| by Lk (e.g. 717, cf. Mt 15'5; 14%, cf. Lk 225).
258
.---.ο -.
MARK, GOSPEL OF
The silence of this Gospel in matters honourable to Peter has been commented on from the time of Eusebius (Dem. Evang. iii. 5) onwards, and explanations of most of these cases of suppression may be suggested. On the other hand, there are reports of incidents which would come most naturally from Peter, and there are suggestive occasions on whith Peter is introduced in this Gospel, and only in it. It is only Mark who records, e.g., that ‘Simon and they that were with him followed after’ Jesus when He departed into a solitary place at the beginning of His ministry (1%) ; that he called Christ’s attention to the withered fig-tree (117!) ; that with his brother and the sons of Zebedee he questioned Jesus on the Mount of Olives about the destruction of the temple (13%). It may be added that a comparison of the narratives which we have of the three scenes at which only Peter and James and John were present, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration, and the Agony, will show that the versions given in the second Gospel have peculiar details and distinctive features which suggest not only that the writer had more imme- diate knowledge than Matthew and Luke, but that he had it from Peter. <A certain likeness has also been observed between Mark and Peter in respect of style. Peter’s First Epistle has at certain points a vividness that recalls Mark’s way. His discourses as given in Acts show still more of the realistic faculty that is characteristic of Mark. It is noticed, e.g., that there is much the same wealth of picturesque detail in the account of the cripple healed by Peter (Ac 3!) as in one of Mark’s narratives (see Farrar, The Messages of the Books, p. 61).
The phenomena of the Gospel, therefore, are not inconsistent with its Marco-Petrine origin. Of themselves they are quite insufficient to lead us to definite conclusions as to the authorship. But they are in harmony, on the whole, with the account of the composition of the second Gospel, which has come down to us from the 2nd century.
ix. SOURCES.—The chief source of the second Gospel is those discourses of Peter of which tradition speaks. Most of its matter looks like the apostle’s reminiscences as transcribed and put together in a connected but unstudied way. This is most evidently and continuously the case with the first great section of the Gospel,—the narra- tive of the Galilean ministry. It is the case also with the short intermediate section dealing with the Judean and Perzan journeys, though the indications of particular acquaintance with dates, localities, and circumstances are somewhat fewer. And in the second main section, the narrative of the Passion, we have much the same features as in the first, with a greater fulness of statement, and with more of the element of discourse.
These Petrine reminiscences, however, will not account for all that is in the Gospel. The differ- ence between the two main divisions in style and proportion, the more compressed character of the narrative in the former, the greater fulness and variety in the latter, the different treatment of discourse and the like, can scarcely be accounted for simply by the difference in the subjects. They seem to point to the employment now and again of other sources. There are some things which are due probably to Mark himself, such as the explanations about the Jewish washings (73-4), the comment on Christ’s word regarding detilement— ‘This he said, making all meats clean’ (719), and the incident of the young man (14°!-52), The long eschatological discourse in ch. 13 seems to require for its explanation a written source (cf. especially 1514). There are some paragraphs, too, which are of so distinct a style as to point to dependence
MARK, GOSPEL OF
on another source, perhaps a written document. To these belong in particular the episode of Herod in ch. 6 and the opening of ch, 14.
It is difficult to say whether the Gospel owes any part of its matter to an editorial hand. it is most difficult to determine whether the Logia must be reckoned among its sources. Some, especially Weiss and ‘Titius (the latter in the Theologische Studien Herrn Prof. Ὁ. Bernhard Weiss zu seinem 70 Geburtstage dargebracht), are of opinion that its contents cannot be explained without the assumption of some written source such as the Logia. There are passages occupied with discourse or conversation, it is held, which cannot be referred to independent oral tradition (e.g. 3-29 G7-1L 1022-31. 4245), The opening quotations (1-8), the secondary form of the voice from heaven at Christ’s baptism (1), the account of the Tempta- tion (1!-18), and other things of a similar kind, it is argued by Weiss, indicate acquaintance with an earlier writing, and that writing can only have been the original apostolic source to which the other Synoptists are indebted. On the other hand, it is to be noticed that Mark, who is usually sparing in his report of Christ’s sayings, is now and again fuller than Mt and Lk in the matter of Christ’s private instructions to the Twelve, and that in Mk there is only one instance of a doublet proper (9% with 104-4; cf. Hawkins’ Hore Syn- optice, pp. 73, 81, 178). These things rather tell against the idea of a written source additional to Mark’s notes of Peter’s reminiscences. At the most. the debt to the Logia can only be very limited, and the influence of such a source very occasional. But in a few passages, and especially in ch. 13, these may be recognized.