2. Early quotations, references, and use. — The use of Mk. by the Apostolic Fathers is not certain, though in some cases quite probable. The quota- tion in Clement of Rome (Cor. 23) and pseudo- Clement (Ancient Homily, 11), which in the latter is introduced by Xiyn yap nai 6 wpoepriTiKos \6yos, is more likely to be from some lost Christian writing than to be a fusion of Mk 4-^*f- and other NT pass- ages ; but Polycarp, Phil. 5, 5td/cocos wdvTwv, seems to come from Mk 9^^. In other cases it is probable that one of our Gospels is referred to, but Ave cannot be sure that it is Mk. in particular that is before the Avriter. As an example we may take Polycarp, Phil. 7, Avhich quotes Mt 26'^^ arid Mk 14^^ exactly, and both in Polycarp and in the Gospels the context is about not going into tempta- tion. Pseudo-Clement (§ 2), after quoting Is 54^ LXX, continues : ' Another Scrijiture saith, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners,' exactly as Mt 9^^, Mk 2'^, Avhere ' to repentance ' is not in the best manuscripts, but comes from || Lk 5^^. But Mt. and not Mk. might have been before Polycarp and pseudo-Clement, though in the latter case the omission of the yap of Mt. makes Mk. more likely. And so with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and others. The Dldache apparently refers to Mt. and Lk., and the name itself seems to be derived from Ac 2^2 ; but though a probable reference (x. 5) to 1 Jn 4'^ makes the Avriter's knoAvledge of Jn. likely, there is no trace of his knoAving Mark. For the possible references to the last tAvelve verses in Barnabas, etc., see beloAV, § vi. The use of Mk. by Hernias is very probable. He apparently refers to Mk 3^'' lO-"* Avhere they differ from Mt. and Lk., in Mand. ii. 2 (oiirws odv ivoxos ^crrj afxaprias rod KaraXaXovvTos), and Sim. ix. 20. 3 (toIs tolovtois ducTKoXov eariv els rrjv ^aaikeiav rod Qeov eitreXdew). Indirectly the Shepherd of Hernias supplies a great argument for the antiquity of the Gospels, because it shoAvs the uniqueness of our Lord's parables as there narrated. Hermas essays the same method of teaching, but his attempt is utterly feeble. If the Gospels Avere 2nd cent, productions, and the Avords of our Lord had been handed on only by oral tradition, the parables could never have been kept so pure. They Avould in the course of time, before the narratives reached us in their present form, have assimilated features .such as Ave find in Hernias. [For further references in the Shejjherd see Zahn, Hirt d. Hermas, p. 456 ff. ; Stanton, Gos^). as Hist, Doc. p. 45].
To Justin's probable reference to the Boanerges passage (see above) must be added Dial. 88, where he speaks of Jesus as ' supposed to be the car-
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDl^'G TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDIXG TO 123
penter ' {tcktovos voixL^ofxivov ; but Otto's text lias voix. 'lw(Tr]<p Tov TCKT. v'loO I'TTapx^"')- Only Mark (6^) calls Jesus a carpenter (see § iii. i [J) below). Justin also i)robably quotes from the last twelve verses (below, §vi.).
The use of Mk. by heretics is presumed from references to it in Heracleon, the Valentinians, pseudo- Peter, and the Clcinentinc Homilies (the first two as reported by Clement of Alexandria and Iren<eus), for which reference may be made to Swete's St. Mark, p. xxxi ; and Sanday's Gospels i/i the Sceond Centiinj, ch. vi. p. 177 ft'.
The Gospel is found in all the old Versions — Curetonian and Sinaitic Sj^riac (of the former only 16'""'-" is extant), Old Latin, Bohairic, Sahidic ; and in all catalogues and Greek manuscripts of the Gospels.
Putting together the statements, references, and quotations, and deferring the question of an editor later than the original writer of the Gospel (see §vii. ), we may conclude, («) that there is valid evidence that Mk. was in circulation before the middle of the •2nd cent. ; (b) that ecclesiastical tradition almost uniformly connects the Second Evangelist with St. Peter — the Apostolic Constitu- tions (ii. 57, Lagarde, p. 85, c. A.D. 375) being the only writing which undoubtedly connects him with St. Paul (ol crvvepyoi llavXov . . . AovKcis Kai MdpK-oj, cf. Philem.--', Col. 4'i) ; (c) that there was a dill'erence of tradition as to whether he wrote while St. Peter was alive or after his death (see §iv. below). Further, {d) the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen do not mention Mark's preach- ing at Alexandria — a strange silence ; and (c) there is no hint till Hippolytus that there was more than one Mark ; apparentlj' the other writers identified the cousin of Barnabas and the disciple of Peter.
iii. The Character of the Gospel a.s shown
BV ITSELF AND BY COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER Gospels.— If we had no information from ecclesi- astical writers, we could h.ave made no conjecture as to the authorship of the Second Gospel, as we can in the case of Lk. (by comparing it with Acts) and Jn. (by comparing it witli the Synoptics). But from internal evidence we should gather that the author was either an eye-witness of the events described or at lea.st that he had first-hand infor- ,_aiation. Further, a close examination of the Go.spel makes it exceedingly probable that the writer's informant was St. Peter. So that, while we should never from the NT itself have arrived at the name Mark, yet the internal CA-idence fullj- corroborates the external, that the author was the 'interpreter of Peter.' The impression left from a studj' of Mk. is that we have here in ett'ect, though not in form, and not without some additions dne to the Evangelist himself, that Apostle's Gospel. It begins the narrative at the point Avhen Peter could give his own recollections — at the preaching of the Baptist and the baptism of Jesxis. This, not the Birth-narratives, as in the case of Mt. and Lk. , nor yet the account of our Lord's pre-existence, as in the case of Jn., was to Mark ' the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God' (P), Mhether these words are part of the record or are the title prefixed by an early scribe.