MARK, GOSPEL OF
majority of Greek MSS, as well as catalogues and lists given in ecclesiastical writers, it has the second place. This second Gospel (see below, vi.) isseen at once to have a character of its own distinguishing it unmistakably from the first and third Gospels, not to speak of the Fourth. In ancient times its special worth and peculiar features were imper- fectly recognized. The tendency was to give it a subordinate place, and to attach less value to it than to the other Gospels. Even the great Augustine fell into the mistake of speaking of Mark as the ‘ follower and abbreviator of Matthew’ (‘subsecutus tanquam pedisequus et breviator ejus’; cf. de Cons. Evang. i. 4). A curious epithet, of obscure origin and uncertain inter- pretation, Μᾶρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος, which is applied to the evangelist in the writings of Hippolytus (Phil. vii. 30), is supposed by some (e.g. Keim) to refer to the cropped, curtailed character of the narrative (but see the preceding article, p. 247*). The oldest Commentary (not to reckon certain Homilies supposed to belong to Jerome ; cf. Anec- dota Maredsolana, iii. 2, p. 319, ete.) which we possess on this Gospel, one ascribed to Victor of Antioch, is not older than the 5th or the 6th cent. (Harnack, Gesch. d. altchr. Lit. i. p. 389; Hort, Notes, p. 34; Burgon, Twelve Last Verses of St. Mark, p. 272, ete.). The author of that com- pilation states that he had entirely failed to find any commentary on Mark, although there were many expositions of Matthew and John, and not a few also of Luke (cf. Swete, Gospel ace. to St. Mark, p. xxix). And for a considerable period, as various things go to show, this Gospel was less regarded and less used than the others. One reason for this may have been the fact that it did not profess to be the immediate work of an apostle, and was not taken to be such. But there was probably a further reason in the difficulty which seems to have been felt in defining its proper function. How great this difficulty was may be seen perhaps by the variety of the symbols applied to it. In the distribution of the well- known evangelic figures no Gospel had so uncer- tain a position as this one. Each of the four symbols, the lion, the man, the ox, the eagle, was selected in one quarter or another as the best expression of Mark’s distinctive place and pur- pose. And it may be said that, at least for the first tive centuries, less was made of this Gospel than of the others, especially the First and the Fourth.
But all is changed now. The genius of the second Gospel is better understood. Its peculiar value and its particular function in the holy quaternion of the Gospels are better appreciated. It is recognized to be of singular interest for the direct, simple, objective view which it gives of Christ and His ministry in deed and word. The spell of its vivid realism is felt as it never was before. The historical matter enshrined in it, which at first sight seems so limited as to give the book the aspect of an incomplete or abbreviated narrative, is seen to be of the first importance both in amount and in kind. The things which caused it to be less regarded in ancient times are the very things which attract special attention to it now—its shortness, its simplicity, the fact that it looks like a first, unstudied outline rather than a history, the character which belongs to it as the transcript of a disciple’s notes rather than the direct work of an apostle. It is seen, too, to be at the basis of the whole problem of the origin and mutual relations of the canonical Gospels, and is believed by many to take us nearest the primitive form of the evangelic narra- tive. So it has become the subject of a quite peculiar interest, and engages the sedulous atten- tion of students.
MARK, GOSPEL OF
i, COMPASS AND CONTENTS.—The ‘programme’ of the second Gospel (Meyer) is given in Peter’s statement of the apostolic preaching in his dis course before Cornelius (Ac 10%), Mark keeps within the limits and answers to the character attributed there to the ‘word published’ by the apostles. He begins with the Forerunner’s mission and ends with the Resurrection. The framework of the narrative and the course of events are toa very large extent the same as in Matthew and Luke. He has a brief introductory paragraph dealing with the ministry of John and the pre- paration of Jesus for His official work by His Baptism and Temptation (1)!); a large central section containing the main stream of narrative (14—-15*) ; and a conclusion relating to the Resur- rection of Jesus (16'5). An additional paragraph gives details of His Risen Life, and a brief account of His Ascension (16%) ; see below.
In the body of his Gospel Mark introduces us first to the Galilean Ministry in the Eastern parts (14+-7°8) and in the Northern parts (74-9); then to the Ministry in Pera (10'*!) ; and finally to the last Journey to Jerusalem and the closing events (1082-1547). ‘The principal divisions of the narra- tive also have a certain order, and consist of cer- tain distinct sections. The story of the Ministry in Eastern Galilee is given in three parts, viz.: (a) from the first announcement of the Kingdom and the call of the first disciples to the beginning of the conflict with the official classes (14312) ; (6) from the call of the apostles to the rejection at Nazareth (3!8-6°) ; (c) from the mission of the Twelve to the withdrawal to the borders of Tyre and Sidon (67-77). The story of the Ministry in Northern Galilee is given in two sections, viz. : (a) from the meeting with the Syrophcenician woman to the cure of the blind man, and the departure to the vicinity of Czsarea Philippi (74-8) ; (b) from Peter’s Confession to the second declaration of the Passion, and the words to the apostles on self-denial (827-9). The events of the last week of the Ministry are reported as they took place day by day—Sunday (11), Monday (1119), Tuesday (1129-1387), Wednesday (141-1), Thursday (141°?), Friday (145-1547).