Mark , , p. For much of the central section has been attributed to a Petrine source, viii. Mark's source, probably St. Peter, was fully aware of the change of tone and style in Jesus' words after the event at Caesarea Philippi for the event was the turning point in Jesus' ministry. Mark had good grounds for placing this material precisely where he does.
- See a Problem?;
- Confessions from an Arranged Marriage (The Burgundy Club)!
- The Wanderer (Volume 5 of 5) or, Female Difficulties?
- La forma del futuro (Italian Edition).
This argument strengthens the impression that St. Mark's outline is historically trustworthy. The account of St. Peter's confession is the watershed of Mark because the event there was the turning point in Jesus' public career.
In an article on 'Mark and Divorce' F. Burkitt [ J. Mark was 'in touch with the facts of history'. In xiii, the 'little Apocalypse', we have the only long, connected discourse of Jesus in Mark, though the sayings contained in it are not entirely consistent. The tone of this chapter is so Jewish-Apocalyptic that many have supposed it to be based on a Jewish or Jewish-Christian Apocalyptic flysheet.
Source-criticism of ch. Taylor, Ex. Mark , , pp. It is probable that a and c existed as a separate unit before St. Mark wrote, adapting it to encourage Christians during the Neronian persecution. He incorporated some authentic sayings of Jesus, e. It seems that St. Mark has thrown on to his canvas a background of the End of the World and in the foreground he has painted a picture of the 'signs' of the Fall of Jerusalem.
Mark or the 'community behind St. Mark' may have been responsible for the foreshortening, which results in the one event appearing imposed on the other. In xiv it is possible that St. Mark incorporated two sources, a and , b Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl, , W.
Rawlinson, The Gospel according to St. Mark, and ed. In support of the historicity of a cf. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua, , and J. Jeremias, J. In xv Mark records the Barabbas episode and the Mockery. It is impossible to dismiss the former simply as an attempt to excuse the Romans and throw the blame upon the Jews, which Klostermann does [ Das Markusevangelium , , p. For parallels to such an amnesty have been found in Livy, v. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p.
Ix, , pp. Even so, Mark's source is not to be identified with Philo, as the mime of a 'temporary king' was widespread. Dio Chrysostom De Regno , iv. AD speaks of an annual King of the Sacaea, a Zoganes, chosen from the condemned criminals and treated for five days like a king before being scourged and hanged; this barbarous mime acted on 25 March is probably to be connected with an ancient fertility cult resembling that of the New Year ritual in Babylon or Egypt [Cf.
The Labyrinth, ed. Hooke, The horseplay inflicted on Jesus may have been due to the soldiers' knowledge of the mime and of His claim, according to His titulus, to be King of the Jews.
It is probable that Barabbas's name was originally Jesus Barabbas, according to Matthew. Williams, Alterations to the text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, pp.
The Form critics, except Bultmann, assume that the Passion narrative is a unity forged in the crucible of oral transmission by preachers, teachers, and apologists of the primitive community. Goguel's argument [ Introduction au Nouveau Testament, i. Peter's reminiscences formed the bases of an elaboration of Mark's Passion narrative.
At the same time it is uncertain how far Mark or his source was indebted to Old Testament testimonies in ch.
- Family Practice: Critical Issues in Womens Health (Audio-Digest Foundation Family Practice Continuing Medical Education (CME). Book 58)?
- Physics of Waves (Dover Books on Physics).
- Top Authors;
- Das Konzept der Emotionalen Intelligenz und dessen Anwendung in der Praxis der Sozialen Arbeit (German Edition).
It is possible that citations from Ps. Amos viii. It seems to Guignebert [ Jesus, p. The more probable view is that St. Mark's source, who may well have been St.
Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels
Peter, knew the facts and sought confirmation of them by 'searching the Scriptures to see if these things were so'. The question whether Q , was another of Mark's sources is discussed below. It is possible, further, that his work was 'touched up' at a later time than Matthew and Luke, so that passages and expressions in our present Mark are wantng in both. This kind of agreement against Mark is not, indeed, in every case a criterion. In some points the writers of Matthew and Luke may have corrected Mark independently. And it would be rash to claim that we possess the true text of either Matthew or Luke; if we could arrive at it, some of their agreements would probably disappear.
But, in fact, their agreements are probably the only criterion we have. They will be found collected in Abbott, Corrections of Mark, A considerable fraction - about a quarter - of Mark is found in Matthew but absent from Luke. And some have held that this was added to Mark later than Luke.
This is strongly maintained by Stanton, [Op. Some passages, he thinks, St. Luke found in Mark, but had reasons for omitting. But those for which he sees no reasons, which he enumerates on p. They amount to between one-fifth and one-sixth of the Gospel.
But the view has not found general acceptance. It is open to many of the arguments fatal to the Ur-Marcus theory. Hawkins, [ Oxford Studies , pp. But we cannot expect to know all St. Luke's reasons, while many of his omissions were probably due to the fact that it was necessary to keep his work within the limits of a portable papyrus roll, and he needed the room for much other material, more suitable to his purpose, which he had collected. He may also have preferred his non-Marcan source. Further, the question of style cannot be quite disregarded. If the portions of Mark due to an amplificator amounted to one-sixth of the Gospel, it is probable that differences would be discernible to an extent sufficient to betray his hand.
Stanton suggests a few pp. A natural inference from his view is that Luke was prior to Matthew; and on p.
ThM Introduction to Synoptic Gospels | Academic Programs | Charisma University
Luke used the original un-amplified work of Mark, and the author of St. Matthew the amplified one, but this may have been due to special circumstances'. Spitta and others have held that Mark has been mutilated at the beginning, as at the end. The opening verses present, indeed, curious difficulties. After the heading whether it is the first clause of the evangelist or a mere title by him or an editor the Gospel opens with the words 'As it is written in Esaias the prophet', but this introduces a quotation not from Isaiah but from Mal.
The theory of mutilation fails to account for these difficulties; they must be the result of editorial manipulation. John came'. But it is so artificial that only an editor who prefixed a quotation, and not the evangelist, can be credited with such a construction. The quotation from Malachi was probably interpolated from a list of testimonia; it is an independent version of the Hebrew, while that from Isaiah is from the LXX. Omitting the interpolation Rawlinson, St. Mark, pp. See the whole series of interesting articles on Marcan usage, xxvi-xxix. Mark's work, but a difficulty in this explanation is that the word 'Gospel' has a different meaning in v.
A mutilation in the middle of Mark has been suggested as an explanation of St. Luke's 'great omission' of Mk. Luke did his best with the wording at each end of the gap, and in ix. Streeter offers this only as a tentative suggestion; and it must be admitted that it is not very attractive. But something, at present undetermined, is needed to explain St. Luke's omission of the section. It may be that Mark was not his primary source here and so to think in terms of an 'omission' is wrong. That Mark is mutilated at the end is one of the most certain results of textual criticism.
Whether it has lost only the last sheet, as is commonly supposed, is uncertain. Burkitt [ Christian Beginnings , p.