* Mk. uses T« opo; -rav 'E>.xiiiv here and in 1426 ; but in 111 we muse probably accentuate the last word as oxjtone — -rpo; to opes TO 'Ekaiiv (B k r) — i.e. the substantive is 'Ekxiuv, ' an olive grove ' (as in Ac II2 x^o opou; roij xfxXoufycivou 'E>.ociiivo;). See Deissmann, Bibl. Stud. p. 208 f., and Swete, St. Mark on 111.
MARK, GOSPEL ACCOEDIXG TO MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 129
follows a discourse which apparently speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem, and then the passage Mk 13-^*^ seems to refer to the end of the world. But Matthew in his accustomed manner weaves together Jesus' sayings which in the other Evan- gelists are distinct, and mingles together the two events spoken of. Thus the compiler of the Matthapan discourse (we need Ijeg no question as to authorship) eWdently thought that the two events would be synchronous, and therefore must have written his account of the prophecy (not necessarily the whole Gospel) before tlie Fall of Jerusalem. If so, the Markan discourse is earlier stUl.
So the reference to the shewbread (2"-* ovk e^ecri, present) seems to imply that the Temple was at the time of writing still standing, and that the presentation of the shewbread stUl went on. AJso the considerations mentioned aljove in § iii. 3, 4, as to the description of Jesus' inner feelings, the style and details of the Oiospel, point strongly in the same direction. If, again, we were to hold the theory of an Aramaic original (but see § v.), we could hardly avoid supposing a stUl earlier date.
We have then to consider if the external e.\\- dence contradicts the internal. The date of two other NT books affects our judgment, [/i) If we adopt the early date for Acts (c. a.d. 62 i, i.e. if we suppose that St. Luke tells us no more of St. Paul's history after the two years at Rome simply because nothing more at the time of writing had happened, we must assign a still earlier date to Lk., and a fortiori to Mark. There is miach to l>e said for this early date of Acts, though many hold that Lk 2\-' ('Jerusalem compassed with armies'), when we compare it witli Mk 13'^, Mt 2-4" ('abomination of desolation'), betokens a writing after the event described, (b) Papias by implica- tion, and Irenaeus (iiL 1. 1) explicitly, say that Mark wrote after Peter's death (see § ii. above) — Ireiia-us also asserts that Matthew wrote first — while Clement of Alexandria and Origen say that he wrote in Peters lifetime. Now. if we take the former statement as true, the date of 1 Peter is a difficulty in the way of accepting the internal e\idence for the date of Mark. For we can hardly assign a very early date to it {e.g. 1 P 4'* ' [stifler] as a Christian). There is no great reason for be- lie\Tng that St. Peter died in the same ijear as St. Paul, and it is quite ix)ssible that he su^^^ved him for some considerable time, during wliich St. Mark acted as his interpreter. The indications of a later date in 1 Peter do not then militate against the Petrine authorship of that Epistle. But if Mark wrote his Gospel after Peters death, the early date to which the internal evidence leads us becomes difficult. While, therefore, we miglit have agreed with Swete (St. Mark, p. xl ) that the witness of Irenaeus and Papias is more probable than that of Clement and Origen, if we had nothing else to go by, yet, in \-iew'of the strong internal indications of an early date, we are fierhaps led to prefer the Alexandrian \-iew that Niark wTote in tlie lifetime of Peter. Neverthe- less Swete's date, just Viefore A.D. 70, is chrono- logically possible (the order would then be 1 Peter; death of St. Peter ; Mk. ), but it allows verj- little time for the Mt. Di-scourse on the End to be w-ritten. Possibly the theory of a double publication might reconcile the Patristic testimony ; but, if so, the second edition probably differed hardly at all from the first (see §5 xi. vii. below).
§ V. The Aram.\ic charactkristics axd ori- ginal LAXorAGE OF Mark.— The external evi- dence would not lead us to any other conclusion than tliat the Greek St. Mark as we liave it is an original com]X)sition, and not a translation from any Aramaic document. We have, however, to
VOL. II,
consider a noteworthy phenomenon which the Gospel itself brings out — the strong Aramaic tinge which goes all through it. This tinge has leil some to postulate an Aramaic original, and to suppose that the Gospel which we possess is a translation. We maj- first collect together and comment on instances of this characteristic, and then consider how they bear on the question of the original language.
1. Aramaisms.— A characteristic of Mk. is the retention of several Aramaic words transliterated into Greek. Such are : — Soav-qfr/ez 3'" ( = ":- 'iz ?, the o or the a being probably an intrusion in the text, or Savrjpo'/es being j>erhaps the original reading, see Dalman, Words of Jans, p. 49, Gramm. d. Jiid.-Pal. Aramdisch, p. 112; the syr "^ iBh j.; . , a .; . 1 1 n, which the Nestorians
pronounce bne raysh, the Jacobites bne [or btinifi] ryesh, both with mute yiidk — for a possible origin of these foiTus see Burkitt, Evang. da-Mephar. ii. p. 280 ; the Armenian is ' Banereges ) ; raXetOa