It has been contended by some that the second Gospel as we have it does not correspond with Papias’ description, and cannot be the work which he ascribes to Mark (Schleiermacher, Weiffenbach, Beyschlag, S. Davidson, ete.). It is asserted that our Gospel is the composition of some unknown writer, who worked up into order and arrangement the unconnected notes which the evangelist had pre- pared. Mark’s own work, it is held, cannot have been anything like a *‘ Gospel in the sense now under- stood, but something in the style of the Clementine Homilies—a κήρυγμα Ilérpov, in which Mark wrote down sayings, narratives, and teachings of the apostle Peter’(S. Davidson). Some (e.g. Wendt) have supposed that what Papias had in view was only a series of narratives, which are embodied in our present Gospel, and can be critically separated from it. And the hypothesis of an Urmarkus, a primitive pre-canonical writing, has been advocated in various forms (e.g. by Baur, Kistlin, S. David- son, Jacobsen, etc.).
But there is no trace in ancient literature of this supposed Urmarkus. It has been thought, indeed, that we have a glimpse of it in a reference in Justin to a passage in Peter’s ἀπομνημονεύματα, which is found only in the second Gospel (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 106; οἵ, S. Davidson's Introd. to the NT, i. p. 408). But this is utterly insufficient. There
VOL, 111. —17
MARK, GOSPEL OF 257 is no suggestion anywhere in early Christian literature of a substitution of a later writing for an earlier, or a transference of the name and authority of a preceding composition to our present Gospel. Nor is it easy to understand how a primi- tive writing by the evangelist Mark, giving an apostle’s account of Christ’s words and deeds, if it ever existed, could have been so absolutely Jost and forgotten. And with regard to the evidence which is thought to be furnished by the Gospel itself as it exists, it is enough to say that it is of the most slender kind. It is urged, e.g., that a series of older narratives is presupposed in ‘the account of the replies of Jesus to objections and questions, given in the two groups, Mk 21-38 and 121-87? (Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, i. Ὁ. 21, Wilson’s tr., cf. Lehre Jesu, i. pp. 9 ff., 25 ff.), and that in 1218 we have the narrative of 3° resumed. This is perhaps the strongest case, but it is not sufficient to take us back to an Urmarkus. The things, indeed, which are held by some to indicate that the book as we have it is the product of a process of compilation or literary remodelling are few in number, and can all be otherwise explained.
Neither can it be said that the reasons advanced for the contention that our Mark does not corre- spond with the writing described by Papias, are of sufficient weight to discredit the tradition. The statement that Mark wrote ‘not in order’ is not inconsistent with the kind or measure of arrange- ment which may be discovered in our Gospel. For Mark comes short at any rate of recording things in each case in the succession in which they actually took place, and attempts no liter- ary form. Norcan it be allowed that the occurrence of certain repetitions (such are alleged, e.g., in 64 etc. 85; 487-41 647-1), or the omission of some par- ticulars bearing specially on Peter (e.g. the want of the word bitterly, which is given by Mt and Lk in their account of his repentance, and the fact that he is not named as one of the two sent to prepare for the Supper), are of much weight. Most of the reasons, indeed, which are urged in support of the position are highly arbitrary or hypothetical. The fact, e.g., that this Gospel gives the two dis- tinct narratives of miraculous feedings is turned into an argument against its having derived its matter from an eye-witness. Much is made, too, of certain statements (e.g. 107-5 1588. as compared with 2 Co 37-11-15), which are declared to have ‘passed through the mind of a Paulinist’ (S. David- son, Introd. to the NT, i. pp. 463-484).
On the other hand, the lifelike character of the narrative, its vividness and circumstantiality, and the peculiar fulness and certainty of knowledge which show themselves often in minute details, suggest that it is due, directly or indirectly, to an eye-witness. The difference between it and the apocryphal Gospel according to Peter in these and other respects is significant. There is much in it also to connect it with the apostle, as indicated by Papias and others. ‘The great bulk of its narrative consists of things of which Peter might have per sonal knowledge. Peter’s call, Peter’s confession, the message of the risen Christ to Peter, are great turning-points in the story. There age many touches in the narrative (e.g. in 11?) 159. 9% 1454-72 167) which indicate first-hand knowledge, and that on the part of one like Peter. There are some things noticed in the other Synoptists which are unexpectedly omitted by Mark, 6.0. Peter's walking on the water (Mt 14°), his appearance in the incident of the tribute money (Mt 17°), Christ’s statement that He prayed for him indi- vidually (Lk 22%), the great word addressed to him as the Rock (Mt 1638). On some occasions, too, his name is not given where it is introduced by Mt or