MARK, GOSPEL OF. The second of the New Testament Gospels. Its first verse opens with a phrase ("The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ") that is evidently intended to be a cap tion for the narrative which follows. Unlike :Matthew. whose tendency is to a topical treat ment of his material, and Luke, who gives himself to rhetorical enrichment, Mark arranges his nar rative simply and in an order which shows itself to be, generally speaking, the normal chrono logical order of the Gospel events. There is first the preliminary history reciting the ministry of John the Baptist and the entrance of Jesus upon His work. through the symbolic act of the bap tism and the personal experience of the tempta tion (i. 2-13). There then follows the main portion of the narrative, which gives, first, Jesus' popular work in Galilee (i. 14-vii. 23) and Ilis similar work in the region north of Gait lee (vii. 24-viii. 26), and then breaks in upon this northern work with a presentation of it in the light rather of a work of instruction. chietly to His disciples, than a work of construction among the people (viii. 27-ix. 29). This new character of Jesus' work is carried on into what may be generally considered His journey toward Jerusalem (ix. 30-x. 52). The event that marks this change is the disciples' confession of Jesus' Messiahship given in the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi. which was followed by Jesus' first clear declaration of Ilis coining death (viii. 27 ix. 1). This is evidently considered by the Evangelist as the turning point in Jesus' work, leading Him to a change in its character and method. Chaps. xi.-xiii. are given to the final work in Jerusalem. which Mark, in common with the other Evangelists, presents as a work in which .Jesus' Messianic claims are openly laid before the nation's religious leaders. The narrative closes, as in all the Gospels, with the Passion and Resurrection (xiv.-xvi.).
It is generally admitted that verses 9-20 of the last chapter (xvi.) are a later addition to the Gospel, the original ending having been lost. Just how much further the narrative went and whether it included, as Luke alone can be pos sibly said to do,. an account of the Ascension can only he conjectured.
In comparison with the other Synoptists Mark is quite distinctly the shortest Gospel, consider able portions of the history appearing in Mat thew and Luke being absent from as the Nativity, the Sermon on the and that part of Luke which is devoted apparently to a story of Jesus' last journeying,: to the Holy City; and yet where Mark gives the narrative in common with the other two, he gives it with a fullness of graphic detail which the others do not possess. It is also characteristic of Mark that,
though he has an account of the parables by the Sea of Galilee, he does not give the discourses of Jesus in a measure equal to that of Matthew and Luke. In the opinion of most critics this indicates that Mark had not access to, or, at least, did not make use of the T.ogia collection of Matthew. See MATTHEW. GOSPEL OF.
It is plain that this Gospel was written by a Jewish Christian—not because of ally Jewish cast of the Gospel, as in the ease of ,Matthew, for such a cast it does not possess—but because (a) of the author's familiarity with Jewish things and his ready ability in explaining them (cf. ii. IS; vii. 3 sqq.; xii. IS; sir. 12; xv. 11. 42). and (b) because of his acquaintance with the Aramaic language. which he frequently trans lates refs iii. 17; v. 41; vii. 11, 34; ix. 43: x. 411; 31i; xv, 22, 34). On the other hand, it is dear that the readers were Gentile ('hristians not simply because they were unacquainted with Palestinian customs and speech, for so to a cer tain extent were the Jewish readers of Matthew, but because this ignorance to be not only very much more extensive on the part of .Alark's readers, but also to be surrounded by aevery gen eral Latin atmosphere, as though the readers not merely needed the above interpretathms and explanatilms, but nettled them cast in this mold lel. v. 9: vi. 37. 37; vii. 4; xii. 42; xv. 1G. 39). As to the pinee of the Gospel's origin there is nothing definite to he gathered from the con tents. though perhaps it. is more likely to have been written outside of Palestine than within it. The Latin atmosphere would most easily be thrown around the narrative in a Latin einintry. .'t to date, it is universally admitted that what ever may be the year of its composithm. it gives every evidence of being the earliest of all the Gospels. lm fact, a comparison of Nark's order of narrative with that of _Matthew and Lake shows that Nark's order was that which :Matthew and Luke had before them when they wrote. If. therefore, there is any likelihood that either of these latter were written prior to t he dint rnet ion of Jerusalem, it beeomes almost ITO p,::..nry to place 31ark before that event. Sec Msrrum, 1:0SPEL OF LUKE, GnSI.Fm. OF.