iv. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.—From the earliest times to the present day the general opinion has
252 MARK, GOSPEL OF
MARK, GOSPEL OF
been that the second Gospel was written origin- ally in the language in which we now possess it. The testimony of antiquity is entirely in this direc- tion. The Fathers either speak of Mark’s Gospel as written in Greek, or proceed on the supposition, and betray no knowledge of any other view of it. And in the book itself there is little, if anything, to suggest aught else. It has been held by some, however, that the original language was Latin. This view found favour with Roman Catholic scholars of a former age, although it has been generally given up by their successors in our own time. It was upheld by Baronius (Ad ann. 45, No. 39) among others, and there were even those who thought that part of the Latin autograph was to be seen in the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. The document in question was found, however, to be simply a part of the Vulgate, and to belong to a Latin MS of the Gospels, another portion of which had found its way to Prague (cf. Dobrowsky, Fragm. Pragense Ev. St. Marci vulgo autographt; Simon, Hist. Crit. iii. 14; Gregory-Tischendorf, Proleg. p. 185).
It is true that the subscriptions of certain manu- scripts (e.g. 160, 161) speak of this Gospel as written in Latin (ἐγράφη Ῥωμαϊστὶ ἐν Ῥώμῃ). But they are few in number and of relatively late date, not earlier in any case than the 10th century. It is true, too, that the same idea is conveyed in the subscriptions or marginal notes of certain versions —the Peshitta and Harcleian Syriac (Latine Rome). But there is probably nothing more in this than a hasty inference that, if the Gospel was written in Rome or for Roman readers, it must have been written in the Roman tongue. There is absolutely nothing in Patristic testimony to support the theory of a Latin original. It is hard to believe that such an original could have perished socompletely. It is true that there is the supposed parallel of a Hebrew original for Matthew's Gospel (see art. on latter). But in that case there is an early and considerable tradition at the basis of the theory, whereas in Mark’s case the original, if it was in Latin, has disappeared without leaving a trace of itself. And further, if the second Gospel was meant specially for Roman Christians, the probability is all on the side of its being composed in Greek, as St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in that tongue. Colloquial Greek would be a more natural medium of communication be- tween the evangelist and Roman Christians than Latin.
It has also been held that this Gospel was written originally in Aramaic. Blass (cf. his Philology of the Gospels, p. 196, etc.) in advocating this view points to the condition of the text, which suggests, he thinks, the existence of a ‘ plurality of versions of a common Aramaic original.’ But the data which he produces, though ingeniously presented, are neither numerous enough nor certain enough for the purpose. His argument in other directions is also mixed up with doubtful speculations. It im- plies that Papias mistook a translation for the original. It supposes that in the first part of the Bk. of Acts Luke followed an author who had written in Aramaic, and that this author was Mark. ‘fo say that Mark’s Gospel had Aramaic sources i# #ue thing. to say that it was written in Aramaic ia a different thing. The theory in ques- tion makes the Mark which we have a translation, and the argament in view fails to account for the many things in the book, in its style and its strong individuality, which give it the character of a primary, not a secondary composition.
v. STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY OF THE BooK.—The text of the second Gospel, like that of the others, is in a satisfactory condition. It is attested by the Primary Uncials (including C,
which gives chs. 111-081 8°-12?9 13°16); by most of the later uncials which are of special interest in respect of age, completeness, or character of text, e.g. E, Κι L, M, N, S, U, V, A, I (complete, but having 16'* in a later hand), = (containing all but 164-%), Φ, etc.; by the mass of the cursives, among which are 1, 33, the Ferrar group, and others of critical importance ; and by the best of the ancient versions—Latin (Old Lat. in its best MSS, and Vulg.), Syriac (Old Syriac, both Curetonian and Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harcleian, Palestinian), Egyptian (both Memphitie and Thebaic), Ethiopic, Gothic, Armenian; and by a large body of Patristic evi- dence.
It presents, nevertheless, not a few problems, of more or less importance, in textual criticism. The chief of these is the one raised by the existence of alternative endings. But there are others of smaller compass which are of interest. They are spread over most parts of the Gospel, and in many cases have a considerable bearing on the exegesis. In- stances are found in 1! (the τοῦ θεοῦ) ; 12 (the reading ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ) ; 1* (the point of the description of the Baptist being affected by the retention or omission of ὁ and kal) ; 177 (the διδαχὴ καινήν); 38 (Kavavaiov); 458 (πληρὴς OF πληρὴ σῖτον); δ1 (Γερασηνῶν) ; 5° (παρακούσας) ; 73 (πυγμῇ) ; 15 ἀπὰ 135 (the omissions) ; 823 (Βηθανίαν) ; 835 (the graphic reading βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περι- πατοῦντας); 9.539 ([Π6 omission Οὗ καὶ νηστείᾳ); 934. 45. 4° (the omission of the sentences ὅπου σκώληξ, etc., and kal πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται) ; 11525 (the στιβάδας in the former and the omission of the latter) ; 1315 (the omission of τὸ ῥηθέν, ete.) ; 141 (the omission of καὶ ἄλλος, Μήτι ἐγών ; 14° (προελθών) ; 1575 (its omission). Of special importance are these—the reading ἁμαρτήματος for κρίσεως in 32%; the well attested ὁ τέκτων in 6%; the ἠπόρει for ἐποιεῖ in 6% ; the puzzling αὐτοῦ for αὐτῆς, supported by §,B,D,L,4, in the description of the damsel in 62; the καθαρίζων, attested by x, A, B, L, and many cursives in 7}".