The author, characteristics, and authenticity of the second Gospel

By Hugh Pope, O.P., S.T.M., D.S.ScR.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis
The Collegio Angelico, Rome

A. Life of St. Mark.

B. The Author; his Relation to St. Peter.

i. Testimony of Tradition,
ii. Testimony of the Gospel.
iii. Early Quotations of St. Mark's Gospel,
iv. Other Sources used by St. Mark.

C. The Date of the Gospel.

D. The Place of Composition.

E. The Object and Scope of the Gospel.

F. The Style of St. Mark.

i. In General.
ii. The Language and Phraseology,
iii. The Vulgate Version.

G. The Divisions of the Gospel.

H. The Authenticity of the Last Twelve Verses.

J. The Theological Teaching of the Gospel.

K. Bibliography.

L. Appendix.

A. The Life of St. Mark.

ST. MARK is called by St. Paul "the cousin-german of Barnabas," Col. iv. 10. He first figures in Apostolic history when St. Peter, after his miraculous release from prison, comes to the house of Mary the mother of John, who was surnamed Mark, where many were gathered together and praying, Acts xii. 12. This passage shows us that from the earliest Apostolic times Mark must have been connected with the heads of the Church. That St. Peter naturally went to the house of Mary would seem to show that she was a prominent member of the early Church in Jerusalem; that there were many gathered together in her house seems to indicate that her house was sufficiently large to accommodate the early Church. Hence arose a tradition in later times that this house was the scene of the Last Supper, and, perhaps closely connected with this, a tradition that Mark was the young man who was in the garden of Gethsemane when our Saviour was arrested, Mark xiv. 51-52.

Passing, however, from tradition to history, we find Mark in Jerusalem at the time Paul and Barnabas were minister ing to the needs of the famine-stricken about A.D. 45-46, Acts xii. 25, for he went with them to Antioch after their work in the Holy City was accomplished. He next appears as the companion of Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, Acts xiii. 5, where he is called simply "John." When, however, Paul and Barnabas commenced their second mission we are told, Acts xv. 37, that Barnabas would have taken with them John also, who was surnamed Mark; but Paul desired that he (as having departed from them out of Pamphylia, and not gone with them to the work) might not be received. And there arose a dissension so that they departed one from another, Barnabas indeed taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus. But Paul choosing Silas. ... The reason of this action on the part of Mark is not stated, it may have been that he feared the "perils" so graphically described by St. Paul, 2 Cor. xi. 26. Whatever the cause, however, the dissension did not last, for, Col. iv. 10, we find Mark numbered amongst those who are my helpers in the kingdom of God, who have been a comfort to me. Mark must, then, have rejoined the Apostle when the latter was in prison at Rome, i.e. about A.D. 60-62.[1] The same testimony is given in the Epistle to Philemon, 24, Mark, Aristarctws, Demas and Luke, my fellow-laborers. A little later we find Mark at Rome with St. Peter: The Church that is in Babylon (Rome) ... saluteth you; and so doth my son Mark. In calling him "my son" St. Peter may possibly mean that he had baptized him, and this would accord with the familiarity subsisting between Peter and the household of Mary, the mother of John who was surnamed Mark, Acts xii. 12.[2]

B. The Author; his Relation to St. Peter.

i. Testimony of Tradition.

The following Preface to Mark's Gospel is given in no less than seventeen Uncial Latin MSS. of the Gospels:

"Mark, God's Evangelist, and Peter's son by baptism, who exercised the priesthood in Israel, who was a Levite according to the flesh, when converted to the faith of Christ wrote his Gospel in Italy, and in it he showed what was due to his own descent and to Christ. For inasmuch as at the outset he opens with an echo of the Prophet's cry, he shows the order of the Levitical choice; and, as declaring that the pre destination of John the son of Zachary was set forth by the Angel who announced it, he would not only show that the Word was made flesh, but would also show in the very outset of the Gospel-preaching that the Lord's body was animated by the word of the Divine voice, so that whosoever might read his words might know to whom he should attribute the beginning of the Lord in the flesh and the dwelling- place of the coming Lord, and might find in him (Mark ?) the word of that voice (the Prophet's ?) which he had lost in the companion (Gospels).[3]

"He then enters upon the task of the perfect Gospel, and, beginning to preach God from the Lord's baptism, he laboured not to set forth that birth in the flesh which he saw told by the previous (Evangelists), he is wholly occupied from the outset with Christ's being driven into the desert, with His fast of number,[4] with his temptation by the devil, with the gathering together of the beasts, with the ministry of Angels, as though wishful to make us understand that, though he sets forth each point in brief form, he detracts in nought from the authority of what occurred, and by carrying his work to a completion he deprives it not of its fulness.[5]

"Finally, it is said that he cut off his thumb after embracing the faith that so he might be held unfit for the priesthood;[6] but to such a degree was (divine) election able to concur with predestined faith that he did not lose in actual fact[7] what he had previously merited by his descent, for he became Bishop of Alexandria. His own peculiar task was to know each detail and to harmonize the Gospel sayings within himself, to bear testimony in himself to the discipline of the Law, and to understand the Divine Nature of the Lord in the flesh. These same things we too desire should be sought out, and when discovered we would have them recognized, having the reward of exhortation; for he who plants and he who waters are one thing, but He Who affords the increase is God."

After giving an account of Peter's preaching at Rome Eusebius goes on to say:

"So greatly did the splendour of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease till they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. And they say that Peter, when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the Churches. Clement, in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes, gives this account, and with him agrees the Bishop of Hierapolis named Papias."[8]

St. Jerome gives the following account of St. Mark:

"Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote at the petition of the Brethren in Rome a brief Gospel according to what he had heard Peter preaching. And when Peter heard of this he approved it and of his own authority ordered it to be read in the Churches, as Clement in the Sixth[9] Book of his Outlines and Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis tell us. And Peter mentions this same Mark in his First Epistle where he speaks of Rome under the figure of Babylon: The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth my son Mark (i Pet. v. 13).

"Taking with him his Gospel, Mark passed into Egypt. He was the first to preach Christ at Alexandria where he founded the Church. This Church was replete with such perfection of doctrine and such purity of life as compelled the admiration of all followers of Christ. Thus Philo, the most learned of Jews, finding the early Church at Alexandria still imbued with Judaism, wrote a treatise on their manner of life there as though in praise of his own nation;[10] and just as Luke tells us, Acts ii. 44, that at Jerusalem the faithful had all things in common, so Philo tells us that under Mark the same was observed at Alexandria. Mark died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria; he was succeeded by Annianus."[11]

But the most explicit as well as the earliest testimony to St. Mark's authorship of the Second Gospel is that given by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor in the early part of the second century. This testimony is preserved for us by Eusebius:

"This also the Elder (John) used to say: Mark, having been Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered, though he did not (record) in order[12] the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I have said, (attached himself to) Peter who used to frame his teaching so as to meet the wants of his hearers, and not as making a connected narrative of the Lord's discourses. Thus Mark committed no error, for he wrote down some particulars just as he called them to mind; he took heed to one point only to omit none of the facts that he had heard, and to state nothing falsely in (his narrative of) them."[13]

The quotation from Clement of Alexandria given above, in which he refers to Mark's memory, seems like a reminiscence of Papias words. Note, too, Eusebius state ment that Clement was preserving "the tradition of the earliest Presbyters."

Tertullian's testimony is to the same effect: "The Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's, for Mark was his interpreter."[14]

ii. Testimony of the Gospel.

This traditional connection between the second Gospel and St. Peter is confirmed by an examination of the Gospel itself. For

i. St. Peter has a peculiar prominence assigned him in this Gospel, thus cp. Mark i. 36 with Luke iv. 40 ff. f Mark xi. 21 with Matt. xxi. 19, Mark xiii. 3 with Matt. xxiv. 3, Mark xvi. 7 with Matt, xxviii. 7, etc.

ii. At the same time the absence of certain particular references to Peter is remarkable, thus acts or sayings creditable to him are omitted, e.g. Mark vi. 50 omits the fact that Peter also walked on the water, cp. Matt. xiv. 28; Matt. xv. 15 tells us that it was Peter who asked for the explanation of the parable of the things that derile a man, Mark vii. 17 omits this; Peter's confession and the promise consequently made to him in Matt. xvi. 16-19 should be compared with Mark viii. 29; the symbolic story of the discovery of the stater in the fish's mouth, Matt. xvii. 23-26, is omitted; in xiv. 13 it is not said, cp. Luke xxii. 7, that the preparation of the Passover was committed to Peter; neither does Mark narrate that Christ prayed for Peter especially, Luke xxii. 31-32.

iii. But, vice versa, whatever is derogatory to Peter is insisted on; the rebuke administered to him, viii. 33, is even stronger in form than in Matt. xvi. 23; while the depth of Peter's fall is nowhere more fully indicated than in Mark xiv. 54, 66-72.

iv. The narrative throughout gives the impression that he who tells it was an eye-witness of what he describes. Thus the vivacity of the narrative is remarkable; as we read it we cannot fail to be struck by the sense of swift motion; take, for example, Mark's use of the adverb "immediately" or "straightway," it occurs more than forty times, and it makes us feel that we are listening to one who saw over again the scenes he so vividly describes. There are certain minor touches, too, which recall the fisherman of the Sea of Galilee who loved to dwell on the scenes of his earlier life and on the days when he walked with the Son of Man; thus how often he mentions the sea! cf. ii. 13, iii. 7, iv. 1, 40, v. 1, 13, vii. 31; the crowds, cf. i. 33, ii. 2, iii. 20, v. 24, vi. 31, 34, viii. 1, ix. 13, x. 1, 46; the amazement of the populace, i. 27, v. 20, 42, vi. 2, vii. 37; note too the curious references to the house, iii. 20, vii. 17, ix. 27, 32, x. 10; again, his personal recollections of our Lord's look on certain occasions, looking round about, iii 5, 34, v. 32, x. 23, xi. 11; also of His anger, iii. 5, x. 14, xvi. 14. With this accords his attention to the marvellous side of our Lord's ministry; he especially presents Him as a Thaumaturgus, giving no less than eighteen of His miracles and more particularly those connected with the casting out of unclean spirits, i. 23, iii. 11, v. 2-20, vi. 7; and of devils, i. 34, 39, vi. 13, vii. 26- 29, ix. 37, xvi. 9, 17.

Personal recollections of our Blessed Lord are frequent: His treatment of little children, ix. 36, x. 15; His anger with Peter, viii. 33; how He went before them on the way to Jerusalem, x. 32; how He sat and called the Twelve, ix. 34-35, etc. Again, we notice the minute insistence on details of time, i. 35, ii. 1, iv. 35, vi. 2, xi. 11, 19, xv. 25, xvi. 2; also of numbers, v. 13, vi. 7, 40; and of places, the sea-side as above, note also Dalmanutha, viii. 10, Decapolis, v. 20, vii. 31; of persons, i. 29, iii. 22. Mark, too, has preserved more Aramaic words and expressions than the other Evangelists, cp. Boanerges, iii. 17; Talitha Kumi, v. 41; Bartimaus, x. 46; Abba, xiv. 36; Eloi, xv. 34. It is possible that this is due to Peter's vivid recollection of the occasions on which, some of them at least, were uttered.

That his Gospel was written at Rome may, with great probability, be inferred if the previous arguments show that it accords with Peter's preaching. The presence, too, of certain Latinisms may point in the same direction; thus see the Latin forms in the Greek text for the words "executioner" vi. 27, "farthing" xii. 42, and "centurion" xv. 39, note especially the word for "pots" in vii. 4.[15] In general, too, we should note the absence of quotations from the Old Testament, such quotations would be meaningless to the Romans; also the omission of the title "Son of David" for our Lord; the absence of the comparisons between the Old and the New Law which form so striking a feature in the Sermon on the Mount as given by Matthew; Mark is also careful to explain such Jewish customs as might be unintelligible to a non-Jewish audience, e.g. the purifications, vii. 3, the meaning of the Passover, xiv. 12, the meaning of the "Day of Preparation," xv. 42; he feels bound, too, to explain where the Mount of Olives was situated, xiii. 3; such explanations would not be necessary for a Jewish auditory. Lastly it should be remarked that when Peter sketches for Cornelius, Acts x. 36-41, the course of the Gospel-preaching, he but follows on the same lines as those adopted by Mark in his Gospel.

iii. Early Quotations of St. Mark's Gospel.

The great similarity between the Gospels of Matthew and Mark makes it difficult to tell whether an allusion is to the one rather than to the other; and it must be acknowledged that there are no certain allusions to Mark in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers which have come down to us. In the second-century Shepherd of Hermas there are one or two passages which may find their parallel in Mark's Gospel, but St. Justin Martyr has clear and positive references to the second Gospel. Justin, as is well known, repeatedly refers to the "Memoirs of Christ drawn up by His Apostles,"[16] and in one place he says "He changed the name of one of the Apostles to Peter, and it is written in his (Peter's) Memoirs that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means "sons of thunder."[17] Both Mark and John mention the change of Simon's name to Peter, Mark iii. 16 and John i. 42, but Mark alone, iii. 17, narrates that the sons of Zebedee were called Boanerges. The conclusion is irresistible: Justin knew Mark's Gospel, and knew moreover that it was Peter's. Neither should it be forgotten that Justin expressly declares that these Memoirs were called Gospels.[18]

iv. Other Sources open to St. Mark.

But while allowing full force to the arguments which show Peter's connection with Mark's narrative it would be unreasonable to suppose that Mark had no other source for his Gospel. Whether Mark was, as Epiphanius states,[19] one of the seventy-two disciples or not, it is at least certain from Acts xii. that he was in close communication with the Apostolic body during the early days of the Church and presumably, too, during the last days of Christ's life. This would explain the disproportionate space allotted by him to the story of the Passion. For while Mark's Gospel is far the shortest of the four his narrative of the last days is as full and detailed as those furnished by the other Evangelists. He may well have gathered information touching this period from the household of Mary, Acts xii., and may perhaps have been a witness of much of it himself if he is to be identified with the "young man" of xiv. 51-52.[20]

C. The Date of St. Mark's Gospel.

The German critics of the middle of the last century, e.g. Baur, referred this Gospel to the period A.D. 130-170, but more recent critics go to the other extreme, Schenkel would place it 45-58 and Hitzig between 55 and 57. The sub scriptions to later Uncial and Cursive MSS. of the Greek N.T. assert that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension. Theophylact expressly states that it was "written at Rome in the tenth year after Christ's Ascension."[21] We saw above that early testimony declared that it was written in Rome during St. Peter's lifetime, therefore previous to A.D. 64 or 67, according to the date to be assigned to Peter's martyrdom. This testimony would be unanimous but for the famous statement of St. Irenseus who seems to say that it was written "after the death of Peter and Paul."[22] But it is hard to suppose that Irenaeus would be in flagrant contradiction to Papias whom he is clearly quoting.[23] And we saw above that Eusebius urged that Clement and Papias were in agreement concerning the date of Mark's Gospel.[24] Dom John Chapman has recently shown[25] that Irenaeus had no intention of dating the actual committal of the Gospels to writing:

"He is simply explaining that the teaching of four of the principal Apostles has not been lost, but has been handed down to us in writing. ... This is the development of the first part of the thesis: the Apostles after the resurrection were filled with knowledge of the Gospel, and they went forth and preached the same Gospel in all lands. ... The second part of the thesis answers the question How has this preaching come down to us in writing? The reply is that two of the Apostles wrote down their own teaching, while two others were reported by a follower."

Chapman then gives a literal translation of the passage in Irenaeus:

"Matthew among the Hebrews in their own language published a writing also of the Gospel (besides preaching it).

"Peter and Paul preaching the Gospel (not to Jews but) at Rome (without writing it down), and founding the church there (whose testimony I shall give presently, viz. III. iii.).

"But (although they died without having written a Gospel) after their death (their preaching has not been lost to us, for) Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, has handed down to us, he also in writing (like Matthew), the things which were preached by Peter.

"And Luke besides, the companion of (the other) Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by that Apostle.

"Finally, John, the disciple of the Lord, he also published a Gospel while he was living in Ephesus of Asia."

Lastly Chapman shows how Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. v.) has the same interpretation of Irenaeus.

If this interpretation of Irenaeus words, which have always caused so much difficulty, be accepted, then all our witnesses fall into line in saying that Mark wrote his Gospel during the lifetime of St. Peter. Since, however, St. Jerome asserts the tradition that Peter was for twenty-five years Bishop of Rome[26] we are still left to decide upon the precise point in this long period to be assigned to the composition of Mark's Gospel. Eusebius tells us[27] that St. Mark was succeeded at Alexandria by Annianus in the eighth year of Nero, i.e. in A.D. 62. St. Jerome, it is true, supposes that this implies Mark's death. But this is by no means certain.[28] If we could suppose that Mark then returned to Rome we should be limited to the period A.D. 62-64 or 67 for the composition of Mark's Gospel. Against this we have the testimony of the subscriptions already referred to which assert that the Gospel was written ten or twelve years after the Ascension.[29] If we accept the latter view we should have to place the writing of this Gospel in the earlier period of Peter's sojourn at Rome, and this would save us from having to say that Jerome was unduly expanding Eusebius statement about Mark's successor into a statement of his death. After all Jerome knew what he was saying.

D. The Place of Composition.

With the exception of St. Chrysostom, who gives Egypt,[30] the early Fathers who mention the point seem as a rule to imply that Mark composed his Gospel at Rome; they positively state that he committed to writing simply what Peter was preaching. Thus St. Irenseus: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, committed to writing what Peter was preaching."[31] But it is certain that Alexandria is the place identified with his main activity. Thus Eusebius says: "They say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria."[32] A little further on Eusebius writes: "When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria."[33] This might seem to refer Mark's death to about the year A.D. 61-62, but see above.

E. The Object and Scope of St. Mark's Gospel.

What has been already said will, at least in part, have made plain the object with which Mark wrote, or if we choose so to express it with which St. Peter preached. Proceeding on the same lines as those briefly sketched by St. Peter, Acts. x. 36-41, see above, Mark opens his Gospel with the words The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. There is an air of triumph about this, and this air of triumph is the key-note to the gospel. The Sacred Humanity of Christ is everywhere made prominent; but at the same time his Gospel is really a triumphant assertion throughout of the Divinity of our Lord. Yet Mark's aim is not so much to prove the Divinity as to assert the necessary consequence of the Divinity, namely that all things in heaven and upon earth must needs be subject to Christ. It is for this reason that Mark insists so much on the miracles, in his brief Gospel he narrates no less than eighteen of them, and dwells upon them with a fulness of detail which we do not find in Matthew nor even in Luke. A good example of this will be found in the story of the lunatic boy who was cured immediately after the Transfiguration, the incident should be read consecutively in all three Synoptic Gospels. It is for the same reason that Mark dwells so much on the power of casting out devils, all even the evil spirits must be subject to Christ, and we note how he dwells upon the admiration these miracles caused in the populace, see above. It is here, too, that the difference between the Gospel of Matthew and that of Mark is apparent. For though both proceed on much the same lines yet neither the order, the point of view, nor the mode of narration is the same. Matthewhas accommodated the Gospel narrative to the needs of a Jewish audience, Mark or St. Peter has adapted it to the needs of a Roman auditory. Thus he begins with the Baptist and his Baptism of Christ, he then plunges straightway into the wonders Christ worked, and he closes with the promise of further miracles to be worked by the disciples, xvi. 17-18. The conclusion drawn from this picture is noteworthy: Since Christ was very God His doctrine must be Divine and must be received by all, or, in the concluding words of the Gospel: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned. But it is evident that St. Peter had to prove his own title to the credence of his hearers. And this he is most careful to do. In his sketch of the Gospel-history already referred to, he adds And we are witnesses of all things that he did. ... Him God raised up and gave Him to be manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses pre-ordained by God, even to us who did eat and drink with Him after He arose again from the dead, Acts x. 39-41. And whereas throughout the Gospel it is pointed out that Christ refused the testimony of the devils whom he cast out, i. 24-25, 34, iii. 12, v. 43, even refusing that of men whom He had healed, i. 43, vii. 36, viii. 26, yet the appointment of regularly ordained witnesses is constantly referred to in more or less explicit terms, i. 36, iii. 7, 13, iv. 10-12, 34, vi. 1, xiii. 11. Moreover it is made clear that these were by no means credulous witnesses, their slowness to believe and their hardness of heart are dwelt on even to the close, iv. 13; vi. 52, viii. 17, xvi. 14.

But since it might well be objected that if Christ were so patently God the spiritual rulers of the people ought not to have rejected Him, Mark is careful to indicate the stages in the opposition of the Pharisees and thus to show for what trifling causes they rejected Him, see, for example, ii. 15-28, iii, 20-30, vii. 1-13. At the same time he insists on the acceptance of Him by the people and on their amazement at His wonders, i. 22, 27-28, 37, ii. 12, v. 42, vi. 54-56, vii. 37, ix. 14, xi. 8-10.

One of the most remarkable features in this Gospel is the change of political atmosphere which accompanies the removal from Galilee to Jerusalem. In Galilee we see the crowds which are, on the whole, favorable. The Pharisees indeed are everywhere, and we can trace their growing opposition to Christ's teaching step by step. But when we pass to Jerusalem it is the Sadducees, or High Priestly party, who assume the direction of affairs, xii. 18. This subtle change is most instructive. It enforces the truth that our Lord was put to death not so much for His rejection of the Law as for His assertion of a claim which at once struck at the roots of the Priesthood. If He really was the Messias then the reign of Judaism was over and with it there fell too the power of the priests. This is really the key to the trial of Christ and explains the vindictiveness of Annas and Caiaphas. But St. Mark takes for granted that we shall grasp this delicate point. He does not emphasize it. And herein he shows how complete is his grasp of his subject matter. A writer who had not had personal acquaintance with the facts would either not have made this point at all or he would have drawn attention to it. We can understand the opposition of the Pharisees to Christ: they regarded Him as a self-constituted teacher. But would they have put Him to death ? It may well be doubted. For, whatever their faults, they stood for the national religion and would, we feel, have supported the Messias had they been con vinced of the justice of Christ's claims to that title. The Sadducees, on the contrary, had no love for the national institutions; they loved their own power and influence, they stood or fell with the reigning house, hence Mark's references to the Herodians, iii. 6, xii. 13.

A further instance of the author's personal familiarity with the scenes and places he describes is furnished by the numerous and minute geographical indications scattered throughout his narrative. Mark, unlike Luke, passes with the ease begotten of long acquaintance from one place to another. Thus Jesus is "from Nazareth of Galilee" i. 9; He goes "into Galilee" viz. from the desert of Judaea, i. 14; Galilee as a district is frequently referred to, i. 28, 39, iii. 7, vi. 21, ix. 29, xiv. 28, xv. 41; so too the sea of Galilee, i. 16, vii. 31; the sea-side, ii. 13, iii. 7, iv. 1. He knows "the other side" iv. 35, v. 1, the country of the Gerasenes, v. 1, he is familiar with the Decapolis v. 20, vii. 31, he alone mentions Dalmanutha, viii. 10. Capharnaum figures fre quently, i. 21, ii. 1, ix. 32; note, too, the references to "His own country," vi. 1; to Genesareth, vi. 53; to "the desert," i. 3, 13, iv. 5, vi. 31, 32; Arimathea, xv. 43; to Tyre and Sidon, more often named by him than by any other Evangelist, iii. 8, vii. 24, 31; to Bethsaida, viii. 22, and to Caesarea-Philippi, viii. 27. From the North he passes to the South with similar ease and tells us of "the Jordan," i. 5, 9, and "beyond Jordan," iii. 8, x. 1, of Judaea, iii. 7, the country of Judaea, i. 5, Jerusalem, i. 5, x. 32, 33, xi. 1, 11, the Mount of Olives, xi. 1, xiii. 3, Gethsemane, xiv. 32, Jericho, x. 46, Idumaea, iii. 8.

F. The Style of St. Mark's Gospel.

i. Marl's Gospel in General.

St. Augustine complained that Mark's very brevity made him obscure,[34] and we know that he regarded his Gospel as an abbreviation of that of St. Matthew.[35] "Compression" would, however, be a more correct term than "brevity"; Mark gives us summaries of Christ's teaching which contrast forcibly with the lengthy exposition of which we have an example in the Sermon on the Mount, cp., too, Mark i. 27, viii. 29, xii. 38-40. But while thus condensing the general framework of his narrative Mark is exceedingly full in some of his accounts, thus cp. Mark i. 29-39, the healing of Peter's wife's mother, with the accounts given by Matt. viii. 14-17, Luke iv. 38-43; Mark ii. 1-12, the healing of the palsied man, with Matt. ix. 1-18, Luke v. 17-26; Mark v. 22-43, the raising of the daughter of Jairus with the incident by the way, and Matt. ix. 18-26, Luke viii. 41-56. But by way of contrast cp. Mark i. 14-20, the call of the disciples, and Matt. iv. 18- 25, Luke v. 1-11. The real contrast, however, between the spirit which pervades the narratives of the three Synoptic writers is best seen in a study of any one incident which Mark has in common with either Matthew or with Luke, or with both. Thus in the story of the man with the unclean spirit at Capharnaum, Mark i. 21-28, Luke iv. 31-37, it will be seen that the difference lies not so much in the relative length of the narratives as in the minute touches which Mark has and which lend such vivacity to his story.

In this connection it will be of interest to note Mark's additions to the Synoptic narrative. Only three of these additions can be termed extensive, viz. the parable of the seed growing secretly, iv. 26-29, and the two miracles of healing in vii. 31-37, and viii. 22-26. But the minor additions are very numerous, and consist for the most part of those touches which retrieve this Gospel from the charge of being a mere abbreviation of Matthew and which afford that personal tone which stamps it as the work of one who was an eye-witness of much that he relates. The chief of these minor additions will be found in i. 11, 12, 32-34; ii. 22, 26, 27; iii. 5, 21, 29, 31; iv. 12, 13, 36, 38; vi. 3, 5, 48, 55; viii. 17, 18, 31, 38; ix. 13, 15, 22-24, 31, 38, 39; x. 14, 17, 18, 34-35; xi. 3, 7, 13, 20; xii. 8, 32; xiv. 14, 58; xv. 25, 44-45.

As compared with Luke, however, the most remarkable feature of Mark is the omission by the former of the whole section Mark vi. 45 viii. 26, though practically the whole of this is given in Matthew.

ii. St. Mark's Language and Phraseology.

While the use of hapax legomena, or words peculiar to himself, is not so striking in Mark as in Luke, the former having some eighty of these while the latter has more than 250, yet Mark's choice of words is compelling. His characteristic words recur again and again, e.g. περιβλέπεσθαι six times against one occurrence in Luke; ἐκθάμβειν four times, and nowhere else in N.T.; ἀκάθαρτος eleven times and always of unclean spirits. These and several other words give character to the narrative, they form part of that vividness which is so peculiarly the feature of the second Gospel. And this choice of certain words is emphasized by Mark's care in the precise use of prepositions, thus compare his use of περιβλέπεσθαι and of ἀναβλέπεσθαι, of ἀποκυλίειν and ἀνακυλίειν. Contrast, too, his use of θαμβεῑσθαι i. 27, x. 24, 32, and of ἐκθαμβεῑσθαι ix. 15, xiv. 33, xvi. 5, 6, and of συνξητεῑν instead of ξητεῑν, of ἐκπορευέσθαι eleven times and εἰσπορευέσθαι eight times, while never employing the simple verb πορευέσθαι so commonly used by the other Evangelists. The opening formula καὶ ἰδοὺ, so constant in Matthew, is wanting, while St. John's favorite οὐν, very frequent also in Matthew and Luke, is only found four times in Mark.

The vivid note of the Gospel is in great part due to the freedom with which Mark uses the Greek tenses; this may arise from his natural familiarity with Hebrew, but at any rate he passes from present to imperfect, from perfect to aorist, with what would almost appear to be complete indifference, e.g. v. 6 ff., and indeed throughout his Gospel. This same note of vividness appears in his abundant use of participles, whether with or without the auxiliary verb, e.g. i. 6, 33, 39, 40, also in his occasional double negatives, e.g. i. 44, v. 4, xvi. 8; neither should we omit the use of εὐθέως which occurs over forty times in this Gospel.

iii. The Latin Vulgate Version of St. Mark's Gospel.

The reader who is familiar with the Latin version of Matthew and Luke finds himself constantly at fault when he passes to Mark; this is partly due to our greater familiarity with Matthew and Luke, but also to the fact that the Latin translator of Mark makes use of many unusual words, e.g. lagena, xiv. 13; refectio, xiv. 14; deservire, iii. 9; cervical, iv. 38; communis and communicare, vii. 2, 15, 18, 20, 23, where Matthew has coinquinave, but see Mark vii. 15, conquirere, i. 27, viii. 11, ix. 9, 14, 16, xii. 28, and pastinare, xii. 1.

G. The Divisions of the Gospel.

The geographical division is as follows:

I. 1-13. The Preparation, i.e. the Preaching of the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of our Lord.

I. 14—IX. 49. The Galilean ministry. A curious feature of this portion of the narrative is the way in which Mark insists upon our Lord's frequent retirements from public gaze, i. 35, 45; iii. 7; vi. 6, 31; vii. 24; viii. 27; ix. I.

X. 1-31. The ministry in Peraea.

X. 32—XV. The Last journey; the Passion and Death of Christ.

XVI. The Resurrection.

But according to the development worked out by the Evangelist we may divide his narrative as follows:

I. 13. The Proemium, as above.

I. 14—IX. 28. The Galilean preaching as showing forth the Divinity of Christ.

IX. 29—XIII. The Divinity having been shown, Christ's Divine doctrine is then dwelt upon as the preparation of the Apostles for their work.

XIV—XVI. The Passion and Glory of Christ.

This division makes the Transfiguration and the subsequent miracle worked on the lunatic boy the turning point in the narrative; they are the outcome, so to speak, of the Confession of Peter.

Analysis of St. Mark's Gospel.

A. Chapter 1:1-13. Proemium; The Preaching of the Baptist; The Baptism of Our Lord; His Temptation.

B. Chapters 1:14—9:49. The Galilean Ministry.

(a) The early ministry, I. 14—III. 12.

i. 14-15. The first message.

i. 16-20. Call of Simon and Andrew, James and John.

i. 21-28. In the synagogue at Capharnaum; expulsion of an unclean spirit on the Sabbath day.

i. 29-31. Healing of Peter's wife's mother.

i. 32-34. He works many miracles.

i- 35-39- A missionary circuit.

i. 40-45. The healing of the leper.

ii. 1-12. Again at Capharnaum; the palsied man; the opposition of the Scribes.

ii. 13-22. Call of Levi; the feast in his house; the disciples of John; the Pharisees question Him on fasting; the parables of the patch on the garment and of the new wine in old bottles.

ii. 23-28. The disciples in the cornfield on the Sabbath day; another attack by the Pharisees.

iii. 1-6. Cure of the man with the withered hand in the Synagogue, a second miracle on the Sabbath.

iii. 7-12. He retires to the sea of Galilee and works many miracles, especially casting out unclean spirits.

(b) From the choice of the Twelve to their mission, III. 13—VI. 6.

iii. 13-19. The choice of the Twelve.

iii. 20-39. Renewed attack by the Scribes; accusation of being in league with Beelzebub; the sin against the Holy Spirit.

iii. 31-35. His Mother and His brethren.

iv. 1-34. The preaching in parables; the parables of the Sower, the candle, the seed growing secretly, the mustard-seed.

iv. 35-40. He bids them cross to the other side of the lake; the storm.

v. 1-20. The man with the unclean spirit at Gerasa, his name is "Legion"; the devils enter the swine.

v. 21-43. The return to the west side; the woman with the issue of blood is healed; the daughter of Jairus is raised from the dead.

vi. 1-6. He is rejected in His own country.

(c) From the Mission of the Twelve to the Confession of Peter, VI. 12—VIII. 26.

vi. 7-11. The Mission of the Twelve.

vi. 12-15. Their work and its fruits.

vi. 16-30. Herod's fear; the story of the Baptist.

vi. 31-44. Christ retires to a desert place; He multiplies the loaves for 5000 men.

vi. 45-53- They return by boat to the West side of the lake; He walks on the water.

vi. 54-56. On arrival at Gennesar He works many miracles.

vii. 1-23. Third attack by the Scribes and Pharisees; of the Jewish system of purifications.

vii. 24-30. He retires to Tyre and Sidon; the miracle granted at the prayer of the Syro-Phcenician woman.

vii. 31-37. He returns to the sea of Galilee and Decapolis; He heals one deaf and dumb.

viii. 1-9. He multiplies loaves for 4000 men.

viii. 10-21. He goes by boat to Dalmanutha; fourth attack by the Pharisees who ask a sign, but He refuses to grant one. They cross back to Bethsaida; He rebukes the disciples want of faith, reminding them of the miracles in favor of the 5000 and the 4000 men.

viii. 22-26. At Bethsaida He heals a blind man.

(d) From the Confession of Peter to the close of the Galilean ministry, VIII. 27—IX. 49.

viii. 27-39. At Caesarea-Philippi Peter confesses the Divinity of Christ. The first prediction of the Sacred Passion.

ix. 1-12. The Transfiguration.

ix. 13-26. The cure of the lunatic boy.

ix. 27-31. The need of prayer and fasting; the second prediction of the Sacred Passion.

ix. 32-49. At Capharnaum He sets a little child in their midst and gives them lessons in humility and tolerance. He insists on the eternity of Hell.

C. Chapter 10:1-31. The Preaching in Peraea.

x. 1-12. Fifth attack by the Pharisees who questioned Him concerning divorce.

x. 13-16. Little children are brought to Him; He blesses them and rebukes the disciples.

x. 17-31. The rich young man; lessons on the danger of riches. The promise to those who have le.ft all for His sake.

D. Chapter 10:32-52. The Last Stage in the Journey to Jerusalem.

x. 32-34. His eagerness in pressing forwards to His goal; the third prediction of the Sacred Passion.

x. 35-45. The request of the sons of Zebedee; lessons in humility.

x. 46-52. The cure of Bartimaeus at Jericho.

E. Chapters 11:1—13:37. The First Three Days of Holy Week.

xi. 1-11. Palm Sunday.

xi. 12-19. Monday in Holy Week; He curses the fig-tree; He cleanses the temple.

xi. 20-26. Tuesday in Holy Week. They find the fig-tree withered up; lessons in faith and forgiveness.

xi. 27—xii. 40. The questionings in the temple:

xi. 27-33. The Chief Priests, the Scribes and the Elders demand by what authority He acts; He answers by a counter question regarding the Baptism of John; they refuse to answer, and He in turn refuses to answer them except by:

xii. 1-12. The parable of the husbandmen in the vineyard,

xii. 13-17, They send the Pharisees and the Herodians to entrap Him: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar?

xii. 18-27. The Sadducees come and put subtle questions about the resurrection of the dead.

xii. 28-34. A Scribe asks Him which is the greatest commandment.

xii. 35-40. Christ now asks a counter-question: How do the Scribes say that Christ is the Son of David ? He pronounces a scathing condemnation on the Scribes,

xii. 41-44. The widow's mite.

xiii. 1-37. On Mount Olivet He discourses of the Last Things and of the destruction of Jerusalem.

F. Chapters 14—15. The Story of Christ's Passion.

xiv. 1-9. The anointing of Christ at Bethany.

xiv. 10-11. Judas betrays Him to the Priests.

xiv. 12-16. Preparation for the Last Supper.

xiv. 17-26. The Last Supper.

xiv. 27-33. On the way to Gethsemane He foretells that Peter will deny Him thrice.

xiv. 32-42. The Agony in the garden.

xiv. 43-52. The arrest of Jesus.

xiv. 53-65. His arraignment before the High Priest.

xiv. 66-72. Peter's denials.

xv. 1-15. He is led before Pilate; Barabbas is preferred before Him. He is scourged.

xv. 16-19. He is crowned with thorns.

xv. 20-22. He is led to Calvary, and Simon of Gyrene helps Him to carry His cross.

xv. 23-37. On the Cross.

xv. 28, 38-41. The veil of the temple is rent; the confession of the Centurion; the women who had accompanied Him.

xv. 42-47. The burial.

G. Chapter 16. The Resurrection.

xvi. 1-8. The visit of Mary Magdalen, of Mary of James, and of Salome to the tomb.

xvi. 9-11. He appears to Mary Magdalen.

xvi. 12-13, He appears to the disciples going to Emmaus.

xvi. 14-18. He appears to the Eleven and upbraids them for their hardness of heart in not believing those who told of His Resurrection.

xvi. 19-20. The final commission to the Apostles; the promise that miraculous powers shall confirm their ministry.

xvi. 18-20. The Ascension of our Lord; the Apostles go forth to preach, and the Lord co-operates with miraculous signs.

H. The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel

These present a most interesting and complicated textual problem. We can but summarize the evidence here.[36] Anyone who will read attentively from 15:47 will notice that 16:9 marks a transition: Mary Magdalen is there spoken of as though she had not figured largely in the previous nine verses. Moreover, verses 9-20 seem to be an epitome of recorded appearances of Christ with a supplement on His Ascension and on the subsequent work of the Apostles, 9-11, 12-13, 14-18, 19-20. Further, an examination of the Greek text shows us several words and expressions which are quite unusual in Mark, but which are rather in the style of St. John.[37]

Eusebius long ago remarked that some in his day questioned the authenticity of these last verses; he says of an apologist who would avoid a supposed inconsistency in the Gospel-narrative:

"For, rejecting the passage which alleges this, he would say that it is not in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. And certainly the accurate copies mark the close at the words 'for they were afraid' ἐφοβοῡντο γάρ, for at this point the close is indicated in practically all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark.[38]

And this statement is borne out by the great codices, ᵦ/³ and B, though the scribe of the latter shows signs that he perhaps knew of a continuation. Similarly the Sinaitic Syriac version ends at for they were afraid. But over against Eusebius declaration it must be said that all the Uncial MSS. except six, all the cursive MSS., all MSS. of the Old Latin version save one, the Curetonian Syriac, etc., have the ordinary ending to which we are accustomed and which is generally known as "the long ending" because certain MSS. present us with a shorter ending to the Gospel. Thus three MSS., L, ך12, and קֽ, show that their original ended with the words for they were afraid; but the copyists of these MSS. were acquainted with two other endings, a short and a long, of which they put the shorter form first after indicating that the Gospel closed in their original with the words for they were afraid. A fourth MS., ψ, gives no hint that the original ended with the above words but immediately adds the shorter ending followed by the longer as an alternative. This shorter ending runs as follows:

" But all the things announced to them concerning Peter they care fully declared. And after these things Jesus Himself appeared to them, and from the East as far as the West He spread abroad through them the sacred and incorruptible preaching of everlasting salvation."

This short ending finds a place also in the margin of one cursive Greek MS., of the Harcleian Syriac and of some Coptic MSS.;[39] also in the text of some Ethiopic MSS.; one Old Latin MS., k, gives this short ending only.

Matters are further complicated by the appearance of a third ending in what is now known as the Detroit MS. of the Gospels discovered at Cairo in 1897. This ending runs:

"And they alleged in their defense: this world of iniquity and incredulity is under the dominion of Satan, who permits not that what is under the control of impure spirits should receive the truth and power of God; reveal, then, Thy justice now ! This is what they said to Christ. But He replied to them: the limit of the years of Satan's power is filled up. But terrible things draw near. For them that sinned was I delivered to death that they might be converted to the truth and sin no more, that so they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness (promised) in heaven; but do ye go. ..."[40]

This is a most interesting ending, for it is clearly the one referred to by St. Jerome when he says:

"In some copies, and especially in the Greek MSS., we find it written at the end of the Gospel according to Mark: afterwards when the Eleven were at table, Jesus appeared to them and upbraided them for their incredulity and hardness of heart, since they believed not them that saw Him risen. And He satisfied their demand when they said: this world of iniquity and incredulity is under the dominion of Satan who permits not the truth of God to be apprehended by unclean spirits; reveal, then, Thy justice now!"[41]

Neither of these shorter endings can be said to be in the style of Mark any more than the present longer ending. All three endings, however, are very ancient, thus Eusebius has told us that the short ending vouched for by some of the Uncials is in "the more correct" MSS., while the recently discovered short ending was known to St. Jerome. But the long ending has prevailed in the Church, and it can undoubtedly claim a higher antiquity than either of the other two. Thus Irenaeus[42] expressly quotes it as the close of Mark's Gospel, St. Justin[43] apparently refers to it, as also may be the case with Lactantius,[44] and certainly with Hippolytus.[45] Finally, MS. authority in its favor is overwhelming. If it be granted, then, that its Markan authorship is doubtful, we must say of this passage, as of John vii. 53 viii. 11 (cf. infra), that while inspired, and thus a portion of Holy Scripture, it is not from the hand of St. Mark. If it be thought necessary to uphold its Markan origin then we may take refuge in the view of some who hold that Mark was interrupted at xvi. 8, and finished off his Gospel later; this, it is maintained, would account for the differences in style.[46]

J. The Theological Teaching of the Gospel.

God and the Father:

The Most High, v. 7; is One, xii. 29, 32; is Good, x. 18; is Blessed, xiv. 61; the Creator, x. 6, xiii. 19; all things are possible to Him, x. 27; the power of, xii. 24, xiv. 62; the Will of, iii. 35; the Lord, xiii. 20; the Father of Christ, viii. 38, xiii. 32, xiv. 36; Father of men, xi. 25, 26; the commandment of, vii. 8, 9; the Word of, vii. 13; the things of, viii. 33; the Kingdom of, i. 14, 15, iv. 26, 30, viii. 39, x. 14, X 5i 23, 25, 26, xii. 34, xiv. 25, xv. 43; the Temple is the House of, ii. 26; adjure by God, v. 7; God alone forgives sin, ii. 7; the way of, xii. 14; is the God of the living, xii. 27; is the Author of matrimony, x. 9; the Right hand of, xiv. 62, xvi. 19; the faith of God, xi. 22; render to God, xii. 17; they glorified God, ii. 12.

The Christology:

Christ is the Son of God, i. i, n, iii, 12, v. 7, viii. 38, xiii. 32, xiv. 36, 61, xv. 39; is the Son of Man, ii. 38, x. 33, 45, xiii. 26, xiv. 21, 61; Son of Mary, vi. 3; the Christ, viii. 29, ix. 40, xiv. 61; is Jesus Christ, i. i; Jesus of Nazareth, i. 9, x. 47, xiv. 62, xv. 6; the Holy One of God, i. 34; the Lord, ii. 23, xi. 3; is Lord, ii. 28; the Son of David, x. 47-48, xii. 35; the Master, xiv. 14, 45; the King of the Jews, xv. 2, 9, 12, 18, 26; the King of Israel, xv. 32; the Angels minister to Him, i. 13; His knowledge of what is hidden, ii. 8, v. 30, viii. 17; He is a carpenter, vi. 3; He is unable to work miracles because of their unbelief, vi. 5; He marvels at their unbelief, vi. 6; He forgives sins, ii. 5; His Resurrection, xvi. 6; His Ascension, xvi. 19; He sits at the Right Hand of the Father, xvi. 19.

The Holy Spirit:

We are baptized in, i. 8; He descends on Christ in form of a dove, i. 10; drives Jesus into the desert, i. 12; the sin against the Holy Spirit, iii. 29; inspires the Scriptures, xii. 36; He speaks in believers, xiii. ii.

Faith:

The need of, v. 34, xi. 22-24, xvi. 16-18.

Unfaith:

ix. 18, xvi. 14.

Inspiration of Holy Scripture:

xii. 24, 36.

The resurrection of the body:

xii. 27.

Everlasting life:

x. 30.

Eternity of hell:

ix. 42-47.

Forgiveness of sins:

iii. 20, xi. 26.

Confession of sins:

i. 5.

Anointing with oil:

vi. 13.

K. Bibliography.

In addition to the older Commentaries we may mention those of Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, Macmillan, 1898; L' Evangile selon S. Marc, Lagrange, O P., Gabalda, 1911; the edition of St. Mark in the Cambridge Greek Testament. See also R.B. April, 1904, pp. 290 and 300; January, 1911.

L. Appendix.

Καὶ τοῡτο ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε · Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμενευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβϖς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῡ Χριστοῡ ἢ λεχθέντα · οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῡ κυρίου, οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτϖͅ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ, ὃς πρὸς χρείας ἐποιεῑτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ̓ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τϖν κυριακϖν ποιούμενος λογίων · ὥστε οὐδὲν ἤμαρτε Μάρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσιν. ῾Ενὸς γὰρ εποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῡ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσε παραλιπεῑν, ἢ ψεύσασθαι τι ἐν αὐτοῑς. H.E. III. xxxix. 15.

________________________________

1 Cf. s.v. New Testament Chronology.

2 For a good biographical account of Mark see Expository Times, May, 1915. That he was one of the seventy-two disciples is often stated, cf. St. Epiphanius, Hær. LI. 6, P.G. XLI. 899-900.

3 Quod in consonantibus perdiderat, for various explanations of this puzzling expression see Wordsworth and White, Evangelia, p. 172.

4 We should have expected numerum jejunii, for mystical explanations, see l.c.

5 For attempted explanations, see l.c.

6 Hence Mark was called by Marcion colobodactilos according to Hippolytus, Hær. VII. 30, and so too in the version of this Preface given in Codex Toletanus.

7 In opere verbi.

8 H.E. II. xv.; cf. Epiphanius, Hær. LI. 6, P.G. XLI. 898-9.

9 Cp. Eusebius extract from Clement, H.E. VI. xiv. 5-7: "He (Clement) has given us in the Hypotyposes ('Outlines') the tradition of the earliest presbyters as to the order of the Gospels; he writes as follows: The Gospels containing the Genealogies were, he says, written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this origin; as Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and had declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who had been present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And he, having composed the Gospel, gave it to those who had asked for it. When Peter learned of this he neither directly forbade it nor encouraged it."

10 Cp. H.E. II. xvi-xvii.

11 Viris Illustr. VIII. Cp. H.E. II. xxiv.; Apostolic Constitutions, VII. 46.

12 For the force of τάξει here see J.T.S. October, 1912.

13 H.E. III. xxxix. 15.

14 Adv. Manionem, IV. 5.

15 Σπεκουλάτορα, κοδράντης, κεντυρίων, ξέστης; note, too, such words as δηνάριον, πραιτώριον, λεντυρίων, and perhaps κράβαττος, though it seems more probable that this last is a Macedonian word. The noticeable point is that Mark explains Greek terms by Latin ones, e.g. xii. 42, xv. 16; see Zahn, Introduction in New Testament, II. 503.

16 Dial. C-CVII.

17 Ibid. CVI

18 I Apol. LXVI.

19 Hær. LI. 6, P.G. XLI. 900. Epiphanius adds that he was one of those who departed from Christ at the "hard saying" about the Holy Eucharist, John vi. 54.

20 See Zahn, Introduction to New Testament, II. 446, 491 ff.

21 Proemium in Marcum, given by Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. xxxv. Note: Salmond, H.D.B. III. 261, asserts that the Paschal Chronicle refers the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 40, and Eusebius in his Chronicle to A.D. 43; but there is no ground for either assertion, see Paschal Chronicle, P.G. XCII. col. 559, where we simply have the entry under A.D. 39 (not 40): "In this same year Mark the Evangelist, after sojourning among the Egyptians and Alexandrians, preaches to them the word of Christ; he was the first to set in order the Churches in Alexandria, and he ruled over them twenty-two years." For Eusebius see his Chronicle, P.G. XIX. col. 543.

22 Adv. Hær. III. i. 1, and H.E. V. viii. 2.

23 Pace McGiffert who in his note on H.E. V. viii. 2 throws doubt on this point.

24 Above, p. 175, H.E. II. xv. 2

25 J.T.S. July, 1905, pp. 563 ff. Harnack, Dates of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels, 1911, p. 130, accepts this interpretation of Irenaeus words.

26 Vir. Illustr. I. Cp. H.E. II. xiv. 6.

27 H.E. II. xvi.; Chronicon II. sub anno A.D. 62, P.G. XIX. 543.

28 Vir. Illustr. VIII., P.L. XXIII. 623. The Paschal Chronicle, under the year 39, states that Mark governed the Church at Alexandria for twenty-two years, i.e. till A.D. 61. It is not clear that Mark therefore died in that year, indeed the same Chronicle assigns his death to the year 104 under Trajan, P.G. XCII. 559 and 607.

29 Thus Fouard, St. Paul, p. 96 note, refers St. Mark's Gospel to a period antecedent to A.D. 51-52. Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century, Bampton Lectures for 1913, places it about A.D. 45; but cf. R.B. October, 1911, p. 617.

30 Proemtum in Matt. Hom. I. 3, P.G. LVII. 17. At the Council of Chalcedon the Bishops of Egypt signed the Decrees in the name of St. Mark; Mansi, Concilia, VII. 50, actio quarta.

31 Adv. Hær. III. i. 1 and x. 6.

32 H.E. II. xxiv.

33 Ibid.

34 Tract. in Joan. CXVIII. 3, P.L. XXXV. 1948.

35 De Consensu Evangelistarum, I. ii. (4), P.L. XXXIV. 1044.

36 A full account will be found in Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, Macmillan, 1898, pp. xcvi-cv.; cf. Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, II. 200 ff.

37 E.g. πρώτῃ 9, ἐκβάλλειν παρά 9, ἐθεάθη 11, 14, μετὰ ταῡτα 12, ὕστερον δέ 14, θανάσιμος 18, καλϖς ἔχειν 18, etc. The Markan use of the introductory καὶ is noticeably absent.

38 Quœst. ad Marinum, ap. Mai Nov. Patrol. Bibl. IV. 255 f. given by Swete, l.c. St. Jerome has precisely the same remark: he tells Hedibia, Ep. cxx. 3, that if Matthew is in disagreement with Mark when the former says vespere autem sabbati while the latter has una sabbati mane, then "aut non recipimus Marci testimonium, quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Græcias libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, præsertim cum diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videatur. ..." St. Gregory of Nyssa, too, bears the same testimony when he says, Graf. II. de Resurrect, "in the more accurate copies the Gospel according to Mark ends at for they were afraid." Victor of Antioch and an anonymous writer from Toulouse in the Catena in Marcum omit these verses, i.e. the longer ending.

39 For a somewhat amplified form, see Scrivener-Miller, II. p. 111.

40 Cf. American Journal of Archeology, 1908, pp. 49-55; also R.B. July, 1908, p. 450.

41 Adv. Pelag. II. 15; P.L. XXIII. 550.

42 Adv. Har. III. x. 6.

43 I Apol. XLV.

44 Epitome, XLVII.

45 See Charteris, Canonicity, I and 7.

46 See R.B. April, 1902; July, 1908, p. 450.