T E S T A M E N T C O PYRIG H T BY W ILL IA M EVANS
T H E
N E W
THE GOSPEL OF MARK
O IN C E Mark is one o f the three synoptic gospels, it follows that he records many' o f the same incidents and much o f the same matter given by Matthew and Luke. It is true, o f course, that he emphasizes differ ent phases o f the same material in order to bring out the unique and particular pur pose he has in mind in recording these events. Inasmuch as we have given quite a full general analysis o f Matthew, it does hot seem necessary to do anything further than to give a full outline o f Mark’s gos pel. For this reason, then, the article for this month' is briefer than those on Mat thew in previous numbers o f the magazine. A. THE AUTHOR “John, whose surname was Mark,” (Acts 12:12, 2 5 ); the son o f Mary (12 :25); cousin o f Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) ; a fellow-laborer with Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:25, 13:5), but forsook them, prob ably on account o f the hardships o f the journey (Acts 13:13) ; a'companion of Barnabas only, because refused by Paul (Acts 15:37-39); again joins Paul, as helper (2 Timothy 4-11; Philemon 24). Whether Mark was a disciple o f Jesus is not definitely known. Some think that Mark is the young man referred to in his gospel (14:51, 52). It is probable that he was a disciple o f Jesus from the fact that irwas in the upper room o f his moth er’s house in which the disciples met (Mark 14:15, ^f. Acts 1:13, 12:12). Others think that he was a convert o f the Apostle Peter
(1 Peter 5:13), and traveled with the aged Apostle during his later days. Because o f Mark’s intimacy with Peter, and because o f the testimony o f some of the Church Fathers (e. g. Papias, who calls “ Mark, the interpreter o f Peter,” who “wrote carefully down all that he recol lected” o f the Apostle’s preaching; and Ter- tullian, who says, “ The gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was” ). Mark’s gospel ha.s been called “ The gospel of Peter,” and by that is meant that Mark reports the gospel as preached by Peter. If this is the case it may account for the omission o f Peter’s name, which humility would forbid him mentioning, in connec tion with certain events in his relation to the life of Christ (cf. 7 :17 with Matthew 15:15; 6:50, 57 with Matthew 14:28-31; 9 :33 with Matthew 17:24-27 ; 8 :29, 30 with Matthew 16:17-19; 14:13 with.Luke 22:8). Whatever truth there may be in this theory we should not forget that the source of Mark’s information, as set forth in the gospel bearing his name, is as independent as that o f Matthew, x»r Luke. Each-writer o f the gospels was independent o f the other; each drew from a common source, namely, the great facts o f our Lord’s life,' whether witnessed personally, as in the case o f Matthew and John, or whether, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, reported from the oral teaching o f the Apostles, as by Mark and Luke, which by reason of
Made with FlippingBook HTML5