MARK, St, Gospel of, the same ancient authors who call Mark a μαθητής (disciple) and εἰσαγγελέτης (secretary) of Peter, state also that he wrote his gospel according to the discourses of that apostle. The most ancient statement of this fact is that of the presbyter John and of Papias, which we quote from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 39) as follows:—"Mark having become secretary to Peter, whatever he put into style he wrote with accuracy, but did not observe the chronological order of the discourses and actions of Christ, because he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord; but at a later period, as I have said, wrote for Peter to meet the requisites of instruction, but by no means with the view to furnish a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord." Schleiermacher, and after him Strauss, have turned this into an argument against the gospel of Mark. They assert that this gospel is a συντάξις, which, if not chronological, is
at least a concatenation according to the subjects. Now the presbyter John states that Mark wrote ὁ τὰ ῥάξα, without order. We learn, however, from what Papias adds, how Papias himself understood the words of the presbyter; and we perceive that he explains ὁ τὰ ῥάξα by διὰ γραφάς, writing isolated facts. Hence it appears that the words ὁ τὰ ῥάξα signify only incompleteness, but do not preclude all and every sort of arrangement.
If the opinions concerning the relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke, which have been current since the days of Griesbach, were correct, we might be able to form a true idea concerning the chronological succession in which the first three gospels were written. The chronological order of the gospels is, according to Origen, the same in which they follow each other in the codices. Irenæus (Adversus Hæreses, iii. 1.) states that Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul; but, according to Clemens Alexandrinus (Hypotyposis, vi.) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., vi. 14), he wrote at Rome while Peter was yet living. Griesbach, Saunier, Strauss, and many others, however, state it as an unquestionable fact, that the Gospel of Mark was merely an abridgement of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Weisse, Wolke, and Bauer, on the other hand, have in recent times asserted that the Gospel of Mark was the most ancient of all the gospels, that Luke amplified the Gospel of Mark, and that Matthew made additions to both.
We do not see any reason to contradict the unanimous tradition of antiquity concerning the dependence of Mark upon Peter. We deem it possible, and even probable, that Luke read Mark, and that he also alludes to him by reckoning him among the many, who had written gospel history before him. This supposition, however, is by no means necessary or certain; and it is still possible that Mark wrote after Luke. Some of the ancient testimonies, namely, those of Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and others, state that Mark's gospel was written at Rome. In favour of this opinion there have been urged some so-called Latinisms; for instance, in ch. xv. 15, and ch. v. 23. These expressions are, however, rather Grecisms than Latinisms. Others appeal to words which have a Latin origin; but these are military terms which the Greeks adopted from the Romans. These Latinisms cannot prove much, however, respecting the locality in which Mark's gospel was written; but it is certain that it was written for Gentile Christians. This appears from the explanation of Jewish customs (ch. vii. 2, 11; xii. 18; xiii. 3; xiv. 12; xv. 6, 42). The same view is confirmed by the scarcity of quotations from the Old Testament, perhaps also by the absence of the genealogy of Christ, and by the omission of the Sermon on the Mount, which explains the relation of Christ to the Old Testament dispensation, and which was, therefore, of the greatest importance to Matthew.
The characteristic peculiarity of Mark as an author is particularly manifest in two points: 1. He reports rather the works than the discourses of our Saviour; 2. He gives details more minutely and graphically than Matthew and Luke; for instance, he describes the cures effected by Jesus more exactly (iv. 31, 41; vi. 5, 13; vii. 33; viii. 23). He is also more particular in stating definite numbers (v. 13, 42; vi. 7; xiv. 30), and furnishes more exact dates and times (i. 32, 35; ii. 1, 26; iv. 26, 35; vi. 2; xi. 11, 19, 20, &c.).
Most of the materials of Mark's narrative occur also in Matthew and Luke. He has, however, sections exclusively belonging to himself, viz., iii. 21, 31, sq.; vi. 17, sq.; xi. 11; xii. 28, sq. These peculiar statements of Mark have an entirely historical character: consequently we deem it unjustifiable in Strauss and De Wette to endeavour to depreciate them by calling them arbitrary additions.
We may mention respecting the conclusion of Mark's gospel (ch. xvi. 9, 20), the genuineness of which, from its
omission in several of the codices, has been called in question, that Michaelis and Hug are of opinion that the addition was made by the evangelist at a later period, in a similar manner as John made an addition in ch. xxi. of his Gospel. Perhaps also an intimate friend, or an amanuensis, supplied the defect. If either of these two hypotheses is well founded, it may be understood why several codices were formerly without this conclusion, and why, nevertheless, it was found in most of them.
Among the various commentaries on the Gospel of Mark which have been published in modern times, the following deserves to be specially mentioned:—Evangelium Marci recensuit, et cum Commentariis perpetuis edidit, C. F. A. Fritsche, Lipsiae, 1830. On the whole subject consult An Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr S. Davidson, London, 1848; also The Origin of the Gospels, by James Smith, Esq., F.R.S., Edinburgh, 1853. For a compendium of all critical investigations into the history contained in the gospels consult Ebrard's Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte, 2 vols. 1842.