Pfleiderer, again, takes this Gospel to be the product of Pauline influences adapted to medi- ating uses. He thinks the opening sentence which speaks of the ‘ Gospel,’ the summary of the preach- ing of Jesus in terms of repentance and belief (1, ef. Gal 376 5°), and other things in what follows, run in terms of Pauline ideas and expressions ; that the recital of the wonderful works and the polemical discourses of Jesus is so put as vividly to contrast the free spirit of the Gospel with the narrow legalism of Judaism ; and that the accounts given of the lack of spiritual discernment on the part of the disciples (Mk 915. 85. ef. 2 Co 44 516.17, Gal 612), the lack of power on their side to expel evil spirits, while it was possessed by one who did not follow in their company (Mk 918-19. 88. 39, ef. 1 Co 128 169-19, 2 Co 124-12, Gal 26 3°), and similar things which appear prominently in Mk’s record, are the ‘Pauline reply to the glorification of the Twelve in the Apocalypse at the cost of the Apostle to the Heathen’ (Hibbert Lectures, pp. 170-177). Thus the second Gospel is made a Paul- ine writing, connected with the Roman Church, and the product of the movement in behalf of a recon- ciliation between Paulinism and Jewish Christianity in which that Church took an early and leading part.
In the hands of Baur himself and his original followers, the purpose ascribed to Mk was con- nected with the place given to Mk as dependent on Mt and Lk. With the disproof of the latter position the situation is materially altered, and important members of the ‘Tiibingen school have broken away from Baur’s presentation of the case. Hilgenfeld and Holsten deny that Mk can be later than Lk. Volkmar admitted that it cannot be later than Mt any more than Lk. Hilgenfeld finds in it a mild Jewish Christianity ; Holsten and Volk- mar discover in it a sharp Paulinism. Pfleiderer, too, who attempts to put a new complexion on the mediating purpose, has respect for the ancient tra- dition, but reads Mk through Paul. Apart, how-
MARK, GOSPEL OF
ever, from these differences, the Tiitbingen theory in all its forms involves an interpretation of many passages of the Gospel which is in a high degree fanciful and artificial. It allegorizes freely in deal- ing with the narrative. Even in the hands of Pfleiderer Mk’s reports of Christ’s announcements of His death and resurrection become a ‘strong hyberbole,’ and his account of the transfiguration is regarded as a ‘hieroglyphic’ ; while Peter’s words about the building of three tabernacles (Mk 9° etc.) are an expression of the ‘desire to see the transient and the permanent, the old and the new, the letter and the spirit associated for all time’ (Hibbert Lect. p. 176). The theory reads into the narrative references to divisions in the Church, and allusions to the condition of things in the post- apostolic age, which the common eye cannot see there. It does violence to the simple, natural, descriptive, reporting character of the record, and puts a strained meaning on Christ’s words regarding the Law, His Messiahship, His Mission, the Sab- bath, and much else.
A didactic purpose of another kind has also been attributed to the Gospel. It is understood to have been written with a view to the effeet which the delay of Christ’s Second Coming might have on the primitive Church. The hope of that event was waning. It was necessary to reawaken it, and to secure Christians against the loss of faith and cour- age. With this object the second Gospel was com- posed, Christ’s life on earth being so set forth as to show that in it, ‘apart from His glorious Return, Jesus has sufficiently attested the Messianic char- acter of His Mission’ (so Weiss, Man. of Introd. to the NT, § 46,7). But even this is to aseribe too much art and didactic design to Mk. ‘To give wit- ness to Christ as the Messiah, no doubt, was in the purpose of Mk as in that of the other Synoptists. But beyond this Mk has no other object than to tell a simple story of things as they happened, and for the most part as Peter reported them to have been seen and heard.
xii. DESTINATION.—So far as historical testimony bears on the destination of the Gospel, it points to Gentile ‘readers. That is the inference from the terms in which Mk is spoken of by Irenzus (adv. Her. iii.), Clement Alex. (Euseb. H# vi. 14), Jerome (de Vir. Ill. ο. 8), etc. The way in which Rome is connected by some of the Fathers (e.g. Clement Alex. and Jerome) with the request that Mk should write a Gospel, implies that it was also understood to have been written for Roman Chris- tians in particular. The internal evidence amply sustains the former position, but leaves the latter uncertain, The existence of a number of Latinisms in Mk is not enough to prove Roman readers to have been specially in view. For while Latinisms occur in larger measure in Mk than in the others, they are not absolutely peculiar to it. Far less can this definite destination be inferred from such alleged peculiarities of its narrative as the re- duction of coins to the Roman quadrans (12%), its reference to the Roman practice of divorce, or the fact that it takes it for granted that the readers knew Pilate.