Section III

the authenticity of the second gospel

Mark John, or John Mark, a disciple of the apostles, who accompanied the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, and afterwards Barnabas alone, on missionary journeys, who was subsequently the companion of Peter (1Pe 5:13), and is said to have suffered martyrdom at Alexandria, is very decidedly declared by the primitive Church to have been the author of this Gospel.

Papias, who refers the Greek Gospel of St Matthew to a Hebrew original, also refers the Gospel of St Mark to the oral preaching of St Peter. He relates that, according to the communications of the presbyter John, St Mark, as the interpreter to St Peter, committed to writing what that apostle delivered, not however in the order in which perhaps Christ spoke or acted, but in that in which St Peter arranged his deeds and sayings, according to the needs of his audience. Schleiermacher thinks that this information shows that Papias was not speaking of our Gospel according to St Mark, which always preserves a chronological arrangement. But neither John the presbyter nor Papias affirm that no chronological arrangement existed, but that this was not one of strict historical correctness. St Peter combined the sayings and deeds of the Lord according to his own views and the exigencies of preaching, and in this combination a certain sequence was formed; this forms the basis of St Mark’s Gospel, which thus gains in apostolical what it loses in chronological authority. If John the presbyter had in view the order of St John’s Gospel, he might well declare of this collection of life-like pictures from the life of Jesus, undivided into years, and omitting all notice of His ministry in Judea, that the original order (τάξις) had not been observed.

Irenæus gives a similar account of the origin of this Gospel (adv. Hæres., iii. 1). After the death of St Peter and St Paul at Rome, St Mark, the disciple and interpreter of St Peter, committed to writing what the latter had preached. Clement of Alexandria, however, says that even during St Peter’s ministry in Rome, St Mark, at the request of many, took down much of what he delivered, and that St Peter, when he heard this, neither specially assisted nor prevented him (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vi. 14). Tertullian and Origen agree, in the main, with this account According to the report of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 15), St Peter is said to have authenticated this Gospel, and commended it to the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

The universal recognition of the authenticity of this Gospel has not been extended to its conclusion (chap. 16:9-20), which, on both internal and external grounds, has been regarded as the addition of a later hand. That Eusebius did not include this paragraph, is shown by his remark, that the passage in which the departure of the women from the grave is related, formed the conclusion in almost all copies. Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others, express themselves in a similar manner.¹ The characteristic style of Mark is also wanting in this conclusion, his animated expressions, his repetitions, his use of uncommon and often of Latin words; while peculiarities are found which do not belong to this Evangelist. It is, however, overstepping the bounds of caution to reckon every creature (πᾶσα κτίσις), to speak with new tongues (γλώσσαις καιναῖς λαλεῖν), and similar expressions, among them. If less regard were paid to such isolated expressions, many of which, in the record of a life so variously developed, might well make their first or only appearance in single passages, and more bestowed upon the general manner in which occurrences are viewed, and upon the change of scene in this paragraph, a different conclusion might perhaps be arrived at, with regard to internal evidence. The fulness and boldness of the promise, in respect of the evidence of the senses, with which Christ sends forth His disciples into the world, the strong expression every creature, and similar ones, seem quite in accordance with the style of this Evangelist.² It is also worthy of consideration that Irenæus, who lived a century before Eusebius expressed himself as above mentioned, quotes the present conclusion of this Gospel (adv. Hæres. iii. 10, 6). The circumstance that, in the earliest times, some copies had this addition, and some not, may be explained by the supposition, that an incomplete work of Mark came into the hands of the Christian public before the subsequently complete one. In such a work of quick execution and production, of sudden delay, and hesitation at a fresh chief incident, and of subsequent completion, the characteristics of Mark, as shown in many instances, are accurately reflected.

1) See Credner, 106. i

2) [Yet it is difficult thus to account for twenty new expressions in half the number of verses. These are very fairly stated by Davidson, p. 169. Alford, whose judgment is here, as always, most worthy of consideration, thinks the internal evidence ‘very weighty against Mark’s being the author.’ Ebrard adopts the not untenable hypothesis advocated by the author. If a considerable time elapsed between the two publications, this would sufficiently account for the change of style.—ED.]