haaiov rov irpo^rov 
 \iyovTog" 
 
 Thirdly, the word avax^p^tv (= to retire) 
 is found nine times in the First Gospel — 
 four times in Matt, i., iL, and three times 
 out of the remaining five in proximity to the 
 quotations connected with Matt, i., ii. (see 
 above). It may be surmised, then, that the 
 word is distinctive of the author of Matt, i., ii. ; 
 and its presence in Mark iii. 7, correspond- 
 ing to Matt. xii. 15, points to our Second 
 Evangelist's use of a document of which 
 Matt, i., ii. formed part. 
 
 Fourthly and chiefly, if it be admitted 
 that the First Gospel and the Second are 
 composite (see pp. 87-92), it necessarily 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 105 
 
 follows from the coincidence of arrangement 
 after the feeding of the five thousand, also from 
 coincidence in such cementitious passages as 
 Matt. xvi. 5-12 ; Mark viii. 14-21, that the 
 compositorial work was not achieved inde- 
 pendently. Which way is the debt ? The 
 following considerations show that the com- 
 positor of S. Matthew cannot have been 
 acquainted with our S. Mark. 
 
 (a) Our Second Gospel is characterised, not 
 in parts only but all through, by most distinctive 
 style and phraseology (see pp. 1 1 3- 1 1 9). There 
 is, in this respect, a oneness about it which is 
 quite lacking in S. Matthew ; and it seems 
 impossible that S. Mark should have been 
 employed in the construction of S. Matthew 
 without any infiltration of its peculiarities. 
 What we find is that though none of the 
 general, presumably redactorial, expressions of 
 S. Mark are found in S. Matthew, some of 
 the general expressions of S. Matthew are 
 found in S. Mark. 
 
 (b) Reasons have already been pointed out 
 for believing that the cure of blindness and 
 dumbness in Matt. ix. 27-34 ; xii. 22-24, 
 also the doubleness of cure which occurs in the 
 
106 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 former passage, and in Matt. viii. 28-34 ; xx. 
 29-34, are deliberately corrected in S. Mark 
 (see pp. 51-63). And it has been pointed 
 out further that the narratives in S. Mark 
 which supplant these passages present the 
 general peculiarities of the Second Gospel 
 to an intense degree (see Introduction, p. 
 xxvi.). This is really the strongest argu- 
 ment against the structural posteriority of 
 S. Matthew to S. Mark. It is difficult to 
 see how, with our S. Mark before his eyes, 
 the compositor of S. Matthew could have 
 produced the result he has. 
 
 Such then is the case for inferring our 
 Second Evangelist's acquaintance with Matt. 
 i., ii. The proofs are not strong, but as 
 strong as could reasonably be expected, con- 
 sidering how lightly these two chapters are 
 attached to the remainder of S. Matthew. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 107 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE GUARDS AT THE SEPULCHRE. 
 
 Here, again, we have a case in which prefer- 
 ence for a less miraculous narrative has led 
 miracle-minimisers to postpone S. Matthew 
 to S. Mark. The narrative of the guards 
 may be an accretion, but, as Strauss points 
 out, at any rate it must have made its appear- 
 ance long before the earliest of our Gospels 
 can have been written ; for the current Jewish 
 slander mentioned in Matt, xxviii. 13 is not 
 merely that the disciples stole the sacred Body, 
 but that they did so while the guards slept. 
 
 S. Mark might well have omitted such a 
 narrative owing to distance from the circles 
 in which the slander was prevalent. Or he 
 
io8 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 may have had reason to doubt whether the 
 narrative was historical. Apropos of this 
 latter point, one may observe that the intro- 
 ductory sentences of Matt, xxviii. and of 
 Mark xvi. seem to be derived from different 
 documents, the two women mentioned in 
 the one case belonging to quite another 
 sequence than the three mentioned in the 
 other (see p. 89) ; l and S. Mark may have 
 felt that the intentions of the three were 
 difficult to reconcile with the idea of the 
 sepulchre being guarded and sealed. 
 
 But whether or not Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Mark 
 xvi. 1, 2 are derived from different docu- 
 ments, the verses subsequent clearly belong 
 to one and the same ; and there are certain 
 minute differences between the two Gospels 
 which tell strongly for the priority of S. 
 Matthew. 
 
 Firstly : Notice how naturally and easily 
 the women's panic is mentioned in S. Matthew 
 
 1 Notice, too, the remarkable discrepancy between 
 S. Matthew and S. Mark as to the time of the women's 
 visit. In S. Matthew they come at the commencement 
 of the Lord's Day of the Jewish Christians, at six on 
 Saturday evening. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 109 
 
 — " The guards did quake. And the angel 
 said to the women, Fear not ye™ ; and that 
 in S. Mark, on the other hand, there is 
 nervous precision — " they saw a young man 
 sitting, arrayed in a white robe ; and they 
 were amazed (l^QaixfiqQwav). And he saith 
 unto them, Be not amazed (pjj iKOa^jducrOe)." 
 It may be added that in other passages where 
 EKdafxj3e7a6aL occurs, it appears to be a manner- 
 ism of S. Mark's, and unprimitive (Mark ix. 
 15 ; xiv. 23 : cf. i. 27 ; x. 24, 32). 
 
 Secondly : Notice that S. Mark's shifting the 
 angel's position to the inside of the tomb, breaks 
 what in S. Matthew is a very natural connec- 
 tion — " Rolled away the stone and sat upon 
 it." S. Mark's angel is seated, but how ? 
 
 Thirdly : Consider the terms of the 
 angel's address. " Ye seek " — even without 
 S. Matthew's ol$a otl — is a divination of the 
 women's purpose, appropriate enough as 
 spoken by an angel outside the tomb to 
 women outside, but insipid as spoken to 
 women who have already entered and sought. 
 " He is not here " is similarly rendered 
 insipid if the women are already able to 
 perceive that the tomb is empty. And 
 
no S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 " Behold the place where they laid Him " 
 — even without S. Matthew's Ssvre — sounds 
 like inviting the women to do something 
 they are not yet in a position to do. It may 
 be added that these three discrepancies in 
 the angel's utterance (Mark xvi.), are under- 
 lined by the fact that S. Luke avoids them. 
 
 Fourthly : Notice that the Second Evan- 
 gelist describes the scene as it appeared a 
 minute later. In S. Matthew the angel 
 descends like lightning and rolls away the 
 stone and seats himself on it ; while in 
 S. Mark the women find the stone rolled 
 away and the angel seated. The lightning- 
 like appearance, which would of course be 
 inharmonious with a scene in which there 
 were no guards, has softened in the interval. 
 In fine, the aspect in which things present 
 themselves to the women in Mark xvi. might 
 be inferred from S. Matthew, but the earlier 
 phase in St. Matthew could scarcely be 
 inferred from S. Mark. 
 
 Fifthly : There is obvious reason why the 
 position of the angel should have been 
 shifted. S. Mark — desirous of avoiding the 
 incongruity of Matt, xxviii. 9-10, where the 
 
TO S. MATTHEW in 
 
 women are again bidden, " Fear not," " Go, 
 tell," when actually on their way to tell and 
 already reassured — thought fit to represent 
 their emotion on quitting the sepulchre as one 
 of unmixed terror l (see pp. 89, 90). Conse- 
 quently he was obliged to bring them into 
 the sepulchre before letting them see the 
 angel ; for they were no longer in a condition 
 to obey the angel's Stvre ('* Hither "). By 
 the way, it may be noticed that S. Mark's 
 omission of raxv is connected with his view 
 of the women's attitude — the angel cannot well 
 say " Go quickly " to women about to fly. 
 
 Sixthly : If the frequently-made sugges- 
 tion be admitted that the angel's reference to 
 Peter — " Tell His disciples and Peter " — 
 was preparatory to Peter's visiting the tomb 
 (" But Peter arose, and ran to the tomb ; 
 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the 
 linen clothes lying," Luke xxiv.- 12), then 
 the women cannot have entered, for Peter 
 inspects the tomb as it has not been inspected 
 before. 
 
 Putting these facts together, it appears to 
 
 1 u t<pvyoV tlx^v avTag Tpu/xog Kai tKGTaoie' t(f>of3ouvTO." Cr. 
 Mark v. 42, " tMjTamg." 
 
ii2 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 be a tolerably certain inference that the guard 
 and the earthquake of S. Matthew underlie 
 S. Mark. And thus we are brought round 
 to a conclusion which from the outset was 
 almost inevitable, — the doublet of Matt. 
 xxvii. 51-54; xxviii. 2-4, l leaving scarcely 
 any room for unoriginality in S. Matthew. 
 
 1 " The earth did quake . . . after His resurrection. 
 Now the centurion, and they that were with him 
 watching, when they saw the earthquake and the 
 things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, 
 Truly this man was the Son of God" (Matt, xxvii. 
 51-54). "And there was a great earthquake; and the 
 watchers did quake" (Matt, xxviii. 2-4). It is perhaps 
 worth notice that in the Gospel of Peter these two 
 passages are blended together. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 113 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 DESIGN AND STYLE OF S. MARK. 
 
 Looking back at the ground that has been 
 travelled over, considering together all the 
 cases in which the Matthaean text is mutilated, 
 altered, or added to, we can now discern the 
 outlines of an intelligible plan. Our Second 
 Evangelist's object was : (a) To produce a 
 more concise Gospel than his predecessor. 
 (J?) To avoid matter unsuited to a Gentile 
 audience, (c) To exhibit Christ as Son of 
 God — accredited by the miracles He worked 
 — rather than as prophet, (d) To re-paint 
 the sacred picture with such peculiar light as 
 he had, in the particular style and colour 
 that he preferred. 
 
 9 
 
ii4 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 Occasionally, indeed, it is necessary to 
 make allowance for literary caprice — as, for 
 example, when he chooses the Husbandmen 
 and leaves the Labourers. And occasionally, 
 as said before, his omissions are sufficiently 
 serious to make one doubt whether he in- 
 tended to supersede his predecessors entirely. 
 But whatever doubt may sometimes arise as 
 to his motives, there can be no question at all 
 as to the general harmoniousness of the effect 
 produced. We have none of S. Matthew's 
 violent discords. The doublets, compared 
 with S. Matthew's, are only few and faint. 
 And knitting all parts together, and exhibited 
 by the peculiar vigour of style and phraseology 
 no less than by elaboration of detail, there is 
 evidence of a clearly defined, exceptional 
 artistic sentiment. 
 
 The significance of S. Mark's vocabulary 
 may easily be underrated. Notice how often 
 any list of the words for which our Second 
 Evangelist shows a predilection (e.g.. evOiwg, 
 GTrafHiaaEiV) tyijuovv (imperative), a-u^rav, 7TW- 
 povv, SiacFTtWecrdai) aAaAoc, crvvrpifitiV) vtytt-, Kara- 
 KHadai) tlcnropEvtcrOaiy tvayKaXi&aOai) 7rpoaTpt\eiv^ 
 Oanfitlvj iKdafijddaOai, irapijdXiTreaOai)^ comprises 
 
TO S. MATTHEW H$ 
 
 those required by his picturesque details. 
 Notice that the narrative aorist is super- 
 seded by the present, and oblique narration 
 by direct ; that intense expressions are pre- 
 ferred to ordinary ; that uncouth solecisms 
 occur frequently. 1 Considering all these 
 peculiarities of diction together, it appears 
 impossible to regard them as merely super- 
 ficial — they agree too closely with other 
 general peculiarities of S. Mark that have 
 already been noted. 
 
 Another illustration of unity of design is 
 furnished by the orderly gradual growth of 
 the Messianic idea. There is no premature 
 recognition of the Messiahship as in S. 
 Matthew, no sudden plunge into publicity. 
 It is the demoniacs who first recognise Christ, 
 and their utterances are strictly checked 
 
 1 S. Mark's advocates frequently, but unreasonably, 
 appeal to these solecisms as proofs of priority. For 
 example, it is argued that because S. Mark uses icpdfifiaTog 
 (a word which Phrynichus rejects as unclassical), and 
 S. Matthew kSIvti, the former must be prior to the 
 latter. In this particular case the use of KpafiparoQ in 
 S. John and the Acts shows how little Phrynichus 
 represents the views prevalent in Christian circles a 
 century before. 
 
n6 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 (Mark i. 25, 34; iii. 11, 12). The dis- 
 ciples' hearts are preternaturally hardened 
 (Mark vi. 52 ; viii. 17), so that Peter's con- 
 fession marks a real climax ; and when the 
 Passion is announced, they only realise the 
 meaning of the announcement gradually 
 (Mark ix. 10, 32). J The report of the 
 miracles spreads first throughout Galilee — 
 only at a latter epoch to Phcenicia and Jeru- 
 salem and Idumasa and beyond Jordan. 
 When Christ first visits Capernaum a crowd 
 assembles at the door ; on the second occa- 
 sion they block the doorway ; on the third 
 occasion they leave Christ no leisure so much 
 as to eat, and His relatives are unable to gain 
 access at all. Similarly with regard to those 
 resorts to the beach, which in our S. Mark 
 alternate with the visits to Capernaum : on 
 the first occasion a great multitude assembles ; 
 
 1 It is difficult for one writer to interpolate another's 
 work quite successfully. Notice the incongruity of 
 Mark ix. 10 with its context. For as there was no 
 misunderstanding on the first occasion when Christ 
 announced the Passion, why should there be on the 
 second ? And the question about Elias shows that the 
 disciples realised Christ's meaning fully. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 117 
 
 on the second, a greater, so that Christ engages 
 a little boat in case of emergency ; on the 
 third occasion He actually embarks, and sails 
 away into privacy. 
 
 This question of arrangement is a vital 
 one, and we must pause to examine it. By 
 Renan and others it has been reckoned to 
 S. Mark for original righteousness that start- 
 ing from such a suitable beginning as the 
 miracle in the synagogue he gradually unfolds 
 the developments on an intelligible plan. 
 And it has been maintained, e.g., by Dr. 
 Sanday, that from a literary point of view, 
 while it is easy to explain the arrangement 
 in Matt, viii., ix., by assuming that of S. Mark, 
 the reverse process is " wholly impossible." 
 As to these points one may ask (a) Whether 
 there is not an artificial appearance about the 
 gradual increase of the crowd, the growing 
 volume of report? Doubtless things must 
 have happened somewhat in this fashion, but 
 would the early disciples, not knowing what 
 the future was to be, have noted such pro- 
 gression so definitely and methodically ? (b) 
 Whether what has been said as to Mark i. 39 ; 
 iii. 7-21 (see pp. 51-58, 75-80, 91), is not 
 
n8 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 in some measure fatal to the idea that S. 
 Mark's arrangement is prior, (c) Whether 
 it is not much likelier in the nature of things 
 that a disorderly document should have been 
 subsequently improved than that such con- 
 secutiveness as we find in S. Mark should 
 have been subsequently ignored? e.g., whether 
 the close sequence observable in Mark i. 21, 
 29; i. 45 ; ii. 1 ; iv. 1, 36 would have been 
 broken ? Or, to take a still more conspic- 
 uous case, whether the narration of Simon's 1 
 pursuit of Christ, which in Mark i. so inti- 
 mately connects the cure of Simon's mother- 
 in-law with the circuit of Galilee, would not, 
 if within the ken of our First Evangelist, 
 have prevented the disjuncture that we find 
 between Matt. iv. 23 and viii. 15? 
 
 To touch further on this question of 
 arrangement would necessitate a digression 
 
 1 How carefully S. Mark abstains from using Simon's 
 surname before Christ confers it ! Is not this a 
 deliberate improvement on S. Matthew ? And if, as 
 suggested (p. 68), the conferring of this name in Mark 
 iii. 16, is transferred from a later occasion, then the 
 distinction which S. Mark observes between the two 
 names appears still more artificial. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 119 
 
 about the dual base of our First Gospel (see 
 pp. 87-92). x But this much at least is clear, 
 that as to sequence no less than as to matter 
 and style and phraseology, the Second Gospel 
 is one and whole in a far, far higher sense 
 than the First Gospel. All parts appear 
 firmly jointed together. But when once the 
 process of disintegration commences, once 
 any sutures whatever are admitted, then this 
 special unity is transformed into a sign of 
 weakness instead of strength. The removal 
 of a single section of any length causes the 
 whole Gospel to fall in pieces, and the unity 
 of its design becomes a fatal measure of its 
 unoriginality. 
 
 1 In this connection, notice the different position 
 occupied in the two Gospels by the Corn-Withered- 
 hand-Beelzebub-Relatives-Sower section. If, as is sug- 
 gested, there were two original documents to be com- 
 bined, might not our Evangelists have chosen different 
 points at which to inter-splice them ? 
 
120 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE OF PAPIAS. 
 
 Advocates of S. Mark's priority are wont 
 to make Papias their starting-point, but his 
 statements are of such an exceedingly am- 
 biguous character that they ought rather to 
 be worked up to from the internal evidence. 
 
 Papias informs us, on the authority of 
 " John the Elder," that Mark "wrote down 
 accurately what he remembered of Peter's 
 discourses," but that his work was disorderly 
 owing to the fact that he had not been an 
 eye-witness ; and also owing to the fact 
 that Peter's discourses had been occasional, 
 not at all designed as a avvra^ig of our 
 Lord's acts and sayings. A document which 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 121 
 
 originated in such a manner would neces- 
 sarily be of a primary character, but there are 
 the gravest difficulties in supposing that John 
 the Elder spoke with our Second Gospel in 
 view, (a) Critics are agreed that our Second 
 Gospel, to some slight extent at least, is not 
 primary. (£) It consists of matter most un- 
 suited for occasional discourses — parable and 
 doctrine we should expect rather than elaborate 
 narrative, (c) It is a avvra^iq of our Lord's 
 sayings and acts in a higher sense than either 
 our First Gospel or our Third — the sequence 
 of events being noted far more definitely — 
 " on that day," " immediately after." (d) 
 As the arrangement of the sections common 
 to our Second Gospel and our Third is, with 
 one or two trifling exceptions, exactly the 
 same, and as the divergence from our First 
 is not serious, there does not seem to be 
 adequate room for that general disorder which 
 John the Elder thought it necessary to account 
 for. 
 
 S. Mark's advocates generally minimise 
 these difficulties by applying John the 
 Elder's description to " ur-Marcus." It is 
 urged that ur-Marcus may have been more 
 
122 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 desultory. But, as before shown, the con- 
 nectedness of our Second Gospel and its 
 unity of design are such that in order to 
 get at this desultory, disorderly document 
 it is not a matter of striking out a passage 
 here, and altering another there, but of 
 breaking the whole composition up. In 
 fine, we have to exmachinate another S. 
 Mark radically different from the one we 
 possess, and of the existence of which no 
 proof is forthcoming elsewhere. 
 
 Surely it is more natural to read John 
 the Elder's words in connection with Luke 
 i. 1-4. There S. Luke refers to some 
 previous work or works in contrast with 
 which his own Gospel is to be written 
 KaO&rig : and Credner, Lightfoot, and 
 others have pointed out that John the 
 Elder's language distinctly recalls S. Luke's 
 
 aicpi(3u)Q typaipev, 7rapr]Ko\ov9riaev, cxC. But 
 
 what can this document be which S. Luke 
 regarded as disorderly? Certainly not our 
 Second Gospel, for, as previously said, he 
 reproduces its order. We are left then to 
 conclude that he had his second authority 
 in view, that great anonymous Gospel of 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 123 
 
 which the nucleus lies between Luke ix. and 
 xix. There not the slightest attempt is 
 made to preserve any unities of time or 
 locality, and the only order observable is 
 purely subjective. Consider the disjointed, 
 spasmodic utterances in Luke xii. 1-12 ; 
 xvi. 14-18 — precisely such phenomena as 
 might arise from a fragmentary recollection 
 of occasional discourses ! 
 
 The difficulty which the title of our 
 Second Gospel offers is perhaps not so 
 great as it appears at first sight. The 
 varying title of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 is suggestive. And supposing the actual 
 work of S. Peter's disciple to have dis- 
 appeared — merged in S. Luke — the fact of 
 his having once been well known as an evan- 
 gelist might account for the survival of his 
 name in connection with another document, 
 especially if that document were anonymous. 
 It might even be — for Mark is not such an 
 uncommon name — that the title of our 
 Second Gospel had a separate origin. 
 
 Let us next see whether any further light 
 is thrown on this subject by the second state- 
 ment of Papias — " Matthew composed the 
 
I2 4 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 Logia in Hebrew, and every one translated 
 them as he could." This statement, it is 
 to be observed, is of considerably less weight 
 than the former, for it is not o-iven to us on 
 the authority of John the Elder. It is rather 
 difficult to imagine such an early authority 
 as the Elder having been mistaken about S. 
 Mark ; but with regard to a statement made 
 on his own authority by Papias (circ. 
 a.d. 130) it will be sufficient explanation 
 if we find circumstances such as to render 
 his statement plausible. 
 
 Now it is clear from the different origins 
 that Papias gives us of Mark and Matthew 
 that in his eyes those two documents did not 
 at all stand in the same relationship to one 
 another as our present S. Matthew and S. 
 Mark ; and, as it is a generally accepted fact 
 that our present S. Matthew, as it stands, is 
 no translation from a Hebrew original, those 
 who more or less identify Papias's Mark with 
 ours, are disposed to desiderate an original 
 Hebrew collection of Christ's sayings em- 
 bedded here and there in our S. Matthew. 
 Why needlessly multiply documents ? No 
 proof of the existence of this original collec- 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 125 
 
 tion of Hebrew Logia is forthcoming else- 
 where. All attempts to discover such from 
 verbal variation between the Synoptic Gospels 
 have failed. And the reference may be quite 
 sufficiently explained by " The Gospel accord- 
 ing to the Hebrews," which so many of the 
 Fathers, though mistakenly, accounted the 
 original of our Greek S. Matthew. The 
 Jewish tendencies of Papias render his usage 
 of this Gospel probable a priori ; and the 
 statement of Eusebius, " He recounts a narra- 
 tive . . . which the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews contains," though not quite con- 
 clusive, is very nearly so. Presuming, then, 
 that it was in view of " The Gospel according 
 to the Hebrews " that Papias spoke, the 
 resemblance of that Gospel to our Greek 
 S. Matthew being what it was, it is exceed- 
 ingly difficult to suppose that his other 
 document was our S. Mark. 
 
 But where are those other translations that 
 Papias mentions — " Every one translated as 
 he could " ? There is no getting over this 
 clear, precise statement by basing it on 
 rumour. Either it is after all an actual fact 
 that Matthew produced a Hebrew collection 
 
Iz6 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 of Christ's sayings, of which varying Greek 
 versions got into circulation, or else we must 
 bring within Papias's cognisance documents 
 so related to one another and to the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews as to 
 make the theory of free translation a plausible 
 explanation of their divergencies. The latter 
 alternative offers little difficulty. It is now 
 generally admitted that our three Synoptic 
 Gospels were current at the time that Papias 
 wrote. And if Papias regarded our First 
 Gospel as a translation from the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews, he might well 
 take a similar view with respect to our 
 Second Gospel and portions of the Third. 
 
 Again, the fact that in both cases Papias 
 asserts and accounts for a defect in the 
 documents before him — " S. Mark's oppor- 
 tunities were limited," " Translators were 
 inefficient " — is strongly suggestive of some 
 attempt at harmonisation. And is it not 
 likelier that he wrote with regard to the 
 then, as now, situation — the verbal dis- 
 crepancies in the " triple tradition," the 
 difference of order in S. Luke's anonymous 
 Gospel — than that his words of disparage- 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 127 
 
 ment were of mere antiquarian interest, 
 applying to circumstances which had already 
 passed away ? 
 
 Whether or not these suggestions about 
 Papias are valid is a matter which has little 
 bearing on the general argument of this book. 
 But this much at least must, I think, be con- 
 ceded, that what John the Elder and Papias 
 say is of such extreme ambiguity, and capable 
 of so many different solutions, that it ought 
 not for one moment to be allowed to weigh 
 against the internal evidence of posteriority 
 in our Second Gospel. 
 
128 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In the foregoing pages an attempt has been 
 made to show that S. Mark is posterior. to 
 S. Matthew generally, and that the notes of 
 posteriority are common to all parts alike. 
 Whatever instances there may be of priority 
 can only be few and scattered. There is not 
 sufficient material left or room enough for an 
 ur-Marcus. 
 
 Certainly some instances of priority must 
 be admitted. The chief of such instances is, 
 undoubtedly, the absence of the Nativity sec- 
 tion (Matt, i., ii.), and its cognates ; but in 
 this case, as I have endeavoured to show, 
 S. Mark reverts to an earlier pattern with 
 Matt, i., ii. before his eyes. Passing over 
 other points already mentioned in this connec- 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 
 
 129 
 
 tion, one may notice that Matt. xiii. 12 looks 
 like a fragment of Mark iv. 21-25 tnat nas 
 suffered shipwreck ; that there is a decidedly 
 late appearance about the explanations in 
 Matt. xvi. 12; xvii. 13, -and about \{y 0V <Ti, 
 Xiyei in xxi. 41, 42 ; that the harshness of 
 " Is not this the carpenter ? " " Why call est 
 thou Me good ? " I sounds primitive ; that 
 the extra utterances Mark ix. 49, 50 ; x. 15 ; 
 xi. 25 seem integrant, and may well have been 
 omitted in S. Matthew as making doublets ; 
 that Mark viii. 38 may have been modified 
 in Matt. xvi. 27 for a similar reason ; and that 
 there is, prima facie^ no reason against the 
 priority of such readings as " to Bethsaida," 
 " wheresoever He came into villages and into 
 cities," " and how shall ye know all parables? " 
 "Levi," "tell His disciples and Peter." 
 But thus much said, the list of instances of 
 priority in S. Mark is almost exhausted ; and 
 were such instances three times as numerous, 
 still they afford no answer to the general 
 argument here put forward. They need 
 
 1 In this case, however, there is fairly strong authority 
 for a similar reading in S. Matthew. 
 10 
 
130 S. MARK'S INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 only prove that the author of the Second 
 Gospel was not obliged to rely wholly on 
 the First, but had access to material behind. 
 Sometimes the original text would appear in 
 the First Gospel, sometimes in the Second, 
 here or there according to the exigencies of 
 editorship ; and my suggestion is that owing 
 to the clearly defined design of the author of 
 the Second Gospel, his fixed artistic sentiment 
 and strongly marked individuality, the original 
 text necessarily appears far less frequently in 
 his work than in that of his predecessor. 
 " His predecessor," for even in those cases 
 in which the original text is better repre- 
 sented in S. Mark, still, standing where it 
 does, this more original text is posterior to 
 the less original. 
 
 With regard to the last statement, there is 
 one reservation to be made, and only one. 
 We find a group of sections, common for the 
 most part to S. Matthew and S. Luke (Matt, 
 iii. 7-10; v. 25, 26; vi. 21-vii. 12; viii. 
 8-12, 19-22 ; x. 26-33 > Xl - 2 ~3° > x ^- 
 
 3 2 ~37> 4J-45 5 xiii - l6 > r 7; xxiii - 37~39 ; 
 xxiv. 26-28, 37-41, 43-51), of which no 
 
 trace whatever can be detected in S. Mark. 
 
TO S. MATTHEW 131 
 
 The narrative does not require them, and 
 sometimes runs smoother in their absence. 
 But excepting these, post-additions perhaps, 
 almost every part of S. Matthew has been 
 covered, and it may be fairly concluded that 
 the author of the Second Gospel possessed 
 our S. Matthew entire. 
 
 Beside the fact that there is not sufficient 
 room and material left for such a document 
 as ur-Marcus, I have also endeavoured to 
 show that the doublets and incongruities in 
 S. Mark, involving as they do a cleavage 
 altogether cross to the variation of aspect 
 towards S. Matthew, destroy the whole ur- 
 Marcus theory at its base. If the proofs be 
 admitted, it inevitably follows that the secret 
 of the formation of S. Mark is to be looked 
 for in S. Matthew. "In our S. Matthew," 
 says Hilgenfeld, " two distinct documents 
 have been combined." And I submit that 
 it is by the definition of these two docu- 
 ments, alternately requiring sections peculiar 
 to S. Matthew, that the exact relationship of 
 S. Mark to S. Matthew must be determined. 
 Requiescat ur-Marcus. 
 
TLbe (Sresfoam ipvesa, 
 
 UNWIN BROTHERS, 
 WOKING AND LONDON. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 .1 *nnin,«»rt.M,,. m 
 
 
 
 
 ■ r, 
 
 „ — — — -* 
 
 
 
 
 ^pF**' ■_ - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
fJb 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ■ 
 
 
 I ■ £$ I ♦ ■* t >•.••■ ■M 1 1 ■ 
 
 
BS2585.4 .B13 
 
 S. Mark's indebtedness to S. Matthew 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00056 0799 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 ^■/'- /J 
 
 
 1 w 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ■ \VT',* 
 
 1 1 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^B 
 
 
 
 ■ is 
 
 
 I • (i\ 
 
 H HP