In all of this there is nothing that would make impossible an authorship by Mark; hut an origin would seem almost necessitated by the clear testimony of patristic evidence. This evi dence, in brief, ascribes the authorship of the Gospel to Mark, and to :Mark as in some way connected in the writing with Peter. The varia tion in the evidence is at the latter point. Some of the Fathers, as Jerome and Origea. make the relation t hat of an amanuensis; others, as E,< bins. that of a reporter; others again, Clem ent of Alexandria. Justin and Iremeus, that simply of a disciple recalling his Master's words. The most explicit testimony. and that which seems to bear upon its face the strongest proof of eredibility, is the testimony from Papins, who describes Mark as the interpreter of Peter's preaching. and Mark's Gospel as his eonseientions reproduction of what Peter's di: courses contained. This testimony of Papias would agree with the original Greek eharacter of the Gospel's composition: for, aecording to this testimony, the service which Mark rendered to Peter was evidently that of interpreting his Aramaie diseourses into the Creek which his audiences (amid lerstand. It would further agree with the fresh and vivid style of the Cos pel's narrative; since such immediate eentact with Peter's reminiseences as Mark must have had would give the stamp of an eye .witness to all ads record. And it would yet further agree with certain Petrine element which seems to Is' present at frequent points throughout I he Gospel; since, however, Nark may have reconstructed these discourses of Peter's, he is not likely to have lost out of them altogether the personal element they must have contained.
Accordingly, the general verdict of criticism is that the second canonical Gospel is from the hand of 31ark. reproducing Peter's personal knowledge of and participation in the Gospel events. At the same time this verdict attaches
only to the substance of the Gospel; since there are evidences which seem to show that Mark's produrtion has undergone editing to bring it to its present form, while there are clear traces of documentary sources in the latter part of the Gospel which, if belonging to Nark's original work, show him to have gone outside of Peter for a considerable amount of his material.
Naturally in proportion as Mark's Gospel is the reproduction of Peter's preaching, so far must its purpose be a homiletic rather than a purely historical one. This purpose may be described as the evidencing of Jesus' Alessialiship through the acts and deeds of His earthly life. As a matter of fact, this evangelistic element is promi nent throughout the narrative and is due, not merely to the spirit of Jesus' own ministry. but also to the method of the general apostolic mis sion, which was not so much to tell the story of Jesus' life, as rather to testify to the impres sion which Jesus Himself had made upon their spiritual experience.
Iliamohas NM Besides the usual New Testa ment Introductions, the introductory portions of the more recent commentaries on Nark, and the spetial Synoptic works referred to in the lit erature attached to the article on the Gospel of Matthew. consult: Badham, Saint Mark's In debtedness to Nu jot ( London, 897) ; Titius, Dos l'erkliltniss der Ilerrenusorle in Markus Eranoctium .rte den Logio MatthhUR, in "Theologisehe Studien" (Gottingen. Hadorn, Die Hntslchung des Morkuseeangelium (11(ilers1(11. 1898) : Blass. Philologie der Eran geliun ( Eng. trans., London, 1898) ; Chajes, kus Studien ( Berlin. 1899) Buisson, Origin of the Gospel of Saint Mark (Oxford. 1896); Abbott, The Corrections of Mark (London. 1901).