The first passage which maif refer to Mk. is St. Luke's prologue. This shows that some who were not from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the Avord had already written narratives of the Gospel historj-, and by implication avers (Lk P) that these narratives were incomplete in not be- ginning ' from the first ' {S.vuodev) ; also we perhajis gather that they were not in St. Luke's judgment in good chronological order (KaOe^qs, cf. aKpi^Cis just before). Internal evidence leads us to think that not improbably St. Luke knew ^Ik. (see below, § iii.), and, if so, we may have here the first criticism on the Second Gospel ; it has some striking re- semblances to Papias' account, for which we are indebted to Eusebius ( HE iii. 39). Eusebius says :
UctTtx] yOfuXiV Tapuhoff-sv, -< Ttpi ^upxov T6V T6 i'jayy:?.i6f yiypa.-
^0T6? 'iXTit)liTfX.l htot TgCtoi^. * K.Ott T0VT6 0 T pilT ^{jTl po^ U.lyi' 'MccpXC^
fi.iy ipu,y,ifjrr,; Yl-Tjio'j yiviiyUio;, oirtc ku.vr,uoii-j<riy, a.xpi3uJS iypcf^u,
6V UiVTOl Ta^Ei, Ta !/T0 TfiD Xptff-ToV '/; Ai'^HiyTOC. Y, T pCt'^HlyTtt. OVTi ykp
Y,fC6'je'e ro'j Vk.vpiou, ovri Ta.p'f.xcX&CSr.o'iv ctvTu, vtrrspov 5i, ut^ £?*;*'» lliTpu, 'o; Tpo; T*? Zpi'"-' i-roturii -ra? Tiihan-xaXia,;, a.'/j' olx i^s-zip ff-vvTfltliv TiJv x,vpicx.y.'My TSiOiiu-Svo, Xoj'/ijv \v.l. >.&ya/y]^ uir-Ti oih-f XUapTB 'Sfcipxc;^ g^tu; ivta. ypoi'^a.; u? a.Tlu.w.LLOyV^iTiy. Woi y'a,p iTotv,o-a.ro Tpoioixvy roZ u.Y,h-v iiv Y.xautri rrctpotXi'reiy y, •^iCtratrdcti ri £v^ et'jTot;.* Toci/Ta u-y cCv ttrr'ipY.'Teci r^ FlaT.a TEm tou '^la.^xoi'. Lightfoot's translation (Apost. Fathers, conipend. ed. p. 529) is here appended, and some points where Schmiedel (Encyc. Bill, s.v. 'Gospels') differs from him are noted: 'For our present purpose we will merely add to his [Papias'] words which have been quoted above, a tradition which has been set forth through these sources concerning Mark who wrote the Gospel : "And the Elder said this also : Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everj-thing that he remem- bered (.Schmiedel: 'mentioned'], without, however, recording in order what was either said or done b.v Christ. For neither did he hear the Ix)rd, nor did he follow Him ; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [v.l. '\vords'l. So then Mark made no mistake [Schm. ' committed no fault ' ; but see Light- foot's Essays on Sup. Rel. pp. 8, 163], while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them (Schm. ' repeated them exactly from memory '], for he made it his one care not to omit an.nhing that he heard, or to set down any false state- ment therein. " Such, then, is the account given by Papias con- cerning Mark.'
Here Papias vindicates Mark from inaccuracy, and from errors of omission, as far as his know- ledge went, but finds fault with his chronological
order, which was due to his being dependent only on Peter's oral teaching. If this is a correct inter- pretation of Papias, which account of the Gospel story did he prefer ': Lightfoot (Essays on Super- natural Religion, pp. 165, 205 f.) thinks John, Salmon (Introd. Lect. vii. ) thinks Luke ; while Schmiedel, in a not very convincing argument, thinks that Papias did not recognize Jn. and Lk. as being of equal authority with ^Nlt. and Mk. (Enc)jc. Bibl. ii. 1813 ; see, further, § vii. below). Schmiedel takes no account of Lightfoot's essay ' On the Silence of Eusebius ' [Sup. Rel. ii. ). However this may be, Papias describes the Second Gospel as being limited to Peter's reminiscences, the writer being the ' interpreter ' of that Apostle. This phrase may mean (Zahn, Einlcit. ii. 209, 218) that ^lark, being Peter's scholar, made Peter's teaching widelj* known through his written Gos- pel, or (Swete, St. Mark, p. xxiv) that he was the secretary or dragoman who translated Peter's words into a foreign tongue during the Apostle's lifetime. Papias does not call the work of Mark a 'gospel,' and the word evayye\Lov is not un- doubtedly found in the sense of the record of good tidings before Justin (Apol. i. 66, see below), thougli some find this sense in Ignatius, Philacl. 0, 8, and in the Didache 8, 11, 15. In these places, however, it is probably not the written word that is referred to. ' [For a complete discussion of the Papias fragment see Lightfoot, Ess. on Sup. Rel. v., vi., and Sanday, Gosp. in Second Cent. v. 2].
Justin Martyr (Dial. 106) says that Christ changed Simon's name to Peter, and that this is written 'in his memoirs' (ev rots d.TroixvrjfMoi'evfiaai.v airrov), and also that He changed the name of the sons of Zebedee to ' Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder. ' But these last words actually occur only in ^Ik 3'', where we read of both names, Peter and Boanerges, together, and in no other Gospel. We may probably dismiss the idea that ai-rov refers to Christ, as if Justin meant ' Christ's memoirs,' and conclude that Justin is speaking of a Petrine Gospel. Harnack (Bruckstiicke d. Ev. . . . d. Pctrus, li. 37) proposes to find this in the apocry- phal Akhmim Fragment which goes by St. Peter's name, and Sanday (Inspitrttion'' [Bampton Lec- tures], p. 310) agrees that Justin u.sed pseudo-Peter. But as there is no other reason to suppose that this apocryphal Gospel ever contained the passage in question, ^the fragment lately discovered be- ginning in the middle of the story of the Passion, — and as Justin elsewhere probably refers to our Second Gosjjel (see below), it is more reasonable to suppose with Swete (Gospel of St. Peter, p. xxxiii), Salmond (Hastings, DB iii. 256), and Stanton (JThSt ii. 6, and Gospels as Hist. Doc. p. 93 11". ) that he refers to it here. If so, we have another authority for regarding St. Peter as a chief source of Mark. In considering the question whether Justin refers to Mk. or to the apocryphal Gospel, we must note that while some points of contact are found between pseudo-Peter and Justin, there are also some considerable differences (see esp. Stanton, loc. cit.), and that if one boiTowed from the other, it is as likely that pseudo-Peter is tlie borrower as Justin. — The Evangelic narratives are in Justin commonly called 'memoirs' — e.g. Apol. i. 66, ' the memoirs composed by them [the Apo.stles] which are called Gospels.' From Dial. 103 it appears that he included in the term some not composed by the Apostles themselves but by their followers. He speaks of ' the memoirs drawn up by tlie Apostles and by those who followed them,' and in this context recalls the (Lukan ?) account of the Agony and the drops of blood.