VII. Citations from Scripture. — The following are the only direct citations :
Mai. iii, 1 i, 2.
Isa. xl, 3 i, 3.
Isa. vi, 9, 11 iv, 12.
Isa. xxix, 13 vii, 6.
Exod. XX, 12 ; xxi,
IT vii, 10.
(a) Isa. Ixvi, 24 ix, 44, 4G,
48.
Gen. i, 27 x, 0.
Geu. ii, 24 x, T, 8.
Exod. XX, 12-1.5... x,l!). Psa. cxviii, 25, 26 . . xi, 9.
(6) Isa. Ivi, T ; Jer.
vii, 11 xi, IT.
Psa. cxviii, 22, 23. .xii, 10, 11.
Dent. XXV, 5 xii, 19.
Exod. iii, 6 xii, 20.
Deut. vi, 4 xii, 29, 30.
Lev. xix, IS xii, 31.
Psa. ex, 1 xii, 36.
Dan.ix,2T; xii, 11. .xiii, 14.
Zech. xiii, 7 xiv, 2T.
Isa. liii, 12 (?) xv,2S.
Psa. xxii, 1 XV, 34.
Of these, (a) is the only one peculiar to Mark. In (h) we have the addition of a few words to the Synoptical
quotation. We have also references to the O. T. in the following passages :
Lev. xiv, 2 i, 44. Ilsa. xiii, 10 xiii, 24.
1 Sam. xxi,G ii, 25. pan. vii, 13 xiv, 02.
Deut. xxiv, 1 X, 4. I
VIII. Time and Place of Composition. — On these points the Gospel itself affords no information, except that we may certainly affirm, against Baur, Hilgenfeld, Weisse, etc., that it was composed before the fall of Je- rusalem, since otherwise so remarkable a fidtilment of our Lord's predictions could not but have been noticed. Ecclesiastical tradition is, as usual, vacLllatory and un- trustworthy. Clement, as quoted by Eusebius (iit sup.'), places the composition of the Gospel in the lifetime of Peter ; while Irenaius, with much greater probability, asserts that it was not written till after the decease (t$- oSov, not " departure from Rome," Jlill, Grabe, Ebrard) of Peter and Paul. Later authorities are, as ever, much more definite. Theophj-lact and Euthym. Zigab., with the Chron. Pasch., Georg. Syncell., and Hesychius, place it ten years after the Ascension, i. e. A.D. 40 ; Eusebius, in his Chronicon, A.D. 43, when Peter, Paul, and Philo were together in Rome. It is not likely that it dates before the reference to Mark in the Epistle to the Colos- sians (iv, 10), where he is only introduced as a relative of Barnabas, as if this were his greatest distinction ; and this Epistle was written about A.D. 57. If, after coming to Asia Minor on I'aid's sending, he ^vent on and joined Peter at Babylon, he may have then ac- quired, or rather completed that knowledge of Peter's preaching, which tradition teaches us to look for in the Gospel, and of which there is so much internal evidence; and soon after this the Gospel may have been composed. We may probably date it between Peter's martyrdom, cir. A.D. G3, and the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70.
As to the place, the uniform testimony of early writ- ers (Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc.) is that the Gospel was written and published in Rome. In this view most modern writers of weight agree. Chry- sostom asserts that it was published in Alexandria, but his statement is not confirmed — as, if true, it must cer- tainly have been— by any Alexandrine writer. Some (Eichhorn, R. Simon) maintain a combination of the Roman and Alexandrine view under the theory of a double pul^lication, first in one city and then in the oth- er. Storr is alone in his view that it was first made public at Antioch.
IX. Language. — There can be no reason for question- ing that the Gospel was composed in Greek. To sup- pose that it was written in Latin — as is stated in the subscription to the Peshito, and some early Greek INISS., iypd(pr] Pojfimari tv Viii^iy — because it was intended for the use of Roman Christians, implies complete igno- rance of the Roman Church of that age, which in lan- guage, organization, and ritual was entirely Greek, main- taining its character in common with most of the churches of the West as " a (ireek religious colony" (Milman, Lat. Christ, i, 27). The attempt made by Ba- ronius, Bellarmine, etc., to strengthen the authority of the Vulgate by this means was therefore, as one of their own Church, R. Simon, has shown, entirely futile ; and the pretended Latin autograph, said to be preserved in thp library of St, Mark's at Venice, turned out to be part of an ancient Latin codex of the four Gospels, now known as Codex Forojuliensis.
X. Contents.— i:\iQ Gospel of Mark may be divided into three parts :
(1.) The occurrences previous to the commencement of the public ministry of our Lord, including the preach- ing and baptism of John, our Lord's baptism and temp- tation (i, 1-18).
(2.) Our Lord's ministry in Galilee, including that in Eastern Galilee (i, 14-vii, 23) ; that in Northern Galilee (vii, 24-ix, 37) ; that in Peraia, and the joumeyings to- wards Jerusalem (ix, 38-x, 52).
(3.) His triumphant entrj-, passion, death, resurrec- tion, and ascension (xi, 1-xvi, 8 [20]).
MARK, GOSPEL OF
JQ2
MARK
XI. Ceniiineness and Integrity. — The genuineness of Mark's (iospel was never doubted before Schleiermacher, wli", struck by an apparent discrepancy between the orderly narrative we now possess and the description of Papias [lit sup.), broached the view follov/ed by Cred- iier, Ewald, and others, tliat the Gospel in its present form is not the work of IMark the companion of Peter. Tliis led to the notion, which has met with much ac- ceptance among German critics (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Kcist- lin, etc.), of an original, prajcanonical Mark," the Gospel of Peter," probably written in Aramaic, which, with otlier oral and documentarj' sources, form.ed the basis on which some unknown later writers formed the existing Gospel. But even if, on other grounds, this view were probable, all historical testimony is against it ; and we should have to account for the entire disappearance of an original document of so much importance without leaving a trace of its existence, and the silent substitu- tion of a later work for it, and its acceptance by the whole Church. If ordinary historical testimony is to have any weight, we can have no doubt that the Gospel we now have, and which has always borne his name, was that originally composed by Mark. We can have no reason to think that either John the presbyter or Pa- pias were infallible ; and if the ordinary interpretation of 01/ Tcit,ii was correct, and the description of the Gos- pel given by Papias was really at variance with its pres- ent form, it would be at least equally probable that tlieir judgment was erroneous and their vie^v mistaken. There can, however, be little doubt that the meaning of oh Tc'i^a has been strained and distorted, and that the words do really describe not Mark's alone, but all three Synoptic Gospels as we have them ; not, that is, *• Lives of Christ" chronologically arranged, but " a sum- mary of representative facts" given according to a moral and not a historic sequence, following a higher order than that of mere time.