Gospel According to Mark福音据马克

General Information一般资料

Mark is the second Gospel in the New Testament of the Bible.马克是在新约圣经中的第二个福音。 It is the earliest and the shortest of the four Gospels.它是国内最早,最短的四福音。Papias, an early church father, ascribed this Gospel to Mark, an interpreter of Peter who is often identified with Mark, the cousin of Saint Barnabas and companion of Barnabas and Saint Paul on their first missionary journey.帕皮亚,早期教会的父亲,归因于本福音马克,彼得的翻译往往是确定与马克,圣巴拿巴和他们的第一个传教之旅的同伴的巴拿巴和圣保罗的堂弟。 Irenaeus said that Mark wrote this Gospel after Peter and Paul had died.爱任纽说,马克写这福音后,彼得和保罗已经死了。Most scholars today, therefore, date the book AD 65 - 70.今天,大多数学者,因此,迄今为止书公元65 - 70。

The Gospel was probably written in Rome for a primarily Gentile audience, to convince them that Jesus of Nazareth, in spite of his sufferings and death, was the Son of God. It has been called a Gospel of action because it records 18 miracles (similar in count to Matthew and Luke) but only 4 parables (Matthew includes 18 parables and Luke 19). Jesus' victory over evil through his deeds and death receives emphasis. Much material in Mark is repeated in Matthew and in Luke, leading most scholars to conclude that Mark was written first and used independently by the other writers.福音是写在罗马为主要詹蒂莱听众,说服他们,拿撒勒的耶稣,尽管他的痛苦和死亡,是上帝的儿子,它被称为福音的行动,因为它记录了18个奇迹(类似在计数马修和卢克),但只有4个比喻(马太包括18个寓言和路加福音19)。耶稣战胜邪恶的胜利,通过他的事迹和死亡得到重视。马克的大部分材料是马修和卢克在重复,导致多数学者得出结论,马克写第一和其他作家独立使用。

BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息来源
BELIEVE Religious Information Source相信宗教信息来源
Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects

我们2300 宗教科目名单
E-mail电子邮件
Douglas Ezell道格拉斯Ezell

Bibliography 参考书目
RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (1950); CFD Moule, The Gospel According to Mark (1965); V Taylor, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (1966); E Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark (1975).RH,圣马克福音(1950)娜莱CFD Moule,福音据马克(1965年); V时,泰勒福音据圣马克(1966); E Trocme,根据马克福音的形成(1975年)。


Gospel According to Mark福音据马克

Brief Outline简述

  1. Baptism and Temptation of Jesus (1:1-13)耶稣的洗礼和诱惑(1:1-13)
  2. Galilean Ministry (1:14-9:50)伽利略部(1:14-9:50)
  3. Ministry in Perea (10)佩雷亚部(10)
  4. Passion Week and Resurrection (11-16)受难周和复活(11-16)


Mark标记

Advanced Information先进的信息

Mark, the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25).马克的传播者,“约翰的姓是马克”(徒12:12,25)。Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John.马克(马库斯上校4:10等)是他的罗马名字,逐渐取代了他的犹太名字约翰。He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim.他叫约翰徒13:5,13,和马克在15点39分,2添。4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12). 4:11,等他是马利亚的儿子,一个女人显然一些手段和影响力,可能是出生在耶路撒冷,而他母亲居住(徒12:12)。Of his father we know nothing.他的父亲,我们什么都不知道。He was cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10).他是巴拿巴(西4:10)的表兄弟。It was in his mother's house that Peter found "many gathered together praying" when he was released from prison; and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his "son" (1 Pet. 5: 13).正是在他母亲的房子,彼得发现“许多聚集在一起祈祷”时,他被从监狱中释放和它是可能的,它是在这里,他是彼得,谁调用他自己的“儿子”(1宠物5转换:。 13)。It is probable that the "young man" spoken of in Mark 14:51, 52 was Mark himself.这是有可能的“年轻人”马克14点51分在发言中,52马克自己。He is first mentioned in Acts 12: 25.他是第一次提到在使徒行传12:25。He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about AD 47) as their "minister," but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 12:25; 13:13).他们的第一次旅程(约公元47年)作为他们的“部长,他与保罗和巴拿巴”,但一些原因回头当他们到达Perga潘菲利亚(使徒行传12:25; 13:13)。

Three years afterwards a "sharp contention" arose between Paul and Barnabas (15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him. 3年后出现一个“尖锐争”保罗和巴拿巴(15:36-40)之间,因为保罗不会采取与他马克。He, however, was evidently at length reconciled to the apostle, for he was with him in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10; Philemon 24).不过,他显然不甘心使徒的长度,因为他与他是在他在罗马(西4:10;腓利门书24)第一监禁。At a later period he was with Peter in Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning; and he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during his second imprisonment (2 Tim. 4:11).在稍后的时期,他与彼得在巴比伦(1宠物5点13分),然后,几个世纪之后,行政席位犹太人学习,他是在以弗所霍震霆时,保罗写道:他在他的第二监禁(2蒂姆。4:11)。 He then disappears from view.然后,他从视图中消失。

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)(伊斯顿说明字典)


Gospel according to Mark福音据马克

Advanced Information先进的信息

It is the current and apparently well-founded tradition that Mark derived his information mainly from the discourses of Peter.这是当前和显然是有根有据的传统,马克主要来自彼得的话语,他的信息。 In his mother's house he would have abundant opportunities of obtaining information from the other apostles and their coadjutors, yet he was "the disciple and interpreter of Peter" specially.在他母亲的房子,他将获得从其他使徒和他们的coadjutors信息的大量机会,但他是彼得的“门徒和解释”特别。 As to the time when it was written, the Gospel furnishes us with no definite information.当它被写的时间,福音furnishes与我们没有明确的信息。Mark makes no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, hence it must have been written before that event, and probably about AD 63.马克没有提及耶路撒冷的毁灭,因此它必须被写入之前,该事件,并可能大约在公元63。 The place where it was written was probably Rome.写的地方很可能是罗马。Some have supposed Antioch (comp. Mark 15:21 with Acts 11:20).有些人应该安提阿(comp.马克15时21使徒行传11:20)。It was intended primarily for Romans.它的目的主要是为罗马人。

This appears probable when it is considered that it makes no reference to the Jewish law, and that the writer takes care to interpret words which a Gentile would be likely to misunderstand, such as, "Boanerges" (3:17); "Talitha cumi" (5:41); "Corban" (7:11); "Bartimaeus" (10:46); "Abba" (14:36); "Eloi," etc. (15:34).这似乎可能时,它被认为是,它使没有提到犹太法律,作家照顾解释的话,很可能会产生误解,如“Boanerges”(3:17),外邦人“Talitha粗米“(5:41);”古尔邦节“(7:11);”Bartimaeu​​s“(10时46分);”阿爸“(14时36分);”埃洛伊“等(15:34)。 Jewish usages are also explained (7:3; 14:3; 14:12; 15:42).犹太惯例也解释(7:3; 14:3; 14:12; 15:42)。Mark also uses certain Latin words not found in any of the other Gospels, as "speculator" (6:27, rendered, AV, "executioner;" RV, "soldier of his guard"), "xestes" (a corruption of sextarius, rendered "pots," 7:4, 8), "quadrans" (12:42, rendered "a farthing"), "centurion" (15:39, 44, 45).马克还使用一定的拉丁词,没有发现任何其他福音,因为“投机者”(6:27,渲染,影音,“刽子手”;风疹病毒,“他守卫的士兵”),“xestes”(sextarius腐败,呈现“壶”,7:4,8),“quadrans”(12点42,呈现“极少量”),“百夫长”(15时39分,44,45)。 He only twice quotes from the Old Testament (1:2; 15:28).他只有两次报价从旧约(1:2; 15:28)。

The characteristics of this Gospel are, (1) the absence of the genealogy of our Lord, (2) whom he represents as clothed with power, the "lion of the tribe of Judah."这福音的特点是:(1)没有(2)我们的主的家谱,他代表电源丰衣足食,“犹大支派的狮子。”(3.) Mark also records with wonderful minuteness the very words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36) as well as the position (9:35) and gestures (3:5, 34; 5:32; 9:36; 10:16) of our Lord. (3)标记也与美妙的微细的话(3:17; 5点41分,7点11分,34; 14时36分)以及位置的记录(9点35)和手势(3:5,34 5:32; 9:36; 10:16)我们的主。(4.) He is also careful to record particulars of person (1:29, 36; 3:6, 22, etc.), number (5:13; 6:7, etc.), place (2:13; 4:1; 7:31, etc.), and time (1:35; 2:1; 4:35, etc.), which the other evangelists omit.(4)他还仔细地记录人的资料(1:29,36; 3时06分,22等),数(5点13分,6时07分,等),地方(2时13; 4:1; 7:31等)和时间(1:35; 2:1; 4:35等),其他布道者省略。(5.) The phrase "and straightway" occurs nearly forty times in this Gospel; while in Luke's Gospel, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times.(5)短语“,并立刻”发生近40次在这福音,而在路加福音,这是更长,它是用来只有七次,并在约翰只有四次。"The Gospel of Mark," says Westcott, "is essentially a transcript from life. “马可福音”说韦斯科特“,实质上是一种从生活中的谈话内容。

The course and issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest outline." "In Mark we have no attempt to draw up a continuous narrative.事实的过程和问题是在它的影像与清晰的轮廓。“马克,我们有没有尝试制定一个连续的叙述。His Gospel is a rapid succession of vivid pictures loosely strung together without much attempt to bind them into a whole or give the events in their natural sequence.他的福音是一个松散串成没有太多的尝试,他们结合成一个整体,或给其自然顺序排列的事件的生动画面的的快速连续。 This pictorial power is that which specially characterizes this evangelist, so that 'if any one desires to know an evangelical fact, not only in its main features and grand results, but also in its most minute and so to speak more graphic delineation, he must betake himself to Mark.'" The leading principle running through this Gospel may be expressed in the motto: "Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom" (Mark 1:14). "Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew, 60 with Luke, and at most 51 peculiar to itself." (See Matthew).这图案的权力,专此传道的特点,所以,“如果任何一个渴望知道福音的事实,不仅在其主要特点和盛大的结果,而且在其最微小的,可以这么说的更多的图形的划分,他必须奔往自己的标记“,”领先的原则,通过这福音上运行,可能表示的座右铭:“耶稣来到 宣讲天国的福音,共”(马可福音1:14)。“ 662诗句,马克与马修和卢克的共同点406,145与马修,与卢克60,最多51特有的自己。“(见马太福音)。

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)(伊斯顿说明字典)


Gospel of Saint Mark福音圣马克

Catholic Information天主教信息

The subject will be treated under the following heads:这个题目将被视为根据以下元首:

I. Contents, Selection and Arrangement of Matter;一,内容,物质的选择和安排;

II.二。Authorship;上署名的;

III.三。Original Language, Vocabulary, and Style;原始的语言,词汇,和风格;

IV.四。State of Text and Integrity;国家文字和完整性;

V. Place and Date of Composition;五,广场及组成日期;

VI.六。Destination and Purpose;目标和目的;

VII.七。Relation to Matthew and Luke.马修和卢克的关系。

I. CONTENTS, SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER一,内容,物质的选择和安排

The Second Gospel, like the other two Synoptics, deals chiefly with the Galilean ministry of Christ, and the events of the last week at Jerusalem.第二福音,像其他两个福音,交易主要是与基督伽利略部,和上周在耶路撒冷的事件。In a brief introduction, the ministry of the Precursor and the immediate preparation of Christ for His official work by His Baptism and temptation are touched upon (i, 1-13); then follows the body of the Gospel, dealing with the public ministry, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus (i, 14-xvi, 8); and lastly the work in its present form gives a summary account of some appearances of the risen Lord, and ends with a reference to the Ascension and the universal preaching of the Gospel (xvi, 9-20).在简短的介绍,易制毒化学立即准备基督和他通过他的洗礼和诱惑的正式工作部触及(1-13),然后跟随身体的福音,处理公共事务部,耶稣的受难,死亡,和复活“(I,14 - 十六,8);最后在其目前的形式工作提供一个复活的主的一些外观摘要帐户,并结束与一个参考的阿森松岛和普遍的说教福音(十六9-20)。The body of the Gospel falls naturally into three divisions: the ministry in Galilee and adjoining districts: Phoenicia, Decapolis, and the country north towards Cæarea Philippi (i, 14-ix, 49); the ministry in Judea and (kai peran, with B, Aleph, C*, L, Psi, in x, 1) Peræ, and the journey to Jerusalem (x, 1-xi, 10); the events of the last week at Jerusalem (xi, 11-xvi, 8).福音的身体自然落在分为三个部门:在加利利和邻近地区部:腓尼基,Decapolis,对Cæarea腓国家北部(I,14九,49);部在朱迪亚和(启peran,乙,阿莱夫,C *,L PSI,在x,1)Peræ,到耶路撒冷的旅程(1 - X,​​XI,10);上周在耶路撒冷发生的事件(11十一,十六,8) 。

Beginning with the public ministry (cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37), St. Mark passes in silence over the preliminary events recorded by the other Synoptists: the conception and birth of the Baptist, the genealogy, conception, and birth of Jesus, the coming of the Magi, etc. He is much more concerned with Christ's acts than with His discourses, only two of these being given at any considerable length (iv, 3-32; xiii, 5-37).从公安部(参徒1:22; 10:37),圣马可越过其他Synoptists记录的初步事件保持沉默:浸会,族谱,立意构思和出生,出生耶稣,贤士的到来,等他更是与基督的行为有关,而不是他的话语中,只有这两个在任何相当长(3-32;四,十三,5-37)。 The miracles are narrated most graphically and thrown into great prominence, almost a fourth of the entire Gospel (in the Vulg., 164 verses out of 677) being devoted to them, and there seems to be a desire to impress the readers from the outset with Christ's almighty power and dominion over all nature.奇迹叙述最生动,扔进伟大突出,几乎整个福音的第四次(在Vulg,164诗句677)致力于他们,似乎有一个愿望,从一开始就读者留下深刻的印象与基督的全能权和统治所有的性质。 The very first chapter records three miracles: the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, and the healing of a leper, besides alluding summarily to many others (i, 32-34); and, of the eighteen miracles recorded altogether in the Gospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52; xi, 12-14) occur in the first eight chapters.第一章记录三个奇迹:铸造出一个不洁的精神,彼得的岳母治愈,和一个麻风病人的治疗,除了暗指简易程序向其他许多(32-34),和, 18个共记录在福音的奇迹,但三(16-28 IX,X,46-52;十一12-14)发生在八个章节。Only two of these miracles (vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar to Mark, but, in regard to nearly all, there are graphic touches and minute details not found in the other Synoptics.这些奇迹中只有两个(31-37,第七,第八,22日至26日)是特有的标记,但是,在几乎所有方面,有没有发现在其他福音的图形触摸和微小的细节。 Of the parables proper Mark has only four: the sower (iv, 3-9), the seed growing secretly (iv, 26-29), the mustard seed (iv, 30-32), and the wicked husbandman (xii, 1-9); the second of these is wanting in the other Gospels.适当的比喻马克只有四个:索维(四3-9),增长偷偷种子(四,26日至29日),芥菜籽(四30-32),和邪恶的农夫(第十二,1 -9);这些第二是要在其他福音。Special attention is paid throughout to the human feelings and emotions of Christ, and to the effect produced by His miracles upon the crowd.特别注意的是整个基督的人的感受和情绪,和他的奇迹后,人群所产生的效果。The weaknesses of the Apostles are far more apparent than in the parallel narratives of Matt.使徒的弱点是明显远远超过在马特的平行叙事。and Luke, this being, probably due to the graphic and candid discourses of Peter, upon which tradition represents Mark as relying.和卢克,这是,可能是由于彼得的图形和坦诚的话语,代表作为依托传统标志。

The repeated notes of time and place (eg, i, 14, 19, 20, 21, 29, 32, 35) seem to show that the Evangelist meant to arrange in chronological order at least a number of the events which he records.时间和地点(例如,我,14,19,20,21,29,32,35)重复的音符似乎表明,传播者意味着至少有一些事件,他记录按时间顺序安排。 Occasionally the note of time is wanting (eg i, 40; iii, 1; iv, 1; x, 1, 2, 13) or vague (eg ii, 1, 23; iv, 35), and in such cases he may of course depart from the order of events.偶尔注意的时间是想(如我,40;三,四,1,X,1,2,13)或模糊(如二,1,23;四,35),在这种情况下,他可能当然偏离事件发生的顺序。 But the very fact that in some instances he speaks thus vaguely and indefinitely makes it all the more necessary to take his definite notes of time and sequence in other cases as indicating chronological order.但张女士,在某些情况下,因此,他说话含糊和无限期地使这一切更说明按时间顺序的其他情况下有必要采取一定注意到他的时间和顺序。 We are here confronted, however, with the testimony of Papias, who quotes an elder (presbyter), with whom he apparently agrees, as saying that Mark did not write in order: "And the elder said this also: Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, (he attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [vl "words"]. So then Mark made no mistake [Schmiedel, "committed no fault"], while he thus wrote down some things (enia as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he had heard, or set down any false statement therein" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxix). Some indeed have understood this famous passage to mean merely that Mark did not write a literary work, but simply a string of notes connected in the simplest fashion (cf. Swete, "The Gospel acc. to Mark", pp. lx-lxi). The present writer, however, is convinced that what Papias and the elder deny to our Gospel is chronological order, since for no other order would it have been necessary that Mark should have heard or followed Christ. But the passage need not be understood to mean more than that Mark occasionally departs from chronological order, a thing we are quite prepared to admit. What Papias and the elder considered to be the true order we cannot say; they can hardly have fancied it to be represented in the First Gospel, which so evidently groups (eg viii-ix), nor, it would seem, in the Third, since Luke, like Mark, had not been a disciple of Christ. It may well be that, belonging as they did to Asia Minor, they had the Gospel of St. John and its chronology in mind. At any rate, their judgment upon the Second Gospel, even if be just, does not prevent us from holding that Mark, to some extent, arranges the events of Christ's like in chronological order.然而,我们在这里面对,与帕皮亚,谁报价长辈(长老),他显然同意,的证词说,马克没有为了写:“和老说,这也:马克,成为口译彼得,写下了准确的一切,他记得,没有,但是,为了什么,或者说或基督做记录,因为无论他听到上帝,他也没有跟随祂,但事后,正如我所说,(他出席)彼得,谁适应他的指示的需要(他的听众),但没有设计给一个主的神谕连接帐户[VL“字”]。于是马克作出没有错误[Schmiedel,“承诺无故障“],因此,他写下了一些东西(enia他想起他们,为他做了他的一关怀不遗漏,他没有听到,或设置任何虚假陈述,其中”(尤西比乌斯“。组织胺传道书” ,三,三十九)。有些人确实有了解这个著名的话的意思只是说,马克没有写一部文学作品,但简单的字符串连接在最简单的时尚的注意事项(参见Swete,“福音ACC。马克”,第LX - 61)。然而,目前的作家,相信什么帕皮亚和老否认我们的福音,是按时间顺序,因为没有其他订单,它有必要,马克应该有听到或跟随基督,但通过需要不被理解,以平均超过马克偶尔出发,从时间顺序排列,一个我们是相当准备承认的事情什么帕皮亚和被认为的真正的为了我们不能说的长者;。他们可以很难有想象它以被代表在第一福音,如此明显群体(例如,第八至第九),也没有,它似乎在第三,因为卢克,马克一样,没有基督的门徒。很可能属于,因为他们没有到小亚细亚,他们福音的圣约翰及其年表记住,无论如何,他们的判决后,第二个福音,即使只是,不马克,在一定程度上防止我们安排的事件基督的喜欢按时间顺序排列。

II.二。AUTHORSHIP作者

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached.所有早期传统连接两个名字,圣马可广场和圣彼得的第二个福音,马克被关押有书面彼得曾鼓吹。We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers.我们刚才看到的,这是帕皮亚查看的人,他是指老。Papias wrote not later than about AD 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time.帕皮亚写道不得迟于约公元130,使老的证词可能给我们带来了回的第一个世纪,并显示在小亚细亚的第二福音,并在早期的时候圣马克。 So Irenæus says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" ("Adv. Hær.", III, i; ibid., x, 6).所以,爱任纽说:“马克,门徒和彼得的翻译,自己也流传下来给我们以书面形式是由彼得讲道”(“高级Hær。”第三,我同上,X,6)。 St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elder presbyters", tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark "composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv).圣克莱门特的亚历山德里亚,依靠“老长老”的权威,告诉我们,彼得曾公开鼓吹在罗马时,许多人听到他告诫马克作为一个曾长期跟随彼得,想起了他说,把它写下来,和马克“组成的福音,并把它给了那些曾要求”(优西比乌,“组织胺。传道书”,第六,第十四条)。 Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work ("Hist. Eccl.", II, xv).奥利说,(同上,六,XXV),马克写道:彼得指示他(OS佩特罗斯huphegesato自动),并尤西比乌斯自己报告的传统,彼得批准或授权马克的工作(“组织胺。传道书。”二,XV)。 To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: "The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was" ("Contra Marc.", IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of he Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers ("Dial.", 106), when he sags that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the "Diatessaron", makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.对于这些早期东欧证人可能被添加,从西,笔者的穆拉多利片段,其中的第一行几乎肯定是指马克的彼得的话语和他的福音组成相应的(Quibus塔门interfuit等ITA posuit);德尔图良,他指出:“马克发表的福音(edidit肯定是彼得,其口译马克是”(“魂斗罗马克”,四,五);圣杰罗姆,谁在一个地方说,马克写了一个简短福音在罗马的弟兄们的请求,和彼得授权,它是在教会读(“室女。伊利诺伊州”,VIII),并在另一个马克福音组成,彼得的叙述和马克写作(石油narrante在每一个这些古老当局马克等伊洛scribente - 。“广告Hedib”,EP CXX)被视为作家的福音,这是使徒权威的同时,看着后,因为大幅至少来自圣彼得在他与圣彼得福音的这个传统的联接,可以毫无疑问,这是圣贾斯汀烈士,写的第二个世纪中叶,是指(“拨号“,106),当他跌落了基督”称号Boanerges“西庇太的儿子(马克三时17分,只有在新约中提到一个事实),并认为这是在写”回忆录“彼得(EN tois apopnemaneumasin autou - 后,他刚刚名叫彼得),虽然圣贾斯汀没有名称标记作为作家的回忆录,事实上,他的弟子塔蒂安我们目前的商标,甚至包括过去十二个月的诗句, “Diatessaron”的组成,使得几乎肯定圣贾斯汀知道我们目前的第二福音,圣彼得与其他父亲一样。

If, then, a consistent and widespread early tradition is to count for anything, St. Mark wrote a work based upon St. Peter's preaching.那么,如果一致和广泛的早期传统算什么,圣马可写了圣彼得的说教为基础的工作。It is absurd to seek to destroy the force of this tradition by suggesting that all the subsequent authorities relied upon Papias, who may have been deceived.它是荒谬的企图破坏这一传统的力量,表明所有随后当局靠后,他们可能有被欺骗的帕皮亚。Apart from the utter improbability that Papias, who had spoken with many disciples of the Apostles, could have been deceived on such a question, the fact that Irenæus seems to place the composition of Mark's work after Peter's death, while Origen and other represent the Apostle as approving of it (see below, V), shows that all do not draw from the same source.除了在完全不可能的,帕皮亚,谁曾使徒的许多弟子发言,可能已经被这样一个问题上欺骗了,爱任纽似乎到地方彼得逝世后组成马克的工作,而奥利和其他代表的使徒作为它的批准(见下文,V)表明,所有不画同出一源。 Moreover, Clement of Alexandria mentions as his source, not any single authority, but "the elders from the beginning" (ton anekathen presbuteron--Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv).此外,克莱门特的亚历山德里亚提到他的来源,没有任何单一的机构,但是从一开始就“长老”(吨anekathen presbuteron - “。。组织胺传道书”Euseb,六,第十四条)。The only question, then, that can be raised with any shadow of reason, is whether St. Mark's work was identical with our present Second Gospel, and on this there is no room for doubt.唯一的问题,然后,可以提出任何理由的阴影,是圣马可的工作是否是与我们目前的第二福音相同,并在此没有怀疑的余地。 Early Christian literature knows no trace of an Urmarkus different from our present Gospel, and it is impossible that a work giving the Prince of the Apostles' account of Christ's words and deeds could have disappeared utterly, without leaving any trace behind.早期基督教文学知道没有从我们目前的福音不同的Urmarkus的痕迹,这是不可能的工作给予使徒“基督的言行,王子可以完全消失,不留任何痕迹的。 Nor can it be said that the original Mark has been worked up into our present Second Gospel, for then, St. Mark not being the actual writer of the present work and its substance being due to St. Peter, there would have been no reason to attribute it to Mark, and it would undoubtedly have been known in the Church, not by the title it bears, but as the "Gospel according to Peter".也可以说,原来的标志已经为我们目前的第二福音工作,圣马克没有被目前的工作,其实质是由于圣彼得的实际作家,​​就不会有没有理由属性它来标记,它无疑已在教会,而不是由它承担的标题,但作为“福音根据彼得”。

Internal evidence strongly confirms the view that our present Second Gospel is the work referred to by Papias.内部的证据有力地证实认为,我们目前的第二福音是由帕皮亚提到的工作。That work, as has been seen, was based on Peter's discourses.这项工作,我们已经看到,是基于对彼得的话语。Now we learn from Acts (i, 21-22; x, 37-41) that Peter's preaching dealt chiefly with the public life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.现在我们学习行为(I,21-22; X,37-41),彼得的说教处理,主要是与市民生活,死亡,复活,升天。So our present Mark, confining itself to the same limits, omitting all reference to Christ's birth and private life, such as is found in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, and commencing with the preaching of the Baptist, ends with Christ's Resurrection and Ascension.因此,我们目前的马克,局限于相同的限制,省略所有基督的诞生和私人生活,例如是在马修和卢克的开放章节发现参考,浸会的宣讲开始,结束与基督的复活和升天。 Again (1) the graphic and vivid touches peculiar to our present Second Gospel, its minute notes in regard to (2) persons, (3) places, (4) times, and (5) numbers, point to an eyewitness like Peter as the source of the writer's information. (1)图形和生动的触摸像彼得,我们目前的第二福音,(2),(3)地方,(4)次,(5)号码,指向一名目击者分钟注意到特有作家的信息源。Thus we are told (1) how Jesus took Peter's mother-in-law by the hand and raised her up (i, 31), how with anger He looked round about on His critics (iii, 5), how He took little children into His arms and blessed them and laid His hands upon them (ix, 35; x, 16), how those who carried the paralytic uncovered the roof (ii, 3, 4), how Christ commanded that the multitude should sit down upon the green grass, and how they sat down in companies, in hundred and in fifties (vi, 39-40); (2) how James and John left their father in the boat with the hired servants (i, 20), how they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John (i, 29), how the blind man at Jericho was the son of Timeus (x, 46), how Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21); (3) how there was no room even about the door of the house where Jesus was (ii, 2), how Jesus sat in the sea and all the multitude was by the sea on the land (iv, 1), how Jesus was in the stern of the boat asleep on the pillow (iv, 38); (4) how on the evening of the Sabbath, when the sun had set, the sick were brought to be cured (i, 32), how in the morning, long before day, Christ rose up (i, 35), how He was crucified at the third hour (xv, 25), how the women came to the tomb very early, when the sun had risen (xvi, 2); (5) how the paralytic was carried by four (ii, 3), how the swine were about two thousand in number (v. 13), how Christ began to send forth the Apostles, two and two (vi, 7).因此,我们是说(1)如何耶稣了手彼得的岳母和提出了起来(我,31),如何与愤怒,他看着一轮关于他的批评(三,5),如何他了小孩子到他的手臂和祝福他们,并奠定了他的手后,他们(IX,3​​5,X,16),那些携带的麻痹发现屋顶(II,3,4),如何基督吩咐众人坐在绿草如茵,以及如何在公司坐了下来,在一百五十(六39-40);(2)如何詹姆斯和约翰离开他们的父亲在船与聘请公务员(I,20),他们是如何来的到西蒙和安德鲁,詹姆斯和约翰(I,29),如何在耶利哥的瞎子Timeus儿子(X,46),西蒙的昔兰尼是亚历山大和鲁孚的父亲(XV,21家);(3)如何有没有房间,甚至耶稣那里的房子的门(二,2),耶稣坐在海中的所有众多海的土地上(四,1),如何耶稣在船尾的船睡在枕头上(四38);(4)如何在安息日的晚上,当太阳,患病者被带到被治愈(I,32),如何上午,长的前一天,基督上升(I,35),他是如何被钉在十字架上的第三个小时(XV,25),妇女如何来到坟墓得很早,当太阳已经上升(XVI,2) (5)如何麻痹是由四个(II,3),猪约有两万余人的数量(13节),基督如何开始差遣使徒,两个及两个(六,七)进行。This mass of information which is wanting in the other Synoptics, and of which the above instances are only a sample, proved beyond doubt that the writer of the Second Gospel must have drawn from some independent source, and that this source must have been an eyewitness.这个信息是想在其他的福音,和上述情况,其中只有一个样本的质量,证明毫无疑问,作家第二福音必须从一些独立的源绘制的,这个源必须有一名目击者。 And when we reflect that incidents connected with Peter, such as the cure of his mother-in-law and his three denials, are told with special details in this Gospel; that the accounts of the raising to life of the daughter of Jaïrus, of the Transfiguration, and of the Agony in the Garden, three occasions on which only Peter and James and John were present, show special signs of first-hand knowledge (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xliv) such as might be expected in the work of a disciple of Peter (Matthew and Luke may also have relied upon the Petrine tradition for their accounts of these events, but naturally Peter's disciple would be more intimately acquainted with the tradition); finally, when we remember that, though the Second Gospel records with special fullness Peter's three denials, it alone among the Gospels omit all reference to the promise or bestowal upon him of the primacy (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17), we are led to conclude that the eyewitness to whom St. Mark was indebted for his special information was St. Peter himself, and that our present Second Gospel, like Mark's work referred to by Papias, is based upon Peter's discourse.而当我们反映,与彼得连接的事件,如治愈他的母亲和他的三个否认,在这福音的特殊细节告诉提高睚鲁的女儿的生活,账目;变身,并在花园的痛苦,只有彼得和詹姆斯和约翰人出席三次,显示第一手知识的特殊标志(参见Swete,同前,第XLIV)如可能在彼得(马修和卢克也有依靠的伯多禄的传统时,这些事件他们的帐户,但自然彼得弟子将可更密切地熟悉与传统)的弟子的工作预期;最后,当我们记住的,虽然第二福音记录特别丰满彼得三个否认,它独自之间的福音省略所有引用他的首要地位的承诺或赠与(参见马太16:18-19,路加福音22时32;约翰21:15-17 ),导致结​​束目击者圣马克为他的特别信息债圣彼得本人,而且我们目前的第二个福音,喜欢马克的工作提到帕皮亚到彼得的话语后。This internal evidence, if it does not actually prove the traditional view regarding the Petrine origin of the Second Gospel, is altogether consistent with it and tends strongly to confirm it.这种内部的证据,如果它实际上并没有证明的传统观点关于伯多禄起源第二福音,它是完全一致的,而且往往强烈,以确认它。

III.三。ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, VOCABULARY, AND STYLE原有的语言,词汇和作风

It has always been the common opinion that the Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no solid reason to doubt the correctness of this view.一直以来,普遍认为第二福音写在希腊,并没有坚实的理由怀疑这一观点的正确性。We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very widely spoken at Rome in the first century.我们学习尤维纳利斯(三,周六,60平方米;六,187 SQQ)和武术(Epig.,第十四条,58条),希腊是非常广泛的在罗马说,在第一世纪。Various influences were at work to spread the language in the capital of the Empire.在工作​​中的各种影响散布在帝国首都的语言。"Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and the trading classes there were swarms of Greek and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek; children were taught it by Greek nurses; and in after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation" (Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", p. lii). “事实上,有双重的倾向,这一次班接受社会规模的两端。一方面在奴隶和贸易类之间有成群的希腊和希腊讲东方人。另一方面在较高职级它是讲希腊语的时尚;孩子们教希腊护士和生活后,利用它进行做作的音调“(桑迪和Headlam,”入乡随俗“,第LII)。 We know, too, that it was in Greek St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and from Rome St. Clement wrote to the Church of Corinth in the same language.我们也知道,这是在希腊圣保禄写信给罗马,从罗马圣克莱门特写信给哥林多教会同日而语。It is true that some cursive Greek manuscripts of the tenth century or later speak of the Second Gospel as written in Latin (egrathe Romaisti en Rome, but scant and late evidence like this, which is probably only a deduction from the fact that the Gospel was written at Rome, can be allowed on weight. Equally improbable seems the view of Blass (Philol. of the Gosp., 196 sqq.) that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic. The arguments advanced by Blass (cf. also Allen in "Expositor", 6th series, I, 436 sqq.) merely show at most that Mark may have thought in Aramaic; and naturally his simple, colloquial Greek discloses much of the native Aramaic tinge. Blass indeed urges that the various readings in the manuscripts of Mark, and the variations in Patristic quotations from the Gospel, are relics of different translations of an Aramaic original, but the instances he adduces in support of this are quite inconclusive. An Aramaic original is absolutely incompatible with the testimony of Papias, who evidently contrasts the work of Peter's interpreter with the Aramaic work of Matthew. It is incompatible, too, with the testimony of all the other Fathers, who represent the Gospel as written by Peter's interpreter for the Christians of Rome.这是事实,一些草书希腊手稿十世纪以后的第二福音在拉丁美洲(egrathe Romaisti EN罗马书面发言,但很​​少和后期这样的证据,这可能是福音的事实只有一个扣除写在罗马,可以在重量允许的。同样不大可​​能似乎布拉斯(Philol. GOSP,196 SQQ。)福音最初是在亚拉姆语写的的观点。布拉斯先进的参数(参见阿伦“解释者“,第6辑,我436 SQQ)只显示最可能在阿拉姆认为,马克;自然是他的简单,通俗希腊披露许多母语阿拉姆色彩布拉斯确实敦促在来稿的各种读数标记,并在福音的教父报价的变化,不同的译本的阿拉姆原文物,但他支持这个举出的实例是相当不确定的。一个阿拉姆原来是绝对不相容的证词帕皮亚,谁明显反差彼得的翻译工作。马修的阿拉姆工作是格格不入的,也与所有其他的父亲,谁代表罗马基督徒福音,彼得的翻译书面证言。

The vocabulary of the SecondGospel embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names.第二福音的词汇,包含1330不同的字,其中60个是正确的名称。Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elsewhere in the New Testament; this, however, is a small number in comparison with more than 250 peculiar words found in the Gospel of St. Luke.八十字,包括适当的名称,是在新约中没有发现其他地方;然而,这是在比较少数圣卢克福音发现超过250个奇特的词。 Of St. Mark's words, 150 are shared only by the other two Synoptists; 15 are shared only by St. John (Gospel); and 12 others by one or other of the Synoptists and St. John.圣马可的话,150是共享的,只能由其他两个Synoptists; 15只由圣约翰(福音)共享;和12人,由一个或其他Synoptists和圣约翰。Though the words found but once in the New Testament (apax legomena) are not relatively numerous in the Second Gospel, they are often remarkable; we meet with words rare in later Greek such as (eiten, paidiothen, with colloquialisms like (kenturion, xestes, spekoulator), and with transliterations such as korban, taleitha koum, ephphatha, rabbounei (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xlvii). Of the words peculiar to St. Mark about one-fourth are non-classical, while among those peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke the proportion of non-classical words is only about one-seventh (cf. Hawkins, "Hor. Synopt.", 171). On the whole, the vocabulary of the Second Gospel points to the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the literary use of the language.虽然发现的话,但一次在新约圣经(APAX legomena)在第二个福音较多,他们往往显着;我们满足的话后,如希腊罕见(eiten,paidiothen,像俗语(kenturion,xestes spekoulator),如korban,taleitha koum,ephphatha,rabbounei(见Swete,同上,第XLVII)音译圣马克特有的约四分之一的话,非古典,而在那些奇特的圣马太或圣卢克的非经典的话比例大约只有七分之一(参见霍金斯,“贺。Synopt”,171页)。整体而言,第二福音的词汇作为一名熟悉口语希腊的外国人,但一个比较陌生的语言文学的使用的作家。

St. Mark's style is clear, direct, terse, and picturesque, if at times a little harsh.圣马克的风格是清晰,直接,简洁,和如诗如画的的,如果有时有些苛刻。He makes very frequent use of participles, is fond of the historical present, of direct narration, of double negatives, of the copious use of adverbs to define and emphasize his expressions.他participles使用非常频繁,很喜欢的历史目前,直述,双重否定的,丰富的副词来定义,并强调他的表现。 He varies his tenses very freely, sometimes to bring out different shades of meaning (vii, 35; xv, 44), sometimes apparently to give life to a dialogue (ix, 34; xi, 27).他改变他的态非常自由,有时带出深浅不同的含义(第七章,35条;十五,44),有时显然是为了给生活对话(34,第九,第十一,27)。 The style is often most compressed, a great deal being conveyed in very few words (i, 13, 27; xii, 38-40), yet at other times adverbs and synonyms and even repetitions are used to heighten the impression and lend colour to the picture.的风格往往是最压缩,大量很少说话转达(I,13,27;十二,38-40),但在其他时间副词和同义词,甚至重复使用,以提高的印象,并借给颜色图片。 Clauses are generally strung together in the simplest way by kai; de is not used half as frequently as in Matthew or Luke; while oun occurs only five times in the entire Gospel.条款一般串成启最简单的方法; de是不使用的一半,经常在马太或卢克,而OUN只有5次发生在整个福音。Latinisms are met with more frequently than in the other Gospels, but this does not prove that Mark wrote in Latin or even understood the language. Latinisms是满足更频繁地比在其他福音,但这并不证明马克写在拉丁美洲,甚至理解的语言。It proves merely that he was familiar with the common Greek of the Roman Empire, which freely adopted Latin words and, to some extent, Latin phraseology (cf. Blass, "Philol. of the Gosp.", 211 sq.), Indeed such familiarity with what we may call Roman Greek strongly confirms the traditional view that Mark was an "interpreter" who spent some time at Rome.事实证明只是说,他熟悉常见的希腊与罗马帝国,自由通过拉丁词,在一定程度上,拉美用语(参见布拉斯,“Philol的GOSP。”,211平方米),事实上,例如熟悉罗马希腊强烈地印证了传统的观点认为马克是一个“翻译”在罗马度过了一段时间,我们可以称之为。

IV.四。STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY国家的文字和完整性

The text of the Second Gospel, as indeed of all the Gospels, is excellently attested.第二福音的文字,事实上,所有的福音,是极好证明。It is contained in all the primary unical manuscripts, C, however, not having the text complete, in all the more important later unicals, in the great mass of cursives; in all the ancient versions: Latin (both Vet. It., in its best manuscripts, and Vulg.), Syriac (Pesh., Curet., Sin., Harcl., Palest.), Coptic (Memph. and Theb.), Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic; and it is largely attested by Patristic quotations.它包含在所有主要unical手稿,C,然而,没有完成的文字,更重要的在所有后来unicals,在伟大的群众的cursives;在所有古老的版本:。。拉丁美洲(既兽医,其最好的手稿,以及Vulg),叙利亚文(Pesh.,Curet,黄大仙,Harcl,Palest),科普特人(Memph.和Theb),亚美尼亚语,哥特式,和埃塞俄比亚的;。。。。,它在很大程度上证明了教父报价。 Some textual problems, however, still remain, eg whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20.一些文字上的问题,但是,仍然存在,例如是否Gerasenon或Gergesenon V,1,eporei或20六,epoiei读取,以及是否困难autou,证明,由B,阿莱夫A,L,或autes是读中六,20。But the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses.但是,伟大的福音的文字问题的关注在过去12节经文的真实性。Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation."称为福音的结论是:长期的结论,因为在我们的圣经,包含经文9-20,第8节(ephoboumto GAR)结束的短,并运行如下(有一些轻微的变化)的中间形式: “他们立即告知所有已命令那些关于彼得。而在此之后,耶稣亲自向他们显现,并通过他们发送提出从东西的神圣和廉洁宣布永恒的救恩。”Now this third form may be dismissed at once.现在,这第三种形式可能会被解雇一次。Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii).四unical手稿,从第七至第九世纪约会,给它,事实上,后十六,9,但他们每个人也使得参考的时间越长,作为替代(详情比照。Swete,运算。CIT。,PP结束CV - cvii)。It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion.按理说也草书手稿274的保证金,保证金的Harclean叙利亚和两个Memphitic版本手稿;在埃塞俄比亚的一些手稿代表之间的第8节和普通的结论。 Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form.只有一个权威的,旧的拉丁k,给它单独(在一个非常腐败的渲染),没有任何参考更长的形式。Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.这样的证据,尤其是当与其他两个结局相比,可以有不重,而事实上,没有学者认为,这中间的结论,不必接受任何头衔。

We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, ie between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8.那么,我们可能会通过,考虑怎么回事代表之间的长期的结论和短期之间,即接受十六,9日至20日,一个真正的部分原福音,或8十六,原最终。 In favour of the short ending Eusebius ("Quaest. ad Marin.") is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt.有利于在短期结束尤西比乌斯(“Quaest。马林的广告。”)是呼吁说的代言人可能摆脱马特比较所产生的任何困难。xxviii, 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Christ's Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel.二十八,1,与马克,十六,9,关于基督的复活小时,指出,马克开始第9节的话是不是在所有的福音手稿中。The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8.历史学家接着对自己说,在几乎所有的手稿至少,在准确的(schedon apasi tois antigraphois。马克。TA goun akribe的福音十六,8结束。

It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing".这是真的,尤西比乌斯给第二辩护士可能作出的答复,并设有争议的通道的真实性,他说,可能是由一个“谁也不敢预留的任何物件被发现后者的答复在任何方式在福音的写作“。 But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8.但整个通道的显示不够清楚,尤西比乌斯倾向于拒绝一切后,十六,8。It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339). ,太普遍认为,他并不适用于他的大炮有争议的诗句,从而清楚地显示,他不把它们作为原始文本的一部分(见,然而,Scriv。“Introd。”二, 1894年,339)。St. Jerome also says in one place ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate.圣杰罗姆还表示,在一个地方(“广告。Hedib的。”),希望通过在几乎所有的希腊手稿(综合Græciæ Libris的poene特别优秀的非habentibus花序),但他引用了其他地方马特(“评论。 “;”广告Hedib“),因为我们知道,他在武加大。It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius.整个通道,杰罗姆使有关争议的诗句缺席希腊手稿声明,是借来的,几乎逐字从尤西比乌斯,它可能会怀疑他的声明是否真的添加任何独立的重量尤西比乌斯声明,这是很清楚。 It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion.它似乎是最有可能也维克多的安提阿,第一评论员第二福音,视为十六,8,得出的结论。

If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin.如果我们添加到这个福音结束十六,8,在两个最古老的希腊文手抄本,B和阿莱夫,在黄大仙,。 Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20, we have mentioned all the evidence that can be adduced in favour of the short conclusion.叙利亚和几个埃塞俄比亚的手稿,以及22的草书手稿和一些亚美尼亚手稿表明怀疑是否真正结束是在第8节或20节,我们所提到的所有可以在有利于短期的结论提出的证据。 The external evidence in favour of the long, or ordinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong.有利于长期的,还是普通的外部证据,结论是极其强烈。The passage stands in all the great unicals except B and Aleph--in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M, (N), S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma), Omega, Beth--in all the cursives, in all the Latin manuscripts (OL and Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and most manuscripts of the Armenian.通过矗立在所有伟大除B和阿莱夫unicals - 在A,C,(四),E,F,G,H,K,M(N)的,S,U,V,X,伽玛,德尔塔(PI,Sigma公司),欧米茄,贝丝 - 所有cursives,在所有的拉丁手稿(。OL和Vulg)除k以外的所有的Sinaitic(在Pesh Curet,Harcl叙利亚文版本。 ,Palest),亚美尼亚的科普特人,哥特式,和大多数的手稿。

It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the "Acts of Pilate", the "Apostolic Constitutions", and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark's Gospel ("In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus", etc.--Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the "Diatessaron", and most probably by Justin ("Apol. I", 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2).这是引用或提到,在第四世纪Aphraates,米加利阿斯马格尼斯,Didymus,叙利亚文的行为的使徒,Leontius,伪Ephraem,西里尔耶路撒冷,埃皮法尼乌斯,刘汉铨,奥古斯丁,和大炮,叙利亚文表金口;在第三个世纪,通过希波吕托斯,Vincentius,“彼拉多的行为”,在“使徒宪法”,并可能由塞尔苏斯;在第二,由爱任纽最明确马克的福音结束(罚款autem evangelii“ AIT马库斯等quidem dominus耶稣“等 - 马克十六,19),在塔蒂安”Diatessaron“,并极有可能由贾斯汀(”APOL我“,45)和黑马(牧师,九,十五,2。 )。Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness.此外,在第四世纪肯定,并可能在第三,通过在希腊教会的礼仪,充分的证据,没有任何受理对其真实性的怀疑。 Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.因此,如果通过的真实性,仅由外部证据来判断,有可能难以关于它的任何疑问。

Much has been made of the silence of some third and fourth century Father, their silence being interpreted to mean that they either did not know the passage or rejected it.很多人已作出一些第三和第四世纪之父的沉默,沉默被解释为,他们要么不知道通过或否决。Thus Tertullian, SS.因此,良,党卫军。Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria are appealed to.塞浦路斯,亚他那修,罗勒大,格雷戈里的nazianzus,和西里尔亚历山大的呼吁。In the case of Tertullian and Cyprian there is room for some doubt, as they might naturally enough to be expected to have quoted or alluded to Mark, xvi, 16, if they received it; but the passage can hardly have been unknown to Athanasius (298-373), since it was received by Didymus (309-394), his contemporary in Alexandria (PG, XXXIX, 687), nor to Basil, seeing it was received by his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (PG, XLVI, 652), nor to Gregory of Nazianzus, since it was known to his younger brother Cæsarius (PG, XXXVIII, 1178); and as to Cyril of Alexandria, he actually quotes it from Nestorius (PG, LXXVI, 85).在德尔图良和塞浦路斯的情况下,有一些怀疑的余地,因为它们可能会自然地被预计将有引用或提到马克,十六,16,如果他们收到;但通过难以一直默默无闻到亚他那修( 298-373),因为它是收到Didymus(309-394),他在亚历山德里亚(PG,XXXIX,687)当代,也罗勒,看到这是他年轻的nyssa哥哥格雷戈里(PG,四十六,652 ),也不是格雷戈里的nazianzus,因为它是已知他的弟弟Cæsarius(PG,三十八,1178);和亚历山大的Cyril,他居然报价从涅斯(PG,LXXVI,85)。 The only serious difficulties are created by its omission in B and Aleph and by the statements of Eusebius and Jerome.唯一的严重困难,创造了其在B和阿莱夫遗漏,并通过尤西比乌斯和杰罗姆报表。

But Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1 sqq.) that the two famous manuscripts are not here two independent witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands.但提申多夫证明示范(Proleg.,第xx页,1 SQQ)这两个著名的手稿这里不是两个独立的证人,因为隶的B复制叶阿莱夫我们通过站。Moreover, in both manuscripts, the scribe, though concluding with verse 8, betrays knowledge that something more followed either in his archetype or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary to his custom, he leaves more than a column vacant after verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed by an elaborate arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the whole manuscript, showing that the scribe was aware of the existence of some conclusion which he meant deliberately to exclude (cf. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99; Salmon, "Introd.", 144-48).此外,在双方的手稿,抄写员,但结论与第8节,背叛的东西更其次,无论是在他的原型,或在其他手稿,在B,违背了他的习惯,他离开后第8节比一列空置的知识,阿莱夫第8节,其次是一个精心制作的蔓藤花纹,如会见了无处整个手稿,隶意识到存在的一些结论,他指的是刻意排除(参见Cornely,“Introd的。 “三,96-99;鲑鱼,”Introd“,144-48)。Thus both manuscripts bear witness to the existence of a conclusion following after verse 8, which they omit.因此,这两个手稿见证后第8节,他们忽略了以下结论存在。Whether B and Aleph are two of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to have copies for his new capital we cannot be sure; but at all events they were written at a time when the authority of Eusebius was paramount in Biblical criticism, and probably their authority is but the authority of Eusebius.无论乙和阿莱夫是两个的第五十手稿其中君士坦丁委托尤西比乌斯他的新的资本,我们可以不被肯定的副本;但在所有的事件,他们被一次书面尤西比乌斯的权威至高无上圣经的批评,并可能他们的权威,但尤西比乌斯的权威。 The real difficulty, therefore, against the passage, from external evidence, is reduced to what Eusebius and St. Jerome say about its omission in so many Greek manuscripts, and these, as Eusebius says, the accurate ones.真正的困难,因此,通过对来自外部的证据,是减少其遗漏在如此众多的希腊文手抄本,而这些,尤西比乌斯说,准确的说什么优西比乌和圣杰罗姆。

But whatever be the explanation of this omission, it must be remembered that, as we have seen above, the disputed verses were widely known and received long before the time of Eusebius.但无论是解释这种遗漏,必须记住的是,正如我们上面看到的,有争议的诗句家喻户晓,尤西比乌斯长的时间前收到的。 Dean Burgon, while contending for the genuineness of the verses, suggested that the omission might have come about as follows.院长Burgon,而经文的真实性,建议遗漏可能有如下关于争夺。One of the ancient church lessons ended with Mark, xvi, 8, and Burgon suggested that the telos, which would stand at the end of such lesson, may have misled some scribe who had before him a copy of the Four Gospels in which Mark stood last, and from which the last leaf, containing the disputed verses, was missing.古老的教堂与马克,十六,8,和Burgon结束的教训之一,建议在Telos,这将站在这样的教训年底,可能会误导一些隶之前,他曾四福音马克站在副本最后,并从其中最后叶,包含有争议的诗句,失踪。 Given one such defective copy, and supposing it fell into the hands of ignorant scribes, the error might easily be spread.鉴于这样一个有缺陷的副本,并假设它落入无知文士手中下跌,这种错误可能很容易被传播。Others have suggested that the omission is probably to be traced to Alexandria.也有人建议,大概要追溯到亚历山大遗漏。That Church ended the Lenten fast and commenced the celebration of Easter at midnight, contrary to the custom of most Churches, which waited for cock-crow (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria in PG, X, 1272 sq.).这教会的四旬期快结束,并开始在午夜庆祝复活节,相反大多数的教会,其中等待公鸡乌鸦(参见亚历山大的狄奥尼修斯在PG,X,1272平方米)的习俗。 Now Mark, xvi, 9: "But he rising early", etc., might easily be taken to favour the practice of the other Churches, and it is suggested that the Alexandrians may have omitted verse 9 and what follows from their lectionaries, and from these the omission might pass on into manuscripts of the Gospel.现在马克,十六,9:“但他上升早”,等等,可能很容易地采取有利于其他教会的做法,并建议Alexandrians可省略第9节和他们lectionaries如下,并从这些遗漏可能转嫁到手稿的福音。

Whether there be any force in these suggestions, they point at any rate to ways in which it was possible that the passage, though genuine, should have been absent from a number of manuscripts in the time of Eusebius; while, on the other and, if the verses were not written by St. Mar, it is extremely hard to understand how they could have been so widely received in the second century as to be accepted by Tatian and Irenæus, and probably by Justin and Hermas, and find a place in the Old Latin and Syriac Versions.是否有任何在这些建议的力量,他们指出,无论如何,它可能通过,但真正的,应该已经不在尤西比乌斯时间的手稿,同时,其他如果经文不是由圣月编写的,它是极其困难,了解他们如何能有如此广泛的接受,要接受塔蒂安和爱任纽在公元二世纪,并可能被贾斯汀和黑马,并找到一个适当的旧拉丁美洲和叙利亚版本。

When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking.当我们转向内部的证据,数字,字符的特殊性,更肯定是引人注目的。The following words or phrases occur nowhere else in the Gospel: prote sabbaton (v. 9), not found again in the New Testament, instead of te[s] mia[s] [ton] sabbaton (v. 2), ekeinos used absolutely (10, 11, 20), poreuomai (10, 12, 15), theaomai (11, 14), apisteo (11, 16), meta tauta and eteros (12), parakoloutheo and en to onomati (17), ho kurios (19, 20), pantachou, sunergeo, bebaioo, epakoloutheo (20).下面的词或短语其他地方发生的福音:prote sabbaton(9节),没有发现在新约中,而不是特[],再次MIA [S] [吨] sabbaton(2节),ekeinos绝对(10,11,20),poreuomai(10,12,15),theaomai(11,14),apisteo(11,16),元tauta eteros(12),parakoloutheo和EN onomati(17),何kurios(19,20),pantachou,sunergeo,bebaioo,epakoloutheo(20)。 Instead of the usual connexion by kai and an occasional de, we have meta de tauta (12), husteron [de] (14), ho men oun (19), ekeinoi de (20).,取而代之的是由单仲偕议员和偶尔DE通常联接,我们ekeinoi DE husteron [DE](14),何男子OUN(19),元德tauta(12),(20)。Then it is urged that the subject of verse 9 has not been mentioned immediately before; that Mary Magdalen seems now to be introduced for the first time, though in fact she has been mentioned three times in the preceding sixteen verses; that no reference is made to an appearance of the Lord in Galilee, though this was to be expected in view of the message of verse 7.敦促第9节的主题没有提到前夕,玛利亚抹大拉现在看来将首次推出,但事实上她已经在前面的16节经文提到三次,没有提到主在加利利的外观,虽然这是在第7节的消息预期。 Comparatively little importance attached to the last three points, for the subject of verse 9 is sufficiently obvious from the context; the reference to Magdalen as the woman out of whom Christ had cast seven devils is explicable here, as showing the loving mercy of the Lord to one who before had been so wretched; and the mention of an appearance in Galilee was hardly necessary.相对不大重视到最后三个点,第9节的主题,充分从上下文明显;参考马格德林其中基督投了7个鬼子的女人是可以解释的,在这里,作为爱主的怜悯之前已如此悲惨提到在加利利的外观几乎没有必要。

The important thing being to prove, as this passage does, that Christ was really risen from the dead, and that His Apostles, almost against their wills, were forced to believe the fact.最重要的证明,这段话,基督是真的从死里复活,和他的使徒,几乎对他们的意志,被迫相信的事实。 But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Marcan origin of the passage is considerable.但是,即使这是说,反对通过Marcan起源的证据的累积力量是巨大的。Some explanation indeed can be offered of nearly every point (cf. Knabenbauer, "Comm. in Marc.", 445-47), but it is the fact that in the short space of twelve verse so many points require explanation that constitutes the strength of the evidence.一些解释确实可以提供几乎每一个点(参见Knabenbauer,“通讯中的马克”,445-47),但是这是事实,在短短十二个月诗句这么点要求的解释,构成了实力的证据。 There is nothing strange about the use, in a passage like this, of many words rare with he author.有没有什么奇怪的使用,通过这样的罕见的多的话,他的作者,。Only in the last character is apisteo used by St. Luke also (Luke 24:11, 41), eteros is used only once in St. John's Gospel (xix, 37), and parakoloutheo is used only once by St. Luke (i, 3). eteros只有在最后一个字符是apisteo圣卢克也(路加福音24:11,41),是只能使用一次,在圣约翰的福音(19,37)和parakoloutheo圣卢克只有一次(我,3)。 Besides, in other passages St. Mark uses many words that are not found in the Gospel outside the particular passage.此外,在其他段落圣马克使用以外的特定通道的福音中所没有发现的许多话。In the ten verses, Mark, iv, 20-29, the writer has found fourteen words (fifteen, if phanerousthai of xvi, 12, be not Marcan) which occur nowhere else in the Gospel.在10诗句,马克,四,20-29,笔者发现了十四个字(十五,如果12十六,phanerousthai,不Marcan)发生无处福音。 But, as was said, it is the combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, that leaves room for doubt as to the Marcan authorship of the verses.但是,正如有人说,如此众多的奇特功能的结合,不仅词汇,但物质和建设,留下的诗句Marcan作者怀疑的余地。

In weighing the internal evidence, however, account must be take of the improbability of the Evangelist's concluding with verse 8.然而,在权衡内部的证据,帐户必须与第8节的​​传播者的结论是不可能的。Apart from the unlikelihood of his ending with the participle gar, he could never deliberately close his account of the "good news" (i, 1) with the note of terror ascribed in xvi, 8, to some of Christ's followers.除了从他结束与过去分词GAR不大可能,他可能从来没有刻意接近他的“好消息”(I,1)十六,8,归因于一些基督信徒与恐怖注意帐户。 Nor could an Evangelist, especially a disciple of St. Peter, willingly conclude his Gospel without mentioning some appearance of the risen Lord (Acts 1:22; 10:37-41).也不能一个福音,尤其是门徒圣彼得,心甘情愿地结束他的福音,而不提一些外观复活的主(徒1时22分; 10:37-41)。If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more.如果,那么,马克与第8节结束,它必须被,因为他死了,或者被打断之前,他可以写更多。But tradition points to his living on after the Gospel was completed, since it represents him as bringing the work with him to Egypt or as handing it over to the Roman Christians who had asked for it.但传统的点完成后福音,因为它代表他带着他的工作,埃及或交给曾要求它的罗马基督徒,他的生活。Nor is it easy to understand how, if he lived on, he could have been so interrupted as to be effectually prevented from adding, sooner or later, even a short conclusion.它也不是很容易理解如何,如果他住在,他可能已经增加,迟早,即使是短期的结论是有效果防止中断。Not many minutes would have been needed to write such a passage as xvi, 9-20, and even if it was his desire, as Zahn without reason suggests (Introd., II, 479), to add some considerable portions to the work, it is still inconceivable how he could have either circulated it himself or allowed his friends to circulate it without providing it with at least a temporary and provisional conclusion.已没有多少分钟,需要编写这样一个十六世9日至20日,通过,即使是他的愿望,因为没有理由赞恩表明,(Introd.,二,479),添加一些相当大的部分工作,他怎么能分发给自己或让他的朋友们散发不提供至少一个暂时的,临时的结论,它仍然是不可想象的。 In every hypothesis, then, xvi, 8, seems an impossible ending, and we are forced to conclude either that the true ending is lost or that we have it in the disputed verses.然后,在每一个假说,十六,8,似乎是一个不可能的结局,我们被迫缔结或者丢失,真正的结局是,我们已经在有争议的经文。 Now, it is not easy to see how it could have been lost.现在,它是不容易看到它如何能已丢失。Zahn affirms that it has never been established nor made probable that even a single complete sentence of the New Testament has disappeared altogether from the text transmitted by the Church (Introd., II, 477).赞恩申明,它从来没有被建立,也没有作出可能已经消失了,即使是一个单一的新约圣经完整的句子完全从教会“(Introd.,二,477)传输文本。 In the present case, if the true ending were lost during Mark's lifetime, the question at once occurs: Why did he not replace it?在本案中,如果在马克的一生中失去了真正的结局是,发生一次的问题:为什么他不能取代它呢?And it is difficult to understand how it could have been lost after his death, for before then, unless he died within a few days from the completion of the Gospel, it must have been copied, and it is most unlikely that the same verses could have disappeared from several copies. ,很难理解如何失去他去世后,在此之前,除非他的福音完成从几天内死亡,就必须有被复制,它是最不可能的,相同的诗句已经消失了若干份。

It will be seen from this survey of the question that there is no justification for the confident statement of Zahn that "It may be regarded as one of the most certain of critical conclusions, that the words ephobounto gar, xvi, 8, are the last words in the book which were written by the author himself" (Introd., II, 467).从这个问题的调查,有没有理由赞恩信心声明说:“它可能被视为一个最关键的结论一定,ephobounto噶尔,十六,8的话,最后将被视为在其中由作者自己“”(Introd.,二,467)写的书的话。 Whatever be the fact, it is not at all certain that Mark did not write the disputed verses.无论是事实,这是不能完全肯定,马克没有写有争议的诗句。It may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer, and were appended to the Gospel in the first century or the beginning of the second.这可能是他没有,他们是从其他一些作家的灵感的笔下,被附加在第一世纪的福音,或第二年初。An Armenian manuscript, written in AD 986, ascribes them to a presbyter named Ariston, who may be the same with the presbyter Aristion, mentioned by Papias as a contemporary of St. John in Asia.的亚美尼亚手稿,写于公元986,把他们一个牧师名为阿里斯顿,谁可能是相同的,与长老亚里斯提安帕皮亚提到圣约翰在亚洲当代。 Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark.天主教徒不一定要举行,圣马可写的诗句。But they are canonical Scripture, for the Council of Trent (Sess. IV), in defining that all the parts of the Sacred Books are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one (cf. Theiner, "Acta gen. Conc. Trid.", I, 71 sq.).但他们是典型的经文,安理会的遄达(Sess.四),在界定的圣书的所有部分,是被视为神圣和规范接收的,尤其是在查看有争议的福音部分,而本马克的结论是(参见Theiner,“文献根浓度TRID。”我,71平方米)。 Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.因此,谁写的诗句,他们的灵感,必须等收到每一个天主教。

V. PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION五,地点和日期组成

It is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome.可以肯定的是,在罗马的书面福音。St. Chrysostom indeed speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3), but he probably misunderstood Eusebius, who says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the Gospel which he had written ("Hist. Eccl.", II, xvi).圣金口确实谈到了埃及组成,3)(“坎一马特。”地方,但他可能误解尤西比乌斯,他说,马克被送往埃及和鼓吹有他写的福音( “组织胺。传道书”,二,十六)。Some few modern scholars have adopted the suggestion of Richard Simon ("Hist. crit. du Texte du NT", 1689, 107) that the Evangelist may have published both a Roman and an Egyptian edition of the Gospel.一些现代学者们通过理查德西蒙(“组织胺。暴击杜Texte杜NT”,1689年,107)的建议,传播者可能有一个罗马和埃及的福音版出版。 But this view is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers.但这种观点是充分驳斥了亚历山大大帝的父亲沉默。 Other opinions, such as that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor or at Syrian Antioch, are not deserving of any consideration.其他意见,如,在小亚细亚或叙利亚安提阿,不值得任何代价的书面福音。

The date of the Gospel is uncertain.福音的日期是不确定的。The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much.外部证据是不是决定性的,内部不协助非常。 St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter's death.圣克莱门特的亚历山德里亚,奥利,尤西比乌斯,良,和圣杰罗姆表示,这是圣彼得的死之前书面。The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (AD 38-40).认购后unical和草书手稿,这是书面的阿森松岛后在第十次或12年(公元38-40年)国家。The "Paschal Chronicle" assigns it to AD 40, and the "Chronicle" of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (AD 43).“逾越节纪事”给它分配到公元40,“纪事报”的尤西比乌斯克劳狄斯的第三年(公元43年)。Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, AD 42 (cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", II, xiv; Jer., "De Vir. Ill.", i).可能是这些早期的日期可能仅仅是一个从传统的扣除,彼得来到罗马克劳狄斯的第二年,公元42(参见Euseb,二,第十四条“组织胺传道书。”耶,“室女。伊利诺伊州“,I)。 St. Irenæus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon--"Adv. Hær.", III, i).圣irenæus,另一方面,似乎到地方后死亡的彼得和保罗(元德10 touton exodon - “。高级Hær”,第三,我)组成的福音。Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter's discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead.帕皮亚,也声称马克写道根据他的回忆彼得的话语,已采取意味着彼得已经死了。This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome.然而,这并不一定遵循从帕皮亚的话,彼得可能已经从罗马缺席。Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work.此外,克莱门特的亚历山德里亚(优西比乌,“组织胺。传道书”,第六,第十四条)似乎是说,彼得是活着的时间标志写在罗马,虽然他给的传播者,在他的工作没有任何帮助。 There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenæus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenæus and accept the later date for Mark's Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint's testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew's Gospel to Mark's.左,因此,圣Irenæus对所有其他早期证人证言;这是一个有趣的事实,最现今的理性主义和新教的学者喜欢遵循爱任纽和接受马克的福音日后,虽然他们几乎一致拒绝在相同的上下文和支持所有古代圣人的证词,赞成马太福音马克的优先,。 Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenæus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, eg Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 76-78; Patrizi, "De Evang.", I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct.已经作出各种尝试来解释爱任纽的通道,以便使他与其他早期当局的协议(见,例如Cornely,“Introd”,III,76-78;柏德,“德Evang。”我, 38),但到目前的作家,他们似乎不成功,如果现有的文本必须为正确的。It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenæus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter's death (AD 64 or 67).然而,这似乎更合理相信,爱任纽被误认为比所有其他当局的错误,因此外部的证据显示,马克前彼得的死亡(公元64或67)中写道。

From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before AD 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place.从内部的证据,我们可以得出结论,福音写公元70年之前,有没有耶路撒冷圣殿的毁灭的典故,如可能自然会预测,2第十三预计,如果该事件已经发生。 On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (AD 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts, xiv, 26; xv, 3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale.另一方面,如果十六,20:“但他们提出鼓吹无处不在”,从圣马可的笔下,福音不能以及已被写入之前的第一个使徒圣保罗之旅结束(公元49或50 ),因为它是从行为,第十四条,26可见;十五,三,才开始对任何大型的外邦人的转换。Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (AD 50-51).当然这是可能的,以前到这个使徒广为宣扬的分散的犹太人之间的,但,总体上,它似乎更可能的,在福音的最后诗句,旨在为欧洲读者的作品中出现,可以不有圣保罗在到达欧洲(公元50-51年)之前被写入。 Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between AD 50 and 67.一起到外部和内部的证据,我们可以得出结论,福音的日期可能介于公元50和67。

VI.六。DESTINATION AND PURPOSE目的地和目的

Tradition represents the Gospel as written primarily for Roman Christians (see above, II), and internal evidence, if it does not quite prove the truth of this view, is altogether in accord with it.传统的代表主要为罗马基督徒“(见上文第二),和内部证据的书面福音,如果它不相当证明了这一观点的真理,是完全与它一致。 The language and customs of the Jews are supposed to be unknown to at least some of the readers.犹太人的语言和习俗都应该是未知的,至少有一些读者。Hence terms like Boanerges (iii, 17), korban (vii, 11), ephphatha (vii, 34) are interpreted; Jewish customs are explained to illustrate the narrative (vii, 3-4; xiv, 12); the situation of the Mount of Olives in relation to the Temple is pointed out (xiii, 3); the genealogy of Christ is omitted; and the Old Testament is quoted only once (i, 2-3; xv, 28, is omitted by B, Aleph, A, C, D, X).因此,解释像Boanerges(III,17)ephphatha korban(七,11),(七,34);犹太人的习俗的解释,来说明叙事(第七,3-4,14,12);的情况寺橄榄山指出(十三,3);基督的家谱是省略;旧约引述只有一次(我2-3; XV,28,乙,阿莱夫省略, A,C,D,X)。Moreover, the evidence, as far as it goes, points to Roman readers.此外,证据,目前来看,罗马读者。Pilate and his office are supposed to be known (15:1--cf. Matthew 27:2; Luke 3:1); other coins are reduced to their value in Roman money (xii, 42); Simon of Cyrene is said to be the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21), a fact of no importance in itself, but mentioned probably because Rufus was known to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:13); finally, Latinisms, or uses of vulgar Greek, such as must have been particularly common in a cosmopolitan city like Rome, occur more frequently than in the other Gospels (v, 9, 15; vi, 37; xv, 39, 44; etc.).彼拉多和他的办公室应该是已知的(15时01分 - 比照马修27:2;路加福音3时01分),其他硬币减少他们在罗马的钱的价值(12,42);昔兰尼的西蒙说父亲亚历山大和鲁弗斯(XV,21),其实没有本身的重要性,但提到,可能因为鲁弗斯被称为罗马基督徒(罗16:13);最后,Latinisms,或庸俗的希腊,这样的使用必须已经像罗马的国际大都会,尤其是常见的,比在其他福音(V,9,15;六,37;十五,39,44等)发生得更为频繁。

The Second Gospel has no such statement of its purpose as is found in the Third and Fourth (Luke 1:1-3; John 20:31).第二福音有没有这样的声明其目的是在第三次和第四次(路加福音1:1-3;约翰20时31分)。 The Tübingen critics long regarded it as a "Tendency" writing, composed for the purpose of mediating between and reconciling the Petrine and Pauline parties in the early Church.长期被视为“倾向”的写作,在早期教会的伯多禄和Pauline当事人之间的调解和协调的目的组成,蒂宾根大学的批评。 Other Rationalists have seen in it an attempt to allay the disappointment of Christians at the delay of Christ's Coming, and have held that its object was to set forth the Lord's earthly life in such a manner as to show that apart from His glorious return He had sufficiently attested the Messianic character of His mission.其他理性,它以消除拖延基督未来的基督徒失望,并已举行,其对象是来设置提出主的这种方式尘世的生活,以显示,除了他的光荣返回他曾足以证明他的使命弥赛亚字符。 But there is no need to have recourse to Rationalists to learn the purpose of the Gospel.但有没有必要诉诸理性,学习福音的目的。The Fathers witness that it was written to put into permanent form for the Roman Church the discourses of St. Peter, nor is there reason to doubt this.父亲的见证,它被写入到永久形式为罗马的圣彼得教堂的话语,也不是没有理由怀疑。And the Gospel itself shows clearly enough that Mark meant, by the selection he made from Peter's discourses, to prove to the Roman Christians, and still more perhaps to those who might think of becoming Christians, that Jesus was the Almighty Son of God.和福音本身就说明不够清楚,马克意味着他从彼得的话语,证明罗马基督徒,还有更多的也许是那些可能成为基督徒认为,耶稣是全能的上帝的儿子的选择,。 To this end, instead of quoting prophecy, as Matthew does to prove that Jesus was the Messias, he sets forth in graphic language Christ's power over all nature, as evidenced by His miracles.为了达到这个目的,而不是引用的预言,因为马修证明耶稣的messias,他载列在图形语言基督的所有性质的权力,因为他的奇迹证明。 The dominant note of the whole Gospel is sounded in the very first verse: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (the words "Son of God" are removed from the text by Westcott and Hort, but quite improperly--cf. Knabenb., "Comm. in Marc.", 23), and the Evangelist's main purpose throughout seems to be to prove the truth of this title and of the centurion's verdict: "Indeed this man was (the) son of God" (xv, 39).整个福音的主要注意的是在第一首诗歌响起:“开始的耶稣基督,上帝的儿子的福音”(改为“上帝的儿子”被删除从文本韦斯科特和园艺,但相当不当 - 比照Knabenb,“。。COMM在Marc”,23),和的传播者的主要目的,整个似乎是证明了百夫长的判决这个称号的真相:“事实上,这名男子是(对)的儿子,神“(十五,39)。

VII.七。RELATION TO MATTHEW AND LUKE有关马修和卢克

The three Synoptic Gospels cover to a large extent the same ground.三观福音覆盖在很大程度上同样的理由。Mark, however, has nothing corresponding to the first two chapters of Matthew or the first two of Luke, very little to represent most of the long discourses of Christ in Matthew, and perhaps nothing quite parallel to the long section in Luke, ix, 51-xviii, 14.然而,马克有没有相应的前两个章节的马修卢克的前两个,很少代表大多数基督在马太福音长的话语,也许没有相当长的路段,在路加福音第九,51平行十八,14。 On the other hand, he has very little that is not found in either or both of the other two Synoptists, the amount of matter that is peculiar to the Second Gospel, if it were all put together, amounting only to less than sixty verses.另一方面,他已经很少,没有发现一方或双方的其他两个Synoptists,物质的量,是特有的第二福音,如果都放在一起,金额只有不到60诗句。 In the arrangement of the common matter the three Gospels differ very considerably up to the point where Herod Antipas is said to have heard of the fame of Jesus (Matthew 13:58; Mark 4:13; Luke 9:6).在安排的常见问题的三个福音差异很大希律安提帕是说,有听说过耶稣(马太福音13:58,马可福音4:13;路加福音9:6)的名声。 From this point onward the order of events is practically the same in all three, except that Matthew (xxvi, 10) seems to say that Jesus cleansed the Temple the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and cursed the fig tree only on the following day, while Mark assigns both events to the following day, and places the cursing of the fig tree before the cleansing of the Temple; and while Matthew seems to say that the effect of the curse and the astonishment of the disciples thereat followed immediately.从这一点起事件发生的顺序是几乎相同的所有三个,除马修(26,10)似乎是说,耶稣洁净了圣殿一天他凯旋进入耶路撒冷的条目,并于翌日诅咒无花果树,而马克分配这两个事件的翌日,和地方洁净圣殿前的无花果树的诅咒;而马修似乎说诅咒的效果和惊讶的弟子该处紧随其后。 Mark says that it was only on the following day the disciples saw that the tree was withered from the roots (Matthew 21:12-20; Mark 11:11-21).马克说,这是唯一于翌日门徒看见树(马太福音21:12-20,马可福音11:11-21)从根部枯萎。

It is often said, too, that Luke departs from Mark's arrangement in placing the disclosure of the traitor after the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, but it, as seems certain, the traitor was referred to many times during the Supper, this difference may be more apparent than real (Mark 14:18-24; Luke 22:19-23).也就是常说的太多,,卢克从马克的安排离开后的有福了圣体圣事的机构披露叛徒,但它,因为似乎一定,叛徒被提到的晚餐期间多次,这种差异可能是更明显比真实的(路加福音22:19-23马可福音14:18-24)。 And not only is there this considerable agreement as to subject-matter and arrangement, but in many passages, some of considerable length, there is such coincidence of words and phrases that it is impossible to believe the accounts to be wholly independent.不仅有相当大的协议,这为标的物和安排,但在许多段落,一些相当长的单词和短语,有这样的巧合,这是不可能相信的帐目,是完全独立的。 On the other hand, side by side with this coincidence, there is strange and frequently recurring divergence.另一方面,与此巧合并肩,奇怪的是,经常反复出现的分歧。"Let any passage common to the three Synoptists be put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows: first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause or two not only wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth; with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions. “让任何考验的三个Synoptists通道共同提出的现象将大大如下:第一,或许,我们将有三年,五年,或者更多的话相同;然后许多完全不同的;然后两个条款。更表达了同样的话,但不同的秩序;然后子句中包含一个或两个,而不是在第三,然后几个单词相同;然后一个条款或两个不仅完全不同的,但显然是不一致的;等等;相同的随意性和异常改变,巧合,和换位复发。

The question then arises, how are we to explain this very remarkable relation of the three Gospels to each other, and, in particular, for our present purpose, how are we to explain the relation of Mark of the other two?随之而来的问题,我们如何来解释这一非常显着的三个福音的相互关系,以及,特别是对我们现在的目的,我们如何解释其他两个大关的关系? For a full discussion of this most important literary problem see SYNOPTICS.充分讨论,对于这最重要的文学问题的福音。 It can barely be touched here, but cannot be wholly passed over in silence.勉强可以在这里被感动,但不能完全通过保持沉默。 At the outset may be put aside, in the writer's opinion, the theory of the common dependence of the three Gospels upon oral tradition, for, except in a very modified form, it is incapable by itself alone of explaining all the phenomena to be accounted for.首先可能被放在一边了作家的意见,在口头传统后的三个福音共同依赖的理论,因为,除了非常修改的形式,它是无法自行单独所有的,以被占现象的解释为。 It seems impossible that an oral tradition could account for the extraordinary similarity between, eg Mark, ii, 10-11, and its parallels.口头传统帐户之间,如马克,二,10-11,和它平行的非凡相似,这似乎是不可能的。 Literary dependence or connexion of some kind must be admitted, and the questions is, what is the nature of that dependence or connexion?文学依赖或联接某种必须承认,问题是,这种依赖或联接的性质是什么?Does Mark depend upon Matthew, or upon both Matthew and Luke, or was it prior to and utilized in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected through their common dependence upon earlier documents or through a combination of some of these causes?马克取决于马修后或在马修和卢克,或者是在两个前和利用,或所有三个,也许,通过他们在以前的文件的共同依赖,或通过一些这些原因的组合连接呢? In reply, it is to be noted, in the first place, that all early tradition represents St. Matthew's Gospel as the first written; and this must be understood of our present Matthew, for Eusebius, with the work of Papias before him, had no doubt whatever that it was our present Matthew which Papias held to have been written in Hebrew (Aramaic).在回答,这是必须指出,摆在首位,所有早期的传统代表圣马太的第一份书面的福音;必须理解我们目前的马修,尤西比乌斯的帕皮亚在他之前的工作,有毫无疑问,这是我们目前的马修帕皮亚举行已在希伯来文(阿拉姆)书面。 The order of the Gospels, according to the Fathers and early writers who refer to the subject, was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.秩序,根据指主体的父亲和早期作家的福音,马太,马克,路加,约翰。Clement of Alexandria is alone in signifying that Luke wrote before Mark (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv, in PG, XX, 552), and not a single ancient writer held that Mark wrote before Matthew.克莱门特的亚历山德里亚独自标志着卢克前写马克(优西比乌,“组织胺。传道书”,第六,第十四条,PG,XX,552),并没有一个单一的古代作家马克之前马修写道。 St. Augustine, assuming the priority of Matthew, attempted to account for the relations of the first two Gospels by holding that the second is a compendium of the first (Matthæum secutus tanquam pedisequus et breviator--"De Consens. Evang.", I, ii).圣奥古斯丁,假设马修的优先次序,企图帐户的头两个福音的关系,第二个是一个汇编(Matthæum secutus tanquam pedisequus等breviator - “德Consens Evang。”,我,二)。But, as soon as the serious study of the Synoptic Problem began, it was seen that this view could not explain the facts, and it was abandoned.但是,尽快开始认真研究的天气问题,这是可见,这种观点无法解释的事实,它被抛弃了。The dependence of Mark's Gospel upon Matthew's however, though not after the manner of a compendium, is still strenuously advocated.马克的福音后的依赖,但马修的,虽然不是简的方式后,仍极力主张。Zahn holds that the Second Gospel is dependent on the Aramaic Matthew as well as upon Peter's discourses for its matter, and, to some extent, for its order; and that the Greek Matthew is in turn dependent upon Mark for its phraseology.赞恩认为第二福音依赖于阿拉姆马修后,彼得其问题的论述,在一定程度上它的秩序,以及希腊马修依次是依赖其用语后,马克。 So, too, Besler ("Einleitung in das NT", 1889) and Bonaccorsi ("I tre primi Vangeli", 1904).因此,也Besler(“导论”,1889年在DAS NT)和Bonaccorsi(“我TRE原语Vangeli”,1904年)。It will be seen at once that this view is in accordance with tradition in regard to the priority of Matthew, and it also explains the similarities in the first two Gospels.它会被看作一次,这种观点是按照传统与马修优先方面,它也解释了前两个福音相似之处。Its chief weakness seems to the present writer to lie in its inability to explain some of Mark's omissions.它的主要弱点似乎本作家在于它无法解释马克的一些疏漏。It is very hard to see, for instance, why, if St. Mark had the First Gospel before him, he omitted all reference to the cure of the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13).这是非常难得一见,例如,为什么,如果圣马克第一福音在他面前,他省略了所有参考治愈百夫长的仆人(马太福音8:5-13)。 This miracle, by reason of its relation to a Roman officer, ought to have had very special interest for Roman readers, and it is extremely difficult to account for its omission by St. Mark, if he had St. Matthew's Gospel before him.这个奇迹,它关系到罗马官员的原因,应该有非常特殊的罗马读者的兴趣,它是非常困难的占圣马克遗漏,如果他在他面前的圣马太的福音。 Again, St. Matthew relates that when, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had come to the disciples, walking on water, those who were in the boat "came and adored him, saying: Indeed Thou art [the] Son of God" (Matthew 14:33).同样,圣马太涉及时,五千年后的喂养,耶稣来的弟子,在水中行走,那些在船上的人“来崇拜他,他说:事实上你的艺术[]儿子神“(马太福音14:33)。 Now, Mark's report of the incident is: "And he went up to them into the ship, and the wind ceased; and they were exceedingly amazed within themselves: for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was blinded" (Mark 6:51-52).现在,马克的事件的报告:“和他去达进出货给他们,并风停止;和他们是极其内自己感到惊讶:为他们了解不涉及的面包,但他们的心被蒙蔽”(马克6 :51 - 52)。Thus Mark makes no reference to the adoration, nor to the striking confession of the disciples that Jesus was [the] Son of God.因此,马克的崇拜,也不是耶稣的门徒,引人注目的供述没有引用[]神的儿子。How can we account for this, if he had Matthew's report before him?我们怎样才能考虑到这一点,如果他在他面前马修的报告?Once more, Matthew relates that, on the occasion of Peter's confession of Christ near Cæsarea Philippi, Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).再次,马修关系,对彼得的忏悔基督附近撒利亚腓之际,彼得说:“你是基督,是永生神的儿子”(马太福音16:16)。 But Mark's report of this magnificent confession is merely: "Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ" (Mark 8:29).但马克的这个宏伟的供词报告仅仅是:“彼得回答他说:你是基督”(马可福音8:29)。It appears impossible to account for the omission here of the words: "the Son of the living God", words which make the special glory of this confession, if Mark made use of the First Gospel.看来不可能帐户遗漏这里的话:“活着的上帝的儿子”,使此供认的特殊的荣耀,如果马克利用第一福音的话。It would seem, therefore, that the view which makes the Second Gospel dependent upon the First is not satisfactory.因此,这似乎这使得第二福音依赖在第一次不理想。The prevailing view at the present among Protestant scholars and not a few Catholics, in America and England as well as in Germany, is that St. Mark's Gospel is prior to St. Matthew's, and used in it as well as in St. Luke's.之间以及在德国新教的学者,不是少数的天主教徒,在美国和英国,目前普遍的看法,是圣马可的福音是前圣马太,以及在圣路加。 Thus Gigot writes: "The Gospel according to Mark was written first and utilized by the other two Synoptics" ("The New York Review", Sept.-Dec., 1907).因此Gigot写道:“根据马克福音是先写和利用其他两个福音”(“纽约评论”,九月至十二月,1907年)。So too Bacon, Yale Divinity School: "It appears that the narrative material of Matthew is simply that of Mark transferred to form a framework for the masses of discourse" .所以太培根,耶鲁大学神学院:“看来,马修的叙事材料很简单,马克转移群众的话语形成了一个框架”。.."We find here positive proof of dependence by our Matthew on our Mark" (Introd. to the NT, 1905, 186-89). “我们发现,我们的马修在这里积极的依赖证明我们的标记”(Introd. NT,1905,186-89)。Allen, art.艾伦,艺术。"Matthew" in "The International Critical Commentary", speaks of the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels as "the one solid result of literary criticism"; and Burkitt in "The Gospel History" (1907), 37, writes: "We are bound to conclude that Mark contains the whole of a document which Matthew and Luke have independently used, and, further, that Mark contains very little else beside. This conclusion is extremely important; it is the one solid contribution made by the scholarship of the nineteenth century towards the solution of the Synoptic Problem".在“国际评论文章”,讲的“马太效应”二为“文学批评的一个坚实的结果”其他两个天气福音优先;和伯基特在“福音书的历史”(1907年),37,写入:“我们必将结束,马克,马修和卢克有独立使用的文件包含了整个,,进一步马克包含很少别人旁边这个结论是非常重要的,它是一个坚实的所作出的贡献。十九世纪的奖学金,对天气问题“的解决方案。 See also Hawkins, "Horæ Synopt."霍金斯,“海悦Synopt。”(1899), 122; Salmond in Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", III, 261; Plummer, "Gospel of Matthew" (1909), p. (1899年),122;萨蒙德在HAST,三,261。“快译通”圣经“。”; Plummer表示,“马太福音”(1909年),第xi; Stanton, "The Gospels as Historical Documents" (1909), 30-37; Jackson, "Cambridge Biblical Essays" (1909), 455.第十一;斯坦顿,“福音书作为历史文献”(1909),30-37;杰克逊,“剑桥圣经论丛”(1909年),455。

Yet, notwithstanding the wide acceptance this theory has gained, it may be doubted whether it can enable us to explain all the phenomena of the first two, Gospels; Orr, "The Resurrection of Jesus" (1908), 61-72, does not think it can, nor does Zahn (Introd., II, 601-17), some of whose arguments against it have not yet been grappled with.然而,尽管这个理论已经获得了广泛接受,它可能会怀疑它是否能够使我们能够解释所有现象的前两个,福音;奥尔,“耶稣的复活”(1908年),61-72,不认为它可以,也没有赞恩(Introd.,二,601-17),一些反对的争论尚未抓住。 It offers indeed a ready explanation of the similarities in language between the two Gospels, but so does Zahn's theory of the dependence of the Greek Matthew upon Mark.它确实提供了一个现成的解释,在两者之间的福音语言的异同,但并不赞恩理论的依赖后,马克希腊马修。It helps also to explain the order of the two Gospels, and to account for certain omissions in Matthew (cf. especially Allen, op. cit., pp. xxxi-xxxiv).这也有助于解释两个福音的秩序,并考虑到某些疏漏马修(参见尤其是阿​​伦,同上,第XXXI XXXIV)。 But it leaves many differences unexplained.但它留下了许多差异原因不明。Why, for instance, should Matthew, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, omit reference to the singular fact recorded by Mark that Christ in the desert was with the wild beasts (Mark 1:13)?为什么,例如,应马修,如果他在他之前马克的福音,省略参考马克记录与野兽(马可福音1:13),基督在沙漠的奇异的事实呢? Why should he omit (Matthew 4:17) from Mark's summary of Christ's first preaching, "Repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15), the very important words "Believe in the Gospel", which were so appropriate to the occasion?他为什么要省略(马太福音4:17)从马克的总结基督的说教,“悔改并相信福音”(马可福音1:15),在福音中很重要的话“相信”,所以适当的际? Why should he (iv, 21) omit oligon and tautologically add "two brothers" to Mark, i, 19, or fail (iv, 22) to mention "the hired servants" with whom the sons of Zebedee left their father in the boat (Mark 1:20), especially since, as Zahn remarks, the mention would have helped to save their desertion of their father from the appearance of being unfilial.他为什么要(四,21)省略oligon tautologically加上“两兄弟”马克,我,19,或失败(四,22)提及“聘请公务员”西庇太的儿子离开他们的父亲在船上(马可福音1:20),尤其是因为,作为赞恩的言论,提到会帮助挽救了他们的父亲遗弃,从外观不孝。 Why, again, should he omit viii, 28-34, the curious fact that though the Gadarene demoniac after his cure wished to follow in the company of Jesus, he was not permitted, but told to go home and announce to his friends what great things the Lord had done for him (Mark 5:18-19).再次,为什么,他应该省略第八,28-34,好奇的事实,虽然Gadarene邪恶后,他的治愈希望跟随耶稣的公司,他是不允许的,但说要回家,并宣布他的朋友什么了不起事情做了主,他(马可福音5:18-19)。 How is it that Matthew has no reference to the widow's mite and Christ's touching comment thereon (Mark 12:41-44) nor to the number of the swine (Matthew 8:3-34; Mark 5:13), nor to the disagreement of the witnesses who appeared against Christ?它是如何马修已经没有寡妇的螨和基督的动人的评论就此(马可福音12:41-44),也没有猪的数量(马太福音8:3-34;马可福音5:13),也不分歧出现反对基督的证人? (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:56, 59). (马太福音26:60; 14点56分,59马克)。

It is surely strange too, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, that he should seem to represent so differently the time of the women's visit to the tomb, the situation of the angel that appeared to them and the purpose for which they came (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-6).它是一定会怪太多,如果他已经在他之前马克的福音,认为他应该看起来,以代表如此不同的妇女的访问的墓,,出现和目的的天使的情况时间为他们来了(马太福音28:1-6;马可福音16:1-6)。 Again, even when we admit that Matthew is grouping in chapters viii-ix, it is hard to see any satisfactory reason why, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, he should so deal with the Marcan account of Christ's earliest recorded miracles as not only to omit the first altogether, but to make the third and second with Mark respectively the first and third with himself (Matthew 8:1-15; Mark 1:23-31; 40-45).同样,即使我们承认,马修是在第八至第九章分组,很难看到任何令人满意的原因为什么,如果他已经在他之前马克的福音,他应该使在基督的最早记录奇迹Marcan帐户处理,不仅完全省略第一个,但与马克的第二个和第三,分别在第一个和第三个与自己(马太福音8:1-15;马克1:23-31; 40-45)。Allen indeed.艾伦确实。(op. cit., p. xv-xvi) attempts an explanation of this strange omission and inversion in the eighth chapter of Matthew, but it is not convincing.(同上,第XV - XVI)试图解释这个奇怪的遗漏和反演在马太福音十八章,但它是没有说服力的的。For other difficulties see Zahn, "Introd.", II, 616-617.对于其他困难见赞恩,“Introd。”二,616-617。On the whole, then, it appears premature to regard this theory of the priority of Mark as finally established, especially when we bear in mind that it is opposed to all the early evidence of the priority of Matthew.然后,从总体上看,它似乎过早方面优先马克这一理论的最终确立,特别是当我们牢记,它是反对所有的马修优先的早期证据。 The question is still sub judice, and notwithstanding the immense labour bestowed upon it, further patient inquiry is needed.问题仍然是审理中,尽管赋予它的巨大的劳动,需要进一步的耐心询问。

It may possibly be that the solution of the peculiar relations between Matthew and Mark is to be found neither in the dependence of both upon oral tradition nor in the dependence of either upon the other, but in the use by one or both of previous documents.它可能是,马修和马克之间的特殊关系的解决方案是由一个或两个以前的文件中发现无论是在双方经口头传统的依赖,也没有在任后的依赖,但在使用。 If we may suppose, and Luke, i, 1, gives ground for the supposition, that Matthew had access to a document written probably in Aramaic, embodying the Petrine tradition, he may have combined with it one or more other documents, containing chiefly Christ's discourses, to form his Aramaic Gospel.如果我们可能假设,和卢克,我,1,给出的假设地面,,马修曾访问文件写入在阿拉姆可能,体现了伯多禄的传统,他可能会结合与一个或多个其他的文件,包含主要是基督的论述,形成了他的阿拉姆福音。 But the same Petrine tradition, perhaps in a Greek form, might have been known to Mark also; for the early authorities hardly oblige us to hold that he made no use of pre-existing documents.但同样伯多禄传统,也许在希腊的形式,有可能被称为马克还难以早期当局迫使我们认为他并没有使用现有的文件。 Papias (apud Eus., "HE" III, 39; PG XX, 297) speaks of him as writing down some things as he remembered them, and if Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus., "HE" VI, 14; PG XX, 552) represents the Romans as thinking that he could write everything from memory, it does not at all follow that he did.帕皮亚(APUD EUS,“”三,第39条; PG XX,297)谈到他写下一些东西,因为他想起了他们,如果克莱门特亚历山大(ap. EUS,“他”六,14页XX,552)代表罗马人以为他可以写从内存中的一切,不,他都遵循。Let us suppose, then, that Matthew embodied the Petrine tradition in his Aramaic Gospel, and that Mark afterwards used it or rather a Greek form of it somewhat different, combining with it reminiscences of Peter's discourses.让我们假设,那么,马修伯多禄的传统体现在他的阿拉姆福音,马克事后用,或者更确切地说,希腊的形式有所不同,彼得的论述回忆相结合。 If, in addition to this, we suppose the Greek translator of Matthew to have made use of our present Mark for his phraseology, we have quite a possible means of accounting for the similarities and dissimilarities of our first two Gospels, and we are free at the same time to accept the traditional view in regard to the priority of Matthew. ,除了这个,如果我们假设希腊翻译马修我们目前的商标使用他的措辞,我们有相当多的可能的手段为我们前两个福音的异同异同会计,和我们免费同时接受关于马修优先的传统观点。 Luke might then be held to have used our present Mark or perhaps an earlier form of the Petrine tradition, combining with it a source or sources which it does not belong to the present article to consider.卢克可能有我们目前的标记或者伯多禄传统的早期形式,它的来源或来源,它不属于本文考虑结合。

Of course the existence of early documents, such as are here supposed, cannot be directly proved, unless the spade should chance to disclose them; but it is not at all improbable.当然存在着早期的文件,如,在这里应该,不能直接证明,除非铁锹机会透露,但它是不是在所有不可能。It is reasonable to think that not many years elapsed after Christ's death before attempts were made to put into written form some account of His words and works.这是合理的,认为基督的死亡经过,不多年后,尝试了前以书面形式把一些他的话和工程。Luke tells us that many such attempts had been made before he wrote; and it needs no effort to believe that the Petrine form of the Gospel had been committed to writing before the Apostles separated; that it disappeared afterwards would not be wonderful, seeing that it was embodied in the Gospels.路加告诉我们,已经取得了许多这样的尝试之前,他写的,它需要努力,相信伯多禄形式的福音已致力于写作之前的使徒分开;它消失之后将不会精彩,看到它体现在福音。 It is hardly necessary to add that the use of earlier documents by an inspired writer is quite intelligible.几乎没有必要补充的是较早版本的文档使用一个作家的灵感,是很可理解的。Grace does not dispense with nature nor, as a rule, inspiration with ordinary, natural means.格雷斯并不免除与自然也不是,作为一项规则,与普通的,自然的手段的灵感。The writer of the Second Book of Machabees states distinctly that his book is an abridgment of an earlier work (2 Maccabees 2:24, 27), and St. Luke tells us that before undertaking to write his Gospel he had inquired diligently into all things from the beginning (Luke 1:1). Machabees国家的第二本书的作家明显,他的书是一个删节的一个早期的工作(2马加比2:24,27),圣路加告诉我们,承诺写他的福音之前,他曾询问万物的努力从一开始(路加福音1:1)。

There is no reason, therefore, why Catholics should be timid about admitting, if necessary, the dependence of the inspired evangelists upon earlier documents, and, in view of the difficulties against the other theories, it is well to bear this possibility in mind in attempting to account for the puzzling relations of Mark to the other two synoptists.因此,没有任何理由,为什么天主教徒应该承认,如果有必要,较早版本的文档时的灵感传道人的依赖胆小,和对其他理论的困难,它可以很好地承担这种可能性在头脑中试图考虑到其他两个synoptists马克令人费解的关系。

Publication information Written by J. MacRory.研究MacRory编写的出版物信息。Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik.转录由厄尼Stefanik。The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX.天主教百科全书,卷第九。Published 1910.发布1910。 New York: Robert Appleton Company.纽约:罗伯特Appleton还公司。Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Nihil Obstat,1910年10月1日。Remy Lafort, Censor.人头马lafort,检查员。Imprimatur.认可。+John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York+约翰米farley,大主教纽约

Bibliography参考书目

See the article GOSPEL OF ST.见ST文章福音。LUKE for the decision of the Biblical Commission (26 January, 1913).卢克圣经委员会的决定(1月26日,1913年)。



This subject presentation in the original English language这在原来的主题演讲, 英语



Send an e-mail question or comment to us:发送电子邮件的问题或意见给我们:E-mail电子邮件

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:的, 主要相信网页(和索引科目),是在:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source相信宗教信息来源
http://mb-soft.com/believe/beliecha.html