The early Fathers, so far as their testimony remains, are unanimous in ascribing this Gospel to St. Mark, and they are equally unanimous in tracing the work of St. Mark to the influence of St. Peter. Justin Martyr speaks of the "Memoirs of Peter" when referring to a statement which we find in {51} Mark iii. 17. Papias closely associates the two saints in his account of the Gospel, and gives us his information on the authority of John the Presbyter, who was a disciple of the Lord. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen say practically the same thing. This evidence is overwhelming, and it is uncontradicted by any early authority. The statement of Papias is as follows: "And the elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ; but, however, not in order. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, he attended Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs of his hearers, but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's words. So then Mark committed no error in thus writing down certain things as he remembered them; for he made it his special care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein." [1] By calling St. Mark an interpreter, Papias perhaps means that he translated statements made in Aramaic into Greek, which was the language most used by the Christians of Rome until the 3rd century after Christ. By saying that St. Mark wrote not in order, Papias probably means that the Gospel is not a systematic history of all our Lord's ministry, or an orderly arrangement of subjects placed together with a view to instruction like those in Matthew. So far as we are able to test them, the facts are related chronologically in the great majority of cases.
Papias does not tell us when St. Mark wrote his Gospel. Irenaeus writes: "Matthew also published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, Peter and Paul preaching the Gospel at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had been preached by Peter." [2] {52} St. Peter and St. Paul probably died not later than A.D. 65. Eusebius quotes from Clement of Alexandria "that Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and having spoken the Gospel by the Spirit, many present exhorted Mark to write the things which had been spoken, since he had long accompanied Peter, and remembered what he had said; and that when he had composed the Gospel, he delivered it to them who had asked it of him, which when Peter knew, he neither forbad nor encouraged it." [3] Clement is here relying upon "the presbyters of old," and the antiquity of the tradition is proved by the fact that it does not claim St. Peter's direct sanction for the Gospel. Both Irenaeus and Clement were probably born about A.D. 130, or earlier. Irenaeus was acquainted with Rome, where St. Peter taught, while Clement lived at Alexandria, where St. Mark was probably bishop. Moreover, Clement's office of head-catechist at Alexandria had been previously held by at least three predecessors, who must have handed down traditions of first-rate value. The testimony of Clement with regard to St. Mark is not inconsistent with that of Irenaeus. The Gospel was probably written while St. Peter was alive, and when he was dead, was given to the Church. Possibly it underwent some revision before publication. Now, as St. Peter evidently had not taught in Rome when St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans in A.D. 56, and as St. Mark was in Rome when he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians in A.D. 60, we may reasonably date this Gospel about A.D. 62. It seems to be later than Colossians, as there is no indication of St. Peter's being in Rome when that Epistle was written.
[Sidenote: Literary Style.]
The internal evidence afforded by the Gospel strongly corroborates the belief that it was based upon the discourses of one who had been with our Lord during His ministry. It is marked by a vivid and dramatic realism. There is a fondness for rapid transitions from one scene to another, as may be illustrated by the {53} fact that the Greek word for "immediately" occurs no less than forty-one times. In i. 27 the actual form of an original dialogue is shown in the abrupt and broken sentences employed. St. Mark uses different tenses of the Greek verb—present, perfect, imperfect, and aorist—with singular freedom, not because he did not know Greek well enough to write with more regularity, but because he is carried away by his interest in the facts which he relates. The student will find good instances of this interchange of tenses in v. 15 ff.; vi. 14 ff.; viii. 35; ix. 34 ff. St. Mark's language shows that he was well acquainted with the Greek version of the Old Testament, which has exercised considerable influence on his style.
There are many picturesque phrases, such as "the heavens rent" (i. 10) and "devour houses" (xii. 40). There are little redundancies in which the author repeats his thoughts with a fresh shade of meaning, as "at even, when the sun did set" (i. 32); "he looked steadfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly" (viii. 25); "all that she had, even all her living" (xii. 44). There is a frequent use of popular diminutives, such as words for "little boat," "little daughter," "little dog." This is probably due to provincial Custom, and may be compared with the fondness shown in some parts of Scotland for words such as "boatie," "lassie" or "lassock," etc. There are several Hebraisms. Some of the Greek words are frankly plebeian, such as a foreigner would pick up without realizing that they were inelegant. There are also some Aramaic words and phrases which the writer inserts with a true artistic sense and then interprets—Boanerges (iii. 17), Talitha cumi (v. 41), Corban (vii. 11), Ephphatha (vii. 34), Abba (xiv. 36), and Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani[4] (xv. 34). The Greek also contains numerous grammatical irregularities which betray the hand of a foreigner, {54} as in ii. 26; iv. 22; vi. 52; vii. 4, 19; ix. 18, xi.32; xiii. 34. The use of participles is clumsy, especially in the account of the woman with the issue of blood (v. 25 ff.). Finally, there are more Latin words and idioms than in any of the other Gospels. Latin idioms may be seen in v. 23 and xv. 15, and instances of Latin words are speculator (vi. 27), centurion (xv. 39), sextarius (vii. 4), denarius (vi. 37), quadrans (xii. 42). In xii. 42, xv. 16, Greek words are explained in Latin.
These facts corroborate the tradition that the writer was a Palestinian who stayed in Rome, and knew personally some one who had exceptional knowledge of our Lord's actual words.
The narrative is particularly fresh, and abounds in vivid details such as would have been likely to linger in St. Peter's memory. The green grass whereon the crowds sat, and the appearance of flower-beds which they presented in their gay costume (vi. 39, 40); the stern of the boat, and the pillow whereon our Lord slept (iv. 38); the Gerasene demoniac cutting himself with stones (v. 5); the woman who was a Syro-Phoenician but spoke Greek (vii. 26); Jesus taking children in His arms (ix. 36; x. 16); the street where the colt was tied (xi. 4); the two occasions on which the cock crew (xiv. 68, 72); and St. Peter warming himself in the light of the fire (xiv. 54);—such are some of the instances of the writer's fidelity in recording the impressions of his teacher. This Gospel also abounds in proper names, both of places and persons. Among the latter may be mentioned the name of Bartimaeus, the blind beggar (x. 46); the names of Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon of Cyrene (xv. 21); Salome, the mother of Zebedee's children (xv. 40); and Boanerges, their surname (iii. 17). Equally remarkable is the manner in which the emotions of our Lord and others are recorded. We notice the indignation and grief which He felt in the synagogue (iii. 5); His compassion for the unshepherded people (vi. 34); His deep sigh at the sceptical demand for a sign from heaven (viii. 12), {55} His displeasure at the disciples for keeping the children from Him (x. 14); His undisguised love for the rich young man who yet lacked one thing (x. 21); His tragic walk in front of the apostles (x. 32); the intensity of feeling with which He was driven into the wilderness (i. 12), and overturned the tables and seats in the temple (xi. 15). St. Mark always seems to be painting our Lord from the life.
In spite of the fact that St. Mark shows that he knew well how to compress the material which was at his disposal, there is hardly a story which he narrates in common with the other synoptists without some special feature. We may notice the imploring words of the father of the lunatic boy (ix. 2), the spoken blessing on little children (x. 16), the view of the temple (xiii. 3), and Pilate's question of the centurion (xv. 44). None of these things are narrated in the other Gospels. In ix. 2-13 we have the story of the Transfiguration, with the statement that the garments of our Lord "became glistering, exceeding white; so as no fuller on earth can whiten them." We are also told that St. Peter then addressed our Lord as "Rabbi," and that "he wist not what to answer." The same significant phrase, "they wist not what to answer Him," occurs in St. Mark's account of the agony in the garden (xiv. 40). These are only a few instances out of many which show St. Mark's originality, and they are just such personal reminiscences as we might expect St. Peter to retain.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
Just as the style is realistic and the narrative circumstantial, so the contents are practical. "He went about doing good" is the impression which this Gospel gives us of our Lord. The teaching which He announced to the people is made less prominent than in Matt. If we count even the shortest similitudes as parables, we find only nine parables in Mark. Equally remarkable is the absence of quotations made by the writer. He records numerous references made by our Lord to the Old Testament, though fewer than Matt. or Luke, but the only quotations made by St. Mark {56} himself are in i. 2, 3 (Mal. iii. 1; Isa. xl. 3) and xv. 28 (Isa. liii. 12). On the other hand, we find eighteen miracles, only two less than in the much longer Gospel of St. Matthew. The theological tone of Mark may be described as neutral. There is no trace of the innocent preferences which Matt. and Luke show toward this or that aspect of the teaching of Jesus. In Mark we do not find so strong an approval of the more permanent parts of the Jewish Law, or so strong a denunciation of the Pharisees who exalted the external adjuncts of the Law, as we find in Matt. Nor do we find such parables as the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son, by which Luke lays emphasis upon the truth that the Jews have no monopoly of holiness, and that the outcast is welcome to the gospel. Mark is less Jewish than Matt., less Gentile and Pauline than Luke. It used to be said that this was the result of "trimming," and intended to bridge over the differences between two different schools of theology. But the charge has broken down. St. Mark, though not anti-Jewish, regards Christ as above the law of the sabbath (ii. 28), and teaches the necessity of new external religious forms (ii. 22). Though he is not Jewish, and though he omits the statement made in Matt. xv. 24, a statement indicating that the Jews had the first right to be taught by the Messiah, he does record, like Matt., the still harder statement of the same fact made to the Syro-Phoenician woman (vii. 27). The truth is that St. Mark is neutral simply in the sense that he faithfully records a story which was moulded before doctrinal conflicts had taken place between Christian believers. The doctrine of St. Mark is archaic.