this opinion of the dependence, more or less complete, of IMark upon the other Gospels, was for a long time re- garded almost as an established fact, no very searching investigation is needed to show its baselessness. In- stead of Mark's narrative being an abridgment of that of Matthew or of Luke, it is often much fidler. Partic- ulars are introduced which an abridger aiming at con- densation would have been certain to prune away if he had found them in his authoritj'; while the freshness and graphic power of the histor}% the life-like touches which almost put us on the stage with the actors, and his superior accuracy as regards persons, words, times, and places, prove the originality and independence of his work. (6.) Of late, therefore, opinion has been tend- ing as violently in the opposite direction, and the pre- vailing view among modern critics is that in Mark we have the primitive Gospel, "i^Vcrfn^/ye/aMw," from which both tliose of Matthew and Luke were derived. This is held by Weisse, Wilke, Ewald, Lachmann.Hitzig, Eeuss, Kitschel, Thiersch, Meyer, etc., and has lately been main- tained with considerable ingenuity in Mr. Kenrick's /)i&- licul Essays, (c.) Hilgenfeld again adopts an interme- diate view, and considers IMark to have held a middle position both as regards form and uiternal character; himself deriving his Gospel from Matthew, and in his turn supplying materials for that of Luke ; while doc- trinally he is considered to hold the mean between the Judaic Gospel of the first, and the universal Gospel of the third evangelist.
Many formidable difficidties beset each of these theo- ries, and their credit severally is impaired by the fact that the very same data which are urged by one writer as proofs of the priority of IMark, are used by another as irrefragable evidence of its later date. We even find critics, like Baur, bold enough to attribute the vivid de- tails, which are justly viewed as evidences of the inde- pendence and originality of his record, to the fancy of the evangelist ; thus importing the art of the modern novelist into times and works to the spirit of which it is entirely alien.
So much, however, we may safely grant, while main- taining the substantial independence of each of the Sy- noptical Gospels — that Mark exhibits the oral tradition of the official life of our Lord in its earliest extant from, and furnishes the most direct representation of the com- mon basis on which they all rest. " In essence, if not in composition," says IMr. Wcscott, /n?ro(7. p. 190 (the two not being necessarily identical, the earlier tradition be- ing perhaps possibly the latest committed to writing), "it is tlie oldest." The intermediate theory has also so much of truth in it, that IMark does actually occupy the central position in regard to diction ; frequently, as it were, combining the langiuige of the other two (i, 32; comp. IMatt. viii, 16; Luke iv, 40: i,42; comp.IMatt.viii, 3; Luke V, 13: ii, 13-18; comp. Matt, ix, 9-14; Luke v, 27-33: iv.30-32; comp.Matt. xiii, 31-33; Lukexiii,18- 21), as indeed would naturally be the case if we consid- er that his Gospel most closely represents the original from which all were developed. In conclusion we may say. that a careful comparison of the three Gospels can hardly fail to convince the unprejudiced reader that, while Mark adds hardly anything to the general narra- tive, we have in his Gospel, in the words of IMcycr (Com- ment.)," a. fresher stream from the apostolic fmnitain," without which we should have wanted many important elements for a true conception of our blessed Lord's na- ture and work.
If now we proceed to a detailed comparison of the matter contained in the (iospels. we shall find that, while the history of the conception, and birth, and cliildhood of our Lord and his forerunner have no parallel in Mark, afterwards the main course of the narrative (Luke ix, 51-xviii, 14, being of course excepted) is on the whole coincident ; and that the difference is mainly due to the absence of the parables and discourses, which were for- eign to his purpose of setting forth the active ministry of Christ. Of our Lord's parables he onlj^ gives us four:
MARK, GOSPEL OF
V59
MARK, GOSPEL OF
" the sower," " the mustard seed," and " the wicked hus- bandmen"— common also to Matthew and Luke : and one, '• the seed growing secretly," iv, 26-29 (unless, in- deed, it be an abbreviated and independent form of the " tares"), peculiar to himself. Of the discourses, he en- tirely omits the sermon on the mount, the denunciations against the Scribes aud Pharisees, and almost entirely the instructions to the twelve ; while of the other short- er discourses he only gives that on fasting (ii, 19-22), the Sabbath (ii, 25-28), the casting out devils by Beel- zebub (iii, 23-29), on eating with unwashen hands, and corban (vii, 6-23), and divorce (x, 5-9). That on " the last things" (chap, xiii) is the only one reported at any length. On the other hand, his object being to develop oiiT Lord's Messianic character in deeds rather than words, he records the greater part of the miracles given by the Synoptists. Of the twenty-seven narrated by them, eighteen are found in Mark, twelve being common to all three; three — the Syro-Phoenician's daughter, the feeding of the four thousand, and the cursing of the fig- tree — common to him and Matthew ; one — the dsemo- niac in the synagogue — to him and Luke ; and two — the deaf stammerer (vii, 31-37), and the ijlind man at Beth- saida (viii, 22-26) (supplying remarkable points of cor- respondence, in the withdrawal of the object of the cure from the crowd, the use of external signs, and the grad- ual process of restoration) — peculiar to himself. Of the nine omitted by him, only three are found in Matthew, of which the centurion's servant is given also bj' Luke. The others are found in Luke alone. If we suppose that jMark had the Gospels of Matthew and Luke before him, it is difficult to assign any tolerably satisfactory reason for his omission of these miracles, especially that of the centurion's servant, so kindred to the object of his work. On the contrary hypothesis, that they copied from him, how can we account for their omitting the two remarkable miracles mentioned above ?