THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
a triumph of the writer's art and with the antiquity and originality of its account. Attempts to make out of the Gospel a " tendency writing " are failures; one view makes it the production of the mediating party, another sees in it a Pauline production, another would make it Petrine — all of which contain a portion of the truth. The author was certainly not a Judaizer, as certainly the Gospel was meant for the heathen; Pharisaism was condemned, while the Davidic origin of Jesus is asserted, not proved. The universalism of the author is Pauline in its emphasis upon faith and upon the effect of Christ's death. The fundamental interest of the Gospel in the Messiahship of Jesus and in him as the completion of salvation through suffering and death is of early Christian cast. The legendary elements make it difficult to assume Peter's responsibility for all the details, though a leading interest in that apostle may be granted. He is first mentioned (i. 16), and last (xvi. 7), and most frequently, while of certain episodes he is the center; yet some matters can hardly go back to him as the reporter (viii. 33, xiv. 54-72). If Peter was so important in the councils of the twelve as appears from the Pauline epistles, this alone might account for the frequency with which he figures in the Gospel. Without the report of Papias no one would with so great assurance have ascribed the virtual authorship to Peter. It can not be granted that the evangelist related without arrangement and with omissions what he gives, since a very definite plan fully carried out is evident in the book. That a man who had dwelt in Jerusalem and had in the first decade associated with all the apostles, Paul included, should set down in his Gospel merely what he received from Peter and what Peter used in his preaching seems not at all to fit with probabilities. John Mark, the friend and companion of a Peter and a Paul, whom tradition names as the author of this Gospel, presents the figure of the person whom, apart from tradition, the Gospel itself presupposes — a man born a Jew but acquainted with Greek, well but not rabbinically educated, wishing to further the speedy conquest of the world by the Gospel. He wrote not as a historian but as a propagator of religious ideas, and put forth his Gospel with the same independence as he showed in his first missionary journey, not to fit with a Pauline or a Petrine statement but to suit the needs of those whose requirement was salvation. If Mark is the author, the date is probably not later than 75 a.d. On the other hand, the development of the material given seems to require several decades. It is debated whether Jerusalem had fallen, since, e.g., chap. xiii. seems to contain reminiscences of the beginning of the Jewish War. The earliest tradition names Rome as the place of writing. Chrysostom's mention of Alexandria seems connected with an attempt to gain honor for that city by relating to it the Gospel of the traditional first bishop. Latinisms favor the Roman origin (xii. 42, xv. 15). The story, first appearing in Ephraem Syrus, that Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin needs no refutation, however; the book was evidently written for readers of Greek. Explanations of facts or expressions which for Jews would need no explanation appear
with considerable frequency (iii. 17, v. 41, vii. 11, xii. 18, xiv. 12).
The hypothesis of Griesbach, accepted in substance by Strauss, Baur, Schwegler, and Keim, makes of Mark an abbreviated compilation from Matthew and Luke. It is based principally upon the fact that Mark has little peculiarly his own apart from single verses and the sections iv. 26-29 vii. 32-37, viii. 22-26. Such literal
3. Relation agreement between works can not be to the fortuitous, literary relationship alone Other explains. In that case the priority of
Synoptics. Mark is most probable, and that is the conclusion strongly supported by scholarship. The arguments in favor of Marcan priority are: (1) the arrangement of Mark prevails in Matthew and Luke; (2) this hypothesis best explains the omissions by the other Synoptics of details found in Mark; (3) in the verbal agreements of Matthew and Luke with Mark, the turns of phrasing and expression are Marcan; (4) the dissonance of Matthew and Luke in the history of the infancy and of the passion strongly confirms the hypothesis of their dependence on Mark where the matter is common to all three. On the other hand, the arguments of the opponents of the priority of Mark have some force, since there are Marcan passages which seem to be excerpts or to be in form of statement grounded upon misconception or references to an earlier text. Moreover, there are to be explained the agreements of Matthew and Luke in passages not found in Mark and not containing the words of Jesus. Accordingly there has been supposed an early Mark, and an early Matthew used by Mark, or at least one written source used in both, and indeed these hypotheses have been combined. While it is possible that the original text of Mark is to be distinguished from that which received official recognition, tradition gives no basis for this supposition such as would be afforded by dissonance in reports regarding the book. Fully as difficult to decide is the question whether there were written sources in Mark's possession, or at least prior works of which he knew. Unless the work of a century of investigation is worthless, the present Matthew can not be a source. On the other hand, a collection of the words of Jesus (" apostolic source," " Logia," " Ur-Matthew," " Urevangelium," see Matthew), alleged to have been compiled by Matthew, might have lain before Mark as early as 70 a.d.; but there is no proof that such was the case. While passages like Mark iv. 1-34 and chap. xiii. impress one as the result of a working over or editing, they do not necessarily presuppose a prior documentary basis. The impression which the book makes is that the author wrote not after books but from the heart and with all the joy that attends a new project. He doubtless knew of many words of Jesus which he did not record, not because they were dissonant from his purpose, but because his ideal was not that of completeness.
The Gospel has met some severe misfortune. Despite the sturdy attempt of Dean Burgon (see bibliography) to defend them as original, the verses Mark xvi. 9-20 appear as a compilation from Luke and John. The manuscripts B and N close the