It would be arbitrary, indeed, to suppose that another Mark had an existence in the earliest times of Christianity, without having any his torical testimony for such a supposition. There is no indication that there was any other Mark in the early times of Christianity besides the Mark mentioned in the Acts, who is also reported to have been the author of that gospel which bears his name.
(3) Place among the Gospels. We have mentioned in the article LUKE (which see) that, according to lrenmus, the Gospels of Mark and Luke were written later than that of Matthew ; and according to a tradition preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus, the Gospels of Mat thew and Luke preceded that of Mark. The chronological order of the gospels is, according to Origen, the same in which they follow each other in the codices. Irenmus (Adversus Hcereses,iii. 1) states that Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul ; but, according to Clem ens Alexandrinus (Hypotypos. vi.) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 14), he wrote at Rome while Peter was yet living. These various data leave us in uncertainty. If the opinions concerning the relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke, which have been current since the days of Griesbach, were correct, we might be able to form a true idea concerning the chronological succes sion in which the first three gospels were writ ten. Griesbach, Saunier, Strauss, and many oth ers state it as an unquestionable fact, that the Gospel of Mark was merely an abridgment of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. De Wette, even in the latest edition of his Einleitung, 1842, calls this opinion erwiesen 'demonstrated' (see pp. 13o and 157). The value of such demon strations may be learned from what appears to De Wette the most certain proof of the alleged fact, viz., that the statements of Mark concern ing. the temptanon of Christ are merely an abridgment of other sources. But we do not perceive why it should be impossible to furnish a condensed statement from oral communications. Weisse, Wolke, and Bauer, on the other hand, have, in recent times, asserted that the Gospel of Mark was the most ancient of all the gospels, that Luke amplified the Gospel of Mark, and that Matthew made additions to both. Weisse
and Wolke employ some very artificial expedients in order to explain how it happened that, if Luke and Matthew transcribed Mark, there should have arisen a considerable difference both in words and contents. Wolke especially accuses Luke and Matthew of intentional misrepresenta tions. In the article GOSPEL we have stated our opinion concerning the relative position in which the evangelists stand to each other. We do not see any reason to contradict the unanimous tra dition of antiquity concerning the dependence of Mark upon Peter. We deem it possible, and even probable, that Luke read 'Mark, and that he also alludes to him by reckoning him among the many who had written gospel history before him. This supposition, however, is by no means necessary or certain; and it is still possible that Mark wrote after Luke. Some of the ancient testimonies which we have quoted, namely, those of hermits, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and others, state that Mark's Gospel was written at Rome. Whether this was the case or nor, it is certain that it was written for Gentile Chris tians. This appears from the explanation of Jewish customs (ch. VII :2, II ; XII :I8 ; XIII :3 ; XiV:I2; xv :6, 42). The same view is confirmed by thc scarcity of quotations from the Old Testa ment, perhaps also by the absence of the geneal ogy of Christ, and by the omission of the Ser mon on the Mount, which explains the relation of Christ to the Old Testament dispensation, and which was, therefore, of the greatest importance to Matthew.
(4) Peculiarity of Mark. The characteristic peculiarity of Mark as an author is particularly manifest in two points: (I) He reports rather the works than the discourses of our Savior; (2) He gives details more minutely and graphic ally than Matthew and Luke; for instance, he describes the cures effected by Jesus more ex actly (iv :31, 41; VI:5, 13; vii :33 ; viii :23). He is also more particular in stating definite numbers (v:t3, 42; VI :7, 14, 30), and furnishes MOTC exact dates and times (i:32, 35 ; :1,26 ; iv :26,35 ; VI :2; xi:it, 19, 2o, etc.). It may be that these charac teristics of Mark originated from his connection with Peter.