MARK. 74 It is plain that this Gosi)cI was written by a Jewish Christian — not because of any Jewish cast of the Gospel, as in the case of .Matthew, for such a east it does not possess — but because (a) of the author's familiarity with .lewish things and his ready ability in explainiiij,' them (cf. ii. IS: vii. :i siiq.; xii. 18; xiv. 12; xv. tl. 42), and (b) because of his acquaintance with the Aramaic language, which he frequently trans- lates (cf. iii. 17; v. 41; vii. 11, 34; ix. 43; x. 40; xiv. 3ti; XV. 22, 34). On tlic other hand, it is clear that the readers were Gentile Christians — not simply because they were iuiac(|uaintcj with Palestinian customs and speech, for .so to a cer- tain extent were the .lewisli readers of Matthew, but because this ignorance seems to l)e not only very much more extensive on the part of Jlark'e readers, but also to be surrounded by a -very gen- eral Latin atmosphere, as th<mgh the readers not merely neeiled the above inteipretations and explanations, but needed them cast in this mold (ef. v. !1; vi. 27. 37; vii. 4; xii. 42; xv. 10. .39). As to the place of the Gospel's origin there is nothing deliiiite to be gathered from the eon- tents, though perhaps it is more likely to have been written outside of Palestine than within it. The Latin atmosphere would most easily be thrown around the narrative in a Latin country. As to date, it is universally admitted that what- ever may be the year of its composition, it gives every evidence of being the earliest of all the Gospels. In fact, a comparison of Mark's order of narrative with that of Matthew and Luke shows that Mark's order was that which Matthew and Luke had before them when they wrote. If. therefore, there is any likelihood that either of these latter wcrewritten prior to the <hstnietion of Jerusalem, it becomes almost necessary to place Mark before that event. See JLttiiew. CJospel OF; LlTKE, Gospel of. In all of this there is nothing that would make impossible an authorship by Mark; but such an origin would seem almost necessitated by the clear testimony of patristic evidence. This evi- dence, in brief, ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to Mark, and to ^lark as in some way eonnecte<l in the writing with Peter. The varia- tifin in the evidence is at the latter point. Some of the Fathers, as .Jerome and Origen, make the relation that of an amanviensis; others, as Euse- bius. that of a reporter; others again, as Clem- ent of .lexandria. .Justin Martyr, and Irena>us. that simply of a disciple recalling his Master's words. The most explicit testimony, and that which seems to bear upon its face the strongest profif of cre(lil)ility. is the testimnny from Papias, who describes ^tark as the interpreter of Peter'.s preaching, and Mark's Gospel as his conscientious reproduction of what Peter's dis- courses contained. This testimony of Papias would agree with the original Greek chnrncter of the Gospel's composition; for. acconling to this testimony, the service which Mark renilered to Peter was evidently that of interpreting his Aramaic discourses into the Greek which his audiences could understand. It would further agree with the fresh and vivid style of the Gos- pel's narrative; since such immediate contact with Peter's reminiscences as Mark must have had would give the stamp of an eyewitness to all •his record. And it would yet further agree with n certain Petrine element wlii<'h seems to be present at frequent points throughout the Gospel; MARKET AND MARKETING. sinci', however, JIark may have reconstructed these discourses of Peter's, he is not likely to have lost out of them altogether the personal element they must have contained. Accordingly, the general verdict of criticism is that the second canonical Gospel is from the hand of ilark, reproducing Peter's personal knowledge of and participation in the Gospel events. .t the same time this verdict attaches only to the substance of the Gospel; since there are evidences which seem to show that Mark's product i(jn has undergone editing to bring it to its present form, while there are clear traces of documentary sources in the latter part of the Gospel which, if belonging to .Mark's original work, show him to have gone outside of Peter for a considerable amount of his material. Naturally in proportion as JMark's Gospel is the reproduction of Peter's preaching, so far must its purpose be a honiiletic r.ather than a purely historical one. This purpose may be described as the evidencing of Jesus' Jlessiahship through the acts and deeds of His earthly life. .s a matter of fad. this evangelistic element is promi- nent througliout the narrative and is due, not merely Id the spirit of .Jesus' own ministry, but also to the method of the general ajioslolic mis- sion, which was not so much to tell the story of .lesus' life, as rather to testify to the impres- sion which .Tesus Himself had made upon their spiritual experience. HlULlo(iK.i-iiY. Besides the usual New Testa- ment Introductions, the introductory portions of the more recent commentaries on JIark. and the special Synoptic works referred to in the lit- erature attached to the article on (he (Jospel of .Matthew, consult: Hadham. Saint MnrL's /»- iiebtednef>s to Saint Matthew (London. 1807); Titius, Dos 'crli.altnis/i der Herrcmixirte in Marliis Eraiiiirlium eu den Logia dcs Malth.iius, in ••Theohigiscbe .Studien" (G;>ttingen. 1807) ; Hadorn, Pie ICntstehung des Mnrkn.ievangelium ((Jlitersloh. 1808); Blass, I'liiloloqie der Evan- gelieii ( Kng. trans.. London. ISO.S) ; (^linjes. Mar- Kiis Stmlirii (Berlin. ISOO); Du Hnissoii, (Origin of the Oosprl of Saint Mark (Oxford, 1896); .bhott. The Corrections of Mark (London, 1901). MARK, KnwAitn T>.fRENS (1847—). .
American zoJilogist. born at Hamlet, N. Y. He graduated at the University of Michigan in 1871, and in 1 872-73 acted as assistant astronomer on the railed States Northern Boundary Survej'. He then studied zoidogy in P]urope under Lenckart, Haeekel. and others, and obtained a degree in Leipzig. In 1877 he was appointed instructor in zoCdogy at Harvard College, in ISS3 assistant professor of zoiilogy. and in 18S(> Ilersey pro- fessor of anatomy. The most important of his publications are the following: Maturation, Fe- cundation, and Segmentation in Liina.r Campes- tris (1881) : Simple Eyes in Arthropod.') (1887) ; Triehinir in Sirlne (1880); Studie.') on l.r/iidos- tens (1890). He has also translated several im- portant (ixt brinks fr*m the German. MARK ANTONY. See Antoniu.s. Mab- (TS. MARKET and MARKETING (AS. mcrr- ket. from Lat. nirrralus, traflic, market, from me.reari, to trade, from men, merchandise, from nirrerp, to earn, deserve; connected with Gk. u4pot, mcros. share). A market may lie defined as an assemblage of people for buying and selling
