5. Other characteristics of diction in Mark. — The style of the Second Gospel may be gathered to a large extent from what has preceded. For its Aramaic tinge see below, § v. A few favourite modes of speech remain to be noticed. The use of the historic present is especially common, and this contributes largely to the vividness of the narra- tive. Yet there is great freedom of tenses ; we find changes in the same sentence from a past tense to a historic present, and vice versa. Of a few particles Mark is very fond — e.rj. evdvs 41 times ; TToAXd as adverb, 1^^ 312 510. 23. 38. 43 520 j^bl 9^0 15^ ; iroKiv 2^- '^ 3^- ^" etc. ; ttSs is used in exaggeration, e.g. P 2^-* ; accumulated negatives are common, e.g. V^ 2- 3-"--'. In ch. 4 /cat '^\eyev or Kal \iyei is so frequent (8 times) that Swete has raised tlie question (on 4'^') whether Mark had before him a number of detached sayings of Jesus which he here introduces.
Our Gospel has about ten .somewhat striking words which are, as far as we know, aira.^ Xeyofieva in all Greek literature. Such are : eVi'ux'i 1^' (cf- Travvvxa — A, etc., have- ^vvvxov) ; iiripaTrrei 2-^ (D has eTncrvvpd.7rTei) ; (nreKovXcLTopa 6^'^ (see above, § iii. 4 (b)) ; ■Tvy/j,7J as adv. 7^ i.e. ' with arm and elbow ' (a late Greek meaning — in classical Greek 'with the fist'), so 'completely' or 'diligently' (D has TrvK/x-rj, H ■TrvKvd ' frequently,' and so several VSS, obviously a con'ection) ; vTrepirepLaaQs 7^' (D has virepeKir.) and iKTrepiacrCis 14^^ (A, etc., have iK irepiaaov) ; rriXavyOii 8^5, i.e. 'clearly, though at a distance' (K*CLA have St/X-) ; eTnawTp^xei 9^' ; iKecpoKliaaav 12'* (v.l. -Xaiwaav). see below, § vii. ; Trpop.ipip.va.Te 13'^ There
are also about 70 other words which occur nowhere else in NT, though many are found in the LXX. This, as compared with the other Gospels, is a small number ; Lk. has some 250 words not found else- where in NT (see Swete, I.e. p. xliv, for careful lists of words peculiar to Mk., or used by him in com- mon with one or more of the other NT writers).
6. Matter peculiar to Mark. — The Second Gospel relates very few incidents not given, or at least re- ferred to, in Mt. or Luke. We have only one parable j)eculiar to Mk., that of the seed groMing secretly (4-''*'), and only two miracles, the healing of the deaf stammerer {poyi\a\os — the v.l. poyyiXdXos, from pLdyyos ' thick- voiced,' is not well supported) (7^"'^')) and of the blind man at Bethsaida (8'-'-''). Other paragraphs peculiar to Mk. are : the questions about the ciulne.ss of the disciples when they forgot to take bread (8i'^-)> and about the disciples disputing (9*^) ; and the incidents of the young man with the linen cloth (14'^^-)) of the smiting of Jesus by the servants (vTrrjp^rai) of the chief pi'iests (14''^), and of Pilate's wonder, and his question put to the centurion (15^^). See also § vii. below.
iv. Authorship, Date, and Place of writ- ing.— There is no reason to dispute the Patristic statements (§ ii. above) that Mark, the virrip^Tris of Paul and Barnabas (Ac 13''') and the disciple of Peter, was the author of the Second Gospel. And there is mucii probability that the statement of Clement of Alexandria, that Mark wrote in Rome, is correct. We cannot, indeed, argue from the Latini-sms (see § iii. i (/)) that he wrote for the Romans, for these words are probably mere collo- quialisms in common use in the whole Empire, and, moreover, the Christian Romans undoubtedly spoke, at least in the ordinary way, Greek and not Latin (see § v. 2). But that it was written for Gentiles ajjpears from the general absence of OT quotations, except when our Lords words are cited (V^- is an exception; 15^^ must almost cer- tainly be expunged from the text, being omitted by i<ABC*D k syr ^"' etc. ) ; also from the interpre- tation of Aramaic transliterations and the expla- nation of Jewish customs : e.g. 7'^''" (washing of hands, etc.) 12^'^ (two mites making a farthing; the Xewrdv or half quadrans, being a Jewish coin, has to be exjilained), 15^- ('the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath') ; from the absence of mention of the Jewish law ; and from the geographical description of 13'' ('the Mount of Olives* over against the temple'). Chrysostom's statement {Procem. in Matt.), that Egypt was the place of writing, is negatived by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen, and is probably a mistaken inference from Eusebius, BE ii. 16, which says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the gospel which he had composed. Some moderns have supposed a double publication, one in Rome and one in Alexandria.
The question of date is more ditiicult. From internal considerations we should certainly assign an early date to Mk., at any rate before the Fall of Jerusalem. The Discourse on the End (esp. J3]3f. 24. 30. 33) is reported as if the fulfilment were only in prospect, and in a manner that would be hardly possible if the siege of Titus had already taken place. This conclusion becomes still more likely when we compare Mk. with Mt. and Luke. The discourse seems to join together two separate things, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. All the Sj'noptics begin with the destruction of the Temple. In Mk. and Lk.