But whUe we are unable to admit any considerable direct influence of Peter in the composition of the Gos- pel, it is by no means improbable that his oral commu- nications may have indirecllj/ influenced it, and that it is to him the minuteness of its details and the graphic coloring which specially distinguish it arc due. While there is hardly any part of its narrative that is not com- mon to it and some other Gospel, in the manner of the narrative there is often a marked character, which puts aside at once the supposition that we have here a mere epitome of Matthew and Luke. The picture of the same events is far more vivid ; touches are introduced such as could only be noted by a vigilant e\'e-witness, and such as make us almost eye-witnesses of the Re- deemer's doings. The most remarkable case of this is the account of the daemoniac in the country of the Gad- arenes, where the following words are peculiar to Mark : " And no man could bind him, no, not with chains : be- cause that he had often been bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces : neither could any man tame him. And always night and day he was in the mountains crying and cutting himself with stones. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran," etc. Here we are indebted for the picture of the fierce and hopeless wanderer to the evangelist whose work is the briefest, and whose style is the least perfect. He sometimes adds to the account of the others a notice of our Lord's look(iii,34; viii,33; x,21; x,23); he dwells on human feelings and the tokens of them ; on our Lord's pity for the leper, and his strict charge not to publish the mira- cle (i,41,44); he "loved" the rich young man for his answers (x, 21); he "looked round" with anger when another occasion called it out (iii, 5); he groaned in spirit (vii, 34; viii, 12). All these are peculiar to Mark, and they woidd be explained most readily by the the- ory that one of the disciples most near to Jesus liad sup- plied them. To this must be added that while JNIark goes over the same groimd for the most part as the oth- er evangelists, and especially Matthew, there are many facts thrown in which prove that we are listening to an
MARK, GOSPEL OF
758
MARK, GOSPEL OF
independent witness. Thus the luimble origin of Peter is made known through him (i, 10-20), and his connec- tion with Capernaum (i, '2'J) ; he tells us that Levi was '• the son of Alphajus" (ii, 14), that I'eter was the name given by our Lord to Simon (iii, IC), and Boanerges a surname added by him to the names of two others (iii, 17); he assumes the existence of another body of disci- ples wider than the twelve (iii, 32 ; iv, 10, 36 ; viii, 34 ; xiv, 51, 62) ; we owe to him the name of Jairus (v, 22), the word " carpenter" applied to our Lord (vi, 3), the nation of the " Syro-Phocnician" woman (vii, 2G) ; he sub- stitutes Dalmanutha for the " Magdala" of Matthew (viii, 10) ; he names Bartimreus (x, 40) ; he alone mentions that our Lord would not suffer any man to carry any vessel through the Temple (xi, 10) ; and that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21). Thus in this Gospel the richness in subtle and pictu- restjue touches, by which the ^vriter sets, as it were, the scene he is describing before us in all its outward feat- ures, with the very look and demeanor of the actors, be- token the report of an eye-witness ; and with the testi- mony of the early Church before us, which can hardly be set aside, we are warranted in the conclusion that this eye-witness was Peter. Not that the narrative, as we have it, was his; but that when Mark, under the Holy Spirit's guidance, after separation from his master, undertook the task of setting forth that cycle of Gospel teaching to which — from grounds never yet, nor perhaps ever to be satisfactorily explained — the Synoptists chief- ly confine themselves, he was enabled to introduce into it many pictorial details which he had derived from his master, and w'hich had been impressed on his memory by frequent repetition.
in. Relation to Matthew and Luke. — The question of priority of composition among the Synoptic Gospels has long been the subject of vehement controversy, and to judge by the diversity of the views entertained, and the confidence each appears to feel of the correctness of his own, it would seem to be as far as ever from being set- tled. (For monographs under this head, see Volbeding, Index, p. 3; Danz, WurterbiicJi, s. v. Marcus.)
Tlie position of Mark in relation to the other two has, in particular, given rise to the widest differences of opinion. The independence of his record was main- tained up to the time of Augustine, but since his day three theories have been entertained. («.) That father conceived the view, which, however, he does not em- ploy with much consistency, that IMark was merely " tan- qnam pedissequus et breviator" of Matthew (De Consens. Ei\ i, 4); and from his day it has been held by many that Mark deliberately set himself to make an abridg- ment of one or both the other Synoptists. Griesbach expressed this opinion most decidedly in his Commen- tatio quo Marci Evangelium totvm a Matthcei et Lucce commentariis dece^-ptum esse monstratiir (Jena, 1789-90 ; also in Velthuj'sen, Comment, i, 360 sq.) ; and it has been stated in a more or less modified form by Paulus, Schleiermacher, Thiele, De Wette, Delitzsch, Fritzsche, and Bleek, the last two named adding John's Gospel to the materials before him. Nor can it be denied that at first sight this view is not devoid of plausibility, espe- cially as regards Matthew. "We find the same events recorded, and apparently in the same way, and ver^' of- ten in the same words. Mark's is the shorter work, and that principally, as it would seem, by the omission of the discourses and parables, which are a leading feature in the others. There are in IMark only about three events which Matthew does not narrate (Mark i, 23 ; viii, 22 ; xii, 41), and thus the matter of the two may be regarded as almost the same. But tlie form in IMark is, as we have seen, much briefer, ;uid tlie omissions are many and important. Tlie explanation is that Mark had the work of Mattliew before him. and only con- densed it. But many would make' Mark a comjiiler from both the others (Griesbach, De Wette. etc. ), argu- ing from passages where there is a curious resend)lauce to both (see De Wette, Ilandbuch, § 94 a). Yet, though