THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK
                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

        One of the clearest results of modern critical study of
the Gospels is the early date of Mark's Gospel. Precisely how
early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who
hold that A.D. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in
detail in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_. Zahn still argues that
the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to
Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark's
Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is
used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point
by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English.
Whether Mark made use of Q (_Logia of Jesus_) or not is not yet
shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two
oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q
preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke,
though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark's work has
remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all
except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all
grateful. Streeter (_The Four Gospels_) has emphasized the local
use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark
wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as
the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take
root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it
in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple
with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an
eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the
interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time,
according to Peter's own statement, either in Babylon or Rome
( 1Pe 5:13 ).

        This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest
of striking details that apparently came from Peter's discourses
which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds ( Mr 6:38 ),
two thousand hogs ( Mr 5:13 ), looking round about ( Mr 3:5,34 ).
Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases
than the others, like _Boanerges_ ( Mr 3:17 ), _Talitha cumi_
( Mr 5:41 ), _Korban_ ( Mr 7:11 ), _Ephphatha_ ( Mr 7:34 ),
_Abba_ ( Mr 14:36 ). The Greek is distinctly vernacular _Koin(825f)
like one-eyed (monophthalmon,  Mr 9:47 ) as one would expect
from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and
idioms like _centurio_ ( Mr 15:39 ), _quadrans_ ( Mr 12:42 ),
_flagellare_ ( Mr 15:15 ), _speculator_ ( Mr 6:27 ), _census_
( Mr 12:14 ), _sextarius_ ( Mr 7:4 ), _praetorium_ ( Mr 15:6 ),
than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises
the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in
Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic,
but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of
Peter's preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that
he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and
read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a
distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The
Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once
a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga.
Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second
mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then
he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work.
When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced
and commends him heartily to the Colossians ( Col 4:10 ) In the
end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along
with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for
ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul
would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws
credit upon both of them as is shown in my _Making Good in the
Ministry_. The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined
largely by the scope of Peter's preaching as we see it in  Ac
10:36-42 , covering the period in outline from John the Baptist
to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of
the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark's Gospel cannot
be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in
Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his
birth at all.

        The closing passage in the Textus Receptus,  Mr 16:9-20 ,
is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is
probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at
the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great
themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week
in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of
withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are
introductory as  Mr 16:9-20  is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark
pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a
maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ
appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in
Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my _The Christ of the
Logia_. The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and
away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the
Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a
different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of
God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles
and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read
first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for
our picture of Christ. In my _Harmony of the Gospels_ I have
placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John
all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and
supplemental material. Mark's Gospel throbs with life and
bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter's eyes and catch
almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men
in his work of healing men's bodies and saving men's souls.