Mark, Gospel According to – Maroth

Mark, Gospel According to

1. External testimony. — It is possible that the first reference to Mk. is the preface to Lk. (l’-<), which implies that the narratives spoken of were, in St. Luke’s opinion, incomplete and not in the best order. Mk. is certainly incomplete from the point of view of one who wished to begin ‘from the beginning.’ From internal evidence it is probable that St. Luke used Mk. (see§§3-5). Papias (quoted by Eusebius, HE iii. 39) gives the following account (c. a.d. 140 or earlier), as derived from ‘the Elder’ from whom he gleaned traditions:

‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter,wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,without,however recording in order what waa either said or done by Christ [cf. the Lukan preface]. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, aa I said, (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 oracles [orwords]. So then Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, nor to set down any false statement therein.’

Here Papias vindicates Mark from inaccuracy and from errors of omission as far as his knowledge went, but finds fault with his chronological order, which was due to his being dependent only on Peter’s oral teaching, He was Peter’s ‘interpreter’ — a phrase which may I mean that he translated Peter’s words into a foreign tongue during the Apostle’s lifetime, as a dragoman, or that, being Peter’s disciple, he made the Apostle’s teaching widely known through his written Gospel. — Justin Martyr (c. a.d. 150) says (Dial. 106) that Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter, and that this is written ‘in his Memoirs,’ and also that He changed the name of the sons of Zebedee to ‘Boanerges, which is Sons of Thunder.’ But the last words occur only in Mark 3:17, where also we read of Simon’s new name. It is reasonable(in spite of Harnack and Sanday’s opinion that Justin is here quoting the apocryphal Gospel of pseudo- Peter, which, as far as we know, did not contain these words — it is only a fragment) to suppose that Justin by Peter’s ‘Memoirs’ means our Second Gospel; he elsewhere spealis of ‘Memoirs’ — ‘the Memoirs composed by [the Apostles] which are called Gospels’ (Apol. i. 66, cf. also Dial. 103, where he uses the same name for the narratives written by followers of the Apostles). — Tatian included Mk. in his Diatessaron, or Harmony of the four Gospels. — (Irenaeus (Hcer. iii. 1. 1 and 10. 6) speaks of Mark as ‘Peter’s interpreter and disciple’ (cf. Papias), and says that he handed on to us in writing the things preached by Peter after the departure of Peter and Paul (note the indication of date). — Tertulhan calls Mark ‘Peter’s interpreter.’ — The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-200?) begins in the middle of a sentence which is generally believed to refer to Mk., and which may mean that the Evangelist was present at some of Peter’s discourses only, or perhaps that he heard some of our Lord’s discourses; but the latter interpretation is against the words that follow, which say of Luke: ‘Neither did he himself see the Lord in the flesh.’ The writer probably therefore had said that Mark had never seen our Lord. — Clement of Alexandria (c. a.d. 200) says that while Peter was preaching the Gospel at Rome (ct. Irenaeus above), Mark wrote down what he said at the request of the hearers, Peter neither forbidding it nor urging it. — Origen seems to bear this out, but in the Muratorian Fragment there is a similar story about John. — Of later writers only Augustine need be quoted. He calls Mark ‘Matthew’s follower and abbreviator.’ This saying, which is probably widely removed from the truth, has had great influence on ecclesiastical opinion, and to a great extent brought about the comparative neglect into wtiich the Second Gospel fell for many centuries. — There are probable allusions to Mk. in Polycarp (c. a.d. Ill) and pseudo-Clement of Rome (‘2 Clem, ad Cor.’) and Hermas, all early in the 2nd cent.; it was used by Heracleon, the Valentinians, and the authors of the Gospel of (pseudo-) Peter and the Clementine Homilies, and is found in all the old versions. We conclude that there is valid evidence that Mk. was in circulation before the middle of the 2nd century. By ecclesiastical writers Mark is connected almost uniformly with Peter, but (seeabove) thereis a difference of tradition as to whether he wrote before or after Peter’s death. Some make him go from Rome to Alexandria and take his Gospel there; but it is remarkable that the Alexandrian Fathers Clement and Origen do not mention this.

2. The Second Gospel and the ‘Petrine tradition.’ — Internal evidence to a considerable extent confirms, however indirectly, ‘the Patristic evidence (§ 1) that Mark wrote down the preaching of Peter. Mk. tells us the facts of which Peter was an eye-witness. The vividness of description (especially in Mk.) in the scenes common to the Synoptics where only Peter, John, and James were present, suggests that one of them was the authority on which the common source rests — such as the raising of Jairus’ daughter (5:37–43), the Transfiguration(9^-1’; the story in Mk. is told from the point of view of one of the three: cf. 9:14 ‘they saw’), and Gethsemane (lias-in). The authority could hardly be James, who was martyred early (Acts 12:2), or John, on whom another account depends (even if he were not the author of the Fourth Gospel, we might probably say this). Peter therefore remains, and he alone would be likely to remember the confused words which he spoke on awakening at the Transfiguration (9; cf. Luke 9:32 f.). Other passages suggesting a Petrine source are: Mark 1 11:21 13:3 (these are found only in Mk.); and the accounts of Peter’s denials (14) as Eusebius noticed, Mk. is silent on matters which reflect credit on Peter. These facts and the autoptio character of the Gospel (§ 4) lead us to the conclusion that we have in Mk. the " Petrine tradition’ in a far more exact form than in the other Synoptics.

3. Presentation of Christ’s Person and work. — The Second Gospel describes shortly the Baptist’s preaching and the baptism of our Lord, and then records at length the Galileean ministry. It is noteworthy that in tills account the proclamation of Jesus’ Messiahship in Galilee is very gradual (see art. Gospels, § 3). Even in the discourses to the Apostles there is great reserve. After the Transfiguration, the future glory and the Passion of our Lord are unfolded (8:31, 38 9:12, 31 etc.), but it is only after the short account (ch. 10) of the journeys in Judaea and Peraea, and on the final approach to Jerusalem, that this reserve passes away. In describing our Lord’s Person, the Evangelist lays great emphasis on His Divinity, but still more on His true humanity, (a) For the former we note how in Mk. Jesus claims superhuman authority, especially to forgive sins (2™- gfi i2»fl- 14:62) He is described as a Supernatural Person (!"• 3:11 5:7 9:7 15:39) He knows the thoughts of man (2:8 8:17 12:15), and what is to happen in the future {2^" 8 9:31 10:39 13:2, 10 14:27) His death has an atoning efficacy (10:45 14:24). (6) For the latter we note not only (as with the other Evangelists) the references to Jesus’ human body — weariness and sleep (4:38). eating and drinking (14:3 15:36), etc. — but especially the description of His human soul and spirit (2:8 14:34, 36), His human compassion (1:41) and love (10:21), and the more painful emotions which Mk. has in a pre-eminent degree, while in the parallels in Mt. and Lk. the phrases are almost uniformly altered or omitted. Instances are RVm (the word denotes sternness, not necessarily anger but deep feeling), 3:5 6:6 10:14) note especially 14:33 f. where St. Mark alone speaks of the surprise, added to the distraction from grief, of Jesus’ human soul in the Agony. St. Mark also refers to the sinless limitations of Jesus’ human nature. Questions are asked, apparently for information (5:30 8:5 9:16). St. Mark relates the one perfectly certain instance of Jesus’ human ignorance, as to the Day of Judgment (13:32, go II Mt.). It is because so much stress is laid in Mk. on the true humanity of our Lord that Augustine assigns to the Second Evangelist the symbol of the man; by other Fathers the other Evangelic symbols are assigned to him. The Second Gospel represents an early stage of the Gospel narrative; it shows an almost childlike boldness in speaking of our Lord, without regard to possible misconceptions. An example of this is seen in passages where Mark tells us that Jesus ‘could not’ do a thing (1:45 6:5 7:24). The inability is doubtless relative and conditional. Jesus ‘could not’ do that which was inconsistent with His plan of salvation. Yet here the other Synoptists, feeling that the phrase might be misunderstood as taking from the Master’s glory, have altered or omitted it.

4. Autopic character. — Whereas Mk. was for centuries depreciated as telling us little that is not found in the other Gospels, we have now learned to see in it a priceless presentation of the story of our Lord’s life, inasmuch as no historical narrative in the Bible, except Jn., gives such clear signs of first-hand knowledge. Many of the instances lose much point in a translation, but even in English the fact is noticeable. An eye-witness is betrayed in such little details as the heavens ‘in the act of opening’ (l"i — the present participle is used),- the incoherent remarks of the crowd at the healing of the Capernaum demoniac (1:27 RV — they are softened down by later scribes of Mk. and in Lk.), the breaking up of the mud roof in 2:4 (see art. Luke [Gospel acc. to], § 6), the single pillow, probably a wooden head-rest, in the boat (4:38 RV), the five thousand arranged on the green grass ‘like garden beds’ (6:40: this is the literal translation; the coloured dresses on the ‘green grass’ — another autoptic touch — had to the eye-witness the appearance of flowers), the taking of the children by Jesus into His arms O’" 10:16), and His fervent blessing (10:16: this is the force of the Greek), the searching glance of love cast by Jesus on the rich young man, and the clouding over of the young man’s brow (lO^"- RV). All these details, and many others, are found in Mk. only; many of the signs of an eye-witness throughout the Gospel are removed by the alterations introduced in Mt. and Lk. For the vividness of the scenes at the Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, and the Agony, see § 2. Notice also the evidence of exceptional knowledge of facts in 1 (Andrew and Peter living together, though the latter was married; Andrew omitted in Mt. Lk.), and in the mention of some names not found elsewhere (2:14 10:46 15:21). We have then an eye-witness here; in this case we need not look for him in the writer, but the facts show that the latter was in the closest touch with one who had seen what is described.

5. Comparison with the other Synoptics. — The facts which follow appear to prove that Mk., either in the form in which we have it, or at least in a form very closely resembling our present Gospel, was before the other Synoptists when they wrote, (a) Scope. — Except about 30 verses, all the narrative of Mk. is found in either Mt . or Lk. or in both, and (especially as regards Lk.) in nearly the same order; though the other Synoptists interpolate matter from other sources. (6) Parallel passages. — If we compare these, we see that though Mk. is as a whole shorter than Mt. and Lk., yet in the parallels it is longer. St. Mark’s style is diffuse, and it was necessary for the other Synoptists, in order to make room for the matter which they were to introduce from other sources, to prune Mk. considerably, (c) Correction of Markan details in Mt. and Lk. — -As we have seen, Mark describes our Lord’s painful emotions; these passages are softened down in Mt. and Lk. Sometimes a slip of the pen is corrected; e.g. Mark 1:2 f. RV quotes as from Isaiah a passage which is a cento of Mai 3:1. Isaiah 40:3, but the others silently avoid this by omitting the Malachl passage here, though they give it elsewhere (Matthew 11:10. Luke 7:27) the words in Mk RV, ‘when Abiathar was high priest,’ are omitted in Mt. and Lk., for Abiathar was not yet high priest at the time in question. The alteration of ‘abomination of desolation’ (Mark 13:14. so Matthew 24:15) into ‘Jerusalem compassed with armies’ (Luke 21:20) is clearly an explanation of a writer later than Mk.; and so the change from ‘Son of God’ (Mark 15:39, so Matthew 27:54) to ‘a righteous man’ (Luke 23:47). In some cases, by the turn of a phrase the accuracy of Mk. in minute points is lost by the other Synoptists. Thus cf. Mk. 4; our Lord was already in the boat (4:1) in Mt. Lk. He is described by an oversight aa embarking here. In Mark 10:1 Jesus comes ‘into the borders of Judsea and beyond Jordan’; the parallel Matthew 19:1 omits ‘and,’ but doubtless Mk. is right here, and Jesus went both into JudEea and into Perffia. But the most striking corrections of Mk. in Mt. Lk. are found in the phraseology. The Markan style is rough and unpolished, reflecting the Greek commonly spoken by the Jews of the 1st cent.; many diminutives and colloquialisms are found, but are usually corrected in Mt. or in Lk. or in both. In Mk. there are many awkward and difficult phrases — sometimes smoothed over in a translation like ours, and usually corrected in Mt. or Lk. or both: e.g. 3:16 4:11, 24 (see Lk. 8:18) 4 (the ‘yet’ of RV is ‘and’ in Gr.) 7:11 f. (grammatical but harsh) 9 13:19 4 (note RV in these cases). These facts are most significant, and appear to be conclusive as to the priority of Mk. For no writer having before him a smooth text would gratuitously introduce harsh or difficult phraseology, whereas the converse change is natural and common.

There are also some changes made for greater precision, especially in Lk.; thus in Mk. {e.g. 1:1)) and Mt. we read of the ‘Sea’ of Galilee, but St. Luke with his superior nautical knowledge calls it a ‘lake ‘; Herod Antipas in Mark 6:14 is called’ king,’ but in Mt. Lk. more commonly ‘tetrarch’ (but ‘king’ is retained in Matthew 14:9) ; in Mark 15:32 (so Mt.) we read that ‘they that were crucified with him reproached him,’ but St. Luke, who had independent knowledge of this incident (for only he relates the penitence of the roober), emphatically corrects this to ‘one of the malefactors’ (Luke 23). — In two or three cases it is possible that the priority lies the other way. Thus in Mark 6:3 ‘the carpenter’ = Matthew 13:55 ‘the son of the carpenter’ = 4:22 Joseph,’ the correction may be in Mt.Lk,, the giving of the name ‘the carpenter’ to Jesus not being liked; or it may be in Mk., the phrase ‘son of Joseph’ being altered as capable of misconception by those who had not the Birth story before them. But as the phrases in Mt. and Lk. are not the same, the priority probably lies with Mk. Also the Second Evangelist alone relates the two cockcrowings (14), though the state of the text suggests that perhaps originally only one was mentioned in Mk., but in a different place from that of Mt. Lk. It is hard to see why a later writershould have omitted one cock-crowing and it is suggested that therefore our Mk. is later than Mt. Lk. in this respect. It is, however, equally hard to see why St. Mark, if he wrote after the others, should have added a^ cock-crowing. If in two or three such cases the priority be decided to lie with Mt. and Lk., the meaning would be that our Mk. had received some editorial additions (see § 9) . But this does not seem to be very likely.

The general conclusion is that Mk. as we have it now, or at least a Gospel which differs from our Mk. only in unessential particulars, lay before the First and Third Evangelists when they wrote.

The matter peculiar to Mk. is small: — the parable of the seed growing silently (i^"-), the healing of the deaf stammerer (7), of the blind man at Bethsaida (8:22 f.), the questions about the dulness of the disciples when they forgot to take bread (8:17 f.), about the dispute of the disciples (9:33), the incidents of the young man with the linen cloth (14). of the smiting of Jesus by the servants of the high priest (14), of Pilate’s wonder, and of his question put to the centurion (15).

6. Authorship, piupose, date, and place of writing.— There is no reason to dispute the Patristic statements (§ 1) that John Mark was the author of the Second Gospel. Clement of Alexandria states that he wrote in Rome; Chrysostom (two centuries later) that he wrote in Egypt. The former statement, both as being earlier and as agreeing with the negative testimony of the Alexandrian Fathers, is more probable, though some moderns have supposed a double publication, one in Rome and one in Alexandria. In either case it is probable that, as in the case of the Third Gospel, Gentiles are specially addressed, though St. Mark as a Jew writes (unlike St. Luke) from a Jewish point of view. There is a general absence of OT quotations except when our Lord’s words are cited (!"■ is an exception; 15:28 must almost certainly be expunged, with RV, from the text). The Aramaic transliterations lilce Talitha cum(.i) are interpreted, and Jewish customs and geography are explained [7:2 ff. 12:42 (the ‘mite’ was a Jewish coin) 13:3 IS’^]. The absence o( mention of the Jewish Law points in the same direction.

The date is probably before the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (For the argument from the Discourse on the End, see art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to], § 5, and note especially Mark 13 which point to the fulfilment of the prophecy being, at the time of writing, only in prospect.) The reference to the shewbread (2:26. ‘it is not lawful’) suggests that the Temple still stood when Mark wrote. The characteristics already mentioned, the description of Jesus’ inner feelings, the style and details of the Gospel, give the same indications. If the early date of Acts be adopted (see art. Acts op the Apostles, § 9), Lk. and therefore Mk. must be earlier still. The external testimony, however, raises some difficulty when we consider the date of 1 Peter. For Papias by implication and IrenEus explicitly say that Mark wrote after Peter’s death, while Clement of Alexandria and Origen say that he wrote in Peter’s lifetime (see § 1). If the former statement be correct, and if 1 Peter be authentic, the Epistle must have preceded Mk. ; but it is not easy to assign a very early date to it (e.g. 1 Peter 4:16 ‘suffer as a Christian’; though Dr. Bigg disputes this inference and thinks that 1 Peter was written before the Neronlc persecution in a.d. 64). There is no need to dispute the authenticity of 1 Peter because of supposed references to late persecutions, for there is no good reason for saying that St. Peter died in the same year as St. Paul, and it is quite possible that he survived him for some considerable time, during which Mark acted as his ‘interpreter.’ If, then, we are led by internal evidence so strongly to prefer an early date for Mk., we must either choose an early date for 1 Peter, or else prefer the Alexandrian tradition that Mark wrote in Peter’s lifetime [Dr. Swete gives c. 69 for Mk., Dean Robinson c. 65].

7. Was Mk. written in Greek or Aramaic? — The Second Gospel is more strongly tinged with Aramaisms than any other. It retains several Aramaic words ti^nsliterated into Greek: — Boanerges 3:17. Talitha cum(i) 5. Cm-ban 7. Ephphatha 7) (these Mk. only) , ^66a 14) (so Romans 8:15. Galatians 4:6). , Babbi 9 ll^i 14. Hosanna 11 (these two also in Mt. and Jn.), Babboni lO^i (Jn. also), Eloi Elm lamasabachthani 15 (er as II Mt. Eli); and several Aramaic proper names are noticeable: Bartimceus 147 (a patronymic), Canancean 3:18. Iscariot 3:19. Beelzebub 3:22. Golgotha 15. Aramaisms are also found freely in the grammar of Mk. and in several phrases. From these facts it is argued (Blass, Allen) that Aramaic was the original language. Dr. Blass also suggests that St. Luke in Ac 1-12 used an Aramaic source, while the rest of that book was his own independent work. In these twelve chapters, unlike the rest, Aramaisms abound, and the style is rough. The argument is that Mark, the son of a prominent lady in Jerusalem, wrote the Aramaic source of Ac 1-12, and that if so his former work (our Second Gospel) would be in Aramaic also. This argument will probably be thought to be too unsubstantial for acceptance. There is no reason for saying that Mark wrote the supposed Aramaic source of Ac 1-12, and even if he did, he might, being confessedly bilingual, have written his Gospel equally well in Greek as in Aramaic. The Aramaic tinge is probably best explained by the fact that Mark thought in Aramaic. If our Greek were a translation, the Aramaic phrases like Talitha cumii) might have been bodily incorporated by transhteration, or else translated: but they never would have been transliterated and then interpreted, as is actually the case. The Fathers, from Papias downwards, had clearly never heard of an Aramaic original. The most fatal objection to the theory, however, is the freshness of the style of the Gospel. Even the best translation loses freshness. The Greek of Mk. reads as if it were original; and we may safely say that this is really the language in which the Evangelist wrote.

8. The last twelve verses. — The MSS and versions have three different ways of ending the Gospel. The vast majority have the ending of our ordinary Bibles, which is explicitly quoted by Irenjeus as a genuine work of St. Mark, is probably quoted by Justin Martyr, possibly earlier still by ‘Barnabas’ and Hermas, but in the last three cases we are not certain that the writer knew it as part of the Gospel. The two oldest Greek MSS (the Vatican and the Sinaitic), the old Syriac version (Sinaitic), and the oldest MSS of the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, end at 16, as Eusebius tells us that the most accurate copies of his day did. An intermediate ending is found In some Greek MSS (the earliest of the 7th cent.), in addition to the ordinary ending; and in a MS of the Old Latin (pre-Hieronymian) version, standing alone. It is as follows: — ‘And they immediately(or briefly) made known all things that had been commanded (them) to those about Peter. And after this Jesus himself [appeared to them and] sent out by means of them from the East even to the "West the holy and incorruptible preaching of the eternal salvation.’ This intermediate ending is certainly not genuine; it was written as a conclusion to the Gospel by some one who had the ordinary ending before him and objected to it as unauthentic, or who had a MS before him ending at 16 and thought this abrupt. It appears that the copy from which most of these MSS with the intermediate ending were made, ended at 16.

Now it is confessed that the style of the last twelve veraes is not that of the Gospel. There are, then, two possible explanations. One is tlmt Mark, writing at a comparatively late date, took the ‘Petrine tradition,’ a written work, as his basis, incorporated it almost intact into his own work, and added the veises l^-i’ 16: and a few editorial touches such as 3:5, 6. which are not found in the other Synoptics, and which resemble phrases in the last twelve verses (16). This was Dr. Salmon’s solution. There are various objections to it; two seem fatal — (1) that ecclesiastical writers never represent Peter as writing a Gospel either by himself or by any scribe or interpreter except Mack, and yet this theory supposes that the Petrine tradition’ was "not first written down by Mark; and (2) that the last twelve veraes seem not to have been written as an end to the Gospel at all, being apparently a fragment of some other work, probably a summary of the Gospel story. For the beginning of 16 is not continuous with 16; the subject of the verb ‘appeared’ had evidently been indicated in the sentence wmch had preceded: yet the necessary ‘Jesus’ cannot be understood from anything in v. 8. Further, Mary Magdalene is introduced in V.’ as a new person, although she had just been mentioned by name in Id*^- *7 16. and was one of the women spoken of throughout w. 1-‘. — On the other hand, it is inconceivable that 16 with its abrui>t and inauspicious’ they were afraid’ could be the conclxision of a Gospel. — that the book should deliberately end without any incident of the risen life of our Lord, and with a note of terror. The other possible explanation, therefore, is that some verses have been lost. Probably the last leaf of the original, or at least of the copy from which all the MSS existing in the 2nd cent, were taken, has disappeared. This is conceivable, the last leaf of a MS being that which is most likely to drop; and the difficulty that the original MS of Mk. must have been copied before it got so old that the last leaf fell may perhaps be satisfactorily met by supposing that (as we know was the case later) the Second Gospel was not highly prized in its youth, as not giving us much additional information, and as being almost entirely .contained in Mt. and Lk. On thelother hand, the last twelve veraes are extremely ancient. Most scholara look on them as belonging to the firat few yeara of the 2nd cent., and Aristion has been suggested as the writer, on the strength of a late Armenian MS. But it is quite possible that they are part of an even earlier summary of the Gospel story; and, like the passage about the woman taken in adultery (John 7), tney are to be reverenced as a very ancient and authoritative record.

9. Have we the original Mark? — This has been denied from two different and incompatible points of view, (a) Papias speaks of Mk. being ‘not in order’ and of Matthew writing the ‘oracles’ or ‘logia’ (see § 1 above, and art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to]). It is objected that our Second Gospel is an orderly narrative, and cannot be that mentioned by Papias. Renan maintained that Mark wrote a disconnected series of anecdotes about Christ, and Matthew a collection of discourses, and that our present First and Second Gospels took their present form by a process of assimilation, the former assimilating the anecdotes and adding them to the discourses, the latter adopting the reverse process. This rests on the unproved assumption that Matthew’s original work consisted of Jesus’ sayings mily, which is very improbable. But as a matter of fact there is no time for the process imagined by Renan to have taken place, and the result, moreover, would have been a large number of variant Gospels— a given passage appearing in some MSS in one Gospel, in others in another, as is the case with the story of the woman taken in adultery. [For a more probable interpretation of Papias’ words, see § 1.] — (6) It is sometimes argued that our present Mk. is an ‘edited’ form of the original Mk., being very like it, but differing from it by the insertion of some editorial touches and additions. [For Salmon’s form of this theory, see above, § 8; but the theory is held by many (.e.g. SChmiedel) who reject the last twelve verses as Markan.]

The only argument of real importance urged by those who hold this theory is that Mt. and Lk. occasionally agree together against Mk. To take one example only, Mark 1 has ‘with the Holy Ghost’ where Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:16 have ‘with the Holy Ghost and fire.’ IfMt. and Lk. are later than Mk., — unless the First Evangelist knew the Third Gosjjel or the Third Evangelist the First, both of which suppositions are confessedly improbable, — we cannot, it is saicf, explain their agreements against Mk. Therefore we must suppose, it is urged, that these phrases where they agree were in the original Mk., but have been altered in our Mk. This idea in itself is grossly improbable, f or i t means in some cases that a later editor (our M^rk) altered a smooth construction into a hard or a difficult one not found in Mt. or Lk. (see 5 5 (c)), which is hardly to be conceived. But this difficulty rests on the unproved assxmiption noticed just now, that the ‘non- Markan document’ contained discourses only. If, as is almost certain, it contained narrative also, and if this narrative (as it is only reasonable to suppose) sometimes overlapped the ‘Petrine tradition,’ the result is exactly what we should expect. Mt. and Lk. sometimes follow Mk. rather than the non-Markan source: sometimes one follows the one and the other the otherj and sometimes both follow the non-Markan source. This fully accounts for their agreements against Mk.

It is indeed possible, as many think, that a very few phrases in our Mk. are later editorial additions; but even this hypothesis is unnecessary, and it seems on the whole most probable that our Mk. is the original Mk., and that it was used by the.First and Third Evangelists.

A. J. Maclean.

Market, Marketplace

The former is found in OT in Ezekiel 27:13, 17 etc. as the rendering of a collective noun signifying ‘articles of exchange,’ hence RV throughout’ merchandise,’ this last in v. being AV rendering of another word for which RV gives ‘mart.’ In NT ‘market’ has disappeared from RV in favour of the uniform ‘marketplace’ (Gr. agora). Here we must distinguish between the ‘markets’ of Jerusalem (Mt 11:16, Mark 7:4 etc.), which were simply streets of shops — the ‘bazaars’ of a modern Eastern city, — and the ‘market’ (AV) or ‘marketplace’ (RV) of a Greek city (Acts 16:19 17:17). The latter was the centre of the pubhc lite of the city, and was a large open space adorned with colonnades and statues, and surrounded by temples and other public buildings. A. R. S. Kennedy.

Marks

1. The mark of circumcision. — This is an instance (among many) of the taking-over of a pre-existing rite, and adapting it to Jahweh- worship; whatever it may have meant in its origin — and opinions differ very widely on this point — it became among the Israelites the mark par excellence of a Jahwehworshlpper (ct. Gn. 17"), the symbol of the covenant between Him and His people (see, further. Circumcision).

2. The markof Cain (Gn4is). — In seeking to discover the character of this sign or mark, the first question that obviously suggests itself is, why should there be any protective efficacy in such a sign? On the assumption of its being a tribal mark (so Robertson Smith, Gunkel, and others), men would know that any injury done to its bearer would be avenged by the other members of the tribe (see art. Cain). But this answer is unsatisfactory, because, if it was a tribal mark, it would be common to all the members of the tribe, whereas this one is spoken of as being specifically for Cain’s benefit, and as having been given to protect him qua manslayer; a tribal mark would have been on bim before the murder of Abel. But then again, any mark designed to protect him on account of his being a murderer, would, as proclaiming bis guilt, rather have the opposite effect. Another point to bear in mind is that from the writer’s point of view (if the narrative is a unity) there really was nobody to hurt Cain except his parents. It is clear, therefore, that the contradictory elements in the narrative show that it has no basis in fact; it is more reasonable to regard it as one of the ‘aetiological’ stories with which the Book of Genesis abounds, i.e. it purports to give the cause of some custom the real reason for which had long been forgotten. One can, of course, only conjecture what custom it was of which this story gave the supposed origin; but, taking all its elements into consideration, it was very probably the answer to the inquiry: ‘Why do man-slayers within the tribe bear a special mark, even after the blood-wit has been furnished?’ The reason given was quite wrong, but it accounted satisfactorily for a custom of which the origin had been forgotten, and that was sufficient.

3. The mark of the prophet. — In 1 Kings 20:35–43 there is the account of how one of the prophets ‘disguised himself with a headband over his eyes’; the king does not recognize the man as a prophet until the latter takes away this covering from his face, whereupon the king ‘discovered him as one of the prophets.’ Clearly there must have been some distinguishing mark on the forehead of the man whereby he was recognized as belonging to the prophetic order. This conclusion is strengthened by several other considerations. (1) It is a fact that among other races the class of men corresponding to the prophetic order of the Israelites are distinguished by incisions made on their persons. (2) There is the analogy of circumcision; just as among the Israelites this was the distinguishing mark of the people of Jahweh, so those who, like the prophets, were more especially His close followers also had a special mark, a distinctive sign, which differentiated them from other men. (3) The custom of putting a mark upon cattle to denote ownership, and for the purpose of differentiatingfrom other herds, was evidently well known in early Israel. When one remembers how rife anthropomorphisms were among the Israelites, it is perhaps not fanciful to see here an analogy: just as the owners of herds marked their own property, so Jahweh marked His own people; and as the prophets were differentiated from the ordinary people, so they would have their special mark. (4) There is the passage Zee 13:4–6. These considerations point distinctly to marks of some kind or other which, either on the forehead or on the hand — possibly on both — were distinctive characteristics of a prophet among the Israelites.

4. Cuttings for the dead. — The custom of making cuttings in the flesh and other marks upon the body for the dead (Leviticus 19:28; cf. 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1) was practised by the Israelites, but forbidden on account of its being a heathen rite. This was not a sign of mourning, as is often, but erroneously, supposed; it was an act of homage done to the departed, with the object of inducing the spirit not to molest those left behind. In Deuteronomy 14:1 the prohibition runs, ‘Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness (the cognate Arabic root means’ wound’) between your eyes for the dead.’ This was done in order the more easily to be seen by the spirit.

5. Marks connected with Jahweh-worship.— There can be little doubt that originally the signs on the hand and the memorial between the eyes (Exodus 13:9, 16) were marks cut into hand and forehead; this custom was taken over by the Israelites from non-Jahweh-worshipping ancestors, and was regarded as effectual against demoniacal onslaughts; hence in later days the use and name of ‘phylacteries,’ which took the place of the actual cuttings In hand and forehead (Deuteronomy 6:8 ll" etc.). Reference to an early custom is perhaps (but cf. EV) contained in the words : ‘Lo, here is my mark, let the Almighty answer me’ ; the word used for ‘mark’ comes from a root meaning ‘to wound,’ and it is the same as that used in Ezekiel 9:4, 6; the reference is to those who are true to God.

W. O. E. Oestehley.

6. ‘Stigmata.’— The rendering of St. Paul’s strongly figurative words in Galatians 6:17 adopted by RV reads thus: ‘From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear branded on my body the marks {siigmaia) of Jesus.’ This rendering accords with the interpretation of this difficult passage adopted by most recent scholars. The Apostle warns his Galatian converts against further attempts to ‘trouble’ him, for he is under the special protection of Jesus, whose marks ‘he bears in the scars and other evidence of the scourgings and other ills he has borne for His sake (see 2 Corinthians 11:23 ff.). St. Paul here emphasizes his consecration of himself to his Lord by using a figure, familiar to his readers, taken from the practice of branding a slave with the name or symbol of the deity to whose service he was devoted. Thus Herodotus (ii. 1 13) tells of a temple of Heracles,’ in which if any man’s slave take refuge and have the sacred marks isHgmata as here) set upon him, giving himself over to the god, it is not lawful to lay hands upon him.’ A still more apposite illustration is afforded by the branding of certain Jews of Alexandria with an ivy leaf — the symbol of Dionysus — by Ptolemy Philopator (3 Maccabees 2:29). A. R. S. Kennedy.

Marmoth

Marmoth (1 Esdras 8:62) Ezra 8:33.

Maroth

An unknown town (Micah 1:12 only). There is a play upon the name, which means ‘bitternesses.’