The locality of those addressed is not definitely indicated. But that they were Gentile Christians appears from the fact that Aramaic terms, which would be strange to Gentiles, are interpreted, and that Jewish customs, localities, seasons, etc., with which Gentiles could not be presumed to be fa- miliar, are explained. Instances of the former are seen in Boavnpyés (5), ταλιθὰ κούμ (5%), κορβάν (74), ἐφφαθά (133). ἀββά (1498), ἐλωΐ, ἐχωΐ, λαμὰ σαβαχθανεί (15%), as also in Βαρτιμαῖος (10%). ‘To the latter class belong the statements on the Jewish washings (7% 4) and on what was done on ‘the first day of unleayened bread’ (14°) ; the interpretation
MARK, GOSPEL OF
MARK, GOSPEL OF
of ‘defiled’ or ‘common’ as ‘ unwashen’ (7?) ; the explanation of the λεπτὰ δυό (1247) ; and the descrip- tions of the Mount of Olives as κατέναντι τοῦ ἱεροῦ (138), of the παρασκευή or ‘ Preparation’ as ‘the day before the Sabbath’ (προσάββατον, 151), etc.
Certain suggestive omissions and insertions may also form part of the same case, ¢.g. the omission of the genealogies, the passing over of the limita- tions put upon the mission of the apostles according to Mt 10°, and the insertion (only in Mk) of the πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν in 1117, ‘Vhe way in which the Jewish law passes into the background and the limited use of the OT have also their significance. Mk himself never quotes the OT, except once in the introductory paragraph (13: ὃ; the passage in 1578 being of doubtful authority, as not found in &, A, B, C, D, X, ete.). The entire number of references of all kinds to the OT is 67. Of these, only 7 are peculiar to Mk. ‘The quotations amount to 23. They are generally in agreement with the LXX, with a few exceptions (those giving Is 2918 40%, Zec 137, Mal 31). With the one exception mentioned, all the references to OT in this Gospel and all the citations from it occur in reports of sayings of Christ or of those who spoke with Him.
xiii. PLACE AND DavrE.—So far as_historical testimony pronounces on the question of the place in which this Gospel was written, it is in favour of Rome. To this effect are the statements made by Clement Alex., Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and others. These statements have been suspected. But there is nothing to show that they were made under the influence of the belief that Mark wrote under Peter’s superintendence ; and they have nothing against them in ancient tradition, except that Chrysostom named Alexandria as the place. But in this he stood alone, his statement having no support even on the part of Alexandrian writers. The only other place which has been suggested is Antioch (so Storr). But the suggestion is founded on an uncertain inference from Mk 157" and Ac 11”.
The idea has been mooted that there may have been a publication of the Gospel both in Rome and in Alexandria (R. Simon, Lardner, Eichhorn). There are, it is true, one or two passages in the Fathers which bring the composition of the Gospel and a mission of the evangelist to Egypt or to Alexandria in particular together. Eusebius, e.g., expresses himself thus; τοῦτον δὲ Μᾶρκον, πρῶτον φασὶν ἐπὶ τῆς Αἰγύπτου στειλάμενον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ δὴ καὶ συνε- γράψατο κηρύξαι, ἐκκλησίαις τε πρῶτον ἐπὶ αὐτῆς ᾿Αλεὲ- ἀνδρείας συστήσασθαι (ITE ii. 16) ; and Jerome gives it even more explicitly, thus: ‘assumto itaque evangelio quod ipse confecerat perrexit JEgyptum, et primus Alexandriz Christum annuntians, con- stituit ecclesiam,’ etc. (de Vir. ΠῚ. ce. 8; ef. also Epiph. Her. ii. c. 1). But the passages do not imply that the Gospel was written or published at Alexandria. Rome, therefore, remains the only place with any claim on our attention so far as ancient tradition goes, and that Mk was in Rome with Paul appears from the NT itself (Col 4:0. Philem™). Whether it can be said that the NT represents Mk as in Rome also along with Peter, de- pends on the interpretation of ἐν Βαβυλῶνι in 1 P 5%,
As the Gospel itself gives no certain indication of its date, opinions have differed greatly on the subject. They have been largely influenced by the views which scholars have taken of the purpose of the Gospei and of Mk’s relation to the other Gospels. ‘Those who have seen in it a Tendeney- writing composed with a view to the harmonizing of two opposite parties in the Church, have natu- rally placed it very late. Baur himself put it far within the 2nd cent., our present Gospels having been assigned by him to somewhere between A.D. 180 and A.D, 170.
‘Those, too, who deny that Papias’ statements
refer to our Mk, and betieve in the existence of an earlier and simpler Mk, naturally assign our Gos- pel to a comparatively late date. Dr. Samuel Davidson, e.g., thinks A.D. 120 is as near the true time as we can get. Those who hold it posterior to Mt and Lk (Griesbach, etc.), or posterior at least to Mt (Hilgenteld, etc.), put it at various dates after the destruction of Jerusalem. Volkmar re- ferred it to A.D. 73. Hilgenfeld himself ascribes it to Domitian’s time ; Keim brings it down to about A.D. 115-120; Ké6stlin, distinguishing between two Marks, refers the earlier one to A.D. 65-70, and our present Gospel to the first decade of the 2nd cent. On the other hand, some have attributed to it a very early date. Theophylact, e.g., and others place it some 10 years after Christ’s death. The subscriptions of many manuscripts, both uncial and cursive, assign it to 10 or 12 years after the Ascension (cf. Harnack, Chronologie, pp. 70, 124). Schenkel refers it to A.D. 45-58; Hitzig, to A.D. 55-57.