Thus, although there is nothing in the nature of tilings why our Second Gospel should not lie an edited form of tlie original document that lay before Matthew and Luke, the reasons alleged by Schmiedel will hardly convince us that this is the case. Salmon's argument really depends on the view taken of the last twelve verses (see above, § vi. ). If on other grounds we believe them to Ije by the writer who i)ut our Second Gospel into its present shape, then we may accept his theory ; but if otherwise, the theory falls.
If, however, we were to accept the hypothesis of a later editor, it would Ije of interest to trace the portions due to him. We may put a.side Dr. Salmon's suggestion (see above) of 1'"'^ 3^ 6"-'- 16'*''- unless we accept the apjiendix as a real ending to the Gospel. But we might hold that several para- gaaplis peculiar to Mk. are due to this -suppo.^ed editor; such as 3i9'-20-i (accusation of madne.ss by Jesus' friends : though here we might equally hold that the omission in Mt. and Lk. is due to the same feeling as in § iii. 3 above), 4'*"'-* (the seed growing secretly), 7^'- (explanation about washings), '^--'■' (the healing of the deaf fj.oy(.\d\os), 8'^-* (the blind man of Bethsaida), U^"- (the young man who fled naked), 15"-' (the names Alex- aniler and Rufus). It might also l>e thouglit that the Aramaisms and Latini.sms were due to such an editor (but see above, §§ iii. 4 (/), (fj), v.). These are jK)ints which are peculiar to our (iospel.
But a consideration Avhich militates against such a large amount of editing is that our Mk. retains at once the original roughness and tlie original freshness of style. If the canonical Mk. is later than and influenced by Mt. and Lk., wliy did not its editor correct the" mistakes and j)rune the vulgarisms and roughnes-ses as did Matthew and Luke ? While, however, this seems to forbid the idea of any large amount of editing, it is certainly possible that a later editor has introduced a few- phrases. Sir J. Hawkins {Hor. Sijnopt. p. 110) c;|;,r, rests tliB followiug a.s additions : 1* 'Irjaov XpiffTov [also I'iov ©eoO?], 5'' dis di<rx,i\ioi, 6^ dvapiwv OidKOcriwv, S*' Koi Tov evayffXiov, tH' 5ri "RpKyrov iari
J
136 MAKKET, MARKET-PLACE
MARRIAGE
(but see above, § iii. 4 (A)), 10-" koX %viKiv rod evayyeXiov, 10^" /xerd 5tco7/xcDj', 14' iiravoj 57]vaplu}v TpLaKoaiuv, 14'^^ /cat i<xaL ai fiaprvpiai ovk fjaav, and SO in \A^'^. But even this hypothesis is not necessary ; and on tlie whole the more probable solution seems to be that our Second Gospel is that which was used by the First and Third Evangelists ; in fact, that Mark wrote first of all the Four, and that his work was known to the others.
Literature.— CoM.lfKJvrxii/^S: (1) On St. Mark specially: those by Swete, 1902 (the fullest Commentary in English, with te.xt, apparatus criticus, introduction, and notes) ; A. Menzies, {The Earliest Gospel). 1901 ; A. B. Bruce, 1897 ; Gould, 1896 (in the International Critical Comtnentary series) ; J. Knabenbauer, 1894 ; P. Schanz, 1881 ; J. Morison, 1873 ; B. Weiss, 1872 ; A. Klostermann, 1867 ; J. A. Alexander, 1858 ; K. Fritzsche, 1830 ; and several smaller ones on a popular scale. (2) As part of general Commentaries on the NT, those by Alford (1st ed. 1849); Chr. Wordsworth, Davidson, Cook (in Speaker's Com- ■>ne7itarii), 1878 ; Lange (1st ed. 18.58). (3) Old Commentaries, by ' Victor of Antioch ' (in Cramer's Catena;, 1840) ; Bede (Migne, A L.),Theophylact(Migne, P. G.), EuthymmsZi<,'abenus(Migne, 1'. G.), Bruno Astensis (Migne, P. L. ), RupertusTuitiensis (Migne, P. L.), Thomas Aquinas (t'aicna Aurea, authorship not certain), Albertus Mairnus, Dionysius Carthusianus, Faber Stapulensis, Erasmus, Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide. [For information about these, see Swete's St. Mark, p. cxivtf.]
Rei.a tion of Mk. to the Synoptic phoblem -. Wright's Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek (1st ed. 1896, 2nd, 1903 ; sup- ports the Oral Theory ; the first edition for mere purposes of comparison is the more useful as being simpler) ; Huck's Synojjse ; Rushbrooke's Synopticon, 1880; Wright's Some XT Problems; Campbell's First Three Gospels in Greek 'i, 1899 (supi>orts prior- ity of Mt. and Lk. over Mk.) ; F. H. Woods in Sivdia BIblicn, vol. ii. (' Mk. the groundwork of Mt. and Lk.') ; Sir J. Hawkins' Horce Synopticce, 1899 (esp. part iii.); Salmond, art. 'Mark (Gospel of)' in Hastings' DB; Schmiedel, art. 'Gospels' in Encyc. Biblica ; Salmon's Historical Introduction to the NT ; Westcott, Canon of the NT and Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels ; J. A. Robinson's Study of the Gospels, 1903 ; A. B. Bruce's The Synoptic Gospels ; Vincent Rose, O. P., Studies on the Gospels (Eng. tr. 1903, by Dr. Rob. Eraser) ; Zahn, Eiiileit. in das NT and Geschi/:hte des NT Kanons; Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, 1906.
The Second Gospel in the early Church : j. B. Light- foot's Essays en the Work entitled Supernatural lieliijion (collected in one volume, 1889) ; Sanday's The Gospels in the Second Century, 1876 ; Stanton's The Gospels as Historical Documents, part i. 1903 (the rest not yet published) ; and most of the above works on ' Introduction.'
The endings of the Gospel : The modern Commentaries, as above ; Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark ; Salmon's Introd. Lect. ix. ; Zahn's Einleit. ii. 227, and Geschichte, ii. 910 ff. ; Harnack's Bruch- stilcke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus 2, p. 33 (Text. u. lint. ix. 2); Westcott-Hort, New Testament in Greek, Notes on Select Passages ; Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the NT.