Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/826

desire for solitude, see i. 28; i. 35-37; i. 45; ii. 1-4; ii. 802 as have been preserved to us by so scrupulous an author. Ve proceed therefore to an investigation of the peculiarities of Mark, with a confidence in him increased rather than diminished by the fact that he has neither the introduc- tions nor the appendices which are found in the rest of the Gospels. . The first thing that strikes us in Mark is his duality. Verbosity we might be tempted to call it at the first sight ; but though there is a certain disproportion in the space assigned to detail, duality, and not verbosity, is the better word. It is this duality which gave rise (see above, p. 789) to the erroneous supposition that Mark had bor- rowed from Matthew and Luke. But it may be shown, by reference to passages where there can be no possibility that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke (Mk. ii. 19,- iii. 5; iii. 27; iii. 22, 30; v. 3, 5; xii. 44), that this duality is a part of Mark’s style. In many cases, ear/., iii. 22, 30 (Bee)t§e,8oiu Exec. and 7rVeiip.a. dKci9ap1'ov zxu), it is almost forced on the reader that the evangelist had before him two versions of one saying, and that in his “anxiety to omit nothing "1 he inserted both. Whether there be any definite traces of translation in his Gospel will be considered here- after. But, so far, we merely note that some of Mark’s dualities of expression might be explained as double render- ings of the same original. Only one parable is peculiar to Mark; it is one that illustrates (iv. 26-29) the spread of the kingdom of God by the quiet, unpereeived, and gradual growth of corn. The subdued tone of this (one of the most interesting of all the parables) was perhaps the -reason why it was not at first widely known, as it un- doubtedly is the reason why modern readers pay it too little attention. Mark also amplifies the story of the l3aptist's execution (vi. 20-28), and the graphic story of the exorcism of the “legion.” For the rest, the other additions peculiar to Mark consist either of dual expressions and amplifications of detail, or of realistic details which would naturally be subordinated in later times, as likely to be stumbling-blocks. For amplifications which treat of the resistance and ultimate submission of unclean spirits see i. 26, 27; i. 44 ; iii. 7- 12 ; ix. 14-27 ; for others which relate to the crowding of people round Jesus, the publicity of His work, and His 15; iii. 10-12; vi. 32-33, &c. The narrative also, from first to last, abounds with expressions as to the manner and look and minute action of Jesus during dialogues or miracles (Cf iii. 5; vii. 31-37; viii. 22-26). In many of these additions Aramaic words are given as the very utterances of Jesus, e.g., v. 41, To.)u0d Kaine; vii. 34, ’Egb¢a6d; xiv. 36, ’A,B,Bc1 ; sometimes, also, names that are given by no other writer, e.g., Bartimaeus, Boanerges, and Dalmanutha.3 Un- questionably, under ordinary circumstances, this elaboration of unimportant detail3 (and especially the introduction of 1 This is a quotation from Papias preserved by Euscbius (Kirch- hofer, p. 123): “ For he (Mark) took great care about one matter, viz., to omit nothing of all that (p-nbév dry) he heard.” It‘ Papias spoke of our Mark, it would seem that this must refer rather to the words than to the incidents recorded in his very scanty Gospel. It seems to be an apology for the disproportion of the narrative. In writing the narrative just as he took it down in notes (from Peter's discourses) “ Mark,” says Papias, “ committed no error," but simply acted as a faithful reporter. Ve do not, of course, commit ourselves to the truth of this statement; we merely point out that the hypothesis that Mark's Gospel is a collection of “ notes,” will explain some of the peculiarities of its style. 2 1Iark’s custom of placing the Aramaic original side by side with the Greek translation is perhaps in part suggested by the Palestinian dialect of our Lord's time, in which (especially in certain phrases) Greek and Aramaic were blended together, as in the phrase “my Lord," "V3 "ID, which stands for "ID, Kllrplé. See Lightfoot, (:'ala.(., p. 167, for this and other instances. But in Mark the reduplication for the most part is confined to passages expressive of strong emotion. GOSPELS ’ Take, as an instance, the wounding of the high priest's servant by Peter. Here Mark (xiv. 47) merely records the wound; Matthew . [svso 1'TlC. L. names-—for instances of which see the Apocryphal Gospels passim) is a mark of a late writer, and of a composer of fiction rather than history. But all the characteristics of Mark support the belief that in his case they are rather the excrescences and redundancies of one who trusted his memory rather than his judgment, and who preferred to report rather than to select and arrange. One proof of the early composition of Mark is the rude- ness and even vulgarity of his Greek. He uses a great number of words which are expressly forbidden by the grammarians. For example, of Mark’s phrase Eoxdrmc Zxci (Mk. v. 23), Phrynichus says (ed. Lobcck, p. 389), “only the canaille use it in this sense ;” the same gr-.nmnarian also warns his readers against Kpci,8,8aro; (Mk. ii. 4, 9, 11, 12). Other words noted by Phrynichus, and used by Mark (some of which are also used by Matthew) but avoided by Luke. are poiidtjngaltptos (ix. 47); €i'o'X1j,u.wv (for 7!')O150'LO§, KY. -13): KO)t)tU[))l.O'Ta.t' (xi. 15); Kopdo-Lov (v. 41) 3 O[)K[€m (v. 7) , f)(f7rLo'y.a (xiv. G5) ; [;a¢L'3o; (x. 25)!‘ Such words as these might naturally find their place in the mongrel Greek of the slaves and freedmen who formed the first congregations of the church in Rome; and they are therefore tokens of a date of composition earlier than that of Matthew and Luke. For it is not conceivable that such terms (some of wliirli would so have jarred upon the car of an educated Greek as almost to correspond to our “ slang”) should be substi- tuted in later times for a more tasteful vocabulary ; 'i‘llCl'C'.l.~ it is easily conceivable, and a priori probable, that better Greek should, in the prosperous days of the church, be substituted for worse. It is a natural characteristic of an unpractised reporter that he lays undue stress on a few vivid expressions and striking words, and that he reproduces or cxaggerates ana- colutha which, though not objectionable in a speech, are inconvenient in a book, because they tend to obscure or subordinate the subject matter. Many such words are inserted by Mark, and avoided by Matthew or Luke, or by both, (hf/., O'XL€O,LLE’VOv§, i. 10 ; d'yva¢o9, ii. 21 ; K(1)/.;L(;7l'(5)£l§, i. 38 3 dva)tov, ix. 50. For irregular constructions see iv. 28 (-rr)u§pn; 0270;, the correct reading); xii. 40, oiKa.'r£'(r9o1/Tc; (altered by Luke) ; v. 23, I've. e’-rriflfis; note also the curious change of construction from iva. to the infinitive in iii. 15, as compared with iii. 14. The Latinisins of this Gospel are well known: see xv. 15, 7:3 iKar()v7roL1')o'aL; vi. 35, clipa 7ro)Qt1j; Vi. 27, o'7reKovltci‘r(np; xv. 39, K£v'rvpL'o)V. The words rrpawuipcov (xv. 16), K1'jvo'o; (xii. 14), and dnpa-ycltltoiiil (xv. 15) Mark shares with Matthew. Other barbarisms are the use of drav with the indicative, and the use of (In to ask a question (ii. 16; ix. 11; ix. 28), both of which idioms are connnon in the Add Pilate", and perhaps indicate Latin influence. A still more cogent proof of the early date of Mark is that this Gospel contains many expressions which would be likely to be stumbling-blocks in the way of weak believers, so that they are omitted in the later Gospels, and would not have been tolerated except in a Gospel of extreme antiquity. For example, the strong expression (vi. 5, 6), “He ems not «bl: to do there any mighty work ;” the statement (i. 32, 34) that all the sick were brought to Jesus, but that He healed only ma/13/, whereas Matthew (viii. 16) says that He healed all, and Luke (iv. 40) that He healed ear/1 one (évl €K(frrTcp) ; (xxvi. 52) adds the reproof addressed by Jesus to Peter; Luke (xxii. 50, 51) adds that it was the “ right” ear, and that Jesus healed the man; lastly, the Fourth Gospel, while omitting the healing, retains the “right” ear, and adds that the servant's name was Malchus. In such a case it is impossible to feel certain that the simpler narrative of Mark may not have been modified by later accretions. ‘ Such arguments as that “ Hippocrates used f)a.¢>is ” cannot count for anything against the general feeling of dislike for the word expressed by the dictum of Phrynichus, “ 7'; 8% fiatpls -ri écrrw 02'»: (iv

-11: 71/oz'1).”