I. Our Second Gospel.

The order of the Gospels in our New Testament is probably due to the early conviction that this was the order in which the Gospels were written. It was not, however, the invariable order. The question of order only arose when the roll was superseded by the codex, our present book-form. That change was going on in the 3rd century. Origen found codices with the order John-Matthew-Mark-Luke - due probably to the desire to give the apostles the leading place. That and the one common today may be considered the two main groupings - the one in the order of dignity, the other in that of time. The former is Egyptian and Latin; the latter has the authority of most Greek manuscripts, Catalogues and Fathers, and is supported by the old Syriac.

Within these, however, there are variations. The former is varied thus: John-Matthew-Luke-Mark, and Matthew-John-Mark-Luke, and Matthew-John-Luke-Mark; the latter to Matthew-Mark-John-Luke. Mark is never first; when it follows Luke, the time consideration has given place to that of length.

II. Contents and General Characteristics.

The Gospel begins with the ministry of John the Baptist and ends with the announcement of the Resurrection, if the last 12 verses be not included. These add post-resurrection appearances, the Commission, the Ascension, and a brief summary of apostolic activity. Thus its limits correspond closely with those indicated by Peter in Act 10:37-43. Nothing is said of the early Judean ministry. The Galilean ministry and Passion Week with the transition from the one to the other (in Acts 10) practically make up the Gospel.

Matter peculiar to Mark is found in Mar 4:26-29 (the seed growing secretly); Mar 3:21 (his kindred's fear); Mar 7:32-37 (the deaf and dumb man); Mar 8:22-26 (the blind man); Mar 13:33-37 (the householder and the exhortation to watch); Mar 14:51 (the young man who escaped). But, in addition to this, there are many vivid word-touches with which the common material is lighted up, and in not a few of the common incidents Mark's account is very much fuller; e.g. 6:14-29 (death of John the Baptist); Mk 7:1-23 (on eating with unwashen hands); 9:14-29 (the demoniac boy); Mar 12:28-34 (the questioning scribe). There is enough of this material to show clearly that the author could not have been wholly dependent on the other evangelists. Hawkins reckons the whole amount of peculiar material at about fifty verses (Hor. Syn., 11).

In striking contrast to Matthew who, in parallel passages, calls attention to the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, Mark only once quotes the Old Testament and that he puts in the very forefront of his Gospel. The Isa part of his composite quotation appears in all 4 Gospels; the Malachi part in Mark only, though there is a reflection of it in Joh 3:28. This fact alone might convey an erroneous impression of the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament. Though Mark himself makes only this one twofold reference, yet he represents Jesus as doing so frequency. The difference in this respect between him and Matthew is not great. He has 19 formal quotations as compared with 40 in Matthew, 17 in Luke and 12 in John. Three of the 19 are not found elsewhere. The total for the New Testament is 160, so that Mark has a fair proportion. When Old Testament references and loose citations are considered the result is much the same. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek give Matthew 100, Mark 58, Luke 86, John 21, Acts 107. Thus. the Old Testament lies back of Mark also as the authoritative word of God. Swete (Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 393) points out that in those quotations which are common to the synoptists the Septuagint is usually followed; in others, the Hebrew more frequently. (A good illustration is seen in Mar 7:7 where the Septuagint is followed in the phrase, “in vain do they worship me” - a fair para-phrase of the Hebrew; but “teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” is a more correct representation of the Hebrew than the Septuagint gives.) Three quotations are peculiar to Mark, namely, Mar 9:48; Mar 10:19; Mar 12:32.

The following are the miracles recorded by Mark: the unclean spirit (Mar 1:21-28), the paralytic (Mar 2:1-12), the withered hand (Mar 3:1-5), the storm stilled (Mar 4:35-41), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1-17), Jairus' daughter (Mar 5:22 ff), the woman with the issue (Mar 5:25-34), feeding the 5,000 (Mar 6:35-44), feeding the 4,000 (Mar 8:1-10), walking on the water (Mar 6:48 ff); the Syrophoenician's daughter (Mar 7:24-30), the deaf mute (Mar 7:31-37), the blind man (Mar 8:22-26), the demoniac boy (Mar 9:14 ff), blind Bartimeus (Mar 10:46-52), the fig tree withered (Mar 11:20 ff), the resurrection (Mar 16:1 ff). For an interesting classification of these see Westcott's Introduction to Study of the Gospels, 391. Only the last three belong to Judea.

There is a multitude of graphic details: Mark mentions actions and gestures of Jesus (Mar 7:33; Mar 9:36; Mar 10:16) and His looks of inquiry (Mar 5:32), in prayer (Mar 6:41; Mar 7:34), of approval (Mar 3:34), love (Mar 10:21), warning (to Judas especially Mar 10:23), anger (Mar 3:5), and in judgment (Mar 11:11). Jesus hungers (Mar 11:12), seeks rest in seclusion (Mar 6:31) and sleeps on the boat cushion (Mar 4:38); He pities the multitude (Mar 6:34), wonders at men's unbelief (Mar 6:6), sighs over their sorrow and blindness (Mar 6:34; Mar 8:12), grieves at their hardening (Mar 3:5), and rebukes in sadness the wrong thought of His mother and brothers, and in indignation the mistaken zeal and selfish ambitions of His disciples (Mar 8:33; Mar 10:14). Mark represents His miracles of healing usually as instantaneous (Mar 1:31; Mar 2:11 f; Mar 3:5), sometimes as gradual or difficult (Mar 1:26; Mar 7:32-35; Mar 9:26-28), and once as flatly impossible “because of their unbelief” (Mar 6:6). With many vivid touches we are told of the behavior of the people and the impression made on them by what Jesus said or did. They bring their sick along the streets and convert the market-place into a hospital (Mar 1:32), throng and jostle Him by the seaside (Mar 3:10), and express their astonishment at His note of authority (Mar 1:22) and power (Mar 2:12). Disciples are awed by His command over the sea (Mar 4:41), and disciples and others are surprised and alarmed at the strange look of dread as He walks ahead alone, going up to Jerusalem and the cross (Mar 10:32). Many other picturesque details are given, as in Mar 1:13 (He was with the wild beasts); Mar 2:4 (digging through the roof); Mar 4:38 (lying asleep on the cushion); Mar 5:4 (the description of the Gerasene demoniac); Mar 6:39 (the companies, dressed in many colors and looking like flower beds on the green mountain-side). Other details peculiar to Mark are: names (Mar 1:29; Mar 3:6; Mar 13:3; Mar 15:21), numbers (Mar 5:13; Mar 6:7), time (Mar 1:35; Mar 2:1; Mar 11:19; Mar 16:2), and place (Mar 2:13; Mar 3:8; Mar 7:31; Mar 12:41; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:68 and Mar 15:39). These strongly suggest the observation of an eyewitness as the final authority, and the geographical references suggest that even the writer understood the general features of the country, especially of Jerusalem and its neighborhood. (For complete lists see Lindsay, Mark's Gospel, 26 ff.)

III. The Text.

The most important textual problem is that of Mar 16:9-20. Burgon and Miller and Salmon believe it to be genuine. Miller supposes that up to that point Mark had been giving practically Peter's words, that for some reason those then failed him and that Mar 16:9-20 are drawn from his own stores. The majority of scholars regard them as non-Markan; they think Mar 16:8 is not the intended conclusion; that if Mark ever wrote a conclusion, it has been lost, and that Mar 16:9-20, embodying traditions of the Apostolic Age, were supplied later. Conybeare has found in an Armenian manuscript a note referring these verses to the presbyter Ariston, whom he identifies with that Aristion, a disciple of John, of whom Papias speaks. Many therefore would regard them as authentic, and some accept them as clothed with John's authority. They are certainly very early, perhaps as early as 100 AD, and have the support of Codices Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Bezae, Xi, Gamma, Delta, Zeta all late uncials, all cursives, most versions and Fathers, and were known to the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, who, however, do not accept them.

It is just possible that the Gospel did end at verse 8. The very abruptness would argue an early date when Christians lived in the atmosphere of the Resurrection and would form an even appropriate closing for the Gospel of the Servant (see below). A Servant comes, fulfills his task, and departs - we do not ask about his lineage, nor follow his subsequent history.

IV. Language.

Mark employs the common coloquial Greek of the day, understood everywhere throughout the Greek-Roman world. It was emphatically the language of the Character people, “known and read of all men.” His vocabulary is equally removed from the technicalities of the schools and from the slang of the streets. It is the clean, vigorous, direct speech of the sturdy middle class.

Latinisms in Mark are about half as numerous as Aramaisms. They number 11, the same as in Matthew, as compared with 6 in Luke and 7 in John. The greater proportion in Mark is the only really noteworthy fact in these figures. It suggests more of a Roman outlook and fits in with the common tradition as to its origin and authorship.

The same exact and vivid representation of the facts of actual experience accounts for the anacolutha and other broken constructions, e.g. Mar 4:31 f; Mar 5:23; Mar 6:8 f; Mar 11:32. Some are due to the insertion of explanatory clauses, as in Mar 7:3-5; some to the introduction of a quotation as in Mar 7:11 f. These phenomena represent the same type of mind as we have already seen (II., 6. above).

That the original language was Greek is the whole impression made by patristic references. Translations of the Gospel are always from, not into, Greek. It was the common language of the Roman world, especially for letters. Paul wrote to the Romans in Greek. Half a century later Clement wrote from Rome to Corinth in Greek. The Greek Mark bears the stamp of originality and of the individuality of the author.

Blass contended for an Aramaic original, believing that Luke, in the first part of Acts, followed an Aramaic source, and that that source was by the author of the Second Gospel which also, therefore, was written in Aramaic. He felt, moreover, that the text of Mark suggests several forms of the Gospel which are best explained as translations of a common original. Decisive against the view is the translation of the few Aramaic words which are retained.

V. Authorship.

The external evidence for the authorship is found in the Fathers and the manuscripts. The most important patristic statements are the following:

Justin Martyr - Palestine and the West, circa 150 AD - (In Dial. with Trypho, cvi, Migne ed.): “And when it is said that He imposed on one of the apostles the name Peter, and when this is recorded in his 'Memoirs' with this other fact that He named the two sons of Zebedee 'Boanerges,' which means 'Sons of Thunder,' “ etc.

Clement of Alexandria - circa 200 AD - (Hypotyp. in Eus., HE, VI, 14): “The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark, after composing the Gospel, presented it to his petitioners. When Peter became aware of it he neither eagerly hindered nor promoted it.”

Also (Eus., HE, II, 15): “So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not contented with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation on Mark, whose Gospel is in circulation and who was Peter's attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mk. It is said that when the apostle knew, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the eagerness of the men and authorized the writing to be read in the churches.”

Tertullian - North Africa, circa 207 AD - (Adv. Marc., iv. 5): He speaks of the authority of the four Gospels, two by apostles and two by companions of apostles, “not excluding that which was published by Mark, for it may be ascribed to Peter, whose interpreter Mark was.”

Jerome - East and West, circa 350 AD - (De vir. illustr., viii): “Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the request of the brethren in Rome, wrote a brief Gospel in accordance with what he had heard Peter narrating. When Peter heard it he approved and authorized it to be read in the churches.”

Also xi: “Accordingly he had Titus as interpreter just as the blessed Peter had Mark whose Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing.”

Preface Commentary on Matthew: “The second is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and first bishop of the Alexandrian church; who did not himself see the Lord Jesus, but accurately, rather than in order, narrated those of His deeds, which he had heard his teacher preaching.”

To these should be added the Muratorian Fragment - circa 170 AD - “which gives a list of the New Testament books with a brief account of the authorship of each. The account of Matthew and most of that of Mark are lost, only these words relating to Mark being left: 'quibus tamen interfuit, et ita posuit' “ (see below).

These names represent the churches of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and practically every quarter of the Roman world. Quite clearly the common opinion was that Mark had written a Gospel and in it had given us mainly the teaching of Peter.

That our second Gospel is the one referred to in these statements there can be no reasonable doubt. Our four were certainly the four of Irenaeus and Tatian; and Salmon (Introduction) has shown that the same four must have been accepted by Justin, Papias and their contemporaries, whether orthodox or Gnostics. Justin's reference to the surname “Boanerges” supports this so far as Mark is concerned, for in the Gospel of Mark alone is that fact mentioned (Mar 3:17).

A second point is equally clear - that the Gospel of Mark is substantially Peter's. Mark is called disciple, follower, interpreter of Peter. Origen expressly quotes “Marcus, my son” (1Pe 5:13 the King James Version) in this connection. “Disciple” is self-explanatory. “Follower” is its equivalent, not simply a traveling companion. “Interpreter” is less clear. One view equates it with “translator,” because Mark translated either Peter's Aramaic discourses into Greek for the Hellenistic Christians in Jerusalem (Adeney, et al.), or Peter's Greek discourses into Latin for the Christians in Rome (Swete, et al.). The other view - that of the ancients and most moderns (e.g. Zahn, Salmon) - is that it means “interpreter” simply in the sense that Mark put in writing what Peter had taught. The contention of Chase (HDB, III, 247) that this was a purely metaphorical use has little weight because it may be so used here. The conflict in the testimony as to date and place will be considered below (VII).

There is no clear declaration that Mark himself was a disciple of Jesus or an eyewitness of what he records. Indeed the statement of Papias seems to affirm the contrary. However, that statement may mean simply that he was not a personal disciple of Jesus, not that he had never seen Him at all.

The internal evidence offers much to confirm the tradition and practically nothing to the contrary. That Peter is back of it is congruous with such facts as the following:

(2) Certain awkward expressions in lists of names can best be explained as Mark's turning of Peter's original, e.g. Mar 1:29, where Peter may have said, “We went home, James and John accompanying us.” So in Mar 1:36 (contrasted with Luke's impersonal description, Luk 4:42 f); Mar 3:16; Mar 13:3.

(4) In Mar 3:7 the order of names suits Peter's Galilean standpoint rather than that of Mark in Jerusalem - Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Perea, Tyre, Sidon. The very artlessness of these hints is the best kind of proof that we are in touch with one who saw with his own eyes and speaks out of his own consciousness.

(5) Generally Mark, like Matthew, writes from the standpoint of the Twelve more frequently than Luke; and Mark, more frequently than Matthew, from the standpoint of the three most honored by Jesus. Compare Mar 5:37 with Mat 9:23, where Matthew makes no reference to the three; the unusual order of the names in Luke's corresponding passage (Luk 8:51) suggests that James was his ultimate source. The language of Mar 9:14 is clearly from one of the three, Luke's may be, but Matthew's is not. The contrast in this respect between the common synoptic material and Lk 9:51 through 18:14 lends weight to this consideration.

(6) The scope of the Gospel which corresponds to that outlined in Peter's address to Cornelius (Act 10:37-41).

(7) The book suits Peter's character - impressionable rather than reflective, and emotional rather than logical. To such men arguments are of minor importance. It is deeds that count (Burton, Short Intro).

It may seem to militate against all this that the three striking incidents in Peter's career narrated in Mat 14:28-33 (walking on the water), Mat 17:24-27 (tribute money), and Mat 16:16-19 (the church and the keys), should be omitted in Mark. But this is just a touch of that fine courtesy and modesty which companionship with Jesus bred. We see John in his Gospel hiding himself in a similar way. These men are more likely to mention the things that reflect discredit on themselves. It is only in Matthew's list of the Twelve that he himself is called “the publican.” So “Peter never appears in a separate role in Mark except to receive a rebuke” (Bacon).

As to Mark's authorship, the internal evidence appears slight. Like the others, he does not obtrude himself. Yet for that very reason what hints there are become the more impressive.

There may be something in Zahn's point that the description of John as brother of James is an unconscious betrayal of the fact that the author's own name was John. There are two other passages, however, which are clearer and which reinforce each other. The story of the youth in Mar 14:51 seems to be of a different complexion from other Gospel incidents. But if Mark himself was the youth, its presence is explained and vindicated. In that case it is likely that the Supper was celebrated in his own home and that the upper room is the same as that in Acts 12. This is favored by the fuller description of it in Mark, especially the word “ready” - a most natural touch, the echo of the housewife's exclamation of satisfaction when everything was ready for the guests. It is made almost a certainty when we compare Mar 14:17 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke. Mat 26:20 reads: “Now when even was come, he was sitting at meat with the twelve disciples”; Luk 22:14 : “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the apostles with him”; while Mark has: “And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve.” The last represents exactly the standpoint of one in the home who sees Jesus and the Twelve approaching. (And how admirably the terms “the twelve disciples,” “the apostles” and “the twelve” suit Matthew, Luke, and Mark respectively.) Such phenomena, undesigned (save by the inspiring Spirit), are just those that would not have been invented later, and become the strongest attestation of the reliability of the tradition and this historicity of the narrative. Modern views opposed to this are touched upon in what follows.

VI. Sources and Integrity.

We have seen that, according to the testimony of the Fathers, Peter's preaching and teaching are at least the main source, and that many features of the Gospel support that view. We have seen, also, subtle but weighty reasons for believing that Mark added a little himself. Need we seek further sources, or does inquiry resolve itself into an analysis of Peter's teaching?

B. Weiss believes that Mark used a document now lost containing mainly sayings of Jesus, called Logia (L) in the earlier discussions, but now commonly known as Q (Quelle). In that opinion he has recently been joined by Sanday and Streeter. Harnack, Sir John Hawkins and Wellhausen have sought to reconstruct Q on the basis of the non-Markan matter in Matthew and Luke. Allen extracts it from Matthew alone, thinking that Mark also may have drawn a few sayings from it. Some assign a distinct source for Mark 13. Streeter considers it a document written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, incorporating a few utterances by Jesus and itself incorporated bodily by Mark. Other sources, oral or written, are postulated by Bacon for smaller portions and grouped under X. He calls the final redactor R - not Mark but a Paulinist of a radical type.

The novelty in His teaching was not in method so much as in content, authority and accompanying miraculous power (Mar 1:27). Certainly He was far removed from vain repetition. His supreme concern was for the spirit. Just as certainly He was not concerned about a mere reputation for originality or for wealth and variety of resources. He was concerned about teaching them the truth so effectively that they would be prepared by intellectual clearness, as well as spiritual sympathy, to make it known to others. And God by His Providence, so kind to all but so often thwarted by human self-will was free to work His perfect work for Him and make all things work together for the furtherance of His purpose. Thus incidents occur, situations arise and persons of all types appear on the scene, calling forth fresh instruction, furnishing illustration and securing the presentation of truth in fullness with proper balance and emphasis and in right perspective.

Thus before His death the general character of that kingdom, its principles and prospects, were taught. That furnished the warp for the future Gospels. The essence, the substance and general form were the same for all the Twelve; but each from the standpoint of his own individually saw particular aspects and was impressed with special details. No one of them was large enough to grasp it all, for no one was so great as the Master. And it would be strange indeed, though perhaps not so strange as among us, if none of them wrote down any of it. Ramsay, Salmon and Palmer are quit justified in feeling that it may have been put in writing before the death of Jesus. It may well be that Matthew wrote it as it lay in his mind, giving us substantially Harnack's Q. John and James may have done the same and furnished Luke his main special source. But whether it was written down then or not, the main fact to be noted is that it was lodged in their minds, and that the substance was, and the details through mutual conference increasingly became, their common possession. They did not understand it all - His rising from the dead, for example. But the words were lodged in memory, and subsequent events made their meaning clear.

Then follow the great events of His death and resurrection, and for forty days in frequent appearances He taught them the things concerning the kingdom of God and expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself, especially the necessity of His death and resurrection. These furnished the woof of the future Gospels. But even yet they are not equipped for their task. So He promises them His Spirit, a main part of whose work will be to bring to their remembrance all He had said, to lead them into all the truth, and show them things to come. When He has come they will be ready to witness in power.

The apostles' conception of their task is indicated in some measure by Peter when he insisted that an indispensable qualification in a successor to Judas was that he must have been with them from the beginning to the end of Christ's ministry, and so be conversant with His words and deeds. From the day of Pentecost onward they gave themselves preeminently to teaching. The thousands converted on that day continued in the teaching of the apostles. When the trouble broke out between Hebrews and Hellenists, the Seven were appointed because the apostles could not leave the word of God to serve tables. The urgency of this business may have been one reason why they stayed in Jerusalem when persecution scattered so many of the church (Act 8:2). They were thus in close touch for years, not only through the struggle between Hebrews and Hellenists, but until the admission of the GentileCornelius and his friends by Peter had been solemnly ratified by the church in Jerusalem and possibly until the Council had declared against the contention that circumcision was necessary for salvation. During these years they had every opportunity for mutual conference, and the vital importance of the questions that arose would compel them to avail themselves of such opportunities. Their martyr-like devotion to Jesus would make them quick to challenge anything that might seem a misrepresentation of His teaching. The Acts account of their discussions at great crises proves that conclusively. To their success in training others and the accuracy of the body of catechetical instruction Luke pays fine tribute when he speaks of the “certainty” or undoubted truth of it (Luk 1:4). Thus Jesus' post-resurrection expositions, the experience of the years and the guidance of the Spirit are the source and explanation of the apostolic presentation of the gospel.

The only serious question about the integrity of the book concerns the last twelve verses, for a discussion of which see under III above. Some have suggested that Mar 1:1-13 is akin to Mar 16:9-20, and may have been added by the same hand. But while vocabulary and connection are main arguments against the genuineness of the latter, in both these respects Mar 1:1-13 is bound up with the main body of the book. Nor is there sufficient reason for denying Mark 13 as a true report of what Jesus said. Wendling's theory of three strata assignable to three different writers - historian, poet, and theologian - is quite overdrawn. Barring the closing verses, there is nothing which can possibly demand anything more than an earlier and a later edition by Mark himself, and the strongest point in favor of that is Luke's omission of Mk 6:45 through 8:26. But Hawkins gives other reasons for that.

VII. Date and Place of Composition.

If this view be adopted, the date would probably not be before the council at Jerusalem and the events of Gal 2:11 ff. It is true the New Testament hints are that the apostles had left Jerusalem before that, but that they had gone beyond Syria is not likely. At any rate, at the time of the clash at Antioch they had not become so clear on the question touching Jews and Gentiles in the church as to be “fully furnished for the work of universal evangelization.” But may it not be that Paul's strong statement of the seriousness of their error actually did settle those questions in the minds of the leaders? If so, and if with new vision and ardor, they turn to the work of world-wide evangelism, that would be a natural and worthy occasion for the composition of the Gospel. The place may be Caesarea or Antioch, and the date not earlier than 50 AD. This is the simplest synthesis of the ancient testimony. Modern opinion as to date has ranged more widely than the ancient. Baur and Strauss were compelled by their tendency and mythical theories to place it in the 2nd century. Recent criticism tends strongly to a date in the sixties of the 1st century, and more commonly the later sixties. This is based partly on hints in the Gospel itself, partly on its relation to Matthew and Luke. The hints usually adduced are Mar 2:26 and Mar 2:13. The former, representing the temple as still standing, has force only if the relative clause be Mark's explanatory addition. Mark 13 has more force because, if Jerusalem had already fallen, we might expect some recognition of the fact.

Two other slight hints may be mentioned. The omission by the synoptists of the raising of Lazarus, and of the name of Mary in connection with the anointing of Jesus argues an early date when mention of them might have been unpleasant for the family. When the Fourth Gospel was published, they may have been no longer alive. The description of John as the brother of James (Mar 5:37) may also take us back to an early date when James was the more honored of the two brothers - though the unusual order of the names may be due, as Zahn thinks, to the author's instinctively distinguishing that John from himself.

The relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke is important if the very widespread conviction of the priority of Mark be true. For the most likely date for Acts is 62 AD, as suggested by the mention of Paul's two years' residence in Rome, and Luke's Gospel is earlier than the Acts. It may well have been written at Caesarea about 60 AD; that again throws Mark back into the fifties.

The great objection to so early a date is the amount of detail given of the destruction of Jerusalem. Abbott and others have marshalled numerous other objections, but they have very little weight - most of them indeed are puerile. The real crux is that to accept an earlier date than 70 AD is to admit predictive prophecy. Yet to deny that, especially for a believer in Christ, is an unwarranted pre-judgment, and even so far to reduce it as to deny its presence in this passage is to charge Luke - a confessedly careful historian - with ascribing to Jesus statements which He never made.

VIII. Historicity.

Plummer's remark is just (Commentary on Matthew, xxxiii): “To decide a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true philosophy nor scientific criticism.” And A.T. Robertson (“Matthew” in Bible for Home and School, 26): “The closer we get to the historic Jesus the surer we feel that He lived and wrought as He is reported in the Synoptic Gospels.” The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin - a standing miracle. If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all.

IX. Purpose and Plan.

Mark's purpose was to write down the Gospel as Peter had presented it to Romans, so say the Fathers, at least, and internal evidence supports them. In any additions made by himself he had the same persons in mind. That the Gospel was for Gentiles can be seen (a) from the translation of the Aramaic expressions in Mar 3:17 (Boanerges), Mar 5:41 (Talitha cumi), Mar 7:11 (Corban), Mar 10:46 (Bartimaeus), Mar 14:36 (Abba), Mar 15:22 (Golgotha); (b) in the explanation of Jewish customs in Mar 14:12 and Mar 15:42; (c) from the fact that the Law is not mentioned and the Old Testament is only once quoted in Mark's own narrative; (d) the Gentile sections, especially in Mark 6 through 8.

That it was for Romans is seen in (a) the explanation of a Greek term by a Latin in Mar 12:42; (b) the preponderance of works of power, the emphasis on authority (Mar 2:10), patience and heroic endurance (Mar 10:17 ff); (c) Mar 10:12 which forbids a practice that was not Jewish but Roman. Those who believe it was written at Rome find further hints in the mention of Rufus (Mar 15:21; compare Rom 16:13) and the resemblance between 7:1-23 and Rom 14. The Roman centurion's remark (15:39) is the Q.E.D. of the author, and bears the same relation to Mark's purpose as Joh 20:31 to John's.

The plan of the Gospel seems to have been influenced by this conception. Christ's kingship was apprehended by the Twelve at a comparatively early date. It was not until after the resurrection, when Jesus opened to them the Scriptures, that they saw Him as the Suffering Servant of Isa 53:1-12. That gave Peter his gospel as we have already seen, and at the same time the general lines of its presentation. We see it sketched for Romans in Acts 10. That sketch is filled in for us by Mark. So we have the following analysis:

Title: Mar 1:1

This Servant-conception may also be the real explanation of some of the striking features of this Gospel, e.g. the absence of a genealogy and any record of His early life; the frequent use of the word “straightway”; the predominance of deeds; the Son's not knowing the day (Mar 13:32); and the abrupt ending at Mar 16:8 (see III).

X. Leading Doctrines.

The main one, naturally, is the Person of Christ. The thesis is that He is Messiah, Son of God, Author (Source) of the gospel. The first half of the book closes with the disciples' confession of His Messiahship; the second, with the supreme demonstration that He is Son of God. Introductory to each is the Father's declaration of Him as His Beloved Son (Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7). That the sonship is unique is indicated in Mar 12:6 and Mar 13:32. At the same time He is the Son of Man - true man (Mar 4:38; Mar 8:5; Mar 14:34); ideal man as absolutely obedient to God (Mar 10:40; Mar 14:36), and Head of humanity (Mar 2:10, Mar 2:28), their rightful Messiah or King (Mar 1:1; Mar 14:62) - yet Servant of all (Mar 10:44 f); David's Son and David's Lord (Mar 12:37). The unique Sonship is the final explanation of all else, His power, His knowledge of both present (Mar 2:5, Mar 2:8; Mar 8:17) and future (Mar 8:31; Mar 10:39; Mar 14:27; 13), superiority to all men, whether friends (Mar 1:7; Mar 9:3 ff) or foes (Mar 12:34), and to superhuman beings, whether good (Mar 13:32) or evil (Mar 1:13, Mar 1:12; Mar 3:27).

The Father speaks in Mar 1:11; Mar 9:7; is spoken of in Mar 13:32; and spoken to in Mar 14:36. The usual distinction between His fatherhood in relation to Christ and in relation to us is seen in Mar 11:25; Mar 12:6 and Mar 13:32. The Spirit is mentioned in Mar 1:8, Mar 1:10, Mar 1:12; Mar 3:29 and Mar 13:11. The last passage especially implies His personality.

As to salvation, the Son is God's final messenger (Mar 12:6); He gives His life a ransom instead of many (Mar 10:45); His blood shed is thus the blood of the covenant (Mar 14:24); that involves for Him death in the fullest sense, including rupture of fellowship with God (Mar 15:34). From the outset He knew what was before Him - only so can His baptism be explained (Mar 1:5, Mar 1:11; compare Mar 2:20); but the horror of it was upon Him, especially from the transfiguration onward (Mar 10:32; Mar 14:33-36); that was the Divine provision for salvation: He gave His life (Mar 10:45). The human condition is repentance and faith (Mar 1:15; Mar 2:5; Mar 5:34, Mar 5:36; Mar 6:5; Mar 9:23; Mar 16:16), though He bestows lesser blessings apart from personal faith (Mar 1:23-26; 5:1-20; Mar 6:35-43). The power of faith, within the will of God, is limitless (Mar 11:25); faith leads to doing the will of God, and only such as do His will are Christ's true kindred (Mar 3:35). Salvation is possible for Gentile as well as Jew (Mar 7:24-30).

Literature.

The works marked with the asterisk are specially commended; for very full list see Moffat's Introduction.

Fritzsche, 1830; Olshausen, translated 1863; J.A. Alexander, 1863; Lange, translated 1866; Meyer, 1866, American edition, 1884; Cook, Speaker's Commentary, 1878; Plumptre, Ellicott's, 1879; Riddle, Schaff's, 1879; W.N. Clarke, Amer. Comm., 1881; Lindsay, 1883; Broadus, 1881 and 1905; Morison, 1889; H.G. Holtzmann(3), 1901; Maclean, Cambridge Bible, 1893; Gould, International Critical Commentary, 1896; Bruce, The Expositor Greek Testament, 1897; B. Weiss, Meyer, 1901; Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, 1901; Salmond, Century Bible; Wellhausen2, 1909; Swete, 1908; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story, 1909; Wohlenberg, Zahn's Series, Das Evangelium des Markus, 1910. For the earlier see Swete.

Eichhorn, 1827; Credner, 1836; Schleiermacher, 1845; De Wette, 1860; Bleek, 1866, translated 1883; Reuss, 1874, translated 1884; B. Weiss. 2nd edition, translated 1886; 3rd edition, 1897; H.J. Holtzmann, 1892; Th. Zahn, 1897, translated 1909; Godet, 1899; Julicher(6), 1906; von Soden, 1905, translated 1906; Wendling, Ur-Marcus, 1905; A. Muller, Geschichtskerne in den Evang., 1905; Wrede, Origin of New Testament Scriptures, 1907, translated 1909; Horne, 1875; Westcott, Introduction to Study of Gospels, 7th edition, 1888, and The Canon, 6th edition, 1889; Salmon, 1897; Adeney, 1899; Bacon, 1900; Burton, 1904; Moffat, Historical New Testament, 1901; Introduction to the Literature of New Testament, 1911; Peake, 1909; Gregory, Einleitung., 1909; Charteris, Canonicity, 1881; The New Testament Scriptures, 1882, and popular Intros by Plumptre, 1883; Lumby, 1883; Kerr, 1892; McClymont, 1893; Dods, 1894; Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, 1889; Sanday, Gospels in the 2nd Century, 1874; Stanton, Gospels as Historical Documents, I, 1903; II, 1909.

Rushbrooke, Synopticon, 1880; Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 3rd edition, 1906; Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890; Some New Testament Problems, 1898; H.J. Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evang., 1863; Weizsacker, Untersuch. uber die evang. Gesch., 2nd edition, 1901; Wernle, Die synopt. Frage, 1899; Loisy, Les ev. syn., 1908; Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evang., 1905; Blass, Origin and Char. of Our Gospels, English translation, xviii; Norton, Internal Evid. of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 1847; F.H. Woods, Stud. Bibl., II, 594; Palmer, Gospel Problems and Their Solution, 1899; J.A. Robinson, The Study of the Gospels, 1902; Gloag, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels; Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem, 1904; Stanton, as above, and in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), II, 234 ff; Turner, “Chronology of New Testament,” Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), I, 403 ff; J.J. Scott, The Making of the Gospels, 1905; Burkitt, Gospel History and Its Transmission, 1906; Salmon, Human Element in the Gospels, 1907; Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Lit., I, 1893; II, 2nd edition, 1904; Beitrage zur Einleitung in das New Testament, 4 volumes, translated in “Crown Theol. Lib.,” Luke the Physician, 1907; The Sayings of Jesus, 1908; The Acts of the Apostles, 1909; The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, 1911; Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, 1909; Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, 2nd edition, 1909; Denney, Jesus and the Gospel; Cambridge Biblical Essays, edition by Swete, 1909; Oxford Studies in the Syn. Problem, edition by Sanday, 1911; Salmond, Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), III, 248 ff; Maclean, Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, II, 120 f; Petrie, Growth of Gospels Shown by Structural Criticism, 1910; Buckley, Introduction to Synoptic Problem, 1912.

Dalman, Words of Jesus, translated 1909; Deissmann, Bible Studies, translated 1901; Light from the Ancient East, translated 1910; Allen, The Expositor, I, English translation, 1902; Marshall, The Expositor, 1891-94; Wellhausen, Einleitung.; Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889; Swete and Hawkins.

Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek, Introduction to the New Testament in Greek; Salmon, Introduction, chapter ix; Gregory, Text and Canon; Morison and Swete, in Commentary; Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark.