x. RELATION TO MATTHEW AND LUKE.—While the three Synoptical Gospels cover for the most part the same field, and have also a consider- able measure of agreement, especially in their latter portions, in the arrangement of events, they have also notable differences in the amount, dis~ tribution, and connexion of their matter. Mk wants much that is found either in Mt or in Lk. Such sections, e.g., of Mt as chs. 1-2. 5-7, and of Lk such parts as chs. 1-2. 9°!-1814, are entirely, or almost entirely, unrepresented in Mk. On the other hand, Mk has a small proportion of matter not found either in Mt or in Lk—amounting to about fifty verses. He has also a certain proportion of matter which is found either in Mt and not in Lk, or in Lk and not in Mt. Omitting the opening verse and the disputed conclusion, reckoning the second Gospel to consist of 106 sections, and deducting 5 as wholly peculiar to Mk, the result is that 93 are common to Mk and Mt and 8 not found in Lk, while 81 are common to Mk and Lk and 10 not found in Mt (Swete, Gospel acc. to St. Mark, p. \xiii).
Tried, again, by the test of characteristic words and phrases, and defining these as words and phrases which occur at least three times in Mk, and are not found at all in Mt and Lk, or occur in Mk oftener than in Mt and Lk together, Mk is seen to contain a comparatively small proportion of such—only some 387 in all; while in Mt the number is about 140, and in Lk about 86 (Hawkins, Hore Synop. pp. 1-12). In arrangement, too, Mk differs considerably, as we have seen, from Mt and Lk—more especially from Lk—in the arrangement of the common matter on to the end of the ninth chapter; while from this point onwards there is general agreement, the main departures being in the cases of the withering of the fig-tree and the exposure of Judas.
But it has also to be noticed that in not a few passages, some brief and others of greater length, the second Gospel shows remarkable coincidences
MARK, GOSPEL OF
in word and phrase with Mt or with Lk. These are seen, e.g., in Mk 434, Mt 13%4; Mk 459.19, Mt 13°9.22; Mk 877-91, Mt 163; Mk 9529, Mt 17-0. Mk 14-2, Lk 434%, Mk 349, Lk 69-10; Mk 10! Lk 186. There are certain parts, again, in which Mk exhibits verbal agreement partly with Mt and partly with Lk, as, e.g., Mk 1444 Mt 824, Lk 5116; Mk 21°”, Mt 917, Lk 57-8, In what relation, therefore, does the second Gospel stand to these others? Is it independent of both and prior to them? Or does it occupy an intermediate position ? Or is it dependent on both and posterior to them ?
Ancient tradition is not in favour of the priority of Mk. It generally regards Mt as the first of the Gospels. Clement Alex. (Euseb. ΠΑ vi. 14) gives the tradition regarding the order of the Gospels. He reports it, according to Eusebius, as ‘derived from the oldest presbyters,’ and as being to the effect that the Gospels which contain the genealo- gies were written first. Augustine regarded Mk as dependent on Mt (de Cons. Evang. i. 2). And many in modern times have held Mk to be later than Mt, or than both Mt and Lk. Griesbach (Opusc. Acad. ii. p. 358, ete.) propounded the hypothesis that the second Gospel was derived from the first and third, partly by combination, and in larger measure by abridgment. In this he has been followed, with minor modifications, by Fritzsche, de Wette, Baur, Bleek, Delitzsch, Kést- lin, Kahnis, and many more. In some cases Gries- bach’s view is followed, but with the additional supposition of a third written source, a proto-Mark (ὃ. Davidson, ete. ).
The arguments in support of the theory of Mk’s dependence and posteriority are taken so far from the witness of tradition already referred to; from general considerations, such as the improbability that a Roman Gospel would precede a Palestinian ; and from the evidence of quotations in ancient Christian literature, the attempt being made (but with doubtful success) to show that the earliest citations from the Gospels, particularly in writings like the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews, presuppose Mt and Lk, but not Mk. But the main arguments are based upon an analysis of the Gospel itself. It is held to be improbable that a Gospel which contains so little of the discourses of our Lord should be the earliest, and this improbability is thought to be confirmed by an examination of the contents of Mk, which discovers, it is held, many evidences of dependence, condensation, and alteration. Cases of incompleteness, obscurity, incongruous combination, and the like, are said to exist, which are explained, it is asserted, by haste, inattention, or lack of discernment in draw- ing from Mt and Lk. But surely incongruities of that kind are more likely to disappear than to persist when a writer is not first in the field and has the opportunity of consulting previous authori- ties.
Most of the instances, too, come to little. Why should it be necessary to suppose, e.g., that when Mk (616) speaks of the demoniac as ‘clothed,’ he must have Lk’s statement in view that ‘he ware no clothes’ (Lk 8%’)? Or why should the cen- turion’s cry, ‘Truly this was a Son of God,’ in Mark’s record (15%), presuppose that the evan- gelist had before him Matthew's statement about the earthquake, the rending of the rocks, and the opening of the graves? Those peculiarly graphic descriptions, which are usually taken to indicate Mark’s originality, are in many cases (e.g. 5b 7% etc.) strangely interpreted as due to pragmatism, design, reflectiveness,—things suggestive of depend- ence and comparative lateness. Tor reasons which are not easy to grasp, the historical, geographical, and archeological explanations in such passages as