MARK 675 MARK
Selection and Arrangement of Matter; (II) Author- down accurately everything that he remembered,
ship; (III) Originw Language, Vocabulary, and without, however, recording m order what was either
Style; (IV) State of Text and Intepity; (V) Place said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the
and Date of Composition ; (VI) Destmation and Pur- Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said,
pose; (VII) Relation to Matthew and Luke. (he attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to
I. Contents, Selection and Arrangement of the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giv- Mattbr. — ^The Second Gospel, like the other two ing a connected account of the Lord's oracles [v. 1. Synoptics, deals chiefly with the Galilean ministry of '^words'!. So then Mark made no mistake [Schmie- dbrist, and the events of the last week at Jerusalem, del, "committed no fault"], while he thus wrote down In a brief introduction, the ministry of the Precursor some things (l^wa) as he remembered them; for he and the immediate preparation of Christ for His made it his one care not to omit anything that he had official work by His Baptism and temptation are heard, or set down any false statement therein" touched upon (i, 1-13); tnen follows the body of the (Euseb., "BKst. Eccl.", Ill, xxxix, in P. G., XX, 300), Gospel, dealing with the public ministry, Passion. Some indeed have understood this famous passage to Death, and Resurrection of Jesus (i, 14-xvi, 8) ; ana mean merely that Mark did not write a literary work, lastly the work in its present form gives a summary ac- but simply a string of notes connected in the simplest count of some appearances of the risen Lord, and ends • fashion (cf. Swete, "The Gospel ace. to Mark", pp. with a reference to the Ascension and the xmiversal Ix-lxi). The present writer, however, is convinced preaching of the Gospel (xvi, 9-20). The body of the that what Papias and the elder deny to our Gospel is Gospel falls naturally into three divisions: the minis- chronological order, since for no other order would it try m Galilee and adjoining districts: Phoenicia, Decap- have been necessary that Mark should have heard or ohs, and the country north towards Csesarea Philippi followed Christ. But the passage need not be imder- (i, 14-ix, 49); the ministry in Judea and (kuI Tipaw, stood to mean more than that Mark occasionally de- with B, K, C*, L, *, in X, 1) PersBa, and the journey to parts from chronological order, a thing we are quite Jerusalem (x, 1-xi, 10) ; the events of the last week at prepared to admit. What Papias and the elder con- Jerusalem (xi, 11-xvi, 8). sidered to be the true order we cannot say; they can
Beginning with the public ministry (cf. Acts, i, 22; hardly have fancied it to be represented in the First
X, 37), St. Mark passes in sUence over the preliminary Gospel, which so evidently groups (e. g. viii-ix), nor.
events recorded oy the other Synoptists: the concep- it would seem, in the Third, since Luke, like Mark, had
tion and birth of the Baptist, the genealogy, concep- not been a disciple of Christ. It may well be that,
tion, and birth of Jesus, the comingof the Magi, etc. belonging as they did to Asia Minor, they had the
He is much more concerned with Christ's acts than Gospel of St. John and its chronology in mind. At
with His discourses, only two of these being eiven at any rate, their judgment upon the Second Gospel, even
any considerable length (iv, 3-32; xiii, 5-37). The if it be just, does not prevent us from holding that
miracles are narrated most graphically and thrown Mark, to some extent, arranges the events of Christ's
into great prominence, almost a fourth of the entire life in chronological order.
Gospel (in the Vulg., 164 verses out of 677) being de- II. Authorship. — All early tradition connects the voted to them, and there seems to be a desire to im- Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and ■press the readers from the outset with Christ's al- St. Peter, Alark being held to have written what Peter migh^ power and dominion over all nature. The had preached. We nave just seen that this was the very nrst chapter records three miracles: the casting view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Pa- out of an unclean spirit, the cure of Peter's mother- pias wrote not lat<?r than about a. d. 130, so that the in-law, and the healing of a leper, besides alluding testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the summarily to many others (i, 32-34) ; and, of the eight- first century, and shows the Second Uospel known in een miracles recorded altogether in the Gospel, allbut Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52; xi, 12-14) occur in the time. St. Irenseus says: *' Mark, the disciple and in- first eight chapters. Only two of these miracles (vii, terpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar to Mark, but, in regard writing what was preached by Peter" (** Adv. H»r.", to nearly all, there are graphic touches and minute III, i, in P. G., VIII, 845; ibid., x, 6, in P. G., VII, details not found in the other Synoptics. Of the 878). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the parables proper Mark has only four: the sower (iv, 3- authority of "the elder presb3rters", tells us tha^ 9), the 8€^ growing secretly (iv, 26-29), the mustard when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of seed (iv, 30-32), and the wicked husbandman (xii, those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had 1-9); the second of these is wanting in the other long followed Peter and remembered what he had said. Gospels. Special attention is paid throughout to the to write it down, and that Mark '* composed the Gospel human feelings and emotions of Christ, and to the efiFect and gave it to those who had asked him for it' ' (Euseo. , produced by His miracles upon the crowds. The "Hist. EccL", VI, xiv, in P. G., XX, 552). Origen weaknesses of the Apostles are far more apparent than says (ibid., VI, xxv, in P. G., XX, 581) that Mark in the parallel narratives otMatt. and Luke, this being, wrote as Peter directed him (<»$ TL^rpot (nfyny^aro airf), probably due to the graphic and candid discourses of and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter Peter, upon which tradition represents Mark as relying, approved or authorized Mark's work ("Hist. EccL",
The repeated notes of time and place (e. g. i, 14, 19, II, xv, in P. G., XX, 172). To Uiese early Eastern
20, 21, 29, 32, 35) seem to show that the Evangelist witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of
meant to arrange in chronological order at least a the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost
number of the events which he records. Occasionally certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's dis-
the note of time is wimtin^ (e. g. i, 40; iii, 1 ; iv, 1 ; x, courses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly
1, 2, 13) or vague (e. g. it, 1, 23; iv, 35), and in such (Quibita tamen inter/uit et itaposuU); 'Tertulliaji, ^o
cases he may of course depart from the order of events, states : "The Gospel which Mark published {eduUt) is
But the very fact that m some instances he speaks affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was"
thus vaguely and indefinitely makes it all the more ("Contra Marc.", IV, v, m P. L., II, 367); St. Jerome,
necessary to take his definite notes of time and se- who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel
quence in other cases as indicating chronological at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that
order. We are here confronted, however, with the Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De
testimony of Papias, who quotes an elder (presbyter), Vir. 111.", viii, in P. L., XXIII, 621), and in another
with whom he apparently agrees, as saying that Mark that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating
did not write in order: " And the elder said this also: and Mark writing (Petro narrante et iUo scribente — ** Aq
Mark, liaving become interpreter of Peter, wrote Hedib.", ep. cxx^ in P. L,, XXII, 1002). Lx e^rae^
