apparently because of any general assistance rendered to the apostle in the discharge of the ordinary duties of the apostolate, as because of the specific relation of the contents of his Gospel to the mind of St. Peter, as their literary source, that St. Mark was called the apostle's Interpreter or Hermeneut. Unlike St. Matthew and St. John, he wrote at second hand, and drew his secondary inspiration from 'the chief of the apostles.' The events which he narrated, and the discourses and Divine remarks which he recorded, were communicated to him by St. Peter. And thus, in the matter of his biographical account of the Saviour, he was St. Peter's interpreter. This, we may add, is the view that is taken of the expression by Fritzsche,1 Thiersch, and Klostermann.3 We may remark, ere we leave this testimony of Papias, that what the Presbyter says regarding the absence of a strict 'order' in the contents of St. Mark's Gospel must not be stretched so tightly, and therefore so unreasonably, as it was co-ordinately by Schleiermacher1 and Credner.5 They drew from the expression the inference that the writing referred to by Papias could not be our present canonical Gospel, which is at least as well ordered throughout as the other Gospels, but must have been some pre-existent compilation of a less developed and more miscellaneous character. 'Fragmentary' is Schleiermacher's word. And changes have been eagerly rung on it, and, in particular, on the idea that underlies it, by a numerous array of critics, who have the misfortune to imagine that it is in the interest of truth that they should find some lever or other that might enable them to shake the reliability of the Gospel history. But John the Presbyter did not mean that there was no 'order' in the composition of St. Mark. Not even did he mean that there was no observance of chronological order. The Gospel is orderly; and the events recorded are grouped on a basis of true chronology. But it is nevertheless of the highest moment that the modern critic should bear in mind the truth of the Presbyter's observation. There was no attempt, on the part of the evangelist, 144 'Res Petri, verba Marci."-Prolegomena, § i., p. 26. 2 Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts für die Kritik der N. T. Schriften, p. 181. 3 Das Markusevangelium, p. 329. ♦ Studien und Kritiken, 1832, pp. 735-768. Einleitung, § 57, pp. 123, 124. • Einleitung, § 68, p. 250. See also § 67. d to introduce exact historic order into the details of his narrative. There was no attempt at a strictly scientific chronology. It would be doing the evangelist the greatest injustice to endeavour to impose it on his narrations. He allowed himself, like St. Peter in his discourses to the catechumens, scope and latitude in grouping. His work was not meant to be annalistic, or historically complete. But all that it aimed at was realized to perfection. It was meant to be the gospel in a biographical form; and it is therefore a Gospel. Like the other Gospels it is the announcement, and unpretending presentation, of some of the salient doings and sayings of Him who, in His own living presence in our nature, in our world, and in the world of glory, is Himself the Everlasting Gospel of the grace of God. § 7. RELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE PETER: There is certainly nothing in the contents or texture of St. Mark's Gospel which can decisively determine that it was drawn from the wellspring of St. Peter's discourses. But, on the other hand, there is nothing that is, in the least degree, at variance with the patristic tradition. Here and there, moreover, phenomena of representation occur, as also, in some cases, phenomena of omission, or things 'conspicuous by their absence,' which admit of felicitous explanation on the hypothesis of a peculiarly intimate relationship to Peter. It is not to be doubted indeed that all the synoptic Gospels bear, to a considerable degree, the impress of this apostle's idiosyncrasy. He was the leader of the original twelve; he was their chosen spokesman; he would be their chief speaker. The forms consequently in which he put his descriptions of his ocular and auricular observations would naturally become models to the rest of the circle, or moulds in which their public representations of what they themselves, as well as he, had seen and heard, would take definitive shape. His image would be unconsciously stamped on the whole currency of their ministrations. Nevertheless, each of his brethren would, in his individual exhibitions of the facts which constitute the biographical contents of the Gospel, contribute something out of his own individuality. Hence there would be differences in setting, differences in grouping, differences in modes of expression, differences in the admission or omission of scenes or minuter details. In such an original mind moreover as that of John there would be an amount of peculiarity that would entirely overlap, or perhaps completely supersede, the distinctive one-sidedness of Peter's presentations, or the parallel replacements, modifications, and additions of the rest of the apostles. No wonder therefore that critics in general should have agreed to class the first three canonical Gospels as 'synoptic,'1 setting St. John's apart on a pedestal by itself. No wonder moreover that a considerable school of investigators, of whom more hereafter, should have conceived that St. Mark must have borrowed from St. Matthew. No wonder that another considerable school should have imagined that he borrowed from both St. Matthew and St. Luke. And no wonder, in addition, that still another school should have contended, reversely, that it was on St. Mark that St. Matthew and St. Luke unitedly drew for the main body of their materials. Undoubtedly they did derive a large amount of the contents of their Gospels from the copious wellspring from which St. Mark still more directly drew. When we assume, in accordance with the emphatic testimony of 'the fathers,' that St. Mark drew directly from the discoursings of St. Peter, then we understand how it comes to pass that it is in his pages that we have the most particular account of that lamentable denial of his Lord, of which the apostle was guilty (chap. xiv. 30, 31, 54, 66-72). On no other person's memory would the minute particulars of the prediction, and of its unanticipated fulfilment, be so indelibly engraven. It is also noteworthy that while the very severe rebuke which our Lord administered to St. Peter, in the neighbourhood of Cæsarea Philippi, is faithfully and circumstantially recorded in St. Mark's pages (chap. viii. 33), the splendid eulogium and distinguishing blessing, which had been previously pronounced, are as it were modestly passed by. (See Matt. xvi. 17-19.) Doubtless the great apostle would not be guilty of making frequent or egotistic references to such marks of distinction. It is likely, says Eusebius, that Peter maintained silence on these points; hence the silence of Mark.2 Then the very house which he occupied in Capernaum, though in the other synoptic Gospels simply called Peter's or Simon's, is in St. 1 They can, to a large extent, be exhibited in a synopsis of parallel columns. See, for instance, Griesbach's Synopsis. * Demonstratio Evangelica, iii. 5, p. 121. Mark's called 'the house of Simon and Andrew' (i. 29). It is as if the evangelist were reproducing the statement that would naturally drop from the lips of the apostle, 'the house that was occupied by my brother and me.' Then again, when, in the account of the transfiguration, we read of St. Peter's proposal to erect three tabernacles, it is naively added, 'for he wist not what to say' (ix. 6). One almost hears the apostle rehearsing the whole matter; and, when coming to the project of erecting the tabernacles, he would pause and add something to the following effect: "I thought I should say "something; but really I did not know what to say, I was so con"founded and overwhelmed with awe. In the end I actually said "something foolish." This latter part of his account is reproduced in St. Luke's narrative (ix. 33). The way too in which the angel, who appeared to the women in the empty sepulchre, makes reference to the faithless apostle strikes us as peculiarly touching, if it be regarded as reproduced by the evangelist from the lips of the apostle himself, 'Tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee' (xvi. 7). The apostle would delight to give emphasis to the semi-redundant clause, involving, as it did, the forgiving mercy of the Master he had so shamefully mistrusted and denied. There are besides, throughout the entire Gospel, multitudes of minute graphic touches, which bewray the evangelist's connection with some peculiarly observant eye-and-ear-witness, such as the apostle no doubt would be. For instance, the personal looks and gestures of our Lord are more frequently specified than in either of the other synoptic Gospels. (See chap. i. 31; iii. 5, 34; v. 32; vii. 33, 34; viii. 12, 33; x. 27.) Then there are such vivid circumstantialities as the 'pillow' in the boat (iv. 38), the 'green grass' at passover time on the hill side (vi. 39), the 'roundabout road' from Bethany to Bethphage (xi. 4), the colt tied 'outside,' not inside, the quadrangle of the owner's house (xi. 4), and the one loaf' which the flustered disciples had with them on the sea (viii. 14). These are singularly luminous points. 6 The two other synoptic evangelists record, as well as St. Mark, the little children scene. But St. Mark alone makes mention of the interesting circumstance that our Lord, in blessing the little ones, 'folded them in His arms' (x. 16). He alone too mentions that, on another occasion, the same gentle 'embrace' was given to the little child, who was set in the midst of the disciples as the model of an unambitious spirit (ix. 36). Something of the same motherly tenderness of spirit was displayed in our Lord's treatment of the little girl of twelve years of age, whom He restored to life. Not only did He 'take her by the hand' in the act of reviving her, as both St. Matthew and St. Luke, as well as St. Mark, record; He spoke to her, as we learn from St. Mark alone, in her own familiar mother-tongue, Talitha cumi (v. 41). Peter was present (v. 37), and would hear. The circumstantialities connected with the case of the woman who came behind and touched the hem of the Saviour's garment have all along, in Christian circles, excited the special interest of the pious. They are given by St. Mark more graphically, and in fuller detail, than by the other evangelists (v. 24-34). And so, to a 'noteworthy extent, is the history of the cure of the demoniac lad at the base of the mount of transfiguration. The whole scene is drawn to the life; but when we come to that notable home-thrust so felicitously dealt by our Lord, and with such readiness, by which He turned back on the stupefied father the 'If it be possible to Thee,' we cannot doubt that we are listening to the report of one who had been just such a keen and tenacious observer as we picture the apostle Peter to have been. (See ix. 23, and Commentary in loc.) 6 There are other vivid circumstantialities, agreeing well with the idea that St. Peter was drawn upon: for instance, the taunt which the Nazarenes threw at our Lord, 'the carpenter' (vi. 3); the name of the blind beggar at Jericho, evidently a character,' 'Bartimæus (x. 46); the earnest bilingual address, Abba-Father,' in the Lord's agony prayer in Gethsemane (xiv. 36); and that little insignificant, yet most significant, particular in the cornfield scene, unhappily slurred over both by Luther and in King James's English version, but incontestably bewraying the autopticity of the narrator, 'they began to make a way' (ii. 23, and see Commentary). It is enough. We would only specify, in conclusion, one other incidental circumstantiality. When Peter got a place at the fire, in the court of the high priest's house, he had, we are told in St. Mark's narrative, his face, unfortunately or fortunately to the light,' so that his features stood out in full relief (xiv. 54). Who so likely to remember the fact, and to give it emphasis, as Peuer himself? In short, if we assume the patristic tradition regarding the apostle's relation to St. Mark, we find the contents and texture of the Gospel to be, without a jar at any point, in perfect accord with the idea. |