5. Traditions. — Tradition has been busy with Mark's name. The most widely spread is that which assigns to him a mission in Egypt, and the evangelization of Alexandria. This mission is re-
garded as occupying the gap between the history in Acts and the later ministry to the Apostles. It was also widely believed that he died at Alex- andria, receiving (according to some versions) the crown of martyrdom. These traditions cannot be traced back further tlian a hundred years after the supposed events. One curious fact is preserved in some of the Western traditions. Mark is said to have been Ko\oj3o5dKTv\os, which means either mutilated or stunted in one or more of his fingers. Explanations of this deformity have been oftered which possess no probability. But the leminiscence itself may quite possibly preser\e a genuine fact ; and it is not impossible that this defect may have had some influence in determining the possibilities of ISIark's career.
LiTERAxrRE. — The best accounts of Mark are given by Swete (Gospel acc. to St. Mark, 1898) and Lindsay ('St. Mark' in T. & T. Clark's Handbook series) in their introductions. The following may also be consulted : Harnack, art. ' Mark ' in EBr (esp. for its good account of the traditions concerning the Evangelist); Jiilicher, art. 'Marcus' in PRE'i; Morison and Salniond in introd. to their Conini. on this Gospel. ,
Frederick J. Rae. MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.—
i. The problems to be discussed.
ii. The Second Gospel in the Early Church.
1. Statements as to its composition.
2. Early quotations, references, and use.
iii. Character of the Gospel as shown by internal evidence, and by comparison with the other Synoptics :
1. The presentation of Christ's Person and work.
2. AuCoptic characteristics.
3. Description of the inner feelings of our Lord and the
Apostles.
4. Comparison with the other Synoptics :
(a) As to Scope.
(6) Diffuseness and redundancies of Mark.
(c) Correction of Mark's matter by Matthew and
Luke.
(d) Correction of Mark's phraseology — Diminutives.
(e) Colloquialisms. (/) Latinisms.
(f/) Aramaisms.
(n) Grammar and awkward or difficult phrases, (i) Corrections for precision. ij) Doubtful cases. (k) Conclusion from the evidence on this head.
5. Mark's other characteristics of diction.
6. Matter peculiar to Mark.
iv. Authorshij), Date, and Place of Writing. V. Aramaic or Greek original, vi. The last twelve verses, vii. Is our Second Gospel the original Mark ? Literature.
i. The problems to be discussed. — No book of the NT has experienced such a change in public estimation as the Second Gospel. Formerly re- garded as comparatively unimportant and receiv- ing little attention from commentators, who in ett'ect re-echoed Augustine's opinion that it was but an abbreviation of the First Gospel, it has of late years been more carefully studied, and has received a juster appreciation. It has now been recognized as a book of supreme importance, as giving us the narrative of the life of Christ in a most primitive form, and as being not improbably the foundation, if not directly at least indirectly, of all the Gospels. It will be necessary, then, in this article first to investigate the statements about its composition in the earlier Fathers and their use of it, and then to examine the Gospel itself, to see what picture it gives of our Lord's Person and work, and what relation it bears to the other Syn- optic Gospels. We shall then be able to come to a conclusion about questions of date, authorship, and place of writing, of the original language, and of the integrity of the Gospel. Finally, we will consider the question of an ' Ur-Marcus,' that is, if the Gospel in our hands is the original work of St. Mark.
It will be convenient here to state the results arrived at in this article with regard to some points. The present writer thinks it most prob- able that the Second Gospel as we have it, or at
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDIXG TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDIXG TO 121
any rate with the very sliglitest ditfeiences, was in the hands of all the otlier Evangelists when they wrote ; and that the latter freely used the material before them, altering it, or adding to it, or omitting parts of it, as thej' thought right when following other guides. The theory put forward by Alford {Prolegomena to his Greek Testament, i. 2) and other holders of the ' oral hypothesis,' that the later writers would not have so treated a book which they regarded as inspired or even as authoritative, does not greatly commend itself, as it appears to interpret the feeling of the Christians of the 1st cent, by those of a later age. — The very style of Mk., with its roughness and inelegances, is of great vahie, and~still "mure is its description of the Saviour in words which were often in after times misunderstood, of the utmost import- ance as showing a very early record. For these and other reasons a date at least before the Fall of Jerusalem seems to be probable. Further, it is considered likely that the Gospel M'as written in Greek, and primarily for Koman readers, the last twelve verses being an apjiendix, not composed as an ending to the Gospel, but having once had an indeiJendent existence, and being added later to the Gospel to supply a lost leaf.
ii. The Secoxd Gospel ix the Early Church. — 1. Statements as to its composition. — We will first consider those passages of early writers which may be thought to throw liglit on the composition of ^Ik., before discussing those which only quote or refer to it ; later (§ vii. ) we will consider whether the Gospel known to these writers is the .same as our 3Iark.