with the statement at vv. 33, 34, had been introduced in order to adapt the context to these additions. This view is confirmed by the fact that in Luke viii. 4 seq. only one parable, that of the sower, is given or referred to. This evangelist has probably here followed the original form of Mark. Similarly the collection of sayings after Mark ix. 40 (vv. 41–50) has probably been interpolated. They are thrown together in a way unusual with Mark, who is accustomed to place each important saying in a setting of its own. Here again we note that they do not appear at the corresponding point in Luke, though some of them are given by him in other contexts. The account of the crossing of the lake (vi. 45–53) after the feeding of the five thousand furnishes an instance of a different kind. The difficulty as to the position of Bethsaida, or (if εἰς τὸ πέραν, “unto the other side,” at v. 45 is taken to refer only to the crossing of a bay at the north-eastern corner of the lake) the discrepancy between “crossing” in this sense and in that of v. 53 would be explained if the narrative (which is not in Luke) may be held to be an interpolation by one not familiar with the localities. Once more, the account of the feeding of the four thousand (viii. 1–9) resembles that of the feeding of the five thousand (vi. 35–44) closely in all respects except that of the numbers given, about which differences might easily arise in tradition, and it looks therefore as if it might be a “doublet,” i.e. another form of the same narrative derived through a different channel. And it is not so likely that Mark should have mistaken it for a distinct incident as that an editor of his Gospel should have done so. Some other instances, of greater or less probability, might be mentioned.
In addition to such larger insertions, the text of the original document seems to have undergone a certain amount of revision. Some of the cases in which the first and third evangelist agree against Mark in a word or clause may be best accounted for by their both having reproduced the common source (an example may be seen under 4 below).
As we have found it necessary to distinguish between the original composition by Mark, to whom in the main the work appears to be due, and some enlargement and alteration which it subsequently underwent whereby it reached its present form, these stages must be borne in mind in considering dates that may be assigned in connexion with this Gospel. According to Papias, Mark wrote after the death of Peter, i.e. after A.D. 64, if we suppose, as it is usual to do, that Peter was martyred in the massacre by Nero after the burning of Rome. It would be natural for Mark to set himself to make his record soon after the Apostle’s death; and in confirmation of the view that he did so it may be pointed out that in the form of the prophecy in ch. xiii. of the calamities that were to come upon Jerusalem, no details occur of a kind to suggest that it had actually taken place. Further, Mark’s work may very probably have been used by Luke in its original form. On the other hand, it was known to our first evangelist very nearly in the form in which we have it. The chief revision of Mark would seem, then, to have taken place between the times of the composition of the first and third Gospels, which cannot be far removed from one another (see Matthew, Gospel of St). The last twelve verses were added later still, probably early in the 2nd century, probably to take the place of the ending which had been lost, or which was regarded as defective. (On the evidence that the last 12 verses are not by the same hand as the rest of the Gospels see Westcott and Hort’s New Testament in Greek, append., p. 29 seq. and Swete’s St Mark in loc. and p. xcvi. seq. of his introduction.)
(3) The Gospel History as represented in Mark.—After a (i) prefatory passage, i. 1–13, the Gospel deals with (ii) Christ’s ministry in Galilee and other parts of northern Palestine, i. 14–ix. 50. This portion of the history may suitably be divided into three periods: (a) Early period. From the opening of the work of Jesus to the first plot to destroy Him (i. 14–iii. 6). (b) Middle period. From the gathering of crowds from all parts and appointment of the Twelve to the sending forth of the Twelve to extend Christ’s work and the alarm of Herod (iii. 7–vi. 29). (c) Closing period. From Christ’s withdrawal with His disciples after their return from their mission to His final departure from Galilee (vi. 30–ix. 50). Throughout we can trace a development as to (a) the stir created and the attitude of men towards Jesus: i. 32–34, 37 (excitement at Capernaum); 38, 45 (fame spreads through a wide district); iii. 7, 8 (people from distant parts appear in the crowds); iv. 2 seq. (the word of the Kingdom is received in very various ways); viii. 28 (great diversity of opinions as to the claims of Jesus); (b) the opposition to Him, ii. 1–iii. 6–iii. 22 (scribes come from Jerusalem and a more heinous charge is preferred); (c) the formation of a band of disciples and the position accorded to them: i. 16–20 (four are called to follow Him); ii. 14 (yet another); iii. 14 (He “makes twelve” including those before called); vi. 7 seq (He sends them out to preach and work cures); (d) the methods which he adopts: i. 21, 39–iii. 1 (preaches in the synagogues, later more commonly by the lake-shore or on the mountain sides; or He teaches in a house where He happens to be); at iv. 1 seq. he adopts a new mode of address because a sifting-process was required; from vi. 45 onwards He mainly devotes Himself to the training of the Twelve, while seeking retirement from the multitude; (e) in the districts which he visits: i. 38 (tour in the neighbourhood of Capernaum); v. 1 (crosses to eastern shore of the lake); vi. 6b (a tour which includes Nazareth); vi. 45 (Bethsaida); vii. 31 (journey to Tyre and Sidon and back through Decapolis); viii. 22, 27 (is at Bethsaida and visits neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi); (f) His self-revelation; viii. 27 seq. (first unambiguous declaration of His Messiahship).
(iii) The Journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, the Last Days, Passion and Resurrection, x. 1 to end. He goes first to “the borders of Judaea and beyond Jordan” (Peraea), and exercises His ministry there, x. 1–16. In connexion with the journey from this region to Jerusalem three striking incidents are recorded, x. 17–52. The account of the time in Jerusalem includes a series of conflicts with opponents xi. 27–xii. 40, and the discourse on the Last Things, xiii. The only notes of time in the Gospel occur in connexion with the conspiracy to kill Jesus (xiv. 1) and the Last Supper (verse 12).
(4) The Leading Ideas of St Mark.—Ch. i. 1, which stands as a title, was probably, even according to the short form of it which is supported by MS. evidence, due to a reviser of the original. Both Matthew and Luke show signs of having had a somewhat different beginning before them. Nevertheless, that title fitly describes the work. It is emphatically “the Gospel,” because it sets forth the person and work of the Christ. The evangelist is conscious of this aim. It appears not only at great moments of the history such as the Baptism (i. 11), the confession of Peter (viii. 29), the Transfiguration (ix. 7); nor again merely in the prominence given to the miracles of Jesus and in particular to the casting out of devils, but also in many of the sayings recorded in it, as in the great series contained in the narratives in ch. ii. 5, 10, 17, 19; and again in the reply of Jesus to those who charged Him with being in collusion with Satan (iii. 27). The character of the genuine disciples of the Christ and the demands that are made of them form, as it were, the complement to the representation of what He Himself is, and are set forth in other striking sayings, related along with the memorable occasions on which they were spoken: (iii. 34, 35; viii. 34–36; ix. 23, 29, 35–37; x. 14, 15, 42–45).
See Swete, Commentary on St Mark (2nd ed., 1902); A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (1901); D. W. Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien, zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständniss des Markusevangeliums (1901); E. J. Weiss, Das älteste Evangelium (1903). Also bibliography to the article Gospel. (V. H. S.)
MARKBY, SIR WILLIAM (1829–), English jurist,
the fourth son of the Rev. William Henry Markby, rector
of Duxford St Peter’s, was born at Duxford, Cambridge, in
1829. He was educated at Bury St Edmunds and Merton
College, Oxford, where he took his degree in 1850. In 1856
he was called to the bar, and in 1865 he became recorder of
Buckingham. In 1866 he went to India as judge of the High
Court of Calcutta. This post he held for twelve years, and
on his retirement was appointed Reader in Indian Law at
Oxford. In 1892 he was a member of the Commission to
inquire into the administration of justice at Trinidad and
Tobago. Besides Lectures on Indian Law, he wrote Elements
of Law considered with reference to the General Principles of
Jurisprudence. The latter, being intended in the first place
for Indian students, calls attention to many difficulties in the
definition and application of legal conceptions which are usually
passed over in textbooks, and it ranks as one of the few books
on the philosophy of law which are both useful to beginners
and profitable to teachers and thinkers. In 1897 appeared
The Indian Evidence Act, with Notes. Sir William Markby
