KEXE6W, ,heptµPdW, Aarccipcos, 6s6E/Xcu, KCIXICO, only three times, to Math twenty-six, Luke forty-two ; 7rep.xcu, only once ; Xpurrós, seven, Matt. sixteen, Luke thirteen. Publicans are only mentioned twice, Samaria and its inhabitants not once.
6. IVhom written for. -A dispassionate review of the gospel confirms the traditional statement that it was intended primarily for Gentiles, and among these the use of Latinisms, and the concise abrupt character `suitable for the vigorous intelligence of a Roman audience' (\Vestcott, p. seem to point out those for whom it was specially meant. In consistency with this view, words which would not be understood by Gentile readers are interpreted, Boanerges (iii. 17) ; Talitha cumi (v. 40); Corban (vii. II) ; Bartimzeus (x. 46) ; Abba (xiv. 36) ; Eloi lama sabachthani (xv. 34) ; two mites make a far thing' (xii. 42) ; Gehenna is 'unquenchable fire' (ix. 43) ; Jewish usages, and other matters with which none but Jews could be expected to be familiar, are explained, e.g., the washing before meals (vii. 3, 4) ; in the days of unleavened bread the Passover was killed (xiv. 12) ; at the Passover the season of figs was not come (xi. 13) ; the preparation is the day before the Sabbath' (xv. 42) ; the Mount of Olives is over against the Temple' (xiii. 3). All reference to the law of Moses is omitted, and even the word vkcos does not occur ; the Sabbath was appointed for the good of man (ii. 27); and in the quotation from Isaiah (lvi. 7) he adds of all nations.' In conclusion, the absence of all quota tions from the 0. T. made on his own authority, with the exception of those in the opening verses from Mal. iii. Is. xl. 3 (xv. 28 being rejected as interpolated), points the same way. The only citations he introduces are those made by our Lord, or by those addressing Him.
7. Citations from Scrifiture. -The following are the only direct citations : Mal. iii. I - - i. 2. (b) Is. lvi. 7 - ' Is. xl. 3 - - - i. 3. Jer. vii. 11 - xi Is. vi. 9, I I - iv. 12. Ps. cxviii. 22,23 xii. 10, I I.
Is. xxix. 13 - vii. 6. Deut. xxv. 5 - 19.
Ex. xx. 12 - - Ex. iii. 6 - - 26.
xxi. 17 Ir ro. Deut. vi. 4 - 29,30.
(a) Is. lxvi. 24 - i x. 44, 46, Lev. xix. 18 - 31.
48. Ps. cx. I - - 36.
Gen. i. 27 - x. 6. Dan. ix. 27 Gen. ii. 24 - - 7, 8. mu. 14.
Ex. xx. 12-15 - 19. Zech. xiii. 7 - xiv. 27.
Ps. cxviii. 25, 26 xi. 9. Is. liii. 12 (?) xv. 28.
Ps. xxii. I - 34.
Of these (a) is the only one peculiar to St. Mark. In (6) we have the addition of a few words to the Synoptical quotation. We have also references to the 0. T. in the following passages : Lev. xiv. 2 - - - i. 44. Is. xiii. to - - - xiii. 24.
I Sam. xxi. 6 - - ii. 25. Dan. vii. - xiv. 62. Dent. xxiv. I - - x. 4.
8. Time and Place of Compsition. -On these points the gospel itself affords no information, ex cept that we may certainly affirm, against Baur, Hilgenfeld, Weisse, etc., that it was composed before the fall of Jerusalem, since otherwise so re markable a fulfilment of our Lord's predictions could not but have been noticed. Ecclesiastical tra dition is, as usual, vacillatory and untrustworthy. Clement, as quoted by Eusebius, u.s., places the composition of the gospel in the lifetime of Peter, while lrenmus, with much greater probability, asserts that it was not written till after the decease (6 not departure from Rome,' Mill, Grabe, Ebrard) of Peter and Paul. Later authorities are, as ever, much more definite. Theophylact and Euthym. Zigab., with the Chron. Pasch. Gregor, Syncell., and Hesychius, place it ten years after the Ascension, i.e., A. D. 4o; Eusebins, in his Chro.. nicon, A. D. 43, when Peter, Paul, and Philo were together in Rome. We may probably correctly date it between Peter's martyrdom, circa A. D. 63, and the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70.
As to the place, the uniform testimony of early writers (Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc.) is, that the gospel was written and published in Rome. In this view most modern writers of weight agree. Chrysostom asserts that it was pub lished in Alexandria, but his statement is not con firmed, as if true it must certainly have been, by any Alexandrine writer. Some (Eichhorn, R. Simon) maintain a combination of the Roman and Alexandrine view under the theory of a double publication, first in one city and then in the other. Storr is alone in his view that it was first made public at Antioch.