Introduction To The Book of Mark
This Commentary Is In The Public Domain
This Commentary Is In The Public Domain
Introduction to Mark § 1.
The Authorship If we were to transcribe from our Introduction to the book of Matthew, what we have written on the subject of its authorship, almost every word would be equally appropriate to the book of Mark. There is the same uniformity in the testimony of early writers; the same absence of doubt among both ancient and modern scholars; the same improbability that the authorship could have been attributed in early times to the wrong person, and the same or even greater certainty, that if a fictitious authorship had been assumed for the book by the early Christians, it would have been attributed to some one supposed to have a higher claim to credibility and to the reverence of the disciples. It would certainly have been attributed to some one of the apostles. We request the reader to re-examine the first section of our Introduction to Matthew, and to suppose all that is there said of Matthew on the points just enumerated, to be said of "John whose surname was Mark." He will then realize the force of the evidence that Mark is the author of the book which bears his name.
§ 2. Qualifications of the Writer
Mark was not an apostle, nor is there any evidence that he was at any time a personal attendant of Jesus. He was not, then, an eyewitness of the scenes, at least of the chief part of the scenes, which he describes. In this respect he was like Luke (Luke 1:2), but unlike Matthew and John. This fact, connected with the circumstance that Mark is nowhere said in express terms, to have been an inspired man, has given prominence to the question, whether he was qualified to write an infallible account of incidents in the life of Jesus. In order to a right judgment on this question, we should consider, first, his natural opportunities for information, and second, the evidences of his inspiration.
1. John Mark was the son of a woman named Mary, who was a prominent disciple in the city of Jerusalem at the time of the death of James and the imprisonment of Peter, and whose dwelling in that city was a well known place of resort for the disciples. All of this appears from the incident recorded in Acts 12:12-17. The house was so well known as a place of resort for the brethren, that when Peter was released from prison by the angel, though it was the dead of night, he at once repaired thither to give notice of his release, and to send word to the surviving James and other leading brethren. Mary was also a sister to Barnabas (Col. 4:10); which fact would in itself render her somewhat conspicuous; for Barnabas became at a very early period one of the most noted men in the Jerusalem Church. (See Acts 4:36, 37; 9:26, 27; 11:22-24.) The land which Barnabas had owned in the island of Cyprus, and which he sold for the benefit of the poor, points to the probability that his sister Mary, besides owning a residence in Jerusalem, was possessed of other property. The indications are that she was a widow in easy circumstances, full of hospitality, and intimately associated with the apostles and the other leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. Thus it appears that from the very beginning of the Church, if not during the life of Jesus, John Mark enjoyed the company of the apostles in his own home, where their conversations with one another and with inquiring friends, must have perfected that knowledge of Jesus which, in common with the masses of the people, he acquired by listening to their daily discourses in the temple court. Had he been, then, but an ordinary youth, with a disposition to remember facts and to record them, he might have written from what he heard the inspired witnesses relate, an account which would have been fallible only in so far as he used his own words instead of theirs.
But besides these opportunities, Mark spent some years in most intimate association with Paul and Barnabas, laboring as their "minister," or assistant (Act 12:25, 13:5; 15:37-39); at a later period he was associated in a similar way with Peter (1 Peter 5:13); and then again with Paul (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11).
During these associations, Mark must have heard the inspired preachers, in preaching to different communities and different individuals, rehearse many hundreds of times the leading events in the life of Jesus; and he must have been an exceedingly inattentive listener, if these events, in the very language of the apostles, were not indelibly imprinted on his memory. It is impossible, then, for Mark to have enjoyed better natural opportunities than he did, except by having, in addition to these, the opportunity of witnessing for himself the events of which he writes. He could truly have said with Luke: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to Bet forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having obtained perfect understanding of all from the beginning, to write." (Luke 1:1-4.) Those, then, who are disposed to regard the gospel narratives as nothing more than uninspired records, should abate nothing from the credibility of Mark's narrative on the ground of his want of information; for surely no uninspired writer ever had better facilities for informing himself with entire accuracy concerning events of which he had not been an eyewitness.
2. As we have intimated before, there is no express statement in the Scriptures of the fact that Mark was an inspired man; yet there are various facts which force us to the conclusion that he was. In the first place, it was a custom of the apostles to impart spiritual gifts to prominent men in the churches, and especially to their traveling companions and fellow-laborers. Thus Philip, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Silas, Judas, and Timothy, enjoyed miraculous gifts (Acts 8:6; 13:1; 15:32; 2 Tim. 1:6); and individuals in the churches in Samaria, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, etc., enjoyed similar gifts. (Acts 8:14-17; 19:6; 1 Cor. 1:4-7; Rom. 15:14; Gal. 3:5.) Now to assume that Mark, who was, at different times, and for many years, a companion and fellow-laborer of two apostles, was overlooked in the distribution of these gifts, would be unwarrantable and even absurd. In the second place, there are evidences that Mark was regarded as especially fitted for labors which were usually performed by men possessed of miraculous gifts. He was chosen by Paul and Barnabas as their assistant on their first tour among the Gentiles (Acts 12:25; 13:5); and although, on their second tour, Paul declined his company, Barnabas still preferred him and separated from Paul rather than separate from Mark. (15:36-39.) At a later period he was sent by Paul on important missions among the churches (Col. 4:10); and he was sent for by Paul during the last imprisonment of the latter, because he was profitable to him for the ministry. (2 Tim. 4:11.) Finally, if a tradition preserved by Papias, who wrote in the first half of the second century, has any foundation in fact, the apostle Peter had some connection with the labors of Mark in preparing his gospel, and it is highly improbable that he would have allowed him to undertake such a work without imparting to him the Holy Spirit if he were not already endowed with the requisite gifts.
From these considerations we think there can be no reasonable doubt, that in addition to Mark's free and long continued access to original and infallible sources of information, he enjoyed such direct aid from the Holy Spirit as must have guarded him absolutely against errors of every kind in the composition of his narrative.
§ 3. Characteristics of the Narrative
Mark's narrative is distinguished from Matthew's, which it resembles more than it does either Luke's or John's, by several striking peculiarities, of which we mention the following:
1. While Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus, intended to show that he was a son of Abraham through David, and follows this with a brief account of his childhood, Mark, omitting all the ground covered by the first two chapters of Matthew, announces Jesus at once as the Christ, the Son of God (1:1), hurriedly touches the ministry of John and the temptation of Jesus, and enters on his main theme with the commencement of the ministry in Galilee. He also omits other passages of the history which Matthew treats at considerable length, such as the sermon on the Mount, the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees found in the 23d chapter of Matthew, and the prophetic discourse found in the 25th chapter.
2. In his treatment of the material which is common to himself and Matthew, he is, on the whole, more brief, but at times is much more elaborate; and his arrangement of the matter is often widely different.
For an illustration of the difference in arrangement, we refer the reader to the note headed "Difference from Matthew," at the end of chapter first. His more elaborate treatment of some passages results from his peculiar treatment of the argument from miracles. While Matthew mentions a larger number, Mark selects those which are the more striking, and describes them with greater minuteness. See the Argument at the end of Section v. Part I.
3. Throughout the portions in which the matter of the two narratives is the same, there is constantly occurring an identity of thought accompanied by variety of expression, and especially by a more graphic style, showing clearly that Mark is an independent writer even in those passages which have been erroneously regarded as extracts from Matthew. Remarkable instances of this are pointed out in the notes, at Mark 1:16-20; 2:19-22.
4. Another peculiarity which we have frequently mentioned in the course of the notes, is that of selecting from a group of persons acting in a given scene, or from a group of miracles wrought on a given occasion, a single one which is described particularly, while nothing at all is said of the others. For references to many instances of this kind, see the note on 11:2.
All of these peculiarities combine to prove what is now almost universally believed by critics, that neither is Mark's narrative an abridgment, as some have thought, of Matthew's and Luke's; nor are theirs, as others have thought, expansions of Mark's. Each evidently wrote without having even seen the manuscript of either of the other two.
§ 4. Apparent Discrepancies
In many passages in which Mark treats of matter common to himself and the other historians there are various appearances of discrepancy. which have been regarded by some as irreconcilable contradictions. Each of these which is regarded as worthy of notice at all, has been treated in the body of the notes, and we think it is there made to appear that in none of them is there a real contradiction. We allude to them here because of the argument which has been based on them to disprove the plenary inspiration of the writers.
It has been argued, that if the Holy Spirit guided the inspired writers not only in the thoughts which they should express, but also in their choice of words, there would be none of these appearances of discrepancy, but the same thought would always be expressed in about the same words. Indeed, it is argued that on this supposition we ought to find a uniform style pervading the writings of all the inspired men, seeing that it was not they but the Holy Spirit who spoke and wrote. But all such reasoning in fallacious in two particulars: first, in assuming that the Holy Spirit either would not or could not vary his style to suit the peculiar mental organization of each writer; and second, in assuming that there is not a style common to all the writers of Sacred History. Both of these assumptions are illogical, and the latter is contradicted by facts. There are characteristics of style common to all the historical writers of both the Old Testament and the New, which distinguish them from all uninspired historians, and which mark their style as that of the Holy Spirit. We can not here elaborate this proposition, but we mention first, the purely dramatic form in which they depict the characters of men, allowing them to act their respective parts without a word of comment, without an expression by the historian, of approbation or disapprobation, and utterly without those attempts at analysis of character which all other historians have found indispensable. Second, the unexampled impartiality with which they record facts, speaking with as little reserve concerning the sins and follies of their own friends, as of the most cruel deeds of their enemies—as freely, for example, of Peter's denial, as of the high-priest's malice and cruelty. Third, the imperturbable calmness, the utter freedom from passion, with which they move along the current of history, relating with as little apparent feeling the most wonderful and exciting events as those the most trivial. The final sufferings of Jesus, for example, are described with as much calmness, as the fact of his taking a seat on Peter's fishing boat to address the people. This characteristic of the inspired historians has been noticed by every appreciative reader of the sacred volume, and it fixes the primary authorship unmistakably in Him, "Who sees with equal eye, as God of all, A hero perish, or a sparrow fall; Atoms or systems into ruin hurled, And now a bubble burst, and now a world."
For other specifications of the style that is peculiar to the inspired writers, we refer the reader to the recent admirable volume of lectures by Henry Rogers, on the Superhuman Origin of the Bible, and especially to Lectures vi. and vii.
As it was desirable that the Bible should touch every cord in every human soul, it was needful that the presentation of truth should be characterized by very great diversities of style. While preserving, then, as it does, those characteristics which mark it as divine, God has wisely chosen, in order to secure the needed variety, that its various parts should be written by men of great diversity of mental peculiarities, and that each of these should leave the impress of his own style of thought and expression on his composition. As the light which starts from the sun in passing through a cathedral window takes on the many hues of the stained glass, allowing each pane to impart its own particular hue, and spreads them all in delightful harmony on the objects within, so the truth that came down from heaven was allowed to pass through the minds of many men ere it reached the written page, bearing with it the impress of each without being changed from truth to error. In this way alone can all of the peculiarities of this book of books be accounted for.
§ 5. For What Readers Intended
We think that there are no conclusive evidences that Mark intended his narrative for any special class of readers. From his omission of the genealogy of Jesus, and of all references to the prophecies fulfilled in the career of Jesus (See note on 15:28), it is inferred that he did not, like Matthew, write especially for Jewish readers; but the evidences commonly relied on as proof that he wrote especially for Gentiles, are, we think, inconclusive. True, he translates into Greek, some Hebrew or Aramaic terms which he employs, but Matthew does the same almost as often, and the only apparent reason why Mark does so more frequently is because he introduces two words more which need translation than does Matthew. (Comp. Mark 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22, 34, with Matt. 1:23; 27:33, 46.) In neither writer, however, should this be regarded as an adaptation to Gentile readers; for they were writing in the Greek language, and it is but compliance with an ordinary rule of composition, that foreign terms introduced are accompanied by a translation. Moreover, Jews as well as Gentiles, in that age, seldom read any other language than the Greek. The argument in favor of the proposition that Mark wrote especially for Gentile readers, depends, when fairly stated, on nothing more than the fact that in one instance (7:3, 4) he explains a custom which Jews, at least those who resided in Palestine, well understood. But this only shows that he was not unmindful of his Gentile readers, not that he wrote with especial reference to them. (On another passage supposed to bear on the question, see the note on 13:3.) I conclude that while Matthew wrote especially for Jews, and Luke especially for the Gentiles, Mark, whose evangelical labors had been divided between the two classes, wrote without especial reference to either, but with both classes constantly before his mind.
The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I - Matthew and Mark.
The Authorship If we were to transcribe from our Introduction to the book of Matthew, what we have written on the subject of its authorship, almost every word would be equally appropriate to the book of Mark. There is the same uniformity in the testimony of early writers; the same absence of doubt among both ancient and modern scholars; the same improbability that the authorship could have been attributed in early times to the wrong person, and the same or even greater certainty, that if a fictitious authorship had been assumed for the book by the early Christians, it would have been attributed to some one supposed to have a higher claim to credibility and to the reverence of the disciples. It would certainly have been attributed to some one of the apostles. We request the reader to re-examine the first section of our Introduction to Matthew, and to suppose all that is there said of Matthew on the points just enumerated, to be said of "John whose surname was Mark." He will then realize the force of the evidence that Mark is the author of the book which bears his name.
§ 2. Qualifications of the Writer
Mark was not an apostle, nor is there any evidence that he was at any time a personal attendant of Jesus. He was not, then, an eyewitness of the scenes, at least of the chief part of the scenes, which he describes. In this respect he was like Luke (Luke 1:2), but unlike Matthew and John. This fact, connected with the circumstance that Mark is nowhere said in express terms, to have been an inspired man, has given prominence to the question, whether he was qualified to write an infallible account of incidents in the life of Jesus. In order to a right judgment on this question, we should consider, first, his natural opportunities for information, and second, the evidences of his inspiration.
1. John Mark was the son of a woman named Mary, who was a prominent disciple in the city of Jerusalem at the time of the death of James and the imprisonment of Peter, and whose dwelling in that city was a well known place of resort for the disciples. All of this appears from the incident recorded in Acts 12:12-17. The house was so well known as a place of resort for the brethren, that when Peter was released from prison by the angel, though it was the dead of night, he at once repaired thither to give notice of his release, and to send word to the surviving James and other leading brethren. Mary was also a sister to Barnabas (Col. 4:10); which fact would in itself render her somewhat conspicuous; for Barnabas became at a very early period one of the most noted men in the Jerusalem Church. (See Acts 4:36, 37; 9:26, 27; 11:22-24.) The land which Barnabas had owned in the island of Cyprus, and which he sold for the benefit of the poor, points to the probability that his sister Mary, besides owning a residence in Jerusalem, was possessed of other property. The indications are that she was a widow in easy circumstances, full of hospitality, and intimately associated with the apostles and the other leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. Thus it appears that from the very beginning of the Church, if not during the life of Jesus, John Mark enjoyed the company of the apostles in his own home, where their conversations with one another and with inquiring friends, must have perfected that knowledge of Jesus which, in common with the masses of the people, he acquired by listening to their daily discourses in the temple court. Had he been, then, but an ordinary youth, with a disposition to remember facts and to record them, he might have written from what he heard the inspired witnesses relate, an account which would have been fallible only in so far as he used his own words instead of theirs.
But besides these opportunities, Mark spent some years in most intimate association with Paul and Barnabas, laboring as their "minister," or assistant (Act 12:25, 13:5; 15:37-39); at a later period he was associated in a similar way with Peter (1 Peter 5:13); and then again with Paul (Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11).
During these associations, Mark must have heard the inspired preachers, in preaching to different communities and different individuals, rehearse many hundreds of times the leading events in the life of Jesus; and he must have been an exceedingly inattentive listener, if these events, in the very language of the apostles, were not indelibly imprinted on his memory. It is impossible, then, for Mark to have enjoyed better natural opportunities than he did, except by having, in addition to these, the opportunity of witnessing for himself the events of which he writes. He could truly have said with Luke: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to Bet forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having obtained perfect understanding of all from the beginning, to write." (Luke 1:1-4.) Those, then, who are disposed to regard the gospel narratives as nothing more than uninspired records, should abate nothing from the credibility of Mark's narrative on the ground of his want of information; for surely no uninspired writer ever had better facilities for informing himself with entire accuracy concerning events of which he had not been an eyewitness.
2. As we have intimated before, there is no express statement in the Scriptures of the fact that Mark was an inspired man; yet there are various facts which force us to the conclusion that he was. In the first place, it was a custom of the apostles to impart spiritual gifts to prominent men in the churches, and especially to their traveling companions and fellow-laborers. Thus Philip, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Silas, Judas, and Timothy, enjoyed miraculous gifts (Acts 8:6; 13:1; 15:32; 2 Tim. 1:6); and individuals in the churches in Samaria, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, etc., enjoyed similar gifts. (Acts 8:14-17; 19:6; 1 Cor. 1:4-7; Rom. 15:14; Gal. 3:5.) Now to assume that Mark, who was, at different times, and for many years, a companion and fellow-laborer of two apostles, was overlooked in the distribution of these gifts, would be unwarrantable and even absurd. In the second place, there are evidences that Mark was regarded as especially fitted for labors which were usually performed by men possessed of miraculous gifts. He was chosen by Paul and Barnabas as their assistant on their first tour among the Gentiles (Acts 12:25; 13:5); and although, on their second tour, Paul declined his company, Barnabas still preferred him and separated from Paul rather than separate from Mark. (15:36-39.) At a later period he was sent by Paul on important missions among the churches (Col. 4:10); and he was sent for by Paul during the last imprisonment of the latter, because he was profitable to him for the ministry. (2 Tim. 4:11.) Finally, if a tradition preserved by Papias, who wrote in the first half of the second century, has any foundation in fact, the apostle Peter had some connection with the labors of Mark in preparing his gospel, and it is highly improbable that he would have allowed him to undertake such a work without imparting to him the Holy Spirit if he were not already endowed with the requisite gifts.
From these considerations we think there can be no reasonable doubt, that in addition to Mark's free and long continued access to original and infallible sources of information, he enjoyed such direct aid from the Holy Spirit as must have guarded him absolutely against errors of every kind in the composition of his narrative.
§ 3. Characteristics of the Narrative
Mark's narrative is distinguished from Matthew's, which it resembles more than it does either Luke's or John's, by several striking peculiarities, of which we mention the following:
1. While Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus, intended to show that he was a son of Abraham through David, and follows this with a brief account of his childhood, Mark, omitting all the ground covered by the first two chapters of Matthew, announces Jesus at once as the Christ, the Son of God (1:1), hurriedly touches the ministry of John and the temptation of Jesus, and enters on his main theme with the commencement of the ministry in Galilee. He also omits other passages of the history which Matthew treats at considerable length, such as the sermon on the Mount, the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees found in the 23d chapter of Matthew, and the prophetic discourse found in the 25th chapter.
2. In his treatment of the material which is common to himself and Matthew, he is, on the whole, more brief, but at times is much more elaborate; and his arrangement of the matter is often widely different.
For an illustration of the difference in arrangement, we refer the reader to the note headed "Difference from Matthew," at the end of chapter first. His more elaborate treatment of some passages results from his peculiar treatment of the argument from miracles. While Matthew mentions a larger number, Mark selects those which are the more striking, and describes them with greater minuteness. See the Argument at the end of Section v. Part I.
3. Throughout the portions in which the matter of the two narratives is the same, there is constantly occurring an identity of thought accompanied by variety of expression, and especially by a more graphic style, showing clearly that Mark is an independent writer even in those passages which have been erroneously regarded as extracts from Matthew. Remarkable instances of this are pointed out in the notes, at Mark 1:16-20; 2:19-22.
4. Another peculiarity which we have frequently mentioned in the course of the notes, is that of selecting from a group of persons acting in a given scene, or from a group of miracles wrought on a given occasion, a single one which is described particularly, while nothing at all is said of the others. For references to many instances of this kind, see the note on 11:2.
All of these peculiarities combine to prove what is now almost universally believed by critics, that neither is Mark's narrative an abridgment, as some have thought, of Matthew's and Luke's; nor are theirs, as others have thought, expansions of Mark's. Each evidently wrote without having even seen the manuscript of either of the other two.
§ 4. Apparent Discrepancies
In many passages in which Mark treats of matter common to himself and the other historians there are various appearances of discrepancy. which have been regarded by some as irreconcilable contradictions. Each of these which is regarded as worthy of notice at all, has been treated in the body of the notes, and we think it is there made to appear that in none of them is there a real contradiction. We allude to them here because of the argument which has been based on them to disprove the plenary inspiration of the writers.
It has been argued, that if the Holy Spirit guided the inspired writers not only in the thoughts which they should express, but also in their choice of words, there would be none of these appearances of discrepancy, but the same thought would always be expressed in about the same words. Indeed, it is argued that on this supposition we ought to find a uniform style pervading the writings of all the inspired men, seeing that it was not they but the Holy Spirit who spoke and wrote. But all such reasoning in fallacious in two particulars: first, in assuming that the Holy Spirit either would not or could not vary his style to suit the peculiar mental organization of each writer; and second, in assuming that there is not a style common to all the writers of Sacred History. Both of these assumptions are illogical, and the latter is contradicted by facts. There are characteristics of style common to all the historical writers of both the Old Testament and the New, which distinguish them from all uninspired historians, and which mark their style as that of the Holy Spirit. We can not here elaborate this proposition, but we mention first, the purely dramatic form in which they depict the characters of men, allowing them to act their respective parts without a word of comment, without an expression by the historian, of approbation or disapprobation, and utterly without those attempts at analysis of character which all other historians have found indispensable. Second, the unexampled impartiality with which they record facts, speaking with as little reserve concerning the sins and follies of their own friends, as of the most cruel deeds of their enemies—as freely, for example, of Peter's denial, as of the high-priest's malice and cruelty. Third, the imperturbable calmness, the utter freedom from passion, with which they move along the current of history, relating with as little apparent feeling the most wonderful and exciting events as those the most trivial. The final sufferings of Jesus, for example, are described with as much calmness, as the fact of his taking a seat on Peter's fishing boat to address the people. This characteristic of the inspired historians has been noticed by every appreciative reader of the sacred volume, and it fixes the primary authorship unmistakably in Him, "Who sees with equal eye, as God of all, A hero perish, or a sparrow fall; Atoms or systems into ruin hurled, And now a bubble burst, and now a world."
For other specifications of the style that is peculiar to the inspired writers, we refer the reader to the recent admirable volume of lectures by Henry Rogers, on the Superhuman Origin of the Bible, and especially to Lectures vi. and vii.
As it was desirable that the Bible should touch every cord in every human soul, it was needful that the presentation of truth should be characterized by very great diversities of style. While preserving, then, as it does, those characteristics which mark it as divine, God has wisely chosen, in order to secure the needed variety, that its various parts should be written by men of great diversity of mental peculiarities, and that each of these should leave the impress of his own style of thought and expression on his composition. As the light which starts from the sun in passing through a cathedral window takes on the many hues of the stained glass, allowing each pane to impart its own particular hue, and spreads them all in delightful harmony on the objects within, so the truth that came down from heaven was allowed to pass through the minds of many men ere it reached the written page, bearing with it the impress of each without being changed from truth to error. In this way alone can all of the peculiarities of this book of books be accounted for.
§ 5. For What Readers Intended
We think that there are no conclusive evidences that Mark intended his narrative for any special class of readers. From his omission of the genealogy of Jesus, and of all references to the prophecies fulfilled in the career of Jesus (See note on 15:28), it is inferred that he did not, like Matthew, write especially for Jewish readers; but the evidences commonly relied on as proof that he wrote especially for Gentiles, are, we think, inconclusive. True, he translates into Greek, some Hebrew or Aramaic terms which he employs, but Matthew does the same almost as often, and the only apparent reason why Mark does so more frequently is because he introduces two words more which need translation than does Matthew. (Comp. Mark 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22, 34, with Matt. 1:23; 27:33, 46.) In neither writer, however, should this be regarded as an adaptation to Gentile readers; for they were writing in the Greek language, and it is but compliance with an ordinary rule of composition, that foreign terms introduced are accompanied by a translation. Moreover, Jews as well as Gentiles, in that age, seldom read any other language than the Greek. The argument in favor of the proposition that Mark wrote especially for Gentile readers, depends, when fairly stated, on nothing more than the fact that in one instance (7:3, 4) he explains a custom which Jews, at least those who resided in Palestine, well understood. But this only shows that he was not unmindful of his Gentile readers, not that he wrote with especial reference to them. (On another passage supposed to bear on the question, see the note on 13:3.) I conclude that while Matthew wrote especially for Jews, and Luke especially for the Gentiles, Mark, whose evangelical labors had been divided between the two classes, wrote without especial reference to either, but with both classes constantly before his mind.
The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I - Matthew and Mark.
