mainly just to tell what he knows about Jesus. Some have tried to show that this Gospel is an endeavour to read into the evangelic history the ideas of Paulinism.t Others have maintained that the purpose of the writer is to observe a studied, calculated neutrality between Paulinism and Judaism. These opposite views may be left to destroy each other. Others, again, have found in the book a contribution towards establishing Christians in the faith that Jesus was the Messiah, when that faith was tried bya delayed second coming.’ A didactic programme has been supposed to be hinted at in the opening words: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,” and attem-ts have been made to show that in the sequel this programme is steadily kept in view. 1 am by no means anxious to negative these last suggestions; all | say is that the didactic purpose is not prominent. The writer seems to say, not: “These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” but more simply: “ These are written that ye may know Jesus”. This also makes for the histori- city and early date of the archaic Gospel.
4. Among the more obvious characteristics of Mark's literary style are the use of dual phrases in descriptive passages, a liking for diminutives, occasional Latinisms, the frequent employment of εὐθύς in narrative and of the historical present, both tending to vividness and giving the impression of an eye-witness. The rough vigour and crude grammar frequently noticeable in Mark's reports strengthen this impression. The style is colloquial rather than literary. To this in part is due the unsatisfactory state of the text. Mark's roughness and originality were too much for the scribes. They could not rest till they had smoothed down every- thing to commonplace. Harmonising propensities also are re- sponsible for the multiplicity of variants, the less important Gospel being forced into conformity with the more important.