In the light of the evidence given above, it may be assumed that Rome—not Antioch or Jerusalem—was the place of origin of the Gospel.
The tradition that Mark was the author may be also accepted. A tradition sufficiently in touch with facts to claim for the oldest of our Gospels (itself an anonymous work) the author ship not of an Apostle, but of a personage of the second rank—a companion of the Apostles, but a man not otherwise particularly prominent—is in all probability correct. On the Evangelist see the article MARK.
The date of writing is no doubt correctly indicated by Irenaeus —Mark wrote "after the deaths" of Peter and Paul; and the tradition is probably to be trusted which connects their martyr doms with the persecution of Roman Christians by Nero in A.D. 64-65 (Tacitus, Annals, NV. 44). The Gospel is addressed to a Martyr Church (see below). It was perhaps written about A.D.
B. W. Bacon, on the ground mainly of an argument based on a minute study of what he believes to be the historical per spective implied in chapter xiii. of the Gospel, would fix the date ten years later. On the other hand, a comparison of Mk. xiii.
with Lk. xxi. 20 may be held to suggest that Mk. (unlike Lk.) was writing before A.D. 7o—the year in which Jerusalem fell.
The Gospel is written in rough, colloquial, sometimes ungrammatical Greek, highly Semitic in colouring—the kind of Greek which might be the work of a bi lingual teacher whose native speech was Semitic, and who lacked literary culture. There are Aramaic idioms (parataxis, asynde ton) ; there is a characteristic Semitic monotony of style: there are actual Aramaic phrases and words, with accompanying Greek renderings (Mk. v. 41, vii. II, 34, xiv. 36, xv.
34). There are vulgarisms (ii., 4, 9, i i—krabbaton, "pallet-bed"; iii. 1o, v. 29, 34—mastix, "scourge," in the sense of "disease"; xv. 43—eusche mon, "of good social position," here probably in the sense of "rich"), and Latinisms both of vocabulary (v. 9, r 5—legio; vi. 27—speculator; vi. 37, xii. Is, xiv. 5—denarius; xii. 14—census; xii. 42—quadrans; xv. 15—flagellare; xv. 16—praetorium; xv. 39, 44, 45—centurio), and perhaps also of style (ii. 23, xiv. 65, xv. I, 15). The theory of actual translation from an Aramaic original, advocated by some scholars, is improbable. The phe nomena are best explained by the assumption that the author— a Jew writing at Rome for a Greek-speaking Church—was an imperfect Greek scholar, who habitually thought in Aramaic, and who wrote such rough, colloquial Greek as he was able to achieve.
On the "Synoptic Problem" see the article GOSPEL. That Mk. was known in substance to Mt. and Lk. is quite certain. The question has been raised whether they knew Mk. in its canonical form, or a supposed earlier edition ("Proto Mark," Urmarcus). Neither Mt. nor Lk. contains anything to correspond with Mk. iv. 26-29, Mk. viii. 22-26, or Mk. xiv. 51, 52, and there are a few other "common omissions" of less im portance; Lk., moreover, omits bodily the whole of Mk. vi.
viii. 27. The theory of an Urmarcus is nevertheless to be rejected. The sections omitted by Lk. are Marcan in style, and plausible reasons can be assigned for their omission; and the fact that the conclusion of the Gospel is missing (see below), and that a com parison of Mk. xvi. 7 sqq. with Lk. xxiv. 6 sqq. suggests that it was already missing in the copy of Mk. used by Lk., seems de cisive—a later editor who was prepared to add considerable sec tions in the middle of the book would surely have supplemented also the conclusion. Apart from a few possible interpolations and glosses (i. 2; ii. 19b; ii. 26—the words when Abiathar was high priest; viii. 35—the words and the gospel's; ix. 41—the words because ye are Christ's, and perhaps vii. 3-4—the note on Jewish ceremonial ablutions) it may be presumed that we possess the Gospel (unfinished) in the form given to it by its author.
That the Gospel, as it stands, is unfinished seems certain. The authentic text breaks off at Mk. xvi. 8. The verses which follow (Mk. xvi. 9-2o) are missing from certain of the mss. of Mk., and are clearly a summary compiled later, and based on the writ ings of Lk. An alternative and shorter conclusion, contained in some mss. either alone or in combination with Mk. xvi. 9-20, serves as additional evidence that the true conclusion was miss ing. It would clearly have contained an account of the appear ance of the risen Christ to St. Peter (Mk. xvi. 7; cf. i. Cor. xv. 5, Lk. xxiv. 34). The conclusion may have been accidentally lost, but it is more probable that it was never written—the Evangelist broke off, and was prevented from completing his task.