called a ‘transcript from life
MARK, GOSPEL OF
tive of the Forty Days’ (Hort), a summary of the appearances of the risen Christ and their effect upon the apostles, concluding with His ascension, and their subsequent work.
The probability, therefore, is that these last twelve verses did not belong to the original form of the Gospel. This probability is strengthened both by the case of the intermediate ending, and by the consideration that there was an inducement to supplement the narrative so as to remove the strangeness of the shorter conclusion. In view of the peculiarities of style and connexion, it is diffi- cult to suppose that it was added by the original hand. It must have been of very early date, how- ever, and it is not the kind of addition that can be readily explained as a work of mere invention. It embodies a true apostolic tradition, and may have been written by some companion or successor of the original author. In an Armenian manuscript of the Gospels, which was discovered in 1891 in the Patriarchal Library of Edschmiatzin, and is stated to be written A.D. 986, the paragraph bears to be the work Of the Presbyter Ariston. Τὺ is suggested by Mr. F. C. Conybeare, the discoverer of the manuscript, that this Ariston may be the Aristion who is named by Papias (Euseb. ΜῈ iii. 39) among the disciples of the Lord, and that the question of the authorship of these twelve verses is thus solved (Expos. viii. [1894] p. 241, etce., and in Swete’s St. Mark, p. ciii ff.).
The genuineness of the paragraph has been de- fended by R. Simon, Mill, Bengel. Wolf, Eichhorn, Storr, Kuinoel, Matthei, Hug, Scholz, Guericke, de Wette, Olshausen, Bleek, Lange, Ebrard, Bis- ping, Hilgenfeld (in part), McClellan, Scrivener, Canon Cook, Dean Burgon, Morison, Words- worth, G. Salmon, E. Miller, ete. It is contested by Michaelis, Fritzsche, Griesbach, Lachmann (al- though according to their method these two give it a place in their texts), Credner, Ritschl, Meyer, Ewald, Reuss, Holtzmann, Keim, Hofmann, Tisch- endorf, Zahn, Tregelles, Schaff, Weiss, Westcott and Hort, Alford, Swete, and most English schol- ars. Some (Scholten, etc.) have solved the difti- culty by supposing that the Gospel had originally a different conclusion ; and attempts have been made (by Ewald, Holtzmann, Volkmar, and Ritschl) to restore this hypothetical ending. But these have been more venturesome than convincing. (See the great critical editions by Tischendorf, Tregelles,
and especially Westcott and Hort (Appendix, pp. 28-51) ; Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticisin
of the NT; Burgon’s The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark, ete.; Weiss, Das Markusevangelium ; Wlostermann, Untersuch- ungen, pp. 298-3809; Martin, Introduction ἃ la critique textuelle du NT, partie pratique tome ii.; G. Salmon, Jntrod. to the NT, pp. 141-151; Har- nack, Bruchstiicke des Ev. u. der Apoc. Pt., 2 Aufl.
p. 33; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusevange-
lium ; Strzygowski, Byzantinische Denkmiiler, 1. (1891) ; Resch, Ausserkanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evang. ii. pp. 450-456 ; Swete, The Gospel ace. to St. Mark, pp. xevi-ev; Zahn, Geschichte des NT Kanons, ii. pp. 910-938, and Zinleit.in das NT, ii. p. 227, etc.).
vi. GENLUS OF THE GOSPEL.—The second Gospel has a noticeable individuality. Qualities which at once catch the eye distinguish it from its com- panions. One of its most marked characteristics is the simple objectivity of its narrative. It is not the product of reflection, nor does it give things coloured by the writer’s own ideas. It has been ’ (Westcott). It is in the main a simple and unqualified transcript. It has been described also as the realistic Gospel, and the description is just if it means that Mark brings things before us as they were, simply and
MARK, GOSPEL OF
entirely as they were, and as if one’s own eye were on them. With this, too, it has the charm of a singular vividness. It is beyond the others graphic and dramatic, rich in pictorial effects and lifelike touches. This is true in some degree even of the discourses. It is pre-eminently true of the deeds and incidents. Examples are seen in the narratives of the storm (48°41), the demoniac (5!), Herod’s feast (67), the feeding of the 5000 (6%), the blind man (88), the son with the dumb spirit (99), the rich young ruler (10'-), Bartimzeus (102), ete. Often the effect is produced by a single word or phrase, e.g. the κύψας in 1; the σχιζομένους in 12°; the ἐκβάλλει in 1!2, as compared with Mat- thew’s ἀνήχθη and Luke’s ἤγετο; the εὐθὺς ἄρας τὸν κράβαττον in 213: the ἐπέβαλλεν and the γέμίζεσθαι in 437; the περιπατῶν ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης in 64; the προσωρμίσθησαν in 6%; the κράξας, σπαράξας. etc., in 9°6 ; the θερμαινόμενον in 1417 ete. It belongs to the same quality of vividness that the direct form of speech is so often chosen, e.g. * Peace, be still’ (4°°) ; ‘Come out of the man, thow unclean spirit’ (5°) ; ‘Send us into the swine’ (5!) ; ‘Come ye your- selves apart’ (68!) ; * Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him’ (935).
So, too, Mark preserves notable words of Christ in the mother tongue (Boanerges, Talitha cum Ephphatha, Corban, Abba), and delights to record His actual gestures and movements. ‘Thus he tells us how He ‘looked round about’ on the men in the synagogue (3°) ; how He ‘turned him about in the press’ (5°); how He ‘looked up to heaven’ when He took the loaves and the fishes (041). and when He cured the deaf-mute (7%4); how He ‘turned about, and looked on the disciples’ (8%) ; how He ‘sat down and called the twelve’ (9%) ; how He took little children ‘up into his arms, and put his hands upon them’ (989 10!) ; how ‘behold- ing’ the young ruler He ‘loved him,’ and ‘ turned about and looked on his disciples’ (107-23) ; how He ‘looked round about upon all things’ in the temple profaned (11!!).