MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDIXG TO 125
feeling. Possibly when the First Evangelist wrote, the Markan phrase, ' Why callest tliou me good? none is good save one, even God,' may have been misunderstood to imply a merely human Christ. Or perhaps the Westcott-Hort text of Mt. is not original, but is due to an early scribe or editor ■who disliked the Markan form of tlie incident. Another example is the wtQ/jui of Mk 15^ (so KBDL ; "Westcott-Hort with AC, etc., read crtD/xa). Tiiis was a word used of the carcase of a dead animal or of a human being, with a touch of contempt. Mt. and Lk. have therefore altered Trriyua to aCb/xa, as also have some scribes in Mk., from feelings of reverence.
The same thing is true of another matter almost peculiar to Mk., the account of the inner feelings of the Apostles. See 4^, showing the Apostles" resentment against the Lord ('Carest thou not?"), and similarly 4^\ showing their awe or holy fear at the revelation of Jesus' power and Divinity (cf., however, St. Peter at the miraculous draught of fishes in Lk 5**) ; so 10^-, showing their amazement and fear, apparently arising from our Lord's manner as He went before them ; and 1-4^ eve- Ppifj.u>vTo, here (unlike V-^) of anger.
A similar result follows from the passages where Mk. tells us that Jesus ' could not ' do a thing. The inability is, doubtless, relative and conditional. Jesus ' could not ' do that which was inconsistent ■with His plan of salvation. Yet here the other Synoptists, feeling that the phrases might be mis- understood as taking from the Masters glory, have altered or omitted them. See 1*^ 7-^, and the specially significant 6^*-, where ovk eduvaro eKeTwoiTja-ai ovSefuav di'va/u-iv ei /xtj, k.t.\., Kal idcLVfiaaev 5ta Tr}v aTnarlav aLTcDy = Mt 13^ ovk e-jroiTjcrev e/ce? di'vdfxeis TToXXas Sia tt)v diriaTiau aiTwv, the two possible causes of offence being removed in Mt.
4. Comparison with the other Synoptics. — The indications given in the last two subsections will lead us to believe tiiat the Second Gospel, either in the form in wliicii we have it now, or at least in a form very like that which we have, is chrono- logically' the 'tir>t nf the Synoptics, and tliat it lay before tlie writers uf the I'lrst and Third Gospels. This impression is greatly strengthened by the considerations which follow. We still postpone the question whether the ]\Iarkan Gospel known to Matthew and Luke is the same as our Mark.
(a) Scope of Mark. — Except about thirty verses, all the narrative that we find in Mk. we find also (and in the same order) in either Mt. or Lk., or in both. This might tell both ways. If ^Lirk were only an abbreviator, borrowing from Mt. and Lk., without much independent information, it would stand to reason tliat he would have little to tell us that was not found in'them. But, tlien, his Gospel would not be the fresli and vivid, first-hand and autoptic, composition that it is. Therefore we are led to the conclusion that MattheAv and Luke borrowed from Mark, and that one or other of them took almost everything that was found in his Gospel.
That Luke borrowed from Mark is seen from another fact. In the Third Gospel there is a long section which is not in the Second (Lk 9^^-18^^). For tills, Luke is dependent on some other source. But, having followed the Markan order somewhat closely up to the point where the section begins, he goes back, when the section ends, to within a few verses of the place in Mk. where lie dropjied it. Thus, Lk 9^ = Mk 9^«'- ; Lk 18'5=Mk 10'^. This looks as if Mk. (or something very like it) was lying open before the Third Evangelist as he wrote.
(b) Diffuseness mid redundancy of Mk. ns com- pared with parnllcl passages of Mt. and Luke. — The idea that Mark is an abbreviator of Matthew
is at once shown to be wrong when we compare parallels. Wiien we do so, we shall find, in almost every case, that Mk. is much fuller than either Mt. or Lk. taken singly. The greater bulk of the two latter is due to their relating many inci- dents and speeches wliicli are not in Mark. The
1 stj-le of Mk. is somewliat ditiuse, and it was neces- sarj- for the other Synoptists, if they were to make room for the new matter which thej' desired to
j introduce, to prune it considerably. This they did. Instances are : \^- (Mt. omits ' when the sun
I did set,' Lk. omits 'at even') ; 1^ irpuil Ivwxo. \iav ( =Lk. yevofiAv-qs ij/xepas) ; •2''^- 4^*''-, where the shorter form in Mt. and Lk. really omits nothing from the sense ; 5~'- ^ (Mt., abbreviating, puts together the arrival of Jairus who said that the child was dying, and of the messenger who said that she was dead) ; 5^ (Mt. omits all the Markan details about the woman with the issue of blood, Lk. omits some of them) ; Q^'"- (the parenthetical ex- planation about the Baptist"s death interrupts the course of the narrative in Mt. and Mk. , but is greatly abbreviated in the former ; in Lk. the story is put in its proper place, but abbreviated to one or two sentences; note Mk.'s redundant evdus fj.€Td (nrov5rjs, 6-°); 8' (the feeding of the four