Chú giải Kinh Thánh

Mark's narrative does not take rise so early as those of Matthew and Luke do, from the birth of our Saviour, but from John's baptism, from which he soon passes to Christ's public ministry. Accordingly, in this chapter, we have, I. The office of John Baptist illustrated by the prophecy of him (Mk 1:1-3), and by the history of him, Mk 1:4-8. II. Christ's baptism, and his being owned from heaven, Mk 1:9-11. III. His temptation, Mk 1:12,13. IV. His preaching, Mk 1:14,15,21,22,38,39. V. His calling disciples, Mk 1:16-20. VI. His praying, Mk 1:35. VII. His working miracles. 1. His rebuking an unclean spirit, Mk 1:23-28. 2. His curing Peter's mother-in-law, who was ill of a fever, Mk 1:29-31. 3. His healing all that came to him, Mk 1:32,34. 4. His cleansing a leper, Mk 1:40-45.

INTRODUCTION

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas"

(Col 4:10).

But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels." But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together

(Ac 12:25; 13:5).

And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony

(Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 24).

But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity." And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son"

(1Pe 5:13),

that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3. 1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on

Mr 16:7,

and

Joh 18:27,

he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to

Mr 2:18; 7:3, 4; 12:18; 13:3; 14:12; 15:42,

for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on, that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

Preface to Mark

Of Mark, the writer of this Gospel, little is certainly known. He is commonly supposed to be the same that is several times mentioned in the New Testament. He was not an apostle, or companion of the Lord Jesus, during his ministry, though some of the fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy disciples. This is improbable, as he is mentioned by Peter 1 Peter 5:13 as "his son;" from which it is supposed that he was converted by the instrumentality of Peter.

From the New Testament we learn that he was sister's son to Barnabas Colossians 4:10; and that his mother's name was Mary, a pious woman in Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and primitive Christians often assembled, Acts 12:12.

His Hebrew name was John Act 12:12, and it is probable that he adopted a name better known or more familiar when he visited the Gentiles, a practice not uncommon in that age. He was at first the companion of Paul and Barnabas in their journeys to propagate Christianity, Acts 12:25; Acts 13:5; Acts 15:37. He chose not to attend them through their whole journey, but left them in Pamphylia, and probably returned to Jerusalem, Acts 15:38. Probably at this time he was the companion of Peter, and traveled with him to Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13. Afterward he went with Barnabas to Cyprus, Acts 15:39. Subsequently he went to Rome, at the express desire of Paul, in company with Timothy, 2 Timothy 4:11. He remained at Rome while Paul was a captive there, but how long is uncertain, Colossians 4:10; Plm 1:24. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome we hear that Mark went from Rome to Alexandria, in Egypt, where he planted a church, and died in the eighth year of the reign of Nero, 64 ad

The time when this Gospel was written is not certainly known. It is supposed to have been between the years 56 and 63 a.d. It is allowed by all that it was written at Rome; of course it was during the latter years of his life, after the apostles had left Judea, Mark 16:20. Mark was for a considerable time the companion of Peter. Though he had not himself been with the Saviour in his ministry, yet, from his long acquaintance with "Peter," he was familiar with the events of his life, and with his instructions. The uniform testimony of the fathers is that he was the "interpreter" of Peter, and that he wrote this Gospel under the eye of Peter and with his approbation. It has come down to us, therefore, with the sanction of Peter's authority. Its right to a place among the inspired books has never been questioned. That it was written by Mark, that it was with Peter's approbation, that it was a record of the "facts" which Peter stated in his ministry, and that it was therefore an inspired book, has never been questioned.

Preface to the Gospel According to St. Mark, With a Short Account of His Life

For an explication of the word Gospel, and the title Saint, see the Preface to Matthew.

Mark. This person, the second in the commonly received order of the four evangelists, was named John Mark, and was the son of a pious woman called Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem: she was an early believer, and the disciples used to meet at her house. Peter, having been delivered out of prison by an angel, came to the house of Mary, mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying, Acts 12:12. This very first mention of John Mark assures us of Peter's intimacy in that family: it is almost universally allowed that Mark, mentioned by Peter, 1 Peter 5:13, is this evangelist, and that he is the same with him who is called sister's son to Barnabas, Colossians 4:10, and is supposed to have been converted by Peter to the Christian faith. Mr. W. Whiston supposes him to have been Peter's own son. See his Primitive New Test. Notes at the end. He traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 12:25, and some short time after he accompanied them to other countries as their minister, Acts 13:5. When they returned to the continent, and came on shore at Perga in Pamphylia, he departed from them and returned to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13. Afterwards he would have gone with Paul and Barnabas, but the former refused to take him, because of his having left them at Pamphylia; Paul and Barnabas then separated, and Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, Acts 15:36-41. Afterwards Paul and he were fully reconciled, as evidently appears from 2 Timothy 4:11 : Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry. This appears also from Plm 1:24, where Mark is styled Paul's fellow-laborer; and from Colossians 4:10, where we find the apostle recommending him in a particular manner to the Church of God at that place. He is generally supposed to have been particularly intimate with St. Peter, to have written his Gospel at Rome, a.d. 64, and to have died at Alexandria in Egypt, in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Dr. Lardner has fully proved that Mark the evangelist, and John Mark nephew to Barnabas, were one and the same person. See his Works, vol. vi. p. 77, etc.

How Mark composed his Gospel, is a question not yet decided among learned men. Many of the primitive fathers, such as Papias, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, etc., believed that he was only the amanuensis of St. Peter; that this apostle, through modesty, would not put his name to the work, but dictated the whole account, and Mark wrote it down from his mouth. St. Augustine appears to have been the first who maintained that Mark abridged St. Matthew's Gospel; and that it is not to be considered as an original work: - on this opinion several remarks will be made in the course of these notes. Others suppose that Mark compiled it, partly out of Matthew's Gospel, and partly out of the Gospel of Luke. But most of these are conjectures which appear to have very little foundation. Critics are also divided concerning the language in which it was written, and the people to whom it was sent. Some have contended for a Latin original, because of several Latin words found in it, such as σπεκουλατωρ, Mark 6:27, one of the guard; κεντυριων, Mark 15:39, Mark 15:44, Mark 15:46, a centurion, a captain of one hundred men; συσσημον, Mark 14:44, a signal, a sign agreed on. But such words are better accounted for by supposing that his Gospel was written for the use of the Roman people; and that it is on this account that he wholly passes by the genealogy of our Lord, as being a point of no consequence to Gentile converts, though very necessary for the Jews, and especially the Jews of Palestine. That it was originally written in Greek, is a point now acknowledged by almost all learned men.

It may be necessary to state the things omitted by Mark in the beginning of his Gospel which are mentioned by Matthew and Luke.

1. The Preface, found in Luke and John, Luke 1:1; John 1:1.

2. The Conception of Elizabeth, Luke 1:5-25.

3. The Salutation of Mary, Luke 1:26-38.

4. Mary's Visit to Elizabeth, Luke 1:39-56.

5. John Baptist's Birth, Luke 1:57-79.

6. The Angel's Appearance to Joseph, Matthew 1:18-25.

7. The Birth of Christ, Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:1-7.

8. The Genealogy of Christ, Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38.

9. The Appearance of the Angel to the Shepherds, Luke 2:8-20.

10. The Circumcision of Christ, Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:21.

11. The Presentation of Christ in the Temple, Luke 2:22-38.

12. The Coming of the Magi, Matthew 2:1-12.

13. The Flight into Egypt, Matthew 2:13-15.

14. Herod's Murder of the Innocents, Matthew 2:16-18.

15. The Return of the Holy Family from Egypt, Matthew 2:19-23; Luke 2:39.

16. Christ's Journey to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, Luke 2:40-48.

From the particulars enumerated here, it appears that the things omitted by Mark are also omitted by John, except the Preface; and that St. Luke is the most circumstantial.

For other particulars relative to this Gospel, see at the end of the last chapter.

The mission, preaching, and success of John Baptist, Mark 1:1-5. His manner of life, Mark 1:6. Proclaims Christ, and baptizes him in Jordan, Mark 1:7-11. The temptation of Christ, Mark 1:12, Mark 1:13. John being put in prison, Christ begins to preach, Mark 1:14, Mark 1:15. He calls Andrew and Simon, Mark 1:16-18. James and John, Mark 1:19, Mark 1:20. Teaches in Capernaum, Mark 1:21, Mark 1:22. Casts out a demon, Mark 1:23-28. Goes into the house of Simon, and heals his mother-in-law, Mark 1:29-31. Heals many diseased persons, Mark 1:32-34. Goes to the desert, and is followed by his disciples, Mark 1:35-37. Preaches in different towns and synagogues of Galilee, and casts out devils, Mark 1:38, Mark 1:39. Cleanses a leper, who publishes abroad his miraculous cure, Mark 1:40-45.

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Acts 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Colossians 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Acts 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1 Peter 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him (a), and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him (b) it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

(a) Papias apud Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 39. Tertull. adv. Marcion. l. 4. c. 5. (b) Hieron. Catalog. Script. Eccles. p. 91. sect. 18.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

Mark.

BY

THE VERY REV. E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D.,

Late Dean of Wells.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

I. The Writer.—There is but one person of the name of Mark, or Marcus, mentioned in the New Testament, and, in the absence of any evidence, it may reasonably be assumed that the Gospel which bears his name is ascribed to him as being, directly or indirectly, its author. The facts of his life as they are gathered from the New Testament may be briefly put together. He bore also the Hebrew name of John, i.e., Joannes, or Jochanan (Acts 12:12; Acts 12:25; Acts 15:37). The fact that he took a Latin and not a Greek surname suggests the probability of some point of contact with Jews or others connected with Rome. As was natural, when he entered on his work among the Gentiles the new name practically superseded the old, and in the Epistles (Colossians 4:10; 2Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24; 1Peter 5:13) he is spoken of as “Mark” only. He was cousin to Barnabas, and was therefore, on his mother’s side probably, of the tribe of Levi (Colossians 4:10; Acts 4:36). His mother bore the name of Mary, or Miriam, and it may be inferred from the fact that her house served as a meeting-place for the disciples at Jerusalem (Acts 12:12), that she, like her brother, was one of the prominent and wealthy members of the Apostolic Church. St. Peter speaks of him as his “son” (1Peter 5:13), and it is a natural inference from this that he was converted by that Apostle to the new faith, but whether this was during our Lord’s ministry on earth or after the day of Pentecost must remain matter for conjecture. When Paul and Barnabas return from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 12:25) he accompanies them, and this may be taken as evidence that his sympathies were at that time with the wider work which they were carrying on among the Gentiles. So, when they were sent forth on their first missionary journey, they chose him as their “minister,” or attendant (Acts 13:5). His function, as such, was probably to provide for their personal wants in travelling, and to assist in the baptism of new converts. For some unrecorded reason, possibly want of courage, or home-sickness, or over-anxious care about the mother whom he had left at Jerusalem, he drew back at Perga in Pamphylia from the work to which they were sent, and returned home (Acts 13:13). We find him, however, again at Antioch, after the council at Jerusalem, and he had so far regained his uncle’s confidence that he was willing to take him once more as a companion in his missionary labours (Acts 15:37-39). To that course, however, St. Paul would not agree, and the result was that the two friends who had so long been fellow-workers in the cause of Christ were divided after a sharp contention.

From this point onwards we get but few glimpses of the writer of the Gospel. He accompanied Barnabas (A.D. 52) in his work among the Jews and Gentiles of Cyprus (Acts 15:39). About eight years later he was with St. Peter in the city on the banks of the Euphrates which still bore the old name of Babylon, and there must have met Silvanus, or Silas, who had taken his place as the companion and minister of St. Paul (see Note on 1Peter 5:12-13). It is possible that this may have led to a renewal of the old intimacy between him and the Apostle of the Gentiles, and about four years later (A.D. 64) we find him with St. Paul at Rome, during the Apostle’s first imprisonment (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24), and there, it may be noted, he must have met his brother Evangelist, St. Luke (Colossians 4:14). He was then, however, on the point of returning to the Asiatic provinces, and contemplated a visit to Colossæ (Colossians 4:10). Two years later (A.D. 66), accordingly, we find him at Ephesus with Timotheus, and the last mention of his name shows that St. Paul had forgotten his former want of steadfastness in the recollection of his recent services, and wished for his presence once again as being “profitable for ministering”[9] (2Timothy 4:11).

[9] This rather than “for the ministry” is the sense of the Greek.

To these facts, or legitimate inferences, we may now add the less certain traditions that have gathered round his name. Epiphanius (Contr. Hœr.) makes him one of the Seventy whose mission St. Luke narrates (Luke 10:1), and says that he was of those who turned back when they heard the hard saying of John 6:60; John 6:66. Eusebius (Hist. ii. 15; vi. 14) states, on the “authority of the ancient elders” and of Clement of Alexandria, that he was with St. Peter at Rome, acting as his “interpreter,” or secretary, and that he was sent on a mission from Rome to Egypt (Hist. ii. 16). There, according to Jerome (de Vir. illust. 8), he founded the Church of Alexandria, became bishop of that church, and suffered martyrdom at the hands of the people on the Feast of Serapis, in the fourteenth year of Nero, A.D. 68, about three years after the death of St. Peter and St. Paul. In A.D. 815 his body was said to have been taken to Venice, and the stately cathedral in the Piazza of St. Mark in that city was dedicated to his memory. Some recent commentators identify him conjecturally with “the young man with the linen cloth round his naked body” of Mark 14:51. (See Note on that passage.)

II. The Authorship of the Gospel.—St. Mark is named by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (circ. A.D. 169), on the authority of a certain “John the Presbyter,” as writing down exactly, in his character as Peter’s interpreter, “whatever things he remembered, but not in the order in which Christ spoke or did them, for he was neither a follower nor hearer of the Lord’s, but was afterwards a follower of Peter.” The statement is probable enough in itself (Euseb. Hist. iii. 39), and receives some additional weight from the fact that the city of which Papias was Bishop was in the same district as Colossæ, which Mark, as we have seen, meant to visit (Colossians 4:10). In another passage, above referred to, Eusebius (Hist. ii. 15; 5:8) speaks of him as having been asked to write by the hearers of St. Peter at Rome, and that the Apostle at first acquiesced in, and afterwards sanctioned his doing so. The same tradition appears (A.D. 160-225) in Tertullian (Cont. Marc. iv. 5). It receives some confirmation from the language of the second Epistle ascribed to St. Peter. The Apostle there promises that he will “endeavour” that those to whom he writes may have these things (i.e., the facts and truths of the gospel) in remembrance, that they might know that they had not “followed cunningly-devised fables,” but were trusting those who had been eye-witnesses, at the Transfiguration and elsewhere, of the majesty of Christ (2Peter 1:15-16). Such a promise seems almost to pledge the Apostle to the composition of some kind of record. Mark, we have seen, was with him when he wrote his first Epistle, perhaps also when he wrote the second, and it would be natural that he should take down from his master’s lips, or write down afterwards from memory, what he had heard from him. It may be added that the comparatively subordinate position occupied by St. Mark in the New Testament records makes it improbable that his name should have been chosen as the author of a book which he did not really write. A pseudonymous writer would have been tempted to choose (let us say) Peter himself, not Peter’s attendant and interpreter.

The Gospel itself, we may add, supplies some internal evidence in favour of this hypothesis:—(1.) It differs from St. Matthew, with which to a great extent it runs parallel in the facts narrated, in giving at every turn graphic descriptive touches which suggest the thought that they must have come in the first instance from an eye-witness. These are noticed in detail in the Notes on the Gospel, and here it will be enough to mention a few of the more striking instances. Thus, e.g., we have (a) the “very early in the morning, while it was yet night,” of Mark 1:35, as compared with “when it was day” in Luke 4:42; (b) there being no room, “not so much as about the door,” in Mark 2:2; (c) the “taking off the roof and digging a hole in it” in Mark 2:4; (d) the “making a path by plucking the ears of corn” in Mark 2:23; (e) the “looking round with anger” in Mark 3:5; (f) the “taking Him, even as He was, into the ship,” and the “lying in the stern on the pillow” (Mark 4:36; Mark 4:38); (g) the account of the manner in which the Gadarene demoniac had “burst asunder” his chains and “worn away” his fetters (Mark 5:4), and how he was “in the mountains crying and cutting himself with stones” (Mark 5:5); (h) the “green grass,” and the “sitting in ranks and companies by hundreds and by fifties” (Mark 6:39-40); (i) the “exceeding white as snow so as no fuller on earth can whiten them” (Mark 9:3); (j) the “Jesus beholding him, loved him” of the young ruler (Mark 10:21); (k) the “young man with the linen cloth round his naked body” (Mark 14:51); and many others of a like character. (2) As pointing to the same direction, we may note the instances in which St. Mark, and he alone, reproduces the very syllables which our Lord uttered in Aramaic. Whether they were an exception to His usual mode of speech or not may be an open question, but as connected with His works of healing they had the character of words of power for those who heard them, and so fixed themselves in their memories. So we have the TALITHA CUMI of Mark 5:41, the EPHPHATHA of Mark 7:34, the RABBONI in the Greek of Mark 10:51, the BOANERGES of Mark 3:17, the ABBA of Mark 14:36, the COBBAN of Mark 7:11, and, though here in common with St. Matthew, the ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI of Mark 15:34. (3.) So, too, in a few cases, St. Mark gives names where the other Gospels do not give them: Levi is the son of Alphæus (Mark 2:14); the ruler of the Synagogue, not named by St. Matthew, is Jairus (Mark 5:22); the blind beggar at Jericho is Bartimæus, the son of Timæus (Mark 10:46); the mother of James and John is Salome (Mark 15:40); Simon the Cyrenian is the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21). (4.) Some have seen grounds for the inference thus suggested in St. Mark’s omission of the promise made to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19, and of his “weeping bitterly” after he had denied his Master, but the proof in this case I seems somewhat precarious.

III. The first readers of the Gospel.—The position which St. Mark occupied in relation both to St. Paul and St. Peter—his connection with the former being resumed, as we have seen, after a long interval—would make it probable that he would write with a special eye to Gentile rather than Jewish readers; and of this the Gospel itself supplies sufficient evidence in the full explanation of the customs of the Jews as to ablutions and the like in Mark 7:3-4, in the explanation of the word Corban in Mark 7:11, perhaps, also, in his description of “the river of Jordan” in Mark 1:5. A closer study suggests the thought, in full agreement with the tradition mentioned above, that he wrote with a special view to Christians of the Roman Church. He alone describes Simon the Cyrenian as the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21), as though that fact had a special interest for his readers. There is but one Rufus mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, and he meets us in Romans 16:13 as one who was prominent enough in the church of that city for St. Paul to send a special message of remembrance to him; and it may be inferred, with some likelihood, that the wife or widow of Simon of Cyrene (having previously met St. Paul at Corinth, for some personal knowledge is implied in the words “his mother and mine”) had settled with her two sons in the imperial city, and had naturally gained a position of some importance. The very name of Marcus indicates, as has been said, some Latin affinities; and it is noticeable, in this connection, that a larger number of words Latin in their origin appear in his Gospel than in any one of the others. Thus we have him giving the Latin centurio instead of the Greek έκατοντάρχης (hekatontarches) in Mark 15:39; Mark 15:44-45; the Latin speculator for “executioner” in Mark 6:27; grabatus for bed (this in common with John 5:8-10) in Mark 2:4; Mark 2:9; Mark 2:11-12; quadvans for “farthing” in Mark 12:42; a verb formed from the Latin flagellum for “scourging” (this in common with Matthew 27:26) in Mark 15:15; a noun formed from sextarius for “vessels” in Mark 7:4; Prætorium (this in common with Matthew 27:27 and John 18:28) in Mark 15:16; the denarius in Mark 6:37, Mark 12:15, Mark 14:5 (this, however, is common to all four Gospels); the legio (found also in Matthew 26:53, Luke 8:30) in Mark 5:9; census (found also in Matthew 17:25; Matthew 22:17; Matthew 22:19) in Mark 12:14.

IV. The characteristics of the Gospel.—The distinguishing features of St. Mark’s Gospel are, it will be seen, (1) vividness and fulness of detail in narrating the events of the history; (2) compression or omission in dealing with our Lord’s discourses. This may have been owing partly to the object which he had in view, writing, it may be, for the instruction of catechumens, for whom he judged this method the most fitting, and partly to the idiosyncrasies of his own character. What we have seen of his life and work would prepare us to accept the latter as, to a great extent, an adequate explanation. One who had been chiefly a “minister” or “attendant” (the latter word is the more accurate rendering of the Greek of Acts 13:5) on the two Apostles may well be supposed to have been chiefly distinguished for his activity in service, for the turn of mind which observes and notes particulars, rather than for that which belongs to the student, and delights to dwell on full and developed statements of the Truth. We may see in what he has left us accordingly, pre-eminently the Gospel of Service, that which presents our Lord to us as in the form of a servant, obedient even unto death (Philippians 2:7-8); and so far it forms the complement to that in which St. Matthew presents Him to us pre-eminently in His character as a King. Even the characteristic iteration of the ever-recurring “immediately,” “anon,” “presently,” “forthwith,” “by-and-by,” “straightway”—all representing the self-same Greek word, occurring not less than 41 times—may not unreasonably be connected with his personal experience. That had been, we may believe, a word constantly on his lips in daily life, the law and standard of his own service, and he could not think of his Lord’s work otherwise than as exhibiting the perfect fulfilment of that law, a work at once without haste and without pause. So, too, in another point in which he stands in singular contrast to St. Matthew, the almost entire absence of any reference, except in reporting what had been said by our Lord or others, to any prophecies of the Old Testament—there are but two such references in the whole Gospel (Mark 1:2-3; Mark 15:28), as rising out of his own reflection—may be explained in part, perhaps, by the fact that he was writing not for Jews, but for Gentiles, to whom those prophecies were not familiar, and also by the fact that his own life in its ceaseless round of humbler service led him to be less than others a student of those prophecies. Assuming the genuineness of the latter of the two passages just referred to (it is absent from nearly all the best MSS.), we may, perhaps, trace the connection of thought. Words from that 53rd chapter of Isaiah had been quoted by the Apostle to whom he ministered (1Peter 2:22-23), at a time when he was with him, in special connection with the work of servants and the duty of obedience, and so his mind had been called to those words, but there does not appear to have been in him, as there was in St. Matthew, a deliberate purpose to trace the fulfilment of prophetic words in the circumstances of our Lord’s life and work. He was content to paint the scenes that passed before his mind clearly and vividly, and to leave the teaching which the facts embodied to do its work on the minds of his readers.

V. Relation to St. Matthew and St. Luke.—The Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew have so much in common, sometimes with each other only, sometimes with St. Luke also, that it is clear that they must have drawn more or less from a common source. Nothing, however, can be more against the whole tenor of internal evidence than the hypothesis that St. Mark epitomised from St. Matthew, or that St. Matthew expanded from St. Mark. The narrative of the second Gospel is in almost every instance fuller than that of the first, and its brevity is obtained only by the absence of the discourses and parables which occupy so large a portion of the other. On either of these assumptions the perplexing variations in the order of events (see Note on Matthew 8:1) are altogether inexplicable. What is, with our scanty data, the most probable explanation is, that the matter common to both represents the substance of the instruction given orally to disciples in the Church of Jerusalem and other Jewish-Christian communities coming, directly or indirectly, under the influence of St. Peter and St. James, as the Apostles of the Circumcision (Galatians 2:9). The miracles that had most impressed themselves on the minds of the disciples, the simplest or most striking parables, the narratives of the Passion and Resurrection, would naturally make up the main bulk of that instruction. St. Matthew, the publican Apostle, and therefore conversant, as has been said before, with clerkly culture, writing for his own people, closely connected with James the Bishop of Jerusalem (see Introduction to St. Matthew), would naturally be one exponent of that teaching. St. Mark, the disciple and “interpreter,” or secretary, of St. Peter, would as naturally be another. That they wrote independently of each other is seen, not only in the details above noted, the addition of new facts, the graphic touches of description, but from variations which would be inexplicable on any other assumption; such, e.g., as Mark’s “Dalmanutha” (Mark 8:10) for Matthew’s Magdala (Matthew 15:39), “Syro-Phœnician woman” (Mark 7:26) for Canaanite (Matthew 15:22), “Levi the son of Alphæus” (Mark 2:14) for Matthew (Matthew 9:9). Short as the Gospel is, too, there is one parable in it (Mark 4:26-29), and one miracle (Mark 7:31-37), which arc not found in St. Matthew. It is remarkable, moreover, that there are some incidents which St. Mark and St. Luke have in common, and which are not found in St. Matthew: that of the demoniac in Mark 1:23-27, Luke 4:33-37; the journey through Galilee (Mark 1:35-39, Luke 4:42-44); the pursuit of the disciples (Mark 1:36-37, Luke 4:42); the prayer of the demoniac (Mark 5:18, Luke 8:38); the complaint of John against one that cast out devils (Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49); the women bringing spices to the sepulchre (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1). Of these phenomena we find a natural and adequate explanation in the fact that the two Evangelists were, at least at one period of their lives, brought into contact with each other (Colossians 4:10; Colossians 4:14, Philemon 1:24). It is probable, as has been said above, that neither wrote his Gospel in its present form until the two great Apostles whom they served had entered on their rest; but when they met each must have had the plan formed and the chief materials collected, and we may well think of them as comparing notes, and of the one, whose life had led to less culture, and whose temperament disposed him to record facts rather than parables or discourses, as profiting by his contact with the other, and while content to adhere to the scope and method which he had before marked out for himself, adding here and there what he learnt from his fellow-worker whose “praise was in the Gospel” (2Corinthians 8:18). (See Introduction to St. Luke.)

The Gospel According to Mark

Introduction

Mark the Evangelist is, by the best authorities, identified with John Mark, the son of Mary. The surname Mark was adopted for use among the Gentiles; Mark (Marcus) being one of the commonest Latin names (compare Marcus Tullius Cicero, Marcus Aurelius), as John was one of the commonest Hebrew names. Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, and was, from a very early period, the intimate friend and associate of Peter (Acts 12:11-17), who affectionately refers to him as "my son" at the close of his first epistle. The general opinion of the fathers, as well as that of modern authorities, is that Mark drew the great mass of his materials from the oral discourses of Peter. This opinion was perpetuated in Christian art, in representations of Peter seated on a throne with Mark kneeling before him and writing from his dictation; Mark sitting and writing, and Peter standing before him, with his hand raised, dictating; and Peter in a pulpit, preaching to the Romans, and Mark taking down his words in a book (see Mrs. Jameson, "Sacred and Legendary Art," 1:149).

This opinion finds support in the evidences of Peter's influence upon the style of this Gospel. The restlessness and impetuosity of Mark's disposition, of which we have hints in his forsaking Paul and Barnabas at Perga (Acts 13:13; Acts 15:38), in his subsequent readiness to join them on the second missionary journey (Acts 15:39), and, if the tradition be accepted, in his rushing into the street on the night of Christ's arrest, clad only in a linen sheet (Mark 14:51, Mark 14:52), would naturally be in sympathy with the well-known character of Peter. Peter was a man of observation and action rather than of reflection; impulsive and impetuous. "When we assume," says Dr. Morison, "that Mark drew directly from the discoursings of St. Peter, then we understand how it comes to pass that it is in his pages that we have the most particular account of that lamentable denial of his Lord of which the apostle was guilty. On no other person's memory would the minute particulars of the prediction, and of its unanticipated fulfilment, be so indelibly engraven. It is also noteworthy that, while the very severe rebuke which our Lord administered to St. Peter in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi is faithfully and circumstantially recorded in Mark's pages, the splendid eulogium and distinguishing blessing, which had been previously pronounced, are, as it were, modestly passed by. Doubtless the great apostle would not be guilty of making frequent or egotistic references to such marks of distinction" ("Commentary on Mark").

Unlike the other gospels, Mark's narrative is not subordinated to the working out of any one idea. Matthew's memoirs turn on the relation of Christ to the law and the prophets. He throws a bridge from the old economy to the new. His is the Gospel as related to the past, the Gospel of Christianity regarded as the fulfilment of Judaism. Luke exhibits Jesus as a Saviour, and expounds the freeness and universality of the Gospel, and the sacredness of humanity. John wrote that then might believe that Jesus is the Christ, and might have life in him. While Matthew and Luke deal with his offices, John deals with his person. John carries forward the piers of Matthew's bridge toward that perfected heavenly economy of which his Apocalypse reveals glimpses. In Matthew Jesus is the Messiah; in John, the Eternal Word. In Matthew he is the fulfiller of the law; in John he foreshadows the grander and richer economy of the Spirit.

Mark, on the other hand, is a chronicler rather than a historian. His narrative is the record of an observer, dealing with the facts of Christ's life without reference to any dominant conception of his person or office. Christ's portrait is drawn "in the clearness of his present energy;" not as the fulfilment of the past, as by Matthew, nor as the foundation of the future, as by John. His object is to portray Jesus in his daily life, "in the awe-inspiring grandeur of his human personality, as a man who was also the Incarnate, the wonder-working Son of God." Hence his first words are the appropriate keynote of his Gospel: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Such a narrative might have been expected from Peter, with his keen-sightedness, his habit of observation, and his power of graphically describing what he was so quick to perceive. There is, of course, less room for the exhibition of these traits in his epistles, though they emerge even there in certain peculiar and picturesque words, and in expressions which reflect incidents of his personal association with Christ. Those brief epistles contain over a hundred words which occur nowhere else in the New Testament. Certain narratives in the Book of Acts record incidents in which Peter was the principal or the only apostolic actor, and the account of which must have come from his own lips; and these narratives bear the marks of his keen observation, and are characterized by his picturesque power. Such are the accounts of the healing of the cripple at the temple-gate (3); of Ananias and Sapphira (5); of Peter's deliverance from prison (12); of the raising of Dorcas (9); and of the vision of the great sheet (10). In these, especially if we compare them with narratives which Luke has evidently received from other sources, we are impressed with the picturesque vividness of the story; the accurate notes of time and place and number; the pictorial expressions, the quick transitions; the frequent use of such words as straightway, immediately; the substitution of dialogue for narrative, and the general fulness of detail.

All these characteristics appear in Mark's Gospel, and are justly regarded as indicating the influence of Peter, though comparatively few of the same words are employed by both; a fact which may be, in great part, accounted for by the difference between a hortatory epistle and a narrative. The traces of Peter's quick perception and dramatic and picturesque power are everywhere visible in Mark. While Matthew fully records the discourses of our Lord, Mark pictures his deeds. Hence, while Matthew gives us fifteen of his parables, Mark reproduces only four, and that in a condensed form. "Mark does not wear the flowing robes of Matthew. His dress is 'for speed succinct.' Swift-paced, incisive, his narrative proceeds straight to the goal, like a Roman soldier on his march to battle." His Gospel is the Gospel of the present, not of the past. His references to the Old Testament, with the exception of Mark 1:2, Mark 1:3, are quotations occurring in the discourses of Christ, or cited by others. They belong, as Canon Farrar observes, "to the narrative, not to the recorder" (Mark 15:28 is an interpolation). The word νόμος, law, never occurs in Mark nor in Peter.

Mark's is, therefore, pre-eminently the pictorial Gospel: the Gospel of detail. "There is," says Canon Westcott, "perhaps not one narrative which he gives in common with Matthew and Luke, to which he does not contribute some special feature." Thus he adds to John the Baptist's picture of loosing the shoe-latchet another touch, in the words to stoop down (Mark 1:7). He uses a more graphic term to describe the opening of the heavens at Christ's baptism. According to Matthew and Luke the heavens were opened (ἀνεώχθησαν); Mark depicts them as rent asunder (σχιζομένους; Mark 1:10). Matthew and Luke represent Jesus as led (ἀνήχθη) into the wilderness to be tempted; Mark as driven (ἐκβα.λλει); adding, He was with the wild beasts; to which some detect a reference in Peter's comparison of the devil to a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8). He gives a realistic touch to the story of James and John forsaking their employment at the call of Jesus, by adding that they left their father with the hired servants (Mark 1:20). After the discourse from the boat to the multitude upon the shore, Mark alone tells us that the disciples sent away the multitude, and throws in the little details, they took him as he was; and there were with them other little ships (Mark 4:36). His account of the storm which followed is more vivid than Matthew's or Luke's. He pictures the waves beating into the boat, and the boat beginning to fill; notes the steersman's cushion at the stern on which the sleeping Lord's head reposed (Mark 4:37, Mark 4:38); and throws the awaking by the disciples and the stilling of the tempest into a dramatic form by the distressful question, Master, carest thou not that we perish? and the command to the sea as to a raging monster, Peace! Be still! (Mark 4:38, Mark 4:39).

In the narrative of the feeding of the five thousand, only Mark relates the Saviour's question, How many loaves have ye ? Go and see (Mark 6:38). An oriental crowd abounds in color, and to Mark we are indebted for the gay picture of the crowds arranged on the green grass, in companies, like flower-beds with their varied hues. He alone specifies the division of the two fishes among them all (Mark 6:39, Mark 6:41). He tells how Jesus, walking on the sea, would have passed by the disciples' boat; he expresses their cry of terror at Christ's appearance by a stronger word than Matthew, using the compound verb ἀνέκραξαν where Matthew uses the simple verb ἔχραξαν. He adds, they all saw him (Mark 6:48-50). When Jesus descends from the mount of transfiguration, it is Mark that fills out the incident of the disciples' controversy with the bystanders by relating that the scribes were questioning with them. He notes the amazement which, for whatever reason, fell upon the people at Jesus' appearance, their running to salute him, and his inquiry, What question ye with them? (Mark 9:14, Mark 9:16). Mark gives us the bystanders' encouragement of Bartimeus when summoned by Jesus, and tells how he cast off his outer garment and leaped up (Mark 10:49, Mark 10:50). He alone relates the breaking of the alabaster by the woman (Mark 14:3), and Christ's taking the little child in his arms after he had set him in the midst (Mark 9:36).

In the account of the two demoniacs of Gadara, Matthew (8) relates that they were met coming out of the tombs, and that they were exceeding fierce, so that no one could pass that way. Mark mentions only one demoniac, but adds that he had his dwelling in the tombs (κατοίκησιν εἶχεν, stronger than Luke's abode, ἔμενεν); that the attempt had been made to fetter him, but that he had broken the fetters; and that he was day and night in the tombs and in the mountains, crying and cutting himself with stones (Mark 5:3-6). In the interview with the lawyer who desired to know what kind of a commandment was great in the law, Matthew (Matthew 22:34-40) ends the dialogue with Jesus' answer to this question. Mark gives the lawyer's reply and his enlargement upon Jesus' answer, the fact that Jesus observed that he answered discreetly, and his significant words, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.

It is interesting to compare the account of Herod's feast and John the Baptist's murder as given by Matthew and Mark respectively. Mark alone mentions the great banquet and the rank of the guests. He adds the little touches of Salome's entering in and delighting the guests. He throws Herod's promise and Salome's request into dialogue. Where Matthew says simply, He promised with an oath, to give her whatsoever she should ask, Mark gives it, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he sware unto her, whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of ray kingdom. The whole narrative is more dramatic than Matthew's. Matthew says that Salome was put forward by her mother. Mark pictures her going out, and details her conversation with Herodias, and her entering in again with haste, and demanding the horrible boon forthwith. Mark also enlarges upon Herod's regret: he was exceeding sorry; and where Matthew notes merely his compliance with the damsel's request, Mark lets us into his feeling of unwillingness to refuse her. Mark, too, emphasizes the promptness of the transaction. Salome demands the Baptist's head forthwith; Herod sends the executioner straightway. Mark alone mentions the executioner. While the dialogue is not peculiar to Mark, it is to be noted that it is characteristic of Peter's style, so far, at least, as can be inferred from the stories in the book of Acts, of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3-9), Cornelius Acts 10:1), and Peter's deliverance from prison (Acts 12:1).

Mark is peculiarly minute and specific as to details of persons, times, numbers, and places; a feature in which, also, he resembles Peter (compare Acts 2:15; Acts 6:3; Acts 4:22; Acts 5:7, Acts 5:23; Acts 12:4). Thus, of persons, "They entered into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John" (Mark 1:29): "Simon and they that were with him followed after him" (Mark 1:36): "In the days of Abiathar the high-priest" (Mark 2:26): "The Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians" (Mark 3:6): "The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phenician by nation" (Mark 7:26). Compare, also, Mark 11:11; Mark 13:3; Mark 15:21. Of places: "A multitude from Galilee and Judaea," etc. (Mark 3:7, Mark 3:8): The demoniac proclaimed his recovery in Decapolis (Mark 5:20): Jesus departed "from the border of Tyre and came through Sidon unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis" (Mark 7:31). Compare Mark 8:10; Mark 11:1; Mark 12:41; Mark 14:68. Of number: The paralytic was "borne of four" (Mark 2:3): The swine were about two thousand (Mark 5:13): The twelve were sent out two and two (Mark 6:7): The people sat down by hundreds and fifties (Mark 6:40): "Before the cock crow twice thou shalt deny me thrice" (Mark 14:30). Of time: Jesus rose up in the morning, a great while before day (Mark 1:35): "The same day, when the even was come" (Mark 4:35). Compare Mark 11:11; Mark 14:68; Mark 15:25.

But Mark does not confine himself to mere outward details. He abounds in strokes which bring out the feeling of his characters. He uses six different words expressive of fear, wonder, trouble, amazement, extreme astonishment. The compound ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι, greatly amazed, affrighted (Mark 9:15; Mark 16:5, Mark 16:6) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Thus the look and emotion of our Lord are portrayed: "He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their heart" (Mark 3:5): "He looked round about on them which sat round about him, and said, Behold my mother," etc. (Mark 3:34): "He looked round about" to see who had touched him in the crowd (Mark 5:32): "He marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark 6:6): He looked on the young ruler and loved him (Mark 10:21): He was moved with compassion toward the leper (Mark 1:41): He sighed deeply in his spirit (Mark 8:12).

Similarly Mark depicts the tender compassion of the Lord. A beautiful hint of his delicate and loving appreciation of an ordinary need closes the story of the healing of the ruler's daughter. In their joy and wonder at her miraculous restoration, the friends would naturally forget the immediate practical demand for food, of which the Lord promptly reminds them by his command that something should be given her to eat (Mark 5:43). Luke notes the same circumstance. In like manner his appreciation of his disciples' weariness appears in the words, "Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place and rest awhile" (Mark 6:31). He is moved with compassion toward the multitude because they are as sheep without a shepherd (Mark 6:34): he is touched with the need and fatigue of the many who had come from far (Mark 8:3): he shows his interest in the condition of the epileptic lad by inquiring into the history of his case (Mark 9:21): he is much displeased at the disciples' rebuke of those who are bringing the young children to him (Mark 10:14).

In like manner Mark describes the mental and emotional states of those who were brought into contact with Christ. Those who witnessed the miracle of the loaves understood not, and their heart was hardened (Mark 6:52): the disciples were perplexed, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean (Mark 9:10): they were amazed at his words about a rich man entering into the kingdom of heaven (Mark 10:24): a sudden and mysterious awe fell upon them in their journey to Jerusalem (Mark 10:32): Pilate marvelled at Jesus being already dead, and sent for the centurion in order to ask whether he had been any while dead (Mark 15:44). Compare Mark 1:29, Mark 1:27; Mark 5:20, Mark 5:42; Mark 6:20; Mark 7:37; Mark 11:18. He depicts the interest excited by the words and works of Christ; describing the crowds which flocked to him, and their spreading abroad the fame of his power (Mark 1:28, Mark 1:45; Mark 2:13; Mark 3:20, Mark 3:21; Mark 4:1; Mark 5:20, Mark 5:21, Mark 5:24; Mark 6:31; Mark 7:36).

We find in Mark certain peculiarly forcible expressions in our Lord's language, such as, "To them that are without" (Mark 4:11); "Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8); "This adulterous and sinful generation" (Mark 8:38); "Be set at nought" (Mark 9:12); "Quickly to speak evil of me" (Mark 9:39); "Shall receive brethren and sisters and mothers," etc., "with persecutions" (Mark 10:30).

His narrative runs. His style abounds in quick transitions. The word εὐθέως, straightway, occurs in his Gospel something like forty times. He imparts vividness to his narration by the use of the present tense instead of the historic (Mark 1:40, Mark 1:44; Mark 2:3, sq.; Mark 11:1, Mark 11:2, Mark 11:7; Mark 14:43, Mark 14:66). He often defines his meaning by coupling similar words or phrases. Beelzebub is called by two names (Mark 3:22), and by a third (Mark 3:30): The sick are brought at even, when the sun did set (Mark 1:32): The blasphemer hath no more forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin (Mark 3:29): He spake with many parables, and without a parable he spake not (Mark 4:33, Mark 4:34). Compare Mark 3:5, Mark 3:27; Mark 5:26; Mark 6:25; Mark 7:21. He employs over seventy words which are found nowhere else in the New Testament. We find him preserving the identical Aramaic words uttered by the Lord. In his Gospel alone occur Boanerges (Mark 3:17); Talitha cumi (Mark 5:41); Korban (Mark 7:11); Ephphatha (Mark 7:34): and Abba (Mark 14:36). Writing for Romans we find him transferring certain Latin words into Greek, such as legio, legion (Mark 5:9); centurio, κεντυρίων, centurion, which elsewhere is ἑκατόνταρχος - χης (Mark 15:39); quadrans, farthing (Mark 12:42); flagellare, to scourge (Mark 15:15); speculator, executioner (Mark 2:27); census, tribute (Mark 12:14); sextarius, pot (Mark 7:4); praetorium (Mark 15:16). Three of these, centurio, speculator, and sextarius are found in his Gospel only. He always adds a note of explanation to Jewish words and usages.

His style is abrupt, concise, and forcible; his diction less pure than that of Luke and John. Besides irregularities of construction which cannot be explained to the English reader, he employs many words which are expressly forbidden by the grammarians, and some of which are even condemned as slang. Such are ἐσχάτως ἔχει, is at the point of death (Mark 5:23); κράββατος, bed (Mark 2:4, Mark 2:9, Mark 2:11, Mark 2:12); μονόφθαλμος, with one eye (Mark 9:47); κολλυβισταί, money-changers (Mark 11:15); κοράσιον, maid (Mark 5:41); ὁ ρκίζω, I adjure (Mark 5:7); ῥάπισμα, a blow of the hand (Mark 14:65); ῥαφίδος, needle (Mark 10:25).

I have described the characteristics of Mark at some length, because they lie peculiarly in the line of the special purpose of this book, which deals with individual words and phrases, and with peculiarities of diction, rather than with the exegesis of passages. Of this Gospel it is especially true that its peculiar flavor and quality cannot be caught without careful verbal study. It is a gallery of word-pictures. Reading it, even in the familiar versions, we may discover that it is, as Canon Westcott remarks, "essentially a transcript from life;" but nothing short of an insight into the original and individual words will reveal to us that the transcript itself is alive.

List of Greek Words Used by Mark Only

ἀγρεύω catch Mark 12:13 ἅλς salt Mark 9:49 ἄλαλος dumb Mark 7:37; Mark 9:17, Mark 9:25 ἀλεκτροφωνία cockcrowing Mark 13:35 ἄμφοδον a place where two ways meet Mark 11:4 ἀμφιβάλλω cast Mark 1:16 ἄναλος saltless Mark 9:50 ἀναπηδάω leap up Mark 10:50 ἀναστενάζω sigh deeply Mark 8:12 ἀπἔχει it is enough Mark 14:41 ἀπόδημος abroad Mark 13:34 ἀποστεγάζω uncover Mark 2:4 ἀφρίζω foam Mark 9:18, Mark 9:20 Βοανεργές sons of thunder Mark 3:17 γαμίσκομαι to be given in marriage Mark 12:25 γναφεύς fuller Mark 9:3 δισχίλιοι two thousand Mark 5:13 δύσκολος hard Mark 10:24 εἰ if (in swearing) Mark 8:12 ἐκθαμβέω to be amazed Mark 9:15; Mark 14:33; Mark 16:5, Mark 16:6 ἐκθαυμάζω to marvel Mark 12:17 ἐκπερισσῶς exceeding vehemently Mark 14:31 ἐναγκαλίζομαι take in the-arms Mark 9:36; Mark 10:16 ἐνειλέω wrap Mark 15:46 ἔννυχον in the night Mark 1:35 ἐξάπινα suddenly Mark 9:8 ἐξουδενόω set at naught Mark 9:12 ἐπιβάλλω (neuter) beat Mark 4:37 ἐπιῤῥάπτω sew upon Mark 2:21 ἐπισυντρέχω come running together Mark 9:25 ἐσχάτως at the point of death Mark 4:23 ἤφιεν suffered (permitted) Mark 1:34; Mark 11:16 θανάσιμος deadly Mark 16:18 θαυμάζειν διὰ to wonder because of Mark 6:6 θυγάτριον little daughter Mark 5:23; Mark 7:25 τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν to content Mark 15:15 κατάβα come down Mark 15:30 καταβαρύνω weigh down Mark 14:40 καταδιώκω follow after Mark 1:36 κατακόπτω cut Mark 5:5 κατευλογέω bless Mark 10:16 κατοίκησις dwelling Mark 5:3 κεντυρίων centurion Mark 15:39, Mark 15:44, Mark 15:45 κεφαλαιόω to wound in the head Mark 12:4 κυλίομαι wallow Mark 9:20 κωμόπολις village-town Mark 1:38 μεθόρια borders Mark 7:24 μηκύνομαι grow Mark 4:27 μογιλάλος having an impediment in speech Mark 7:32 μυρίζω anoint Mark 14:8 νουνεχῶς discreetly Mark 12:34 ξέστης pot Mark 7:4 ὄμμα eye Mark 8:28 οὐά ah! ha! Mark 15:29 παιδιόθεν from a child Mark 9:21 παρόμοιος like Mark 7:8, Mark 7:13 περιτρέχω run round about Mark 6:55 πρασιά a garden-plat Mark 6:40 προαύλιον porch or forecourt Mark 14:68 προμεριμνάω take thought before-hand Mark 13:11 προσάββατον day before the Sabbath Mark 15:42 προσεγγίζω come nigh unto Mark 2:4 προσκεφάλαιον cushion Mark 4:38 προσορμίζομαι moor to the shore Mark 6:53 προσπορεύομαι come unto Mark 10:35 πυγμῇ with the fist Mark 7:3 σκώληξ worm Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 9:48 σπεκουλάτωρ executioner Mark 6:27 σμυρνίζω mingle with myrrh Mark 15:23 στασιαστής insurrectionist Mark 15:7 στίλβω to be glistering Mark 9:3 στίβας branch, or layer of leaves Mark 11:8 συμπόσιον a table-party Mark 6:39 συνλίβω to throng or crowd Mark 5:24, Mark 5:31 συλλυπέομαι to be grieved Mark 3:5 Συραφοινίκισσα a Syro-phoenician woman Mark 7:26 σύσσημον countersign, token Mark 14:44 τηλαυγῶς clearly Mark 8:25 τρίζω gnash Mark 9:18 ὑπερηφανία pride Mark 7:22 ὑπερπερισσῶς beyond measure Mark 7:37 ὑπολήνιον wine-fat or wine-press Mark 12:1 χαλκίον brazen vessel Mark 7:4

CHAPTER 1 .

THE BAPTIST. THE BAPTISM AND TEMPTATION OF JESUS. BEGINNINGS OF THE GALILEAN MINISTRY.