2. Autoptic character. — In many passages Mk. shows, equally with Jn. and much more than Mt. and Lk., clear signs of hrst-haud knowledge. In these places Mk. often gives a lifelike touch, though Mt. and Lk. in their parallels have lost it. Such are the stooping down of the Baptist to loose the shoe-latchet (F), the heavens in the act of opening (o-xifo^t^j/ous [present], 1'"), the ' in- colierent and excited remarks of the crowd ' at the healing of the Capernaum demoniac (1'-' best text, see RV ; they are softened down by later scribes of Mk. and by Lk.), the ' house of Simon and Andrew' (1-^, where 1| Mt. and Lk. omit Andrew ; in the East it is common for several brothers, even when married, to live in one house, but it required first-hand knowledge to know that Andrew and Peter lived together), Simon starting in pursuit of Jesus (P"), the breaking \\\> of the mud roof to let the paralytic down through it, with other details (2-*, where Mt. tells none of the small points, and Lk., writing for a Roman nobleman, as has been conjectured, translates these, to him, unintelligible details into the language of Western Europe, and says that the man was let down through the tiles • see Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? p. 63), the single pillow, t6 wpoffKeipdXaiov, probably a wooden head- rest, in the boat in tiie storm (4^**, Mk. only), Jesus turning round in the crowd to .see who touched Him (so Mt., not Lk.), and His glance at the woman {5^^^-, Mk. only), His not allowing the crowd who were with Him to come near Jairus' house, a very probable and lifelike detail (5^', Mk. only ; Lk. makes Jesus dismiss the crowd on His entering). The scene at Jairus' house is especially vivid in Mk., and is instructive as showing who the Evangelist's authority was. It must have been one of the inner circle of Apostles, i.e. Peter, James, or John (Andrew was not here present). As James died early, and another Gospel was written by (or, at least, depends on) John, we are led to think of Peter as tlie .source. Fur- ther instances of lifelike touches are : the five thousand arranged 'like garden beds' irpaa-ial TTpaffiai (Mk. only) on the green grass (G^**), the details in the account of the Transfiguration {9-^-, where Mt. and Lk. also are vivid), but especially of the healing which followed, where the story is told from the point of view of the three Apostles, not of those who remained behind (9" eXdovTes . . . eUov dxAov, Mk. only), and where Mk. only
has the delicate touch (9^') that the man brought the cataleptic boy to Jesus and applied to the dis- ciples only when he found that Jesus w'as absent, and other. autoptic details; Mt. and Lk. greatly abbreviate this narrative. So Mark alone relates that in the dispute about precedence and in the blessing of the little ones Jesus took the children into His arms {euayKa\i.crdfjievos, 9* 10"'), and in the latter case that He blessed them fervently (KaTTjv- \6yei). Notice also how Mk. alone tells us of the searching glance of love cast by Jesus on the rich young man and the clouding over of the young man's brow (10-'*-)! and of the colt tied at the door without in the open street (ll"*; probably Peter was one of the two disciples sent), of Jesus refusing to permit vessels to be carried through the Temple (H"*), of the command to bring a denarius, the Roman coin, into the Temple (where only Jewish coins were current) at the question of paying tribute (12'°). For the Agony in the Garden, see below, 3 ; but here again we note that the source must have been Peter, James, or John. The account of Peter's denials is indecisive, as he must have been the ultimate authority for all the narratives ; but the e7ri/3aXcjv of Mk 14'^ (see below, 4 {h)) argues the priority of our Evan- gelist. Exceptional knowledge is evidenced by the mention of the names of Levi's father ( Alphfeus, 2'^), of the father of the blind man at Jericho (Timaeus, 10^**), and of the sons of Simon of Gyrene (Alexander and Rufus, 15-'). These and other instances lead us to see in the Second Gospel a graphic account of one who had first-hand know- ledge at his command, and, to a large extent, confirm Papias' description of Mark as Peter's interpreter. Mk. consists almost entirely of things of which Peter had pei'sonal knowledge. As Eusebius noticed long ago {Demonstr. Evangel. iii. 5, Cologne ed. p. 120 f . ), it is silent on matters Avhich reflect credit on Peter. It alone records several Petrine touches. We have, in fact, here in all particulars the Petrine tradition in a far more exact form than in the other Synoptics.
3. Description of the inner feelings of our Lord and of the Apostles. — This is found in Mk. to an extent which argues an early narrative based on intimate personal knowledge of Jesus and of the Twelve. In Mt. and Lk. the painful emotions of our Lord are not mentioned, excejit in the case of the Agony, and even that disappears in the Westcott-Hoi-t text of Lk. (22''3f-) ; a fact probably to be accounted for by a feeling of reverence due to a slightly later age. In Mk. we find a more childlike boldness in describing Jesus' feelings. See the following instances, which are found in Mk. only : l-*-* i/xl3ptfj.7](rd/jL€vos (denoting sternness : not necessarily anger, but deep feeling) ; 3^ righteous anger and grief ; 6^ wondering at the people's imbelief (here Mt. retains 5td rrjv dwia-Tiav avTwv, V)ut omits edav/jiaaev ; on the other hand, Mt 8'", Lk 7" have the wonder of Jesus' human mind at the centurion's faith — an incident which Avas not part of the Petrine tradition and is not in Mk.) ; 10'*, indignation when the disciples kept back the little children ; and especially 14^^'-, the Agony in the Garden, where Mk. alone speaks of the surprise (eK^a^/Seicr^aO added to the distraction from grief (dSiy/toceTc) of Jesus' human soul. Mt. changes the former to Xvireladai while retaining the latter, and Lk. omits the whole passage. If, as seems probable, the passage Lk 22*^'- is not an original part of the Third Gospel, it is perhaps a fragment older than Lk. and reflects the same stage of thought as Mark. It is referred to in Justin, Dial. 103. — It is not unlikely that the difference between Mk 10'^ (the rich young man) and Mt 19'«'- in the best text {BBH, Origen, etc. ; see Westcott - Hort, Notes) is due to the same