Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/729

 MARX 676 MARK

one of these ancient authorities Mark is n^arded as hired servants (i, 20), how they came into the house ^^

the writer of a Gospel, which is looked upon at the Simon and Andrew, with James and John (i, 29), how

same time as having Apostolic authority, because the blind man at Jericho wsa the son of Timeus(x, 46).

substantially at least it had come from St. Peter, how Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and

In the li^t of this traditional connexion of the Gospel Ruf us (xv. 21); (3) how there was no room even about

wit^ St. Feter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. the door ot the house where Jesus was (ii, 2), how Jesus

the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the N. T. the Sabbath, when the sun had set, the sick were

brought to be cured (i, 32), how in the morning, loDf before day, Christ rose up (i, 35), how He was cruoi-

only in Mark, iii, 17), and that this is written in the "memoirs'' of Peter (ivroit dwownifiAwtCfuiffiv airoO —

after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin fied at the third hour (xv, 25), how the women came to does not name Bfark as the writer of the memoirs, Uie the tomb very early^ when the sim had risen (xvi. 2); fact tibat his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, in- (5) how the paralytic was carried by four (ii, 3), now cludmg even the last twelve verses, in the composition the swine were about two thousand m niunber (v. 13). of the ** Diatessaron'', makes it practically certain that how Christ began to send forth the Apostles, two and St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like.the two (vi. 7). This mass of information which is want- other Fathers connected it with St. Peter. ' ing in the other Synoptics, and of which the above in-

If, then, a consistent and widespread early tradition stances are only a sample, proves beyond doubt that is to count for anything, St. Mark wrote a work based the writer of the Second Gospel must have drawn upon St. Peter's preaching. It is absurd to seek to from some independent source, and that this source destroy the force of this tiadition by suggesting that must have been an eyewitness. And when we reflect all the subsequent authorities relied upon Papias, who that incidents connected with Peter, such as the cure may have been deceived. Apart from the utter im- of his mother-in-law and his three denials, are tokl with probability that Papias, who had spoken with many special details in this Gospel; that the accounts of the disciples of the Apostles, could have been deceived on raising to life of the daugnter of JaTrus, of the Trans- such a question, the fact that Irensus seems to place figuration, and of the Agony in the Garden, three oo- the composition of Mark's work after Peter's death, casions on which only Peter and James and John were while Ongen and others represent the Apostle as ap- present, show special signs of first-hand knowledge proving of it (see below, v), shows that all do not j[cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xliv) such as might be expected draw from the same source. Moreover, Clement of in the work of a disciple of Peter (Matthew ana Luke Alexandria mentions as his source, not any sin^ au- may also have relied upon the Petrine tradition for thority, but "the elders from the beginning" (tQv their accounts of these events, but naturally Peter's d9f4Ka6€v Tpwpvrfpvp — Euseb., " Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv, in disciple would be more intimately acquainted with ibe P.G.,XX, 552). The only question, then, that can be tradition); finally, when we remember that, thou^ raised with any shadow of reason, is whether St. the Second Gospel records with special f ulln^ PetePs Mark's work was identical with our present Second three deniab, it alone among the Gospels omits all ref- Gospel, and on this there is no room for doubt. Early erenoe to the promise or bestowal upon him of the Christian Uterature knows no trace of an Urmarkua primacy (cf. Matt., xvi, 18-19; Luke, xxii, 32; J<^m, different from our present Gospel, and it is impossible xxi, 15--17), we are led to conclude that the e;^witne88 that a Work giving the Prince of the Apostles' account to whom St. Mark was indebted for his special infor- of Christ's words and deeds could have disappeared ut- mation was St. Peter himself, and that our present terly^ without leaving any trace behind. Nor can it Second Gospel, like Mark's work referred to by Papias, be said that the original Mark has been worked up into is based upon Peter's discourses. This internal evi- our pfesent Second Gospel, for then, St. Mark not be- dence, if it does not actuall^r prove the traditional ing the actual writer of the present work and its sub- view regarding the Petrine origin of the Second Goa- stance being due to St. Peter, there would have been pel, is altogether ccmsistent with it and tends strongly no reason to attribute it to Mark, and it would un- to confirm it.

doubtedly have been known in the Church, not by the III. Original Lanouaob, Vocabulabt, and Stsub.

title it bears, but as the ''Gospel according to Peter". — It has always been the common opinion that the

Internal evidence strongly confirms the view that Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no

our present Second Gospel is the work referred to by soUd reason to doubt the correctness of this view. We

Papias. That work, as has been seen, was based on learn from Juvenal (Sat.. Ill, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and

Peter's discourses. Now we learn from Acts (i, 21-22; Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very indely

X, 37;-41) that Peter's preaching dealt chiefly with the spoken at Rome in the first century. Various infiu-

Sublic life. Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of ences were at work to spread the language in the capi-

hrist. So our present Mark, confining itself to the tal of the Empire. ** Indeed, there was a double tend-

same limits, omitting all reference to Christ's birth and ency which embraced at once classes at both ends of

private life, such as is found in the opening chapters of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and

Matthew and Luke, and commencing with the preach- the trading classes there were swarms of Greeks and

ing of the Baptist, ends with Christ's Resurrection and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the

Ascension. Again (1) the graphic and vivid touches higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek; chil-

peculiar to our present Second Gospel, its minute notes dren were taught it by Greek nurses; and in after life

m regard to ^2) persons, (3) places, (4) times, and (5) the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation"

numbers, pomt to an eyewitness like Peter as the (Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", p. Ui). We know,

source ot the writer's information. Thus we are told too, that it was in Greek St. Paul wrote to the Ro-

(1) how Jesus took Peter's mother-in-law by the hand mans, and from Rome St. Clement wrote to Uie

and raised her up (i, 31), how with anger He looked Church of Corinth in the same language. It is true

round about on His critics (iii, 5), how He took little that some cursive Greek MSS. of the tenth century or

children into His arms and blessed them and Laid His later speak of the Second Gospel as written in Latin

hands upon them (ix, 35; x, 16), how those who car- (4yp^4>v 'Pwfu^urrt iv 'Pc&mt?), but scant and late

ried the paralytic unQovered the roof (ii, 3, 4), how dence like this, which is probably only a deduction

Christ commanded that the multitude should sit down from the fact that the Gospel was written at Rome,

upon the green grass, and how they sat down in com- can be allowed no weight. Equally improbable seems

^mies, in hundreds and in fifties (vi, 39-40); (2) how the view of Blass (Philol. of the Gosp., 196 sc|q.) that

Jsaegand John left their father in the boat with the the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic. Thft