Евангелие от Марка

Evangelist Mark – writer of the second Gospel Κατὰ Μ ᾶ ρκον [according to Mark] 557 - this is the short inscription of the second Gospel. Turning to the New Testament monuments for information regarding the identity of this “editor” of the gospel of Christ, we meet here a certain John, called Mark (Acts 12, 12, 25; 15, 37). Without a doubt, this is the writer we are looking for. He was the son of Mary, who was a wealthy Jerusalemite and had her own home in the holy city. Perhaps she belonged to the number of wives who served the Lord from their estates (Luke 8:3), although it is difficult to confidently identify her with any of His companions, known to us from the Gospel under this name. In any case, she early joined the host of confessors of the Crucified One, and already at the first stages of the independent existence of the Church of Christ, she had the focal point of the followers of the Savior, who took refuge here from the malice and hatred of the Jews. Upon his release from prison, under Herod, St. ap. Peter immediately goes here - and the maid joyfully recognized his voice and informed the congregation of worshipers (Acts 12, 12 ss.). From this it is clear that the apostles were ordinary visitors to this dwelling, which means that the latter had long been a shelter for Christians - so that the speech of everyone was familiar even to the “youth.” Then, there is no doubt that this Family was illuminated by the grace of God and, to the best of its strength and position, helped the common cause, which is why its name remained in the far-few list of persons of the early Christian era. All this evidence is very important for the characterization of Mary herself and her family. She was one of the zealous members of the apostolic community at a time when the terrible specter of death hovered over the heads of the few who were not ashamed of the cross of Christ. Herself devoted with all her soul to the Redeemer, she tried to lead others to Him, as far as her influence could extend. And, of course, the first object of her Christian concern was her own son, if she did not ignore her servants. On the other hand, we know that he was one of the circumcision (ἐκ περιτομῆς) and a nephew (ὁ ἀνεψιός) of Barnabas (Col. 4:10–11), and this Cypriot who owned the land was a Levite (λευείτης : Acts. 4, 36–37), also joining the disciples of the Lord early. From the totality of these facts, the conclusion follows that our evangelist was born and raised in a Jewish family, which was pious in all the true dignity of the word. This feeling was not narrowly national and crudely fanatical; it consisted in the hope of the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25): it was not for nothing that Josiah was named Barnabas by the apostles, which means “son of consolation” (Acts 4:36)! Naturally, when the latter was revealed in Christ, Mary saw in this both the glory of her people and the light for the enlightenment of the nations. It is also clear that her gaze first of all turned to her son, whose one name - John (יוֹחָנָן) - directly indicated that now he really had to accept the grace of God. This even led to the assumption that he was one of the seventy disciples of the Lord, but, tempted by the speech about eating His flesh and blood, he fell behind (John 6:66) and was later converted by the Apostle Peter 558. As such, this opinion represents a free combination of several guesses that cannot be substantiated more or less firmly - and in itself it is hardly probable, since Mark has long enjoyed a good reputation in apostolic circles, which is why Mary herself is qualified as his mother (Acts 12:12). Rather, we can assume that this entire family early recognized the Messiah in Christ and was honored with the honor of providing the Lord with an upper room for the last Easter supper. In this regard, many of the ancient and new interpreters admit that it was Mark who was the young man (νεανίσκος) who, wrapped over his naked body in a veil, followed the taken Christ and then disappeared naked from the hands of the soldiers (Mark 14, 51–52) 559. In any case, even if all this is true, the news of Papias remains in all its force: αὐτῷ [he did not listen to the Lord and did not walk with Him] 560 - for he was not among the Savior’s close disciples during His life, although he had occasions to occasionally see Him and be imbued with respect for His divine personality. All this fostered John’s Christian disposition from an early age, and the good influence of his mother, together with the beneficial influence of the surrounding apostolic environment, contributed to the fact that “by the grace of God” he truly became “gracious.” It is difficult to say who has the most participation here, but - in all likelihood - St. ap. Peter writes specifically about him: Μ ᾶ ρκος ὁ υἱός μου [Mark, my son] (1 Pet. 5:13). This term in Christian usage did not mean only carnal kinship by natural origin; it was often attached to the spiritual revival, which gave Paul paternal rights over the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15), Timothy (1 Cor. 4:17) and Philemon (Phil. 1:10) 561. In view of this, there is no sufficient reason to distinguish this Mark from the nephew of Barnabas, 562 especially since Peter’s relationship with the house of Mary fully explains such a statement on his part. He was the head of the early Christian community and the leader in establishing his brothers according to the flesh, who took refuge under the roof of this Jerusalemite. His voice was heard here especially loudly and often and completed Mark’s Christian development, which is why this apostle, along with many other mentors, became his father par excellence (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15). It was then that John found a way to fulfill the ministry to which he was destined by his birth. Western tradition claims that he was a Levi 563 - and his proximity to Barnabas supports this belief, although it does not convince with certainty. Be that as it may, faith in the Christ who came gave him what was promised by devotion to the coming Messiah. He is John, and the grace of God is now poured out abundantly on him and persistently indicates in what way affection should be expressed to God. He is Mark (Marcus), and therefore his calling is to be a big heavy hammer (marcus according to Isid.) 564 in the hands of skilled blacksmiths who had to forge the inert mass of the ancient pagan world into the strong building of Christ. His role still remains a service 565, but it does not refer to the shedding of sacrificial blood in commemoration of the wrath of Jehovah, but to the proclamation of its washing away all filth and vice in people. It no longer reminds us of a formidable Judge demanding satisfaction; He brings to everyone the good news of God, who has mercy and saves everyone according to His love for mankind. Thus, from the Levite John, “Mark the Evangelist” appears before us. Soon he had the opportunity to perform in this field. When Paul, together with Barnabas, undertook the first apostolic journey around 46, Mark was also taken (Acts 12:25). What the latter was doing can be guessed from one remark of the writer. It testifies that the apostles “preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; They also had John with them (cf. Acts 15:37-38) to serve (Acts 13:5). This means that he was an assistant in the dissemination of the teachings of Christ - of course, in the sense that it penetrated deeper into the hearts of the listeners and was more strongly imprinted in their consciousness 566. However, this time Mark’s activity was not long-lasting: he did not follow to Asia Minor and returned from Perga Pamphylia to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). The reasons for such an act are unknown, but in any case they were far from respectful, which is why the Apostle Paul in 51/52 decided not to take someone who did not go with them to the task for which they were sent (Acts 15: 37–38). Obviously, the Apostle of the tongues saw in him a lack of courage and some unpreparedness for the gospel of Christ among the pagans 567 with all the ability for this that the special gifts of nature and education gave him 568 . This is where “grief” arose between Barnabas and Paul, and the former, taking Mark, again sailed to Cyprus (Acts 15:39). After this, we lose sight of our evangelist for a long time (until 62), and there is no information about his fate for ten years. One can only assume that he successfully continued his mission and his name was respected in entire churches (for example, Colossian) and among individuals, such as Philemon. This was the school in which Mark prepared for missionary and evangelistic exploits among the pagans. And when this happened, he again sided with Paul, was his delight and one of the few collaborators (συνεργός) for the kingdom of God (Col. 4:10-11) in Rome. Here Mark was with the apostle during his first bonds from the spring of 62 (cf. Phil. 1:24), but he was already preparing to leave the capital of the world and visit Colossae (Col. 4:10). Then we see him under Peter in Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13). This indication is far from indisputable; however, judging by the nature of Peter’s first epistle, where the writer is depicted in difficult circumstances and warns of the dangers looming for everyone, this is a mystical designation for Rome, under which name we already meet it in the Sibylline oracles 569. In this case, this could not have happened before 58, for the tone of Paul’s speech in his address to the Romans shows that not one of the Lord’s self-visionaries had yet influenced them with a word. On the other hand, we know that tradition never represented Peter and Paul acting jointly and simultaneously in Rome; from here it is natural to conclude that the first got here no earlier than the liberation of the second, that is, not before the beginning of 64, before the opening of the persecution of Nero 570. If this is so, then the information is quite consistent with this that Mark was Peter’s companion and interpreter and, according to his oral communications, set out the gospel for the Roman Christians as a result of their requests for it. It can be assumed that, according to the will of the Apostle of Languages, he left Italy for some time (Col. 4:10), flew away with Peter and returned to Rome again, where he served his “father” in the same way as he had served Paul a little earlier. But soon a cruel persecution broke out, and St. ap. Peter fell victim to the bloodthirsty ferocity of the tyrant 571. Under such circumstances, his employee could not, of course, continue to remain in this city, and the sad fate of the teacher prompted him to go to other countries. At least during the period of the second bonds of Paul, he was in Asia Minor and, it seems, in Ephesus, because the apostle asks Timothy: “Take Mark and bring him with you, for I need him to serve” (2 Tim. 4, 11: ἔστιν γάρ μοι ε ὔ χρηστος εἰς διακονίαν ). Whether this wish was fulfilled, history is silent; through the lips of Eusebius and Jerome, she only adds that he preached in Alexandria and Egypt, laid a solid foundation for the church there, establishing the correct hierarchy 572. As for the time, we are completely unknown: according to some, it was in the third year of Claudius, that is, 40–43. 573 but then he was under Paul and Barnabas; others push this circumstance back seven years (Eutychius of Alexandria 574), when he was in Palestine and then went to Cyprus; still others point to 60, while now he was most likely on his way to Rome 575. In general, according to the chronicles, Mark arrived in Egypt in 42 and lived there until 62. 576 Given the obvious impossibility of both extreme dates, there are more incentives to attribute this event to the moment after the death of St. ap. Paul, or after 67. However, the beliefs of the Alexandrian church are so strong, and it hardly remained so long without Christian enlightenment, that historically we must allow an early visit by Mark to Alexandria. And indeed, in “Περίοδοι Βαρνάβα” [“The Wanderings of Barnabas”] (III-IV centuries) it is said that immediately after the martyrdom of this apostolic man in Cyprus, his nephew sailed to Egypt 577. It is quite possible that an exact memory has been preserved here. In this case, it turns out that Mark was in the Egyptian capital even before the secondary union with Paul and from there he went to Rome. It is no less plausible that after the death of both apostles, the evangelist again moved to the banks of the Nile, concentrated his independent ministry there and died. We still know nothing about the duration of this period. Eusebius even gives room for the idea that from here he retired to other countries 578, but others claim that here he suffered martyrdom 579. And although this is unknown to the blz. Jerome, but it is completely clear that the student is not higher than his teachers and, naturally, shared with them their bloody lot. The date of this event in ancient legends ranges between 61 and the beginning of the second century 580. As can be seen from our essay, Mark’s biography is full of vast gaps and provides little that is characteristic for depicting his personality in all its concrete integrity. But, judging by his friendly relations with both Peter and Paul, he was a highly receptive nature, instinctively guessing true greatness everywhere and in everything and submitting to him with complete devotion. Such people usually do not have great originality or high activity and do not lead a new movement; That is why Mark, at first, could not withstand the difficult apostolic feat - and even after that, his entire evangelistic mission was to serve the word, to help the leaders of the apostles, to spread their influence and continue in the indicated direction. All this is very important for us to understand our evangelist, who in this title can cause considerable bewilderment. Mark was not a witness of the Lord - and his closeness to Peter and Paul shows the source of his information and the quality of this latter. However, there may still be a question as to how correctly they were reproduced and transmitted and whether they suffered significant changes during processing. Bearing in mind the character of Mark - impressionable and alien to special initiative - we must answer this question in the affirmative, since in general individuals like him are always an exact reflection of a favorite ideal, close children of their great mentors. An impartial analysis of ancient news leads to the same result. Of these, the testimony of Papias must again be put in first place - for the reason that it, as is undoubtedly in this case, was borrowed directly from the lips of the “presbyter” John and therefore has sufficient authority. This is also necessary from the side that it is the bishop of Hierapolis who serves for critics as an imaginary factual support for the fabrication of First Mark and for further arbitrary reconstructions of the Gospel writing. The source of Mark’s information and the quality of his Gospel from the material and formal side is according to the news of “presbyter” John Here are the words of Papias concerning us, as edited by Eusebius: ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅ σα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. ο ὔ τε γὰρ ἤ κουσεν τοῦ Κυρίου ο ὔ τε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕ στερον δὲ, ὡ ς ἔφην, Πέτρ ῳ, ὃ ς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ ᾿ οὐχ ὥ σπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων, ὥ στε οὐδὲν ἥ μαρτεν Μάρκος, ο ὕ τως ἔνια γράψας, ὡ ς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν , τοῦ μηδὲν ὧ ν ἤ κουσεν [The presbyter also said the following: Mark was the interpreter of Peter; He accurately, although out of order, wrote everything that he remembered from what Christ said and did. For he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not follow Him, but later, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who spoke instructions according to the needs of the listeners and did not intend to produce the order of the Lord's speeches - therefore Mark did not sin in any way against the truth, writing down a little as he remembered. After all, his exclusive concern was not to omit anything from what he heard and not to distort anything in it] 581. This entire quotation is imbued with a purely apologetic spirit and tends to defend the dignity of Markov's narrative due to objections borrowed from his character - a certain disorder. “Presbyter” John also starts from this point in his reasoning. Mark's Gospel is presented οὐ τάξει [out of order], but the fault of this is not due to the personal arbitrariness of the writer. The only reason for this is that, according to all the news, he “did not listen to the Lord and did not follow Him” (οὐ μέντοι τάξει ο ὔ τε γὰρ ἤ κουσε, etc.) 582. From this the direct conclusion is that he did not know the events directly, and therefore could not accurately depict them from the point of view of actual continuity and in complete completeness. This means that the key to the clue regarding the qualities of the second Gospel must not be sought in the subjective predispositions and personal intentions of the evangelist: it is given in the source from which all his information was drawn. Peter was the closest, for Mark “accompanied him,” as John insistently asserts with the phrase “ὡ ς ἔφην” [as I said] - obviously placing special emphasis on this thought in the course of his considerations. But this happened already ὕ στερον [later] - after Christ lived and treated people, when it was possible to know about Him by direct observation of the facts taking place. If this is not the case, then it is inevitable that any story will be secondary, based on the memory of what was heard from others. In the future, this necessarily raises the question of the merits of such an abstract by considering the original source itself and the writer’s relationship to it. For the second Gospel, it is resolved by the fact that “Mark was the interpreter of Peter” - this was his position, which gave him the opportunity to become an evangelist. From here comes his knowledge about the life and teachings of the Lord, and this explains their quality: ὅ σα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν [everything that he remembered, he wrote exactly]. The structure of the speech thus convinces us that John shows us the material basis of Mark’s story and determines its significance in the matter of written evangelism. From this side it is not subject to the slightest doubt, for the authority of St. ap. Peter is unshakable and undeniable. We should think the same about his employee, especially when we know that he is distinguished by “precision” in his work. And one cannot think that Mark unwittingly made some mistakes. The fact that he “was the interpreter of Peter” is already enough in favor of Mark. No matter how we understand the term “ἑρμηνευτής” [interpreter] 583, its whole meaning in the eyes of Presbyter John came down to a guarantee for our second Gospel, to a testimony that one truth is communicated here. In this case, we get that although Mark was not a self-witness of the Savior, he is nevertheless a reliable narrator, for he was with Peter. Not only this: he was the “interpreter” of the latter and had to make His speeches publicly available to everyone, so that they would find greater distribution and be clearly assimilated by everyone. This task inevitably required that, first of all, he himself carefully memorize Petrov’s words and understand them according to how they were expressed by the preacher. In this sense, Mark's work coincided with the work of his teacher both in content and in purpose: it consisted in preaching the gospel of Christ among the hearers, and not in written productivity. For all this, “ἑρμηνευτής” [interpreter] in this case is the same as “ἡρμήνευσε” [interpreted] in the news of Matthew, and characterizes our evangelist as תּוּרְגְּמָן תּוּרְגְּמָנָא – transmitter and popularizer of Petrov’s instructions, but not from his literary work 584. This, of course, does not yet speak about the Gospel itself, but we are convinced that Mark had valuable information, since he borrowed it from a close disciple of the Lord and perceived it in all its depth and with all objective fidelity, because his entire mission was to interpret, to understand it for a wide circle of people. In this respect, he is a double. Peter and merges with him in authority to the point of inseparability, like an echo with the voice itself. The merit of his news is now clear. He wrote from memory (ὅ σα ἐμνημόνευσεν [what he remembered]), but this factor cannot be subject to any suspicion in material and formal terms, in view of Mark’s previous activity, when he was the mouth of St. ap. Petra. His reminiscences are at the same time the apostle of circumcision and have the same virtues. For all this, it is natural that the literary messages of the interpreter receive equally high importance, for at the same time he did not go beyond the limits of what was preserved in his voice 585: ὅ σα ἐμνημόνευσεν ἔγραψεν [what he remembered wrote]. It is obvious that the result was corresponding: he described exactly - ἀκριβῶς - since his memories were correct, and they were the only ones he used in his work. This is μνημονίαι [memoirs] 586, but μνημονίαι ἑρμηνευτής ᾿ [memories of the interpreter], and moreover ἑρμηνευτής ʼa Πέτρου [the interpreter of Peter], as he always was while he followed this evangelist. In its content, the second Gospel is undoubtedly reliable, and now the whole question concerns only the literary processing of factual information. Here, first of all, it is clear that the subject of the scripture itself is not different from that which Peter revealed to his listeners - and this was Christ the Savior and Redeemer of the world during His earthly ministry. Therefore, Mark sets out τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα - everything that Christ said and did during this time, throughout His life. But the evangelist stood in a somewhat special relationship to these facts: he knew about them from the story of another and for this reason could not bring his information into completely adequate agreement with the historical course of events, which he himself did not observe. In terms of matter, his data are certainly indisputable; however, the writer was deprived of the opportunity to reconcile them with the true position of events in space and time. He had no criterion for the chronological placement and historical grouping of his memories from the side of the present, their relationship in place. Hence the inevitable result that, although accurate in comparison with Peter's preaching, his records were not in τάξει [order] with λεχθέντα and πραχθέντα [things said and done], as and when they were said or done. Here “presbyter” John notices a new phenomenon in the Gospel of Mark, which is on the same line with “ἀκριβῶς” [“exactly”] and constitutes no less characteristic quality. Materially, this narrative is distinguished by its impeccable fidelity, but in this latter there is a certain touch of a bewildered quality: its presentation cannot be taken as an accurate copy of a living historical picture precisely because it reached the writer’s consciousness through the medium of a second person. Because of this, the words and deeds of the Lord were not found here in an objectively punctual arrangement, although in essence each, taken in itself, was reproduced correctly. If earlier John determined the source of Mark’s legends, now he indicates their formal side. The content is entirely determined by recollection, but for scientific processing the latter did not have the same strong guarantee. There the scripture covers the memory: it is ἀκριβῶς [precisely]; here it does not achieve this, because the evangelist did not have a point of support for comparison with what was happening de facto. It is punctual in its individual parts as ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα [literally: either said or done], but does not express the proper continuity of all moments and in this regard cannot be recognized as completely history 587: it is not τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ λεχθέντα καὶ πραχθέντα [said and done by Christ], since it does not have a strictly objective τάξις ʼa [order]. The literary systematization of Mark is assessed by the "presbyter" in comparison with the true sequence of events and in this case is not considered satisfactory; but it goes without saying that this does not exclude narrative-literary coherence 588. On the contrary, it is inevitably assumed, because without it it would be impossible to talk about the chronicle-chronological-topographical dignity of Markov’s Gospel and compare it with the true picture of the life and deeds of the Lord. When there is a special talk about this, it means that the order was necessary, and the order was worked out, as far as the evangelist’s mnemoneutical means allowed him; otherwise, one would rather say: “ἀκριβῶς καὶ οὐ τάξει” [precisely and out of order]. In the Papian edition, the second member of the Johannine apology (with “οὐ μέντοι ...” [although not...], etc.) is separated into an independent sentence, independent of the words about memory, in order to draw a parallel between the exact scripture and the objectively past, which the “interpreter” himself did not see. This comparison turns out to be not in Mark’s favor, but not through his fault. The whole point is that Peter offered his instructions (διδασκαλίας) with an edifying purpose - to teach and convince others - and, moreover, each time in accordance with the practical needs (πρὸς τὰς χρείας) of the listeners, and not in purely scientific interests - not, for example, to “perform a routine the speeches of the Lord" 589. Hence the immediate consequence (ὥ στε [therefore]) that the same should be observed in his “interpreter”, who cannot in any way be blamed for this: he οὐδὲν ἥ μαρτεν - did not sin by deliberately perverting anything, not a single feature of his story. He wrote as follows (ο ὕ τως), as Peter’s memory (ἀπεμνημόνευσεν [he remembered]) dictated to him: from this side, his honesty is impeccable, even if he did not have objective and consistent presentation. Deviations in placement were inevitable, but they could not be significant and extend to the complete contrast of reality throughout the entire narrative, since this is unthinkable in an apostle-preacher. And we see that, in the opinion of the “presbyter,” they concern only ἔνια - a few episodes in comparison with the entire content of the Gospel (οὐδέν) 590, and in them they themselves do not have a particularly strong effect, and do not distort the true course of things. The writer moves away from the real order only a little 591, as was the case with Peter, for here he was guided by recollection. Mark did not forcefully invade with his freedom. When writing it, exceptional care (ἑνός γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν) was not to omit anything heard and in this last anything (τὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς) not to distort, not to lie to your memory (ψεύσασθαι), which was its only source. Throughout the entire essay of “Presbyter” John, one can see a tendency to protect Mark’s Gospel from material side from criticism due to its formal features. In the latter respect, it did not express the event with the punctual photographicity of a chronicler, but it was not completely incoherent, since this cannot be assumed in Peter’s didascalia. There was order, but it did not achieve complete identity with actual continuity, although here too the “interpreter” deviated from it slightly and in few ways. Therefore, unlike our evangelist, those scholars 592 who, relying on Papias 593, claim that his authentic writing was an unsystematized collection of the speeches and deeds of the Lord, an aggregate [i.e. e. connection. -Ed.] small stories-digesis. The "presbyter" does not say this; at most, his words can only be interpreted in the sense that he did not find Markov’s group an objective reproduction. He tells more about the nature of this evangelical work with the express purpose of convincing of its perfect value. And this naturally and naturally follows from the fact that Mark was with Peter and, as a disseminator and popularizer of his speeches, he assimilated them accurately. Since he further sacredly preserved the inviolable integrity of his memories in his writings, this writing is materially reliable to the highest degree. This completely and authoritatively protects the dignity of his narratives, since the testimony of the supreme apostle is undeniable, and scientific criticism in vain seeks for itself foundations where there is only denunciation, warning and edification for it: Mark’s Gospel is undeniable, for it reproduces the voice of Peter’s instructions better than any possible phonographs. The original view of Mark's Gospel based on evidence of its dependence on the preaching of Peter Papias reports about the Gospel of Mark that it arose from the preaching of Peter and faithfully reflects his messages. This is the news of “presbyter” John. The scientific task in relation to it should be to resolve the questions: to what extent is this thesis confirmed by other data and does it find justification in our second Gospel? On the first point, the conclusion we have reached is shared by all ancient witnesses with amazing unanimity. Irenaeus writes: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, conveyed to us in writing what Peter preached ( παραδέδωκε) 594. Based on the ancient tradition (παράδοσις τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβυτέρων) Clement says that “many of the Roman Christians asked Mark, as Peter’s longtime companion, who remembered everything he said, to state what he preached to them, and he, having compiled the Gospel, handed it to the petitioners" 595. Another Alexandrian, Origen, declares that this scripture was edited by Mark, ὡ ς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ [as Peter instructed him] 596 . “Marcus,” according to Jerome, “juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, breve scripsit Evangelium” [Mark wrote a short Gospel according to the stories of Peter he heard] 597. It is “Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est” [composed like this: Peter told, and Mark wrote down] 598. His companion and interpreter, therefore, belongs to one external form: quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit [at which he, however, was present, and stated exactly that way] 599; That’s why in the pseudo-Athanasian synopsis we read: [The Gospel according to Mark was dictated by the Apostle Peter in Rome, and published by Mark] 600. After this, very little remains for the writer: he is only Evangelii conditor [building: publisher of the Gospel] 601, and in terms of content the entire work turns out to be the property of Peter 602. This is precisely what Tertullian and Hieroni 603 teach. Like this St. Justin mentions ἀπομνημονεύματα Πέτρου [memoirs of Peter] 604, and from all of the above there is no reason for him to understand anything other than the second Gospel. Thus, according to the firm belief of the Church, the writing of Mark reflects the oral gospel of Peter 605, but this still does not determine in what form it originally came out of the hands of the compiler. Unfortunately, the obscurity of patristic quotations is especially noticeable in the present case, for in the patristic works the allusions to our Gospel are the darkest - of course, because it is the least rich in original content. However, there are some indications already from Clement of Rome and Hermas and various heretical schools of the 2nd century. - for example, the Docetes, Naasenes and Valentinians. More importantly, it is found in translations that are authoritative in their venerable antiquity: the Latin Itala and the Syriac Peshitto. But still, this is not enough to say with confidence that Papias knew the current “edition” of the Gospel of Mark. We must, therefore, choose another path that can more quickly lead to the goal we need. "Presbyter" John, as we have seen, gives clear indications, and we must decide whether they fit the current Greek text - then the required answer will come of itself. By all accounts, two characteristic features come to the fore in Mark's account. This is: 1) the accuracy of an eyewitness, which was 2) the Apostle Peter. Let us abandon all historical data for a while and consider our second Gospel from these sides without any preconceived idea. Even at the most superficial glance, we cannot help but be struck by the observation that this writing, among all the others, stands out for its special vividness and clarity, the plastic relief of the image. And this is all the more striking given the comparative conciseness and summary of the presentation, when, instead of a detailed story, the evangelist simply adds a few touches taken from life. “And He slept on the stern at the head” (Mark 4:38); “he threw off his outer garment, stood up and came to Jesus” (Mark 10:50); “And they, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the workers, followed Him” (Mark 1:20); “They immediately told Him about her. Approaching, He lifted her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever immediately left her, and she began to serve them. And the whole city gathered at the door” (Mark 1:30–33); “Many gathered, so that there was no longer room at the door. And they came to Him with a paralytic, whom four men carried, and, not being able to approach Him because of the multitude of people, they opened the roof of the house where He was, and, having dug through it, lowered the bed on which the paralytic lay" (Mk. 2, 2–4); “he commanded that everyone should be seated on green grass” (Mark 6:39); “His clothes became shiny, very white, like snow, as a bleacher on earth cannot whiten” (Mark 9:3) - all these small details characterize the eyewitness and cannot be attributed only to the liveliness of the narrator’s imagination, for they are not necessary in the very course of the story. His brush was rich, but this was because there were a lot of bright colors on it, that every detail was precious, since it was the property of his consciousness and involuntarily affected his speech. It is also impossible not to notice that the writer just as clearly describes the feelings of the characters, their state of mind - as if he himself lives with them. “And he looked at them with anger, grieving over the hardness of their hearts” (Mark 3:5); “and looking up to heaven, he sighed” (Mark 7:34); “Jesus looked at him and loved him” (Mark 10:21); “Jesus walked ahead, and they were terrified and, following Him, were in fear” (Mk. 10, 32), - who could know all this, except for the one who himself observed the slightest movements of the Lord, caught every feature of His gaze, who himself was worried along with others, being a direct participant in the events? Inner spiritual moods are the most difficult to reproduce, and the masters of words in this regard have always been people of deep spiritual experience. Otherwise it comes out unnatural, pale and stilted. With Mark, everything is simple and direct, like an act of his own mental past. The evangelist involuntarily speaks in his language, and incomprehensible words come out of his mouth: ταλιθὰ κούμ [talifah kumi] (Mark 5:41), ἐφφαθά [effatha] (Mark 7:34), Ἀββ ᾶ [Abba] (Mark 14:36), although he is forced to explain them immediately. In all this we see an eyewitness who followed the Lord on his heels, an impressionable and expansive person who vividly perceives what is happening and just as directly expresses his feelings. In addition to all this, judging by the detail of Mark’s account of the death of the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29), he was once a friend of the Forerunner, and very few of the host of the twelve belonged to him. And it is easy to find this typical figure among the companions of Christ. It stands out by itself, strikingly catches the eye with its individual originality, where flesh and blood splash and where rich reserves of powerful forces and indestructible energy are stored in the recesses of the soul. This is Peter, who was previously a disciple of John, whose personality was characteristically reflected in both the great and the small, and in the noble and the shameful. He is an organ of revelation from above, but sometimes he is close to satanic temptation. He is ready to be forever in the low service of the Lord, but often in his words the ignorance of rash delight sounds (Mark 9:5-6). He does not allow his feet to be washed, but now agrees to provide both his head and hands (John 13:8-9). He is glad to go with his teacher to death in spite of everything (Mark 14:29), but he leaves Him along with others. He solemnly renounces Christ, but tears flow like a river from his shocked soul (Mark 14:67–72). John reaches the tomb first, but only Peter boldly enters there (Mon. 20:4-6). This one believes (Mon. 20:8) - this one marvels (Lk. 24:12). He notices the approach of the Savior from afar - this one rushes naked into the water. St. ap. Peter replenishes the frustrated ranks of his comrades, confirms the Church and associates the centurion Cornelius with it, but he is also a hypocrite before the Judaizers in Antioch (Gal. 2, 11 ss.). Everywhere he is “foremost” with his thoughts and feelings, questions and perplexities, advice and warnings; everything cuts into his heart and he responds to everything with irresistibility and selflessness. He is the purest mirror of events with all their real roughness and detailed disorder. We see the same thing in the second Gospel; therefore, it is Petrovo. There is some internal spiritual affinity between them. The Apostle Peter is sensitive to every detail: the writings of Mark are full of details of all kinds. He is a man of impressions, carried away by everything lofty, and the Gospel of his “interpreter” is the complete admiration of those around him before the Lord, an echo of the rumor that spread about Him throughout the entire area (Mark 1:28). “And everyone was horrified, so they asked each other: what is this? What is this new teaching that He commands even the unclean spirits with authority, and they obey Him?” (Mark 1:27). He “could no longer clearly enter the city, but was outside, in deserted places. And they came to Him from everywhere” (Mark 1:45); “there were many coming and going, so that they had no time to eat” (Mark 6:31); “everyone was amazed and glorified God, saying: we have never seen anything like this” (Mark 2:12); they “came into great amazement” (Mark 5:42), as Mark writes. St. ap. Peter lives by feeling, and it is expressed especially clearly in the second Gospel, for here faces are never drawn as dead figures: they participate in events, rejoice or mourn, bless or curse. The Apostle Peter is always spontaneous: he does not go beyond what worries him at the moment. For Mark, the gospel of Christ is a fact, the roots of which he does not seek, leaving it to be revealed in all its reality from the point when it became accessible to the gaze of the observer. “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), - this is how he opens his story without any preamble. Thus, in everything that is typical in the Gospel of Mark, the individual imprint of Peter is very noticeable. His voice can be heard even more clearly where he speaks himself. Reporting the proposal regarding the tabernacles at the transfiguration, Mark adds that the speaker “did not know what to say” (Mark 9:6): this “οὐᾔ δει τί ἀποκριθ ῇ” introduces us to the recesses of the mood of Peter, who has an uncontrollable need to speak out, but cannot yet understand exciting feelings and choose the appropriate expression. This is a direct echo of the state of that time; meanwhile μὴ εἰδ ὼ ς ὅ λέγει [not knowing what he says] Luke (Luke 9:33) is a simple historical mark stating the past. Similarly, Mark mentions how Peter spoke with increasing insistence (ἐκπερισσῶς ἐλάλει) about his unconditional devotion to the Lord (Mark 14:29, 31), and he accurately and punctually conveys his threefold renunciation, according to the prediction that this will happen “before even the second he will not cry out the loops” (Mark 14:30). “Peter sat with the maids and warmed himself by the fire” (Mk. 14, 54); “When he was in the courtyard below, one of the maids, seeing Peter warming himself and looking closely at him, said, but he denied and went out and the rooster crowed. The maid began to speak, and he began to swear and swear. Then the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered the word and began to weep” (Mark 14:66–72), - here the writer himself experiences the whole difficult drama of moral decline and treasures all the details of cruel mental torture, when other evangelists simply certify that it happened. Here we recognize a face who, in his crime, senses the germ of renewal. And Peter remembered the verb that Jesus spoke to him, and began to weep (Mark 14:72) - only someone who still continued to wash away the burning tears of his shame could speak like that. After all this, that thought of St. receives its proper meaning for us. John Chrysostom and Eusebius of Caesarea, that Mark often keeps silent about the great deeds of Peter due to his prohibition or because this one did not talk about 606. And, without a doubt, it was no coincidence that in the second Gospel there is no news of Peter’s walking on the waters (Mark 6:47 ss.; cf. Matt. 14:28 ss.); that the writer includes on his pages his satanic reproach (Mark 8:32–33), but does not report what great honor he was awarded for his confession (Matthew 16:17 ss.); that Mark is so thorough in his depiction of criminal renunciation (Mark 14:66–72), but does not hint with a single sound at the honorable commandment to strengthen the brothers (Luke 22:32); Often in the evangelist Peter is highlighted both by his calling (Mark 1:18), and by his position among the apostles (Mark 3:16), and by his primacy in the word (Mark 9:5; 10:28; 11, 21; 14:29-31), and by distinguishing him from others by the Savior himself (Mark 16:7: “tell the disciples and Peter”) - and, however, we do not learn from here that he, first of all (Matthew 16:19), although along with them (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23), received unlimited power to knit and decide. All this is clear in Peter, not just from his modesty, but also from the very essence of the matter. The Apostle served the gospel of Christ, and before this task, all private interests, all personal exploits faded away if they did not contribute to its achievement. Even more quickly, the memories of their virtues should have died on the lips of such preachers, for they no longer lived according to their own lusts, but according to the will of God (1 Pet. 4:2). We have presented enough evidence that irresistibly convinces how closely the sign that Mark was under the direct influence of Peter in his work comes close to our second Gospel. Here the substitutive punctuality of the second Gospel, directly pointing directly to the eyewitness, is explained in the most natural way. We observe this regarding time - for example, in the following phrases: “when evening came, when the sun had set” (Mark 1:32); “In the morning, getting up very early, he went out” (Mark 1:35); “in the evening of that day” (Mark 4:35); “the time was already late” (Mark 11:11). The same can be seen regarding numbers (Mark 2:3: “carried four”; Mark 5:13: “there were about two thousand of them (pigs)”; Mark 6:7: “he began to send them out in twos”; Mark 6:37: “buy two hundred denarii worth of bread”; Mark 6:40: “they sat down in rows of a hundred and fifty”). and in some secondary details, such as: “Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road” (Mark 10:46); “and they forced a certain Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexandrov and Rufus, who was passing by, to carry the cross” (Mark 15:21). This is not an invention of the writer, since for his purposes it is not at all necessary 607, but the living traits of a direct observer. If Mark wrote from the words of Peter, then all these qualities are completely understandable; therefore, the testimony of Papias-John is quite probable and justified by our second Gospel. But the “presbyter” further assures that the latter’s writer, in his work, does not go beyond the limits of the teacher’s oral communications: πρόνοιαν, μηδὲν ὧ ν ἤ κουσεν παραλιπεῖν [what I remembered, I wrote it; my only care was not to omit anything I heard]. And at this point we can easily find the desired match. The Apostle Peter limits the scope of his sermon to the framework of the Lord’s earthly life, to the time when He stayed and interacted with people - from baptism to the day on which He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:22). This content is more specifically defined in a speech to the centurion Cornelius: “You know,” says Peter, “what happened throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism preached by John: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him. He was killed by hanging from a tree. This one God raised up on the third day and caused Him to appear after His resurrection from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people” (Acts 10:37–42). Applying these data to the Gospel of Mark, we can easily see that this is not only consistent with it, but at the same time it is also the most accurate characteristic of the latter. It opens with the thunderous sounds of the Forerunner and consists of a commandment to proclaim salvation to the whole world, which the apostles did everywhere. In the presentation itself, Christ is depicted in His divine dignity as a great miracle worker, casting out demons, bringing everyone to amazement with His benefits, and evoking exclamations of admiration from the most hardened hearts with His power of word and deed. Isn’t the voice of St. heard here? ap. Petra? But it should be even clearer for us in the very sounds of Mark’s speech, for, according to John, the writer ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν [precisely wrote], so Marci Evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est [Mark’s Gospel is composed like this: Peter spoke, and Mark wrote down]. It goes without saying that it is difficult to discern in the features of the style or narrative of this work the evangelizing personality of the supreme apostle, but in this regard, some observations of the impartial and thorough, albeit too scrupulous researcher A. Klosterman are not without interest. He draws 608's attention to Mk. 1, 29, where Peter is thought of as a necessary and without explanation understandable companion of the Lord. This is unnatural in an objective story and is understandable only in the own transmission of a participant in events, about whom everyone knows that he is talking about himself. The very structure of the phrase convinces of this with complete irresistibility; it reads like this: “soon leaving the synagogue, (they) came (καὶ εὐθύς ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς ἐξελθόντες ἦ λθον) to the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John." Who are these “they”? Previously, all indications of the person were listed along with Jesus; they, of course, are noted further (Mk. 1, 30: λέγουσιν [they say]) as Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετ ᾿ αὐτοῦ [Simon and those who were with him] (Mk. 1, 36). Without a doubt, they should also be understood in the quoted ἦ λθον [came], but then - in the direct course of speech - the deliberate emphasis on James and John is strange, since they are already assumed to be a plural form. Obviously, such a turn was necessary so that someone would not think that the sons of Zebedee were not present, and this is inevitable only if a reason is given to identify the pluralis [plural] with only those who owned the house - if the mention of the latter could exclude the rest of the companions. This situation is permissible, only when the owners of the home coincide with those who entered it. This will happen, as soon as the speech is given the form of the first person: “having left, we came to our house”; in this form, the expression limits the number of participants to the owners alone, which is why the increase was required. It follows from this that in the place under consideration Mark completely retains the style of speech of the famous speaker, and such was, undoubtedly, Peter. No less remarkable is the episode of Mk. 3, 14 ss. about the election of disciples, and all the apostles are listed, except for one Simon, about whom it is said that he was given a special nickname. ἐποίησεν τούς δώδεκα καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, καὶ (ἐποίησεν) Ἰ άκωβον ... [and He appointed twelve, and called Simon's name Peter, and (ordained) James...], - as if Peter was not installed, but only received a new name. It goes without saying that this did not happen, but one act of titling does not speak of inclusion in the host of the Lord’s immediate companions, so what about it [about inclusion in the apostolic rank. -Ed.] with the sons of Zebedee it is mentioned deliberately αὐτοῖς ὄνομα Βοανηργές [and (ordained) James and John, and called their names Boanerges]). All this is so strange that some manuscripts include Mk. 3, 16 “πρῶτον Σίμωνα” [(put) Simon first]. Again, the riddle is resolved only with this thought, if the election of Peter is already given in the “τούς δώδεκα” [twelve] itself - if it originally meant: “and he chose us twelve, and called me...”. Now we are again forced to assume that Mark is reproducing Peter’s very phrase, since in the passage under discussion only he could be the one speaking in this way. Isn’t our previous conclusion confirmed here that Mark’s writing was a faithful reflection of Petrov’s words? And then isn’t it obvious that it is our Greek edition of the second Gospel? According to all ancient reports, our Mark largely grew out of the oral communications of Peter. Upon analysis, there is complete agreement between our current Mark's Gospel and what authoritative evidence reports about it. Therefore, the merits of this information are not denied even by extreme skeptics 609. After all this, it is necessary to consider the first [i.e. e. “the present Mark’s Gospel.” -Ed.] the authentic writing of the “interpreter” and “son” of Petrov in its entirety, accepting that it came out of the hands of the evangelist in exactly this form. This is a strict scientific conclusion, and its recognition is a duty of scientific conscientiousness, which cannot be boasted by those who claim that Papias saw another Gospel, Mark 610, and not the present one. Our second Gospel belongs to Mark in its entirety, including the section of Mark. 16, 9–20 But, having confirmed this position, we, however, encounter some doubts where they were least expected. Authors outside of all schools and parties, unconditionally honest and deeply learned - these are the names that appear before us with their objections to the authenticity of Mark. 16, 9–20. In the best critical editions they are marked with suspicious insertions with the addition of another edition (ἄλλως), and von Gebhardt places them even under the line, Tischendorf, Trigelis and Westcott-Hort devote long dissertations with a whole extensive apparatus of factual arguments in favor of the inauthenticity of this section 611. Naes non a Marco scripta esse argumentis probatur idoneis [that this was not written by Mark is proven by convincing arguments], writes Tischendorf 612. It cannot be said that there were not respectable apologists for his [Department of Mk. 16, 9–20. -Ed.]: their works, for example, Dean Burgeon and Vicar Scrivener, are no less fundamental and brilliant 613. With all this, it is obvious that the situation here is not entirely successful. But first of all, it is certain that, despite all its venerable antiquity, the second brief conclusion of the Gospel cannot be considered original either in the method of presentation, or in the language, or in the content itself. This is simply a summary story that “the women reported the resurrection to Peter and those with him, and after that Jesus also spread through them the holy and incorruptible gospel of eternal salvation from east to west.” The presence and significant distribution of this edition, of course, is a considerable negative authority against the current twelve verses, but there is also some indirect evidence favorable to them. It is clear that the copyist found it impossible to stop at the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ [for they were afraid] (Matthew 16:8) without any continuation, when the whole narrative would be hanging in the air, and considered it necessary to give it a roundness. In view of this, we cannot agree with the idea (Westcott-Hort) that Mark’s Gospel, like the work of Thucydides, was released in fragmentary form. Antiquity did not recognize this, and it is all the more impossible to allow it because there is no sufficient reason for it. If this was the violent death of Mark, then it is not clear why his writings did not perish with him; if he was forced to stop his work due to random circumstances (for example, due to the persecution of Nero, which forced him to leave Rome), then nothing prevented him from continuing it later and in another place. Then, peering into the essence of the second edition, we notice that it is a condensed reproduction of the current passage. This means that it follows from this that this department existed and was only in suspenso [in uncertainty] for some reasons. The only thing that is put forward against such an opinion and as proof of the idea that our 12 verses did not exist at all at first is the authority of the famous codes B and א, several Armenian, two Ethiopian, one Itala (k-cod. Bobbiensis, IV40;-V40; centuries) and Arabic. However, the latter can hardly be independent witnesses, and in any case their significance is weakened by the fact that our poems are found in all other Greek manuscripts and versions (Cureton and Pescito's Syriac, Itala, bohairica, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopian), no less important: thus, the Syriac and Latin belong to the half of the 2nd century, bohairica (Egyptian) to the 3rd century. and Ethiopian - by the 4th century. 614 But - and besides this - in the Sinaiticus and Vatican manuscripts one observation is worthy of attention, which is decisive in this matter. In the second of them, after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ [for they were afraid], the whole column is left completely white, which is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. This is an undeniable sign that the copyist had more material, but refrained from reproducing it. Similarly, in א more than half of the column is filled with elaborate and ornate arabesques in ink and cinnabar, as if with the intention that no one would add further content. From this, again, it only follows that the copyists of the codices under review had a suspicion about the end of Mark’s Gospel, but in the original itself it was 615 - as this is also shown by the editor’s address “ἄλλως” [in a different way]. Now let's see how solid this doubt is, both in quantity and quality. Regarding the abundance of material, we are first greatly struck by the multitude of documentary data in favor of the inauthenticity of our conclusion and the no less antiquity of the other: in addition to א and B, we find a whole mass of manuscripts of this nature with L (cod. Parisiensis, VIII century) at the head. But Tischendorf already assumed the unity of origin of the first two codes, and now we can consider it quite certain that at least in the last part they were written by the same hand 616. Two is reduced to one. Then L is directly dependent on B, and therefore all of them - together with א - are reduced to a common root. A careful study convinces that Eusebius was such; This means that all of these are probably copies of those lists that were made by order of Constantine the Great 617. It is clear that the number of our enemies is not nearly as huge as it might seem at first glance. To the same extent, their reinforcement is not entirely insurmountable. Arguments on this subject were formulated by Eusebius and passed from him to Gregory of Nyssa 618 and Victor of Antioch 619, and Bl. Jerome, without any need or reason, raised the tone of the Caesarean historian 620. But even these imitators do not unconditionally maintain unison with their guarantor and try to overthrow his yoke. Jerome, in his essay against Pelagius, clearly admits the authority of our entire department 621. Gregory quotes Mark. 16, 19 as “τὸ παρὰ Μάρκ ῳ γεγραμμένον” [written in Mark], Victor speaks even more directly in favor of the originality of this passage 622, and up to 24 ΝΝ adjoin it, falsely commented to the contrary side. Only Eusebius remains. He speaks on our question in his letter to Marinus, arguing that Mark's Gospel ἐν ἅ πασι τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις [in all copies] ends with “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” [for they were afraid] and that τὰ ἑξῆς [following] is σπανίως ἔν τισιν [occasionally in some (lists)], moreover, in not τὰ ἀκριβῆ [exact]. Therefore, the current 12 verses are not authentic, εὐαγγελιστῶν μαρτυρί ᾳ [especially if there is a contradiction in them with the testimony of the other evangelists 623. This means that the historian relies not so much on documentary evidence as on exegetical evidence, which cannot have binding force simply because he himself indicates the point of the agreement, albeit unsuccessfully (the point after “ἀναστὰς δέ”). The same, of course, must be said about all other skeptics like him, from Severus and Hesychius to Euthymius Zigabenus inclusive. Finally, as for all the lists with perplexed notes about Mk. 16, 9–20, then it is not without right to guess that they owe their origin to the critical influence of Origen. Given the comparative weakness of negative arguments, which sometimes undermine each other, the more important the pro data become, which are at least no less weighty. We already know that many very respectable and ancient lists are in favor. To this it must be added that quite noticeable traces of the use of this conclusion are found in Papias (?), Hermas, Justin, Celsus, Hippolytus, James of Nisibius (?), Aphraates, Cyril of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom 624, in the pseudo-Athanasian synopsis 625, and Irenaeus already in the second century expressed: “In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus: “Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in coelos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei” [At the end of the Gospel Mark says: “And so the Lord Jesus, after talking with them, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God"] 626 (cf. Mark 16:19 ). Likewise, in the ancient Greek lectionaries, the spoken verses are relied upon at the morning service on the day of the Ascension and on the feast of Mary Magdalene on July 22, forming the third of the eleven εὐαγγέλια ἀναστάσιμα ἑωθινά [Sunday morning Gospels]; the Mozarabic or Spanish liturgy indicates them on Holy Monday, the Syrian Jacobites on Easter Tuesday, the Armenians on Ascension, to which the Copts date Mark. 16, 12–20, and the old Latin comes 627 - Mark. 16, 16–20. Arguments of a purely critical nature are no stronger. True, Mark narrates here very concisely, but we see the same thing in the history of temptation (Mark 1:12) and the first embassy of the apostles to preach (Mark 6:7-13). Equally, the vocabulary here is somewhat different, but Scrivener rightly noted that in this way one can reject the authorship of the pastoral letters of Paul, the Apocalypse of John and suspect the books of Isaiah and Zechariah; even everyone can easily find similar signs in their own writings. It is also true that the expulsion of seven demons from Mary was not previously reported, but Luke’s note about this, without any preliminary information, is equally random (Luke 8:2). In contrast to this, we point out that in its present form, Mark’s Gospel better corresponds to the plan of Peter, who always extends his gospel to the fact of the ascension and sitting of the Lord at the right hand of the Father (Acts 1:22; 2:32-36). The mention of demons is quite understandable from the “interpreter” of this apostle, who insistently emphasizes that Christ “healed all who were possessed by the devil” (Acts. 10, 38); therefore, it is natural that Mark often speaks about this, and in conclusion he reports that the Savior has granted such power to all his disciples. In the very flow of the story there is a close connection with the previous one and internal consistency. The words of the Angels aroused only fear in the wives - and they did not say anything to anyone; Mary Magdalene sees the risen man - but they do not believe her; Jesus appears to the two disciples in a different form - and their voice was not accepted by the others. This directly prepares for the open appearance of the Redeemer for the purpose of conviction and assurance. At the same time, all this involuntarily inspires the idea that the apostles, for completely irrefutable reasons, came to the conviction that death was trampled underfoot by the uprising and they were not false witnesses, and a similar idea is significantly visible throughout the second Gospel in line with the views of Peter. The above considerations already predetermine F. K. Conibear's hypothesis that the author of the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel was Ariston 628. Despite the sympathy of many scientists for it 629, I find this guess extremely dubious 630 even beyond its improbability: 1) its only basis is in the note of the Armenian uncial code of the Etchmiadzin Monastery from 989 631; 2) this evidence in itself is unclear, since the words “Ariston Eritzou” 632 (“presbyter Ariston”) force us either to recognize a hitherto unknown person of high authority, or to identify this Ariston with Ariston of Pelle 633, who lived quite late (about 140–150) and in his writings did not touch upon the gospel history, or, finally, to merge him with Aristion 634, although there is not the slightest justification for this and although he (like Ariston) is not called a presbyter 635; 3) the Armenian gloss does not at all say that Ariston was the compiler of the section in question, and can be understood in different ways - for example, in the sense that in favor of the authenticity of his copyist he had the tradition of the said presbyter, etc. In any case, bewilderment regarding the era of the 1st century is extremely dangerous. decide in a single and dark voice from the end of the tenth century 636. This means that our conclusion remains the same. As far as our information extends into the depths of centuries, to the beginning of our era, everywhere we find traces of acquaintance with the current last twelve verses; therefore there is no sufficient reason to deny their authenticity. But at the same time, there is no doubt that they were distinguished by considerable instability as part of the whole and often stood out from it, so that they even became the subject of a question. This is a fact and it requires explanation. Some scholars make the following guess: the Alexandrian Church stopped fasting and began the bright holiday at midnight, and others - with the crowing of a rooster 637. The first was based on the testimony of Matt. 28, 1 638 and, in order not to embarrass the conscience of Christians, in her lectionaries she omitted the message of Mark, which somewhat disagrees with this practice, which is why it disappeared in many codices. At the same time, they cite a similar example that something similar happened with the 16th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, which contains almost exclusively greetings and was rarely used in worship 639. Likewise, most of the manuscripts, unfavorable 16, 9-20 Mark's Gospel, go back through Eusebius, an admirer of Origen and a red Alexandrian 640, to the capital of Egypt as their primary source. However, one cannot remain silent that it is rather strange that the Alexandrian Church, so proud of the see of St. Mark, betrayed the covenants of its founder and head. In the same way, this opinion lacks a factual basis, for it is impossible to prove that all of our lists depend on collections of liturgical readings, in which, according to existing data, we have something completely contrary. True, in some manuscripts after “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” [for they were afraid] the note “τέλος” [end] is made, but it is difficult to prove that this is a church liturgical term, and not a critical sign expressing the copyist’s doubt about the following verses 641. Therefore, assuming the above interpretation, we are personally more inclined to think that the reason for the phenomenon under consideration lies in the conditions of the emergence of our second Gospel. Probably, the writer was interrupted by some accident (for example, the death of the Apostle Peter, persecution), and his work was initially distributed without a conclusion. But then he completed his work, and in this form it received a complete edition, which naturally began to raise eyebrows among the owners of the first one, since they were firmly convinced that their text was original. This is somewhat indicated by the observation that scribes often refer to the disagreement of the codes as a fact dating back to an antiquity unknown to them, and this is most likely explained by our assumption: and the features of the style seem to say that Mark got down to business after a certain interval, when only a logical sequence was retained in his head. Therefore, while quickly generalizing his material, he does not observe grammatical connection and with the predicate ἐφάνη [appeared] he thinks of a subject (Ἰ ησοῦς), which is quite far away (cf. below the same about the book of Acts). However, in any case, the authenticity of Mk. 16, 9–20 does not suffer in the least from the instability of these hypotheses, which is natural in the essence of the issue, and is based on very solid fundamental foundations. For this reason, from a scientific point of view, it is fair to recognize the authenticity of this section, which the Church could not accept without strictly objective arguments due to existing doubts. If so, then we have the right to think that our entire Gospel (second) is the original work of Mark. The words of Prester John exactly fit him and do not allow for a fashionable interpretation; supposedly a disorderly and episodic collection of the Lord’s speeches and deeds was then circulated under his name. Papias can rather testify in favor of the final twelve verses, for his story about Justus-Barsab - that he drank a poisonous drink and, by the grace of God, did not experience anything bad 642 - represents the actual justification of the effectiveness of the Lord's gift to the apostles: even if they drink mortally, it does not harm them (Mark 16:18). Likewise, handwritten data leans strongly in this direction. Historical authenticity and divinely inspired dignity of Mark's Gospel Having carefully analyzed the news of “presbyter” John in comparison with all other data, we are convinced that the current second Gospel came out of the hands of the sacred writer in this form. This result, important in itself, is of great importance in other respects. First of all, this illuminates for us the conditions and circumstances of the origin of the scripture in question, and then it resolves another significant question in the present case, which necessarily arises during scientific research. Mark was not a companion of the Lord and an eyewitness to the events; where does he get his news from and what value can it have? Is this a simple subjective reproduction based on a dark and impersonal tradition or a secondary processing of someone else’s written material, as dubious in its composition as it is suspicious in new factual information, when they represent the product of individual fabrications of a lover of picturesqueness and plasticity? Antiquity understood this well - and its answer was definite and firm. “No,” she loudly declares, because through Mark one of the Lord’s closest disciples, His first-called apostle, tells us, because this was Peter’s constant “interpreter,” his faithful mouth, his exact echo both in word and in writing. He is as reliable as he is in everything, and his messages have complete historical veracity and scientific significance. This is the direct meaning of John's words. But they contain something more, no less interesting for us. St. ap. Peter is not only an eyewitness - he had all the grace of the apostleship in teaching and preaching, since everywhere and always he labored with the Lord’s assistance. His gospel message, for this reason alone, should be imprinted with the character of the divine authority with which he was endowed from above. For the same reason, the writing of Mark is inspired by God, for it flows from a source of sacred importance. And whatever we mean by the term inspiration [inspiration], in any case the second Gospel must be recognized as divinely inspired already due to the close relationship of its compiler to the apostle. Peter, as for Luke such a guarantor is St. ap. Paul. And throughout Christian antiquity, one cannot help but notice that inspiration and apostleship are correlative to one another, and the former rests on the latter and is conditioned by it. And precious instructions in this sense have been preserved to us. Clement of Alexandria mentions: “Mark wrote the Gospel and gave it to those in need. Having learned about this, Peter clearly did not resist and did not incline to this (προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλῦσαι μήτε προτρέψασθαι)" 643. But Eusebius adds that when this matter became known to the apostle by revelation, he rejoiced at the zeal of the Romans “and approved the Gospel to be read in the churches” ( ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ) 644; after him, Blessed Jerome writes the same: quod cum Petrus audisset, probavit, et ecclesiis (ecclesiae) legendum sua auctoritate edidit [when Peter heard it, approved it and published it for reading in the churches (Churches) under his authority] 645. Due to some disagreement on the letter of these testimonies, they are trying to take away all power from them 646 - but that there is absolutely no contradiction here is confirmed by the reference of Eusebius and Jerome specifically to the Alexandrian presbyter 647. And in itself it is clear that the latter [i.e. e. Clement of Alexandria. -Ed.] speaks only about the beginning and completion of Markova’s work, and the first [Eusebius and Jerome. -Ed.] determine Peter’s final view of her 648. Be that as it may, the apostle knew about the work of his “interpreter,” who took up “the scriptures” without his prompting or knowledge, solely at the request of the Roman Christians. The good results of this enterprise were soon revealed - and the evangelist formally supported it with his authority and consecrated the book of his companion for “church” use. This more directly affirms the divinely inspired dignity of the second Gospel, which was at the same time a completely reliable historical monument in its content, coming from St. ap. Petra. The relation of the second Gospel to the first But, revealing the position about the material truth of Markov’s writing, since it is based on the testimony of an indisputable witness to the events, “presbyter” John does not assimilate historical accuracy in relation to the external form of presentation. On the contrary, he is clearly hinting; that this is a product of personal experience, because in the memories themselves there was not sufficient basis for placing all the facts and the plan does not express their actual sequence. Of course, one cannot think that St. ap. Peter preached the life of the Savior without any order, and the available evidence shows that he had his own historical system approximately of this type: the preaching of John, the Galilean period, the ministry in Judea, death, resurrection and ascension. The present second Gospel also maintains the same construction, sometimes deviating from chronological punctuality - and here again, although unexpectedly, its authenticity is verified. But it goes without saying that the apostle of circumcision could not speak exactly as we read in Mark - and John transparently expresses the conviction that he had his own scheme, independent of the “instructions” of his teacher and not deducible from there. The question is, where was it borrowed from and what is it based on? This could not be the simple ingenuity or insight of the narrator, who surmisely determines the place, time and mutual connection of events according to certain signs. Then he would be in direct contradiction with himself, since he wanted to write ἀκριβῶς [exactly] and not compress anything, meanwhile - with an arbitrary composition - he should always be weighed down by the doubt that he was expressing it in the wrong way or in the wrong way. By the same token, it is difficult to admit that such support was exclusively oral tradition, since in the eyes of Mark it could not be higher than his personal knowledge received from St. ap. Petra. Using the voice of tradition, Mark was obviously also guided by some solid example of undeniable authority, which qualities are conceivable only in a written source. Now, in a purely historical and scientific way, we come, according to the instructions of John (Papias and Eusebius), to the theory of use - and it does not deceive our expectations, offering in Matthew a strong prototype for the composition of Mark. We already know that the structure of the latter’s work closely resembles the first Gospel both in the general distribution of material and in the combination of many particular episodes, united in such a way that it is necessary to recognize the dependence of one writer on another. Careful observation reveals the presence of this phenomenon throughout our Gospel 649. “From this study,” according to Klosterman, “it follows that when compiling a coherent historical work based on the random stories of Peter, Mark in both respects, where they presented him with the most freedom and were the least reliable (namely: in the acoluthic sequence, that is, in the historical-pragmatic connection, and in the choice of individual narratives), was determined as far as possible by the example of Matthew’s Gospel, to the extent that this fulfillment of a unique plan, designed for the specific need of a particular person, allowed him circle of readers, and to what extent the preservation of Petrov’s original coloring and method of presentation did not force him to a different historical reproduction” 650. Further, it turns out that this was not the mythical Ur-Matthew and that the present first Gospel in its entirety and complete form existed even before our Mark, who used it 651. We, of course, cannot know where and how Petrov’s companion became acquainted with Matthew’s writings, but there is no reason not to allow this in view of the living and constant relations between the churches in the early Christian era. If you absolutely need a certain moment; we could point to the time when Mark left Rome, after Paul's bonds, and when the Greek edition of the first Gospel found considerable circulation. In any case, the fame of his “interpreter” of the apostle of circumcision has a very high probability and is supported by the fact that it reveals to us the source of the origin of Mark’s composition, which cannot be explained from memories alone. But attentiveness and imitation of Matthew in no way excludes the originality and originality of the evangelist, as a purely literary analysis of his work convinces. According to Klosterman, everywhere he “discovers himself as a person who, in independent parts, with painful conscientiousness, tries to restore Peter’s stories without changing them in content and form, since he owed them the material of his book” 652. If this is true, then our second forecaster, even by his subordination to the first, does not in the least disharmonize with the testimony of “presbyter” John, for in all points, both materially and formally, he retains the bright color of his mentor’s oral messages. On the other hand, he does not contradict him with a consistent plan, which Peter did not give him with his fragmentary sermons. In addition to what was in this, the writer met a good adviser and an undeniable assistant in Matthew, thanks to whom he had the opportunity to process all the wealth of his information in a holistic presentation. His narrative does not always develop in strict accordance with the actual course of events - οὐ τάξει [out of order] - but this is understandable if the apostle-publican did not care about historical-chronological pragmatism. For this reason, Mark, surpassing his example here, does not yet rise to the point of absolute coincidence with the fact regarding the questions “where?” and “how?” The difficult problem of the origin of our second Gospel, the compiler of which was not the self-visionary of the Lord, is resolved with complete satisfaction; More than this cannot be demanded in a speech about ancient monuments, of which few can boast of such clarity and distinctness in these points. This is an indirect argument to what extent our Gospels are historical writings, since in these respects they stand out so noticeably and sharply among all the early Christian creations. Thus, Mark was not a participant or direct spectator of the reported incidents; but they came to him from the honest lips of Peter, and he himself, in his position as “ermineuta,” had to correctly assimilate and accurately remember what was communicated. Its source is reliable and undoubted, but if he reproduced it with mathematical care (ἀκριβῶς), then his edition also has the authority of its guarantor, who approved it for sacred use. This means that it is not only materially true, but also divinely inspired. Likewise, in the composition itself, the evangelist did not act according to the whim of his taste or the shaky insight of his considerations, but followed the instructions of the Apostle Matthew. Even if he had something else, this does not harm his truthfulness, since it did not forcibly influence the essence of his presentation, which remained inviolable. “We must believe,” writes Klosterman, “that even where he takes the content and form of his story from sources other than Matthew, he was guided here by the consciousness that what he borrowed had the personal authority of Peter or, at least, the direct guarantee of someone else” 653. Place of Origin and First Readers of the Second Gospel Even more direct is the evidence about the immediate circumstances of the origin of Mark's Gospel. It was written in Rome and at the request of the Christians there. “They,” according to Eusebius, “were not content with just the unwritten teaching of the divine sermon, but convincingly asked Petrov’s companion Mark to leave them a written monument of the teachings orally taught to them and did not retreat until Mark fulfilled their desires. Thus, they were the inspiration for the writing of the Gospel, called the Gospel of Mark. Clement talks about this in the sixth book of the Constitutions. The bishop of Hierapolis, named Papias, testifies to the same thing with him.”654 The statements of Irenaeus, Ephraim the Syrian, Epiphanius, Jerome, Theophylact of Bulgaria and others are no less definite on this score. 655 Chrysostom alone points to Egypt, but with the caveat that this issue does not deserve special analysis 656. And there is no doubt that this unica [single (place)] is a personal assumption based on the news of the evangelist’s stay in Alexandria, meanwhile all the factual data about Rome were so general and strong that Ephraim and in the signatures of some Syrian and Greek codices even made a guess about the original Latin language of the second Gospel, and then in one Prague manuscript (fragm. ex cod. Forojuliense, V-VI centuries) an allegedly Latin autograph of his was found. Although there were defenders of this idea 657, it is, of course, false, for the Latin original is simply one of the varieties of the Vulgate 658; Moreover, Augustine and Jerome, together with the majority of handwritten testimony, claim that Mark's Gospel was written in Greek letters, 659 which is also shown by the current text, which excludes the thought of translation. Nevertheless, this fact shows enough how stubbornly the opinion about the Roman origin of the second weather forecaster was maintained 660. And the latter fully justifies the fidelity of this legend 661. First of all, he certainly does not mean Jews, for he considers Christianity in itself, without its relation to the Old Testament cult and the prophetic plans of the Savior, not in the sense of the fulfillment of ῥ ηθέν [spoken] 662. Therefore, in the evangelist’s own reasoning we find only two biblical quotations: Mk. 1, 2–3; 15, 28 - and in the first case, this is a reproduction of the words of the Lord, which received a stereotypical form (Mark 1, 2: “as it is written by the prophet”; cf. Matthew 11, 10; Luke 7, 27), and the Forerunner himself (John 1, 23); As for the second (from Isaiah 53:12), it is possible to speculate whether it is the glossa from Luke. 22, 37, since it is not found in the authoritative codes B, א, A (codex Alexandrinus musei Britannici, V century), C (Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus Parisiensis, V century) and some of the newest ones, as well as in the Said (Egyptian) translation 663. Mark does not call Christ, like Matthew, “Son of David,” but always “Son of God,” “Son of Man,” the founder not of the “kingdom of heaven,” but of the “kingdom of God.” Such a noticeable detachment of the gospel from the legalistic Old Testament soil is hardly accidental. It is clear that the writer did not consider this subject understandable and accessible to readers. And this is all the more true since he releases the entire Discourse on the Mount and deliberately avoids mentioning the priority rights of the Jews to salvation (Matthew 10:5; 15:24; cf. Mark 7:24-30). In him we do not find such denunciations of Pharisaism as the first Gospel abounds (cf., for example, Mark 1, 4 ss. and Matthew 3, 7 ss.). No less than this, the second evangelist is brief in his parables, and four examples of them reveal the general idea of ​​preparation for the messianic kingdom, its development and the acceptance into its depths of other workers (Mk. 4, 3–9, 26–30, 31–32; 12, 1–9). Mark offers a “new” teaching (Mark 1:27) and, of course, counts on new listeners who are alien to the Jewish-theocratic point of view on the soteriological issue. One can even say that they were not closely familiar with these ideas, which is why the didactic instructions of the Lord, dedicated to the Jewish mindset and national understanding, are passed in silence, for example, about the marriage of the king’s son (Matthew 22, 2 ss.) and about the wise and foolish virgins (Matthew 25, 1 ss.). Often he is even forced to explain where the apostle-publican does not have this, and deliberately adds what it means to eat with unclean hands (Mark 7:2-4), which was done on the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mark 14:12), and defines Friday as the day before Saturday (Mark 15:42). Everything that has been said convinces us that the scripture in question was addressed not to the descendants of Abraham, but to people of a completely different origin and a different type. But these were not Greeks either, since the writer transfers the Greek coin to the Roman account: λεπτὰ (less than 1/6 kop.) δύο, ὅ ἐστιν κοδράντης (Mark 12, 42 quadrans) [two mites, that is, codrant]. It follows that Mark was primarily counting on the Latins, which we conclude from the comparative abundance of Latin terms in the Greek transcription 664 and the purely Latin phrases that come across 665. These persons should be looked for even closer in the capital of the then world. This is suggested by the mention of the sons of Simon of Cyrene - Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21). It cannot be disputed that the evangelist wants to indicate something special by the patronymic of this “crusader,” since such genealogical glosses are far from common even with the names of the apostles themselves, and his natural goal was to remind his readers of this man through members related to him who were familiar to them. In this case, it was Rufus, greeted in the letter to the Romans (Rom. 16, 13). That is why Mark also understands him. One might think that he considers Mary Magdalene not completely unknown to his circle, as if to say: this is the same one from whom Jesus cast out seven demons (Mark 16:9). The legend about this myrrh-bearer, although vague, says that she was in Rome. The story of the judgment of the Lord also leads to this city. Here the evangelist, without any preamble, directly says that the rulers took Him away and handed him over to Pilate (Mark 15:1), while Matthew (Matthew 27:2), Luke (Luke 3:1) and even John (John 18:28) define his position and title. Mark obviously admits that this is not necessary for him and his closest public knows well who it was and why he is forced to conduct an indictment against the Savior, decidedly against his wishes. All this rather makes us assume that the Romans were from more or less higher bureaucratic strata, where they so closely monitor the careers of their comrades and firmly confirm the lessons of the past in the examples of their brothers. And Clement of Alexandria actually says that among those who wanted to have a written example of Petrova’s sermon were some Caesarea horsemen (caesareani equites) - representatives of the privileged court regiment 666. This opinion is possible, since St. ap. Even earlier, during his first Roman bonds, Paul managed to penetrate to Caesar's house (Phil. 4:22) - although the latter does not mean the royal palace, but probably indicates the “court” or courtiers 667. Time of writing of the second Gospel Rome and Roman citizens of different classes - this is the place of appearance and the first readers of our second Gospel, compiled under the influence of St. ap. Peter and based on his information. This result also provides the key to resolving the question of the time of writing, although there is some disagreement on this subject. First of all, the work in question could not have been published before Peter’s arrival in Rome, which, according to all the most solid considerations, happened around 63-64 668 or even after 67. This does not yet definitively establish the terminus ad quem [upper limit], since it does not prevent it from being pushed back further to any moment. Here the ancient news comes to our aid that Mark’s Gospel was at least begun during the lifetime of its teacher and inspirer. According to Clement of Alexandria, he did not oppose this matter and did not incline him to it 669, and Eusebius and Jerome, for their part, add that “having learned this by revelation from the Spirit of God, the apostle rejoiced at the zeal of the Romans and approved the Gospel for reading in the churches,” “et ecclesiis (ecclesiae) legendum sua auctoritate edidit” [and published for reading in the churches (Churches) under their authority] 670. They think to find some contradiction to this in the words of Papias, supposedly speaking about the writing of Mark after the death of his leader 671, but the Caesarea historian already understood them according to his stated view 672. Irenaeus is much more clear in favor of a later date. Having said that Matthew “γραφὴν ἐξήνεγκεν – τοῦ Πέτρου καὶ τοῦ Παύλου ἐν Ῥ ώμ ῃ "[wrote the Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and strengthening the Church], he continues: " "[and after their exodus, Mark conveyed to us what Peter preached in writing] 673. "Ἔ ξοδος " [exodus] usually means death, exitus vel excessus e vita [departure from life], and its connection with " τούτων " ["them"] makes one think of the death of Peter and Paul. This prompts many exegetes to admit that the "father" approved only the literary enterprise and the primary notes of his spiritual son, but such an opinion is directly excluded by certain testimony about the transfer of the complete Gospel for (liturgical?) use. We now have a dilemma: either the Bishop of Lyons disagrees with the other authors, or his text must be understood somewhat differently. Fortunately, the very phrase of this hereseologist sufficiently decides the choice in the second sense. If, in his opinion, Mark took up his work after the martyrdom of Peter, then his sermon would have been past and Irenaeus said τὰ. κηρυχθέντα [preached] or τὸ κήρυγμα [sermon]. But he retains the form of the present "τὰ κηρυσσόμενα" [preached], which is why it seems that the oral gospel was still in progress when he put it in writing. Ἔ ξοδος [exodus], therefore, does not always equal θάνατος [death] and in technical language sometimes meant simply “the final scene of the tragedy,” literally equaling our “departure, removal” 674. In our case, the solution is provided by the Latin passage, where we read that after a certain interval the apostles “exierunt in fines terrae” [went to the ends of the earth 675. Thus, ἔξοδος also indicates the “departure” of the Lord’s companions from Palestine 676. Pronomen τούτων [the pronoun “them”] does not prevent this, since it is not necessary to include in it only the two closest ones [i.e., Peter and Paul. -Ed.]. The construction of the Irenaean fragment rather forces us to look for the subject above, in those who exierunt [came out], for his speech flows in coordinated theses: ὁ μὲν δὴ Ματθαῖος μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον [Matthew, and after their exodus] - and refers to the general position about the dispersion of the twelve from Jerusalem. Then it will sound in accordance with Mark’s own expressions: ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἐκήρυξαν [they went and preached] (Mark 16:20). From all this we conclude that the second Gospel was released before the death or departure of Peter from Rome in the late 60s of the 1st century. True, some, according to the authority of Eusebius and Jerome, attribute the term to the fifth decade, 42–43, but it is more fair to think that Mark, after writing the Gospel, went to Egypt and built a local church, as Epiphanius 677 and the same Latin writer report. There is equally no reason to extend beyond the point we have determined. Of course, this evangelist does not so closely connect the end of the current world order with the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:7), but in general, alien to a strictly Jewish point of view, he does not draw a Matthewian parallel between them, which would not have been entirely intelligible to his first readers. Likewise, the note about “preaching everywhere” (ἐκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ – Mark 16:20) does not force us to change our opinion, for the spread of Christianity to Rome, the capital of the then civilized world, gave every right to call this fact universal. For this reason, Paul already testified that “the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23). Some bewilderment may arise that we have a very short gap between the beginning of Peter’s evangelization and its consolidation in writing. But even before Paul arrived there, Christianity had taken root in Rome, and by his two years of activity here he spread it very widely throughout all classes of society. Peter only supported this zeal and inflamed it to the highest degree, so that the listeners wished to always have before their eyes an example of his teaching; “It seemed to them, according to Eusebius, that it was not enough to hear him once” 678 - and they turned to Mark, who, under the lively impression of Peter’s instructions, quickly and immediately completed his work with the approval of the teacher. Perhaps only the last twelve verses appeared somewhat later and outside Rome. We analyzed the external data regarding the second Gospel and came to the scientifically satisfactory conclusion that in its present form it was published in the late 60s of the first century on the basis of the messages of Peter (although, perhaps, with the help of Matthew) and was intended for the Roman public. These conclusions make it easier for us to further review the scripture in question from the perspective of its content. Review of the content of the second Gospel in comparison with the sermon of St. ap. Peter in relation to the needs of his first readers (Roman Christians) and from the most important aspects in the teaching about the person and work of Christ Mark's gospel comes from a self-witness and, first of all, reproduces an actual event in all its real immediacy. But the latter, as we know, is never depicted by the New Testament writers with a purely historical purpose, but only for special practical types of soteriological properties, and always bears the noticeable stamp of the “editor” and his adaptations to the environment of listeners and readers. For the present case, these factors are expressed by the names “Peter” and “Romans,” of which the former gave Mark the content, while the latter indirectly determined the form of presentation. The Apostle of Circumcision limited the scope of his preaching to the evangelical framework of the earthly life of the Redeemer (Acts 1:21–22) and the particular facts of His activity in Judea and Galilee after the baptism of John. With noticeable objectivity in reproduction, he is far from simply listing chronographs and everywhere captures their hidden and essential meaning, showing “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.” All the sorrowful and shameful fate of His person says nothing against this divine dignity of His personality. True, despite “what He did in the land of Judea and in Jerusalem,” “They killed Him, hanging Him on a tree”; but “God raised him up on the third day.” His life, of course, may seem somewhat unusual and not entirely probable, but the words of His disciples are undeniable and cannot be doubted. These are “witnesses chosen from God” (μάρτυρες οἱ προκεχειροτονημένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ), to whom the Savior appeared and “who with They ate and drank from Him after His resurrection.” Moreover, He Himself “commanded them to preach to people and convince everyone 679 that He is the Judge appointed by God of the living and the dead.” Therefore, “everyone who believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins through His name,” since He is “Lord of all” and “in every nation, anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:34-43). Peering into the course of these thoughts, we easily find the central point of gravity in the position that Christ is the greatest and only divine person in all world history, the ruler not only of nature, but also of spirits. He must be obeyed, but His strength is not in external power, but in peace and salvation by faith, which is offered to everyone through reliable spectators of His life and work. It is impossible not to see that in such a formulation, the gospel of the Gospel acquired the character of universal obligatory nature and world-wide necessity - both in terms of its divine source in Christ and in terms of its goal of the universally desired and sought-after moral perfection, predestined in the very organization of human nature. But in this form it was even more suitable to the needs of Roman society. We will not go into details and will limit ourselves for now to cursory remarks about the primary Roman church. It was formed and formed here in unknown, mysterious ways, and its root is hidden in the foggy unknown. In any case, it is true that the main element in it was the pagans, and not the Jews. There are clear hints of this already in Paul’s Epistle, where the apostle hopes to receive from his readers some fruit, as in other nations (Rom. 1:13) 680, providing grace and apostleship in the subjugation of all nations to the faith (Rom. 1:5). St. ap. Paul, upon his arrival in the capital, convened the first people from the Jews, but they reacted to his speeches with skeptical arrogance: we know about this heresy, as everywhere there is resistance to what is said, which is why they were branded with the formidable word of Isaiah and rejected (Acts 28, 17 ss.). Under such conditions, Christianity could find favorable soil for itself either in proselytes or among pagans. Rome looked at the Jew with a proud disdain of arrogance and a contemptuous disgust of disgust; and yet - with the loosening of morals, the decline of ancient cults and the hot, to the point of exaltation and eccentricity, thirst for salvation and redemption - the sublime ideas of the Old Testament revelation had considerable distribution here. Seneca shows that “the custom of this most criminal kind has prevailed so much that it is accepted everywhere; victi victoribus leges dederunt" [the vanquished gave their laws to the victors] 681. Josephus even states that “there is not a single city of the Greek or barbarian people where the seventh day rest is not observed, where fasts and new moons are not observed, and where there is no distinction regarding the food that we are forbidden to eat” 682. And, according to Juvenal and Tacitus, many accepted Judaism in its ionic volume, together with circumcision 683; these are צֶדֶק גֵּרֵי, “proselytes of truth.” There were even more of those who were admitted to synagogue meetings under the condition of recognizing the seven (four?) “Noahic commandments” or “rules” (about idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, rebellion, fornication with close relatives and eating blood and strangled meat), although they did not share all the other Mosaic and “senile” obligations. This is a vast class of שַׁצַר גֵּרֵי , “proselytes of the gates” 684 , approaching the Greek οἱ σεβόμενοι [worshippers (of God)] 685 . But it goes without saying that all these people were defeated by the arm of Jehovah mainly because of His power in the providential leadership of the descendants of Israel, which was palpable to everyone - and because of the internal stability of His teaching, which does not succumb to the corrupting poison of human doubt, and because of its subjective vitality in the iron devotion of the confessors of this religion. All such persons submitted to force and could change it only by the undoubted discovery of even greater strength in obvious facts 686. For them, therefore, the word of the Apostle Paul was true: the Jews ask for a sign and fearfully guard against the cross, which was a temptation in their eyes (1 Cor. 1:22-23). It is no less natural that the proselytes were not completely transformed into Jewish flesh and blood. The former leaven of the pagan, the civis Romani [Roman citizen], was evident in their mentality and in their views. How much did this big title say? It certified that the famous subject belonged to the mighty Rome, at the foot of which all the peoples of the ancient world slavishly groveled, which crushed entire kingdoms with its wave, before which everyone and everything trembled. His very religio [religion] was one of the political-social functions 687 and was imbued with the same spirit of violent suppression of personal freedom contrary to all conviction - and it was observed even when the priests openly laughed at sacrifices and rituals. The Roman citizen had to be overcome first in order for him to begin to believe. At the same time, of course, the demands of a civilized and developed mind were also firm in him. With his scientific criticism, he ultimately shook the foundations of polytheism as not satisfying the demands of a positive mind and a hardened heart. Some rushed into the arms of the most desperate skepticism, not seeing anywhere either moral and beneficent power or intellectual meaningfulness; others indulged in the monstrous, extravagant cults of the East, in order to at least temporarily drown out the inexorable thirst for truth and truth; others leaned toward Jewish monotheism, which was imprinted with the striking features of a great and just God. But they all sought a religious system with a captivating intellectual compulsion, inevitably enslaving the inquisitiveness of culture and civilization. Both morally and intellectually, the Roman recognized only power - the power of signs and wonders and the power of absolute rationality. In this case, the second saying of St. was no less characteristic of Roman society. ap. Paul: “The Greeks seek wisdom” - and, considering Christ crucified as foolishness, they can turn to Him only when they realize that for those who are being saved He is not foolishness, but the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18, 22-23). It goes without saying how much more these demands should have been made by the pagans, to whom the gospel of Christ was directed through the mouth of the Apostle Peter and whom Mark therefore had in mind in his written presentation. Having found in the Judeo-Christian element of the emerging Roman Church a convenient soil for himself, which was fully consistent with his mission of apostleship to the circumcision (Gal. 2:8), Simon at the same time was faced with new demands of Hellenic thought, which stated that virtus is suprema lex [strength is the supreme law]. Naturally, according to this, he was forced to emphasize primarily that “the gospel of Christ is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,” as St. ap. Paul (Rom. 1:16). But if Mark was only a faithful “interpreter”, a reed in the hands of Peter, then it is inevitable that these features were typically reflected in his Gospel. This is what we actually see. “The beginning (ἀρχή) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1) 688, these are the first words of the “interpreter” and “son” of Petrov and the main thesis of his writing. “Good news”, “good news” - this is the revelation that Mark takes upon himself to tell the world. Before his face stood the formidable Rome in all the splendor of its external greatness. He shone with all the advantages of outward outward prosperity, but beneath him lay mortal wounds and corroding ulcers that undermined every soul. The owner of the universe had everything that a civitas [state] can be proud of, but he did not have what is necessary for a civis [citizen] as a living, self-conscious and intelligent individual. The mind is idle, the heart is empty, and both of them painfully seek an outcome, either in the boundless skepticism of despair, or in wild orgies of Eastern origin. Man fought to the point of excruciating agony for the right of the intellect, and the most indifferent of the Romans, fearfully and with the incredulous hope of a drowning man, like Pilate, asked the question: “What is truth?” With the thunder of weapons and streams of blood, he drowned out this persistent cry within himself, but in the souls of everyone, one unquenchable thirst burns: “peace of conscience, light of truth!” This is precisely the gospel of the Redeemer, in whom all this is contained in abundance and completeness. It is not a theoretical system, but a product of ingenious wit and extraordinary insight, independent of the apparent merits or demerits of its manufacturer. This is the most essential, essential property of the latter, since it is το εὐαγγέλιον Ἰ ησοῦ Χρίστοῦ [the Gospel of Jesus Christ] and is inalienable from Him 689 . In this case, revelation and the revealer completely coincide with each other, and the first in its significance turns out to be unconditionally dependent on the second as the reflection that invariably accompanies it, like the fruit by which the tree itself is recognized. Who is He and what is His authority? Great genius? - but both Greece and Rome had too many of them to be convinced of their weakness to find and provide the only thing needed. The chosen one of heaven? - but all the “Caesars” were divine, divi, although the closest of them, Nero, on his whim, burned almost the entire capital and, with the ominous torches of Christian martyrs, continued to celebrate a bloody funeral feast in the ashes and among the groans of the destitute people. Messenger of the gods? - but their official servants themselves, the priests and augurs, openly laughed at their religion and everyone knew that it was supported by tradition. So, who is He? This is υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ [Son of God], not one of many and from many. He is the only Son and from the One, whose concept was instinctively reflected in the beliefs of the people 690. Exclusively His face, but no less sublime is His work, testifying to Him, showing His divine sonship as an obvious and tangible fact. Following the ancient rule “brevis esse via per exempla” [short way through examples], St. ap. Mark generously scatters such examples on every page of his work. Despite its small volume, it dwells more than others on the miraculous phenomena in the life of Christ, and in any case they balance out the didactic passages. His race is invisible 691, however, the very last of the great prophets, which was known to Roman proselytism, proclaimed Him strengthened (Mk. 1:7), and a voice from above told the world that this is ὁ υἱὸς ἀγαπητός [beloved Son] (Mk. 1:11), who is in the inextricable connection of love not by disposition only, but by nature itself - naturaliter and essentialiter [naturally and essentially] - for it is always the existing (ε ἶ) Son of God. Therefore, the latter not only favors Him, but grace itself rests in Him (ἐνᾧ) and directly pours out from this inexhaustible source. His divine dignity shines brighter than the sun: Angels serve Him (Mark 1:13) and even the possessed spirit in the Capernaum synagogue exclaims: “You have come to destroy us. I know You, who You are, Holy God” (Mark 1:24). He is alien to ordinary human limitations and powerfully abolishes it: fever (Mark 1:30–31), leprosy (Mark 1:40–45), paralysis (Mark 2:3–12) obey His slightest wave. Equally, He is not subject to shy human convention: a withered hand is healed on Saturday (Mark 3:1-6). Everything is submissive to Him: the storm subsides with one word (Mark 4:35–41), the legion of demons trembles before His face (Mark 5:1–20) and death itself cedes its rights to the almighty “rise” (Mark 5:21–24, 35–43). Without any tension, His power flows from Him by itself (Mark 5:25–34), feeds thousands of people (Mark 6:30–44; 8:1–9), carries him along the waves of the sea (Mark 6:45–52), and with a short “go - the demon is out” drives him out (Mark 7:24–30). Deafness and tongue-tiedness mean as little to Him (Mark 7:31–37) as blindness (Mark 8:22–26) or sleepwalking (Mark 9:14–29). He has mercy on everyone with royal generosity (Bartimaeus: Mk. 10:46–52) and judges every barren tree with the determination of an absolute ruler (Mark 11:12–14). It is clear that “This is the Lord of all” (Acts 10:36), but as an argumentum ad hominem [argument for man] St. ap. Mark adds a few more features to support this idea. The Greeks and Romans held firmly to the belief in demons as evil or good geniuses, and Cicero remarked: "Esse divinum quiddam, quod Socrates daemonium appellat" [there is something divine that Socrates calls a demon 692. This side is apparently highlighted in the second Gospel both in the frequent mention of this subject and in the very method of depiction. So the writer, without denying existence itself, adapting to the views of that time, tries to raise readers to the true concept of the spiritual and divine. This is πνεύματα [spirits], but πνεύματα ἀκάθαρτα [unclean spirits] is a term that appears in him eleven times, while in the other two it is given only eight times (in Matt. - 2, in Luke - 6) 693. “Δαιμόνιον “[demon] is evil, a great and powerful evil in human nature, since it is weak and weak and suffers from it with serious illnesses; but it is nothing for Christ, since He is the Son of God. He strikes him at every step and this, by the way, is His work. “And He preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee and cast out demons” (Mk. 1, 39) 694, writes the evangelist, presenting a long list of such cases (Mark 1, 23–27, 34, 39; 3, 11 ss., 15, 22–27; 5, 2–20; 6, 7–13; 7, 25–30; 9, 16–28, 38; 16, 9, 17). And the Lord himself laid down here one of the important missions of His ministry. He “ordained the twelve so that they would have power to cast out demons” (Mark 3:14-15) and confirmed it when sending them to preach (Mark 6:7: giving them power over unclean spirits), and they cast out many demons (Mark 6:13). Christ gave a promise to all believers: in My name the demons will be destroyed (Mk. 16:17). With such signs of power, recognition of His deity was involuntarily poured out from the lips of His worst enemies, despite the Savior’s strict prohibition to say that He is Christ (Mk. 1, 34; 3:12), “the unclean spirits, when they saw Him, fell before Him and shouted: You are the Son of God” (Mark 3:11), “You are the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24), “Jesus is the Son of the Most High God” (Mark 5:7). For the same reason, at His very name, the unclean power was removed even through those who did not follow Him (Mark 9:38). The Redeemer in Mark is depicted as a divine person of absolute and exclusive dignity; His miracles testify to this, His dominion over demons places Him outside the ranks of all spoken gods in heaven and on earth. And this is not the opinion of only His ardent admirers and enthusiastic followers. On the contrary, they are reserved and extremely careful in their expressions. St. ap. Mark seems to deliberately pass all such examples in silence (cf. Matt. 14:33; 16:16; John 6:68–69, etc.), not wanting to be suspected of bias and partisanship. Even in the face of inevitability, he is the least decisive in proclaiming the divinity of the Lord through the lips of His apostles, and Peter at Caesarea Philippi simply says: Σύ ε ἶ ὁ Χριστός [You are the Christ] (Mark 8:29) 695. No, the ancient Roman saying came true over Him: vox populi – vox Dei [the voice of the people – the voice of God], although He demanded the deepest silence from everyone (Mark 7:36). And we have already seen with what an aura of greatness and amazement Jesus is surrounded in the image of Mark, what cries of enthusiasm and admiration followed Him everywhere. Therefore, He could not appear anywhere and was forced to retire to desert places (Mark 1, 35; 6, 31–32, 35) or to the borders of Syrophenicia, but even there a captivated crowd found Him and He could not hide outside the boundaries of the sacred land (Mark 7, 24). “And they marveled exceedingly and said, “He does everything well—he makes the deaf hear, and the dumb speak” (Mark 7:37). “What is this?” (Mark 1:27) - such a cry accompanied Him from beginning to end, from Capernaum to Golgotha. Offended, dishonored, despised - and on the cross He wrests a solemn confession from the hardened heart of the rude centurion: “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39) 696. Y ἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ [Son of God] - this is the real characteristic of Jesus of Nazareth. This is the opinion of the evangelist himself, but the Heavenly Father loudly proclaims it, all His deeds cry out about it, evil demons involuntarily express it, the inert crowd of the people recognizes it, it strikes the eyes of a low pagan, a man of sword and blood, even among all the horrors of the most recent shame. The exclusive divinity of Christ is a fact—a fact of deep experience, of living history. But it goes without saying that with such dignity of His, He must be a phenomenon of a special kind, going beyond the ordinary series, no matter what is high under the sun. The essence of His ministry lies in the preaching of the Gospel, but this “τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ” [Gospel of God] is the greatest joy that comes from God and is gained in direct communication with Him through the Son. For this reason, it bears the character of its original source and stands outside adaptations to earthly human conditions, since it is higher than them. This Gospel is not the gospel of the kingdom 697 that the Jews desired and which was created with the iron hand of Rome, without filling its inner emptiness. It is completely and everywhere divine. This is the very work of the Lord. He establishes a new order, for without it a properly organized existence is unthinkable, but this is “ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” [the kingdom of God]. If in the epithet “τῶν οὐρανῶν” [heavenly] Matthew expresses a deliberate contrast to the earthly dreams of modern Judaism, then with his “τοῦ θεοῦ” [God’s] Mark apparently contrasts it with the present Roman reality 698. Urbs [building: Rome] shackled the entire Mediterranean basin, and his power penetrated into the depths of the East, into the foggy distance of Europe - how much stronger should the kingdom of God be? The state of Roman citizenship was considered the only normal and preferably happy one from a political social point of view - how much more blessed and sweet is it to belong to the sons of the kingdom of God? In any case, it is alien to that weakness that is naturally inherent in all human perfection and immeasurably surpasses any worldly pleasure, which in its very ecstasy carries the germ of a fatal poison. But this could not be otherwise in Christ, since He is the Son of God, and all His activity was a direct revelation of His essence and had equal significance in all its parts. His miracles testified to his divine dignity. His sermon was an equal miracle, far from any philosophical schematism and not subject to conventional school criticism. “And everyone was horrified,” the evangelist mentions, “so they asked each other: what is this? What is this new teaching that He commands even the unclean spirits with authority, and they obey Him?” (Mark 1:27). All His actions were no less instruction than His words, and therefore in Mark the purely didactic passages do not exceed the narrative ones and are distinguished by their universal character. It is enough to remember that he omits almost the entire Discourse on the Mount and in other cases carefully avoids covering events from a strictly theocratic point of view, as we see in Matthew. He, of course, is not silent about the relationship of Christ to the Jews, but he speaks about them not in order to portray his followers by contrast as the true sons of Israel, but for the purpose of showing in Him a power that must be obeyed, otherwise it will crush the disobedient, whoever they may be. Any advantages over it fade and disappear. If anyone does the will of God, this is My brother, and My sister, and My mother (Mark 3:35), notes the Savior. His clashes with the Judaism of his time only illustrate this point. The blinded descendants of Israel allow Beelzebub to influence Him, but this blasphemy is worthy of eternal condemnation (Mark 3:20-30). They impose the traditions of the elders on everyone, but this is disastrous and absurd hypocrisy (Mark 7:1-23), hiding the devouring of the houses of widows (Mark 12:38-40). Naturally, all the insidious cavils on this side only serve to further shame them, and everyone marvels at Him (Mark 12:13-34). According to undoubted testimony for them, He is the Lord of David (Mark 12:35-37) and, crushing his enemies, triumphs where they were preparing His final defeat. Its seeds do not bear fruit here, but only because they fall among thorns or on rocky ground (Mark 4:1-20). Meanwhile, on comfortable soil they develop and grow without any care on the part of man - solely according to their inherent energy (Mark 4:26-29), so that the smallest mustard seed becomes larger than all the grains and all the birds of the air can take refuge under its shadow (Mark 4:30-32). And no evil plans can stop this eternal vitality. The vinedressers will kill their son, but the master will destroy the riches, and the rejected stone will become the head of the corner (Mark 12:1-12). This means that the teaching of Christ is new in the truest sense and is as powerful as His very personality, which is why both of them evoke equal admiration. But all this already speaks of His highest wisdom, paving its way under the most difficult circumstances. The death of the Lord will be the triumph of His idea among the best workers throughout the whole world, and all His words are wisely directed towards this great goal, even contrary to all ordinary calculations: “This is impossible for men, but not for God; for all things are possible with God” (Mark 10:27). Therefore, His speeches cover all lips, so that none of the opponents dare to question Him (Mark 12:34), and in the hearts of the humble they arouse no less rapture of admiration (Mark 12:17). Everyone is amazed at His teaching (Mark 1:22; 11:18): “And many who heard it said in amazement: Where did He get this from? What kind of wisdom was given to Him and how are such miracles performed by His hands? (Mk. 6, 2). So: in everything and always, Christ is God’s power and God’s wisdom, manifesting itself even in the most sorrowful situations. His crucifixion was a terrible humiliation, but it was inevitable in the world of evil, which could not be eliminated by its completely private abolition in certain cases. It has surrounded people with all sorts of diseases, plunged them into the iron embrace of unclean spirits, and the Savior paralyzes its meaning everywhere. However, it was clear that its root was deeper and that it itself could only be destroyed in a mortal fight. The Lord sighed deeply at the sight of the deaf, tongue-tied and entire blinded race (Mark 7:34; 8:12), foreseeing that the rule of the prince of the air would be overthrown by a single bloody sacrifice. And none other than Rome knew so much that all greatness is created in blood and real victory is achieved only after a cruel collapse. And from his attention to the divine plans and from his point of view he [Rom. -Ed.] must give up the idea that Christ crucified is madness, and undertake to recognize the greatest reason here. And this is even more understandable from the very essence of His kingdom and from the conditions of the new citizenship. Being divine, the first [i.e. e. kingdom. -Ed.] embraces the entire universe and is not limited to any territory. The Lord has special sons, but does not exclude others from participating in his benefits. He only says: “First let the children be satisfied,” and when the dogs acquire the properties of the latter, they receive not just crumbs, but all the riches of His abundant meal (Mark 7:27-30). The vineyard of God constitutes the inheritance of all good workers (Mark 12:9). Hence the final commandment of the Savior to the disciples: when you go into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15), - and “they went and preached everywhere” (Mark 16:20). This is where the real monarchy is, of which the Roman power thought itself to be a weak semblance. But the kingdom of Christ surpasses the second in another respect. With its power, it is not imposed by force and does not enslave contrary to personal will and sincere disposition. The Lord “amazes at the unbelief” (Mark 6:6), but does not induce forced consent. It simply gets eliminated. “And he could not perform any miracle there,” writes the evangelist (Mk. 6, 5); “Truly I tell you,” Jesus notes, “no sign will be given to this generation” (Mark 8:12). The power of God is immeasurable, but it awaits free recognition. From this side, Mark is characterized by some special episodes of factual and didactic properties. He does not heal the deaf and humming at once, but first removes him from the people, giving him the convenience of collecting his thoughts, and gradually raises him to the highest level of believing conviction by putting his finger in his ears and touching his tongue. Only then does His “ephphatha” loosen His lips (Mark 7:32–35). All these are moments of gradual growth of the soul until it becomes worthy of the divine gift. A person does not suddenly receive full sight, but through personal and voluntary improvement. Like the blind man of Bethsaida, the action of God kindles a flickering flame in people, so that it then ignites with a bright fire. Spitting allows the blind to see passing people like trees, and after that, by the wave of the Lord, everything became clear to him (Mark 8:22-25). Therefore, a conscious and free predisposition is necessary so that objective power becomes the lasting property of everyone. Every grain in the hands of the sower was equally fruitful, but it required convenient soil. If there is one, “the earth itself produces first greenery, then an ear, then a full grain in the ear” (Mark 4:28). Even if you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes (Mark 9:23). Have faith in God. Amen, for I say to you, that even if he says to this mountain: move and cast himself into the sea, and will not reflect in his heart, but has faith, even as he says, it will happen to him, even if he says (Mark 11:23), these are the principles of the new powerful kingdom. It is created, grows and strengthens not by slavery, but by free choice, in which power does not suppress the individual and is not adopted only as a formal right, but internally merges with the being of man and becomes the basis of his further prosperity. “You know,” Christ said to the apostles, “that those who are considered princes of the nations rule over them and their nobles rule over them. But let it not be like this among you: but whoever wants to be greater among you must be your servant; and whoever wants to be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:42–44). One must enter the kingdom of God with childlike simplicity and sincere purity of innocence (Mark 10:14-15), through voluntary humiliation, but then the whole source of inexhaustible benefits will be revealed to the one who has entered: “to him who has, to him will be given” (Mark 4:25). And Rome, more than others, felt how fragile external submission is, when everyone is burdened by the yoke of a despot and is ready to overthrow him at any moment, and for it the powerful call of the greatest of the great, the only Son of God was especially clear: draw near the kingdom of God: repent and believe in the Gospel (Mark 1:15). In him is absolute power, and in him is complete joy. An image of the divine dignity and supreme wisdom of Christ, St. ap. Mark prepares for the free recognition of Him by paganism, proud of the splendor of its political dominance and the luxury of its civilization. The Savior is God's power and God's wisdom - this is an obvious fact 699, but how reliable is it as a phenomenon of actual history? His works and teaching speak loudly about this, but did they exist and did they happen exactly like that? Hence the inevitable question according to the plan of the second Gospel: to what extent is the proclamation of the apostles certain? Already St. ap. Peter presented them as witnesses pre-elected by God (Acts 10:41), and his “interpreter” actually justifies this indisputable meaning of them. In this regard, one important thing is that the second Gospel most often mentions the Lord’s prohibition for demons and the healed to disclose Him to the people (Mark 1, 24 ss., 34, 43 ss.; 3, 12; 5, 43; 7, 36; 8, 26). The greatness of the sender also required appropriate messengers, which was also recognized by the pagan cult, which prompted the Listrians to mistake Barnabas for Zeus, and the commander of Paul for Hermias (Acts 14:12). That is why in Christianity, in the words of Hilary, “apostolorum erat proprium praedicare” [to proclaim is the privilege of the apostles] 700. And we see how Mark especially brings forward the disciples and speaks in detail about their calling, assignment and mission. Throughout his work - both in crowds and in solitude - the Savior is always surrounded by his followers (Mark 1, 18 ss., 35-36; 3, 7; 6, 1, etc.). Having chosen twelve, He communicates only to them the full revelation of the new kingdom and, after confirming them with words and signs, He sends them out for preaching. And afterward He gave them primary attention in order to prepare them for the evangelistic service (Mark 6:30 ss.; especially Mark 7:1 ss.; Mark 8:27 - Mark 10:31; Mark 13:1–27), appeared to them after the resurrection and authorized them to carry out the worldwide gospel with unlimited power: those who have faith and If he is baptized, he will be saved; but those who do not have faith will be condemned (Mark 16:16). And their testimony is all the more true and authoritative because they themselves achieved their conviction through difficult internal struggles and anxious doubts. And, of course, not without deliberate intention, Mark so often speaks of the hesitations, bewilderments, suspicions of the apostles, the cruel fall of the fiery Peter, and even in conclusion cites how the Lord reproached him for unbelief and hardness of heart (Mark 4:40; 6:52; 8:17 ss.; 9:18; 16:14). It is clear from everything that their testimony is as certain as a fact of history as it is valid for their inner consciousness. In this case, dubitatio eorum nostram fidem auget [their doubt increases our faith], according to the happy remark of the blessed one. Jerome 701. Christ is God's power and God's wisdom, inevitably, although freely, subordinating to himself everything great and reasonable in the world - these are the characteristic features of the gospel κατὰ Μ ᾶ ρκον [according to Mark]. But all true power requires submission, and moral superiority requires reverent recognition and worship. This is especially true in relation to the Redeemer, Who, according to the indisputable assurance, is the Lord and Master of all. This is My beloved Son, listen to Him (Mark 9:7) - this is the goal of the second Gospel. It is intended primarily for the Romans, but already in its very universal character the foundations of its universal meaning are laid - to conquer all who are able to feel and understand divine greatness and heavenly fortress. “And they went and preached everywhere” (Mark 16:20) - the equally universal and captivating effect of Markov’s writings. Literary characteristics of Markov's Gospel according to the method of depicting the person of Christ, according to plan and language The indicated material features of Markov's Gospel were characteristically reflected in the very method of depicting events and in their external presentation. The divine dignity of the Redeemer - this thesis required a sharp and plastic brush, corresponding to the sublimity of the fact itself. There was no need for any artificial and tendentious combinations here, since in Christ everything was equally divine - both words and deeds. The Lord’s miracles are greeted with the cry: “What is this new teaching?” (Mark 1:27). His instructions raise the question of amazement: “How are such miracles wrought by His hands?” (Mark 6:2). Under these conditions, it was enough to capture the phenomena in all their vividness, leaving them to produce the desired effect themselves, without any national adaptations or philosophical comprehension of the provided scheme. For this reason, St. ap. Mark does not have such a consistent plan as we find in Matthew. It is impossible to agree that he has no chronological order at all: Papias does not say this, and a comparison of his Gospel with the writings of Luke clearly shows that he is in any case closer to chronological accuracy than the apostle publican. But whatever the motives for his original grouping of particular episodes, it is undeniable, however, that he often tells οὐ μέντοι τάξει [out of order], without strictly adhering to the true sequence; for example, the calling of the first apostolic quaternity was not before (Mark 1, 14 ss.; cf. Mark 6, 1 ss.), but after (Luke 4, 16 ss. and 5, 2 ss.) the rejection of the Savior to Nazareth 702. In the same way, in the internal structure, strict systematicity is not noticed, and events often succeed without any visible connection, combining with each other vague εὐθέως [immediately], καί [and], πάλιν [again] - terms so frequent in the second Gospel 703. You can only grasp the general idea, which is illustrated from different sides by individual narratives. This is a position already known to us, that Christ is Lord of all. In the introduction (Mk. 1, 1–20) it develops on the basis of the testimony of the Forerunner and the Heavenly Father, confirmed by the fact of the ministry of Angels, and in the election of the apostles the guarantors of the justice of this information are indicated. Then in the first part (Mk. 1, 21 - Mk. 9, 28) 704 it is described how His divine sonship was revealed historically - during the Galilean period - with miraculous signs in Capernaum and its environs ( Mk. 1, 21 - Mk. 2, 12), which produced such an effect that even their enemies could not deny their meaning ( Mk. 2, 13 - Mark 3:35), especially since this divine dignity was justified by the activities of the disciples during their short embassy (Mark 4:1 - Mark 6:32) and was revealed more and more strikingly both in the face of the masses and in the close apostolic circle (Mark 6:32 - Mark 9:49). After this, in the second section (Mark 9:29 - Mark 13:37) the essence of the teaching and work of Christ, both great and sorrowful, is expressed even more fully and directly. In conclusion (Mk. 14, 1 - Mk. 16:20) in death and resurrection the true foundation of the kingdom of God is presented, first in the person of His few disciples, and through them in the universal Church throughout the world. In this order, the divinity of the Savior is depicted, but in Mark this idea appears not as a conclusion from facts, but with the dignity of the fact itself - in the revelation of the Son of God, preaching about Himself and the redemption of all life, in which lies this greatest joy for humanity. Therefore, here the Gospel coincides with the moment of the Lord’s descent to earth, historically preceded by the Forerunner. Its beginning is not in heaven, as in John, but among us, when the Son of God becomes Jesus Christ and reveals Himself as such. He must be provided with evidence of His divine significance. And indeed, in the second evangelist, the Lord speaks about Himself with all His objective reality, and this constitutes the first object of concern for the sacred writer, who reproduces events in all their immediate vitality. Hence the lack of a strict plan. But instead and instead of this, a special plasticity and punctual detail of the narrative are visible everywhere. Christ is a historical person and, to a certain extent, human, but in His very historicity the immensity of divine energy invariably shines through. He is neither the fulfillment of the past nor the foundation for the future, and yet His present is both at the same time and essential, since He is God. Let Him testify of Himself, what and how it happened, and His voice will be louder and more victorious than any learned and clever words! This is what Mark does, whose work can be called a living and vivid picture of reality. In a few strokes he immediately transfers us to a historical setting 705 - and the details, apparently unnecessary 706, turn out to be necessary for a complete clarification of a simple fact that is deeply imprinted in our mind. It is as if we ourselves are present and participating in what is happening, we share the feelings of those around us 707, we see the gaze of love or anger, we observe the movement of the Lord’s heart 708, we hear the voice of tenderness 709, we grasp the features of His expressions 710, even His very speech 711. Likewise, careful precision regarding persons 712, numbers 713, times 714 and places 715 immediately unfolds the entire scene before us. And where the ἀκρίβεια [accuracy] of the “interpreter” Petrov 716 is revealed, the impression is often strengthened by some additional feature 717. Thanks to this, St. ap. The brand still breathes with power, beats with the mighty key of life, everything enchants the heart, attracts attention, and takes possession of the being. Here the fiery and impetuous Peter is visible, but through him shines brightly the One who already on the day of Pentecost subjugated about three thousand to his word (Acts 2:41), and among them were “the Parthians, Medes, Elamites and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene, and those who came from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians" (Acts 2:9-11). It was Christ Himself, the eternal and universal conqueror. Its power is reflected in every episode; it is also reflected in the very style of the Gospel - lively, fragmentary, energetic. Under Mark’s pen, everything becomes animated 718, and his story itself does not flow in monotonous monotony and dry prosaicism, but, as it were, reveals the event to us in a series of sequentially changing pictures. “Καὶ εὐθύς” [and immediately] - this is his usual transition (up to 28 times, while in Matthew - 8 times, in Luke - twice), which constantly repeats to you: “and immediately, and again, and then - look!” Along with this, his love for praesens historicum [present historical time] 719 and for direct phrases instead of indirect ones 720 brings the reader face to face with the action itself, and the combination of terms and phrases similar in meaning 721 gives the story greater prominence and relief, raising its tone to a high degree of definiteness and separation necessary for accurate and quick perception. Like the Evangelist John, St. ap. Mark does not stretch sentences into long periods, but, repeating the subject, breaks them into several small ones, each of which introduces a new shade, in order to generally create a holistic and picturesque image 722. Mark writes as an eyewitness-artist, and not as a thinker-historian; he does not discuss a known phenomenon, but reproduces it with all its vitality. Often with one wide and energetic sweep of the brush the evangelist embeds it into our consciousness, like an artist making dead features speak with some imperceptible line. His special terms are always exceptionally strong 723, and nowhere are ἅ παξ λεγ ό μενα [expressions used once] 724 so often found, elevating his speech to possible tension and intensity. All this, taken together, is surprisingly consistent with the divine personality of Christ the Wonderworker and harmoniously combines to express the main idea. He is God's power and God's wisdom in His words and deeds; in the same way He is imprinted with all His heavenly power in the narrative of Mark, as the only and incomparable Son of God, anointed with the Holy Spirit. Content and form here wonderfully merge with each other and the great in itself is fully reflected in the majestic presentation. And no one else has such amazing harmony and no one so convincingly inspires every human heart: This is the Lord of all, as God is with Him (Acts 10, 36, 38). Repent and believe in the Gospel (Mark 1:15), “receive the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ” (see Acts 10:36). The Savior, by all the circumstances of His life, shows that He is the true Messiah - Matthew testified to this. But for this very reason, Christ is a divine person, standing above the ages and kingdoms of the earth. This is the situation of St. ap. Mark illustrates by depicting His life in all its historical reality, from which it directly follows that the Redeemer is the Son of God and the Power of God, subduing everything, everyone and always, and He must be listened to. However, He does not act forcibly, does not enslave, but subjugates Himself through the free and conscious confession of His greatness, so that each person here finds his full disclosure to the possible perfection. On this side, the Lord is also the highest goodness, which, without any merit, comes to the aid of limited weakness. She abolishes the weakness of the law with its endless effectiveness, replaces the godlessness of unbelief with the revelation of the Father, and binds both with immeasurable love into a single living whole, growing under its life-giving influence from glory to glory to absolute immutability in the bosom of Abraham. In Christ perfect truth and boundless mercy are found, and in Him everything finds its strength and knowledge, and is led into the kingdom of peace, love and glory, where there is no distinction of titles, positions and conditions. This truth is expressed in the Gospel of Luke, according to which both the prodigal son and the elder brother equally receive participation in the feast of God. The point of departure and the main character of this synoptic image are completely clear and understandable. Previously, it was argued that Christianity, contrary to the earthly aspirations of Judaism, is a purely heavenly or divine phenomenon. In this case, it is not subject to ordinary restrictions, but dominates everything and therefore will be a world-conquering force. From here it inevitably follows that the latter, in all its depth and completeness, can meet all the needs of a human being seeking truth, peace and salvation, as a universal humanitarian one. This thesis was the main dogma of all the apostolic activity of St. ap. Paul and, naturally, finds revelation in his companion - the Evangelist Luke, who with his historical narrative irresistibly confirms that 1) Christ is the Savior of all and for all mankind and that 2) only He delivers every soul, why 3) before Him everyone is the same and in Him they merge with the rights of equal adoption by God. This is the essential content of the third Gospel, which is now subject to our special consideration. Regarding the accent Μ ᾶ ρκος (Marcus) see Acta apostolorum / Ed. F. Blass. Göttingen, 1895. P. 144 (to Acts 12:25); and Blass F. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Göttingen, 1896. S. 15–16. [In Glubokovsky we encounter both acute and invested stress in the spelling of the name Mark. Wed. earlier s. 108, 188, etc. -Ed.] Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 51, 6, PG 41, 900; cp. Hippolytus Romanus. De LXX apostolis, PG 10, 956 [in the Lampe dictionary this work of St. Hippolyta is classified as a forgery. -Ed.]. However, this opinion is based solely on the fact that the young man’s name is not given. There is no other data for this (about the Slavic reading of Mark 14, 52 cf. Glubokovsky N. N. Greek handwritten evangelistary from the collection of I. E. Troitsky. St. Petersburg, 1898. pp. 240–241), and the fact that this happened outside the city limits - in the village of Gethsemane (Mark 14, 32) - apparently even excludes it, for Mary’s house was undoubtedly located in Jerusalem itself (Acts 12:10–12). However, since the “one” of verse 51 is contrasted with the “all” of verse 50, it can be assumed that, like the latter, the “young man” came here along with the apostles. In any case, this was a man who knew the Lord, insofar as he was interested in His fate, at the peril of his own life. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica III, 39, PG 20, 300. Rev. prof. G. B. Sweet would find the term τέκνον [child] more convenient for this, but he also agrees that, probably, St. ap. Peter contributed to the conversion of Mark and, as a friend to the latter’s father, was a teacher for him (Swete N.V. St. Mark in the New Testament // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (8). P. 86–87). In any case, the news of Nicephorus Callistus is false that Μ ᾶ ρκος ἀδελφνδοῦς ἦ ν Πέτρ ῳ [Mark was Peter’s nephew]. [Cm. Nicephorus callistus. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 43, PG 145, 876. -Ed.] See about this: Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 81–83; and Swete Η. B. Op. cit. P. 88. Pseudo-Hieronymus. In Evangelium S. Marci praefatiö “Marcus evangelista Dei et Petri in baptismate filius atque in divino sermone discipulus, sacerdotium in Israel agens, secundum carnem Levita, conversus est ad fidem Christi...” [Evangelist of God Mark, by baptism the son of Peter, and according to divine conversations - his disciple, who served as a priest in Israel, for by birth he was a Levite, he converted to the faith of Christ] (Codex Amiatinus / Ed. S. Tischendorf. Leipzig, 2 1854. P. 59); Pseudo-Hieronymus. Commentarium in Evangelium secundum Marcum, praefatiö “Marcus evangelista, Petri discipulus, leviticus generi et sacerdos” [Mark the Evangelist of God, disciple of Peter, Levite and priest by birth] (PL 30, 589); Beda Venerabilis. Epistula ad Assam, in expositionem Evangelii secundum Marcum: “Tradunt hunc natione Israelitica et sacerdotali ortum prosapia...” [They say that he is an Israeli and came from a priestly family] (PL 92, 133; 94, 688). In the preface to the Vulgate: “Marcus sacerdotium in Israel agens, secundum carnem levita” [Mark the officiating priest in Israel, a Levite according to the flesh] (apud Wordsworth J., White H. J. Novum Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi. T. 1. Oxford, 1889. P. 171). Some, for example Archbishop. Sergius (Complete months of the East. M., 1875–1876. Vol. 2, part 3. P. 143), give the name of our evangelist the meaning of “dry, fading” (from “marcere”), but philologically such an understanding is impossible. Let us note that the Roman praenomen [personal name] Marcus was common among the Greeks from the time of Augustus and even earlier, but of the Jews we only know of this one John, who adopted it, perhaps, in honor of a noble Greek or Roman who patronized the entire family. See Swete H. V. Op. cit. R. 81–82. [Etymological reference in the text is to Isidore of Seville. See Isidorus Hispalensis. Etymologiarum XIX, cap. 7, PL 82, 671. -Ed.] Regarding the earlier one, H. B. Sweet admits the possibility that it was Mark who conveyed the message of Acts to James. 12, 17. Blass limits Mark's participation to velut ad baptizandum [leading to baptism] (Acta apostolorum / Ed. F. Blass. Göttingen, 1895. P. 146: to Acts 13: 5), but the term itself does not force this, for which cf. Prov. 14, 35; Prem. 6, 4; Dan. 3, 46 (according to LXX and Theodoret); Matt. 5, 25; 26, 58; OK. 1, 2; In. 18, 18; Acts 26, 16; 1 Cor. 4, 1. It is precisely this fact that some (following Trigelis: Tregelles S. P. // Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology. 1855. P. 244 ss.; cp. Westcott B. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P. 233) explain the name of Mark in Ippolitov’s Philosophoumena “ κολοβοδάκτυλος "[with cut (shortened) fingers] (Hirpoly tus Romanus. Philosophumena VII, 30, PG 16, 3334) in the sense of "pollice truncus" [with a mutilated thumb] coward, defector, deserter [meaning cases of infliction of one's own kind mutilation in order to avoid military service. -Ed.]. Others, however, find such a distant interpretation philologically unfounded, and the fixation of a random episode (especially by a Roman writer) with such a shameful nickname implausible, therefore they understand the term literally (Swete N.V. St. Mark in Early Tradition // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (10). P. 276–277). But the meaning of the word remains unclear. It means 1) stunted, undergrown (cf. κολοβανθής, κολοβόκερκος, κολοβοτράχηλος [with underdeveloped flowers; with underdeveloped tail; with undergrown neck]) and 2) crippled, mutilated, damaged (see κολοβόκερκος with ὠ τότμητος [with cropped ears] in Lev. 22, 23 - tailless; κολοβόρριν in Lev. 21, 18 – snub-nosed; cf. 2 Kings. 4, 12), and in the second case it is not clear whether Mark extended it to both hands, to one of them, or to one finger, and whether it was innate or appeared later. In the codex Toletanus (T), the defect is defined as “small fingers” (digitos minores) and is considered natural, but according to the widespread introduction of Latin manuscripts, Mark himself cut off his finger upon conversion in order to close his access to the Jewish priesthood (see apud Wordsworth J., White H. J. Op.cit. P. 171–173). This tradition is hardly fair, and Trigelis' understanding turns out to be more meaningful, since mentioning a simple physical vice would be pointless. It seems that this will be closer to probability than Prof.'s assumption. W. M. Ramsay that Mark left ministry due to fundamental disagreement with changes in the original missionary plan (Ramsay W. M. The Church in the Roman Empire Before A. D. 170. London, 1893. P. 61 ss.). This guess is somewhat contradicted by Acts. 15, 38. Wed. Lightfoot J. V. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 2. London, 1890. P. 492. However, Sweet, following prof. Ramsey, believes that St. ap. Peter died after St. ap. Paul; Accordingly, the order of events changes as follows: the joint activity of Mark and Peter in Rome, their removal to the east - to Babylon - and the departure of the evangelist to Egypt (Swete N.V. St. Mark in the New Testament // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (8). P. 89; Ramsay W. M. Op. cit. P. 280 ss.; cp. Idem. The Late Professor Hort // The Expositor. 4. Vol. 73. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 16, PG 20, 173; cp. Idem. Chronicorum, lib. II, PG 19, 539; Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 621; cp. Idem. Interpretatio Chronicae Eusebii Pamphili, PL 27, 578 ss. According to Eusebius, Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria and was replaced by Annianus in the 8th year of Nero (Eusebius Caesariensis. Chronicorum, lib. II, PG 19, 543), which date Jerome refers to the death of the evangelist (Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 622), meanwhile in Constitutiones apostolicae VII, 46, PG 1, 1052 it is Annianus who is the first primate of the Alexandrian church by appointment of Mark, who, according to Epiphanius, was sent to Egypt by St. ap. Peter after writing the Gospel (Epiphanius Constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 51, 6, PG 41, 900). Eusebius Caesariensis. Chronicorum, lib. II, PG 19, 539; Hieronymus stridonensis. Interpretatio Chronicae Eusebii Pamphili, PL 27, 579; cp. Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 560. In the Latin translation of Eutychius's Annals the place in question is: Eutychius Alexandrinus. Annales, PL 111, 982. -Ed. Acta Sanctorum. September. T. 7. P. 357. Cm. Hamack A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Theil 2: Die Chronologie. Bd. 1: Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenaeus. Leipzig, 1897. S. 70 ss., 124. Cm. Tischendorf C. Acta apostolorum apocrypha. Lipsiae, 1851. P. 73. [The apocrypha is now commonly called “The Acts of Barnabas: the wanderings and martyrdom of St. Apostle Barnabas" and dates back to the 5th century. -Ed.] In “Clementines” it seems that Barnabas himself was in Egypt and here he supported the teachings of St. ap. Peter (see, for example, Pseudo-Clemens Romanus. Homilia I, 9 and 15, PG 1, 64 and 72). Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 24, PG 20, 205. [Probably Glubokovsky’s inaccuracy: in the indicated place it only says that “in the eighth year of the reign of Nero, the first after the Evangelist and Apostle Mark to receive control of Alexandria was Annianus, a God-loving man and amazing in everything.” -Ed.] Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 608–609 (cf. Nicephorus Callistus. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 43, PG 145, 876); see Swete H. V. St. Mark in Early Tradition // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (10). P. 275–276; and V.V. Bolotov. Prof. V.V. Bolotov indicates April 4, 63 (From the church history of Egypt. Issue 4: Day and year of the martyrdom of St. Evangelist Mark. St. Petersburg, 1893. P. 312 [reprint from: Christian Reading. 1893. No. 4 (July-August). P. 122–174. -Ed.]), but permissible in the sense of decoding dark evidence - this date is historically completely impossible. Cp. Eusebius Caesariensis. Demonstratio evangelica III, 5: “He was not with what Christ said” (PG 22, 216); Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, prologus: “Dominum quidem Salvatorem ipse non vidit” [although he himself did not see the Lord the Savior] (PL 26, 18). Sometimes it means “explainer of the hidden, disseminator, popularizer” (Euripides. Fragmenta, 126: σιωπὴ δ ᾿ ἄπορος ἑρμηνεύς λόγων [silence is a helpless interpreter of words]; Plato. Ion, 534ë οἱ δὲ ποιηταὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλ ᾿ ἢ ἑρμηνῆς εἰσιν τῶν θεῶν [poets are not that other than interpreters of the gods]), sometimes directly - “translator, interpreter, dragoman” (Herodotus. Historiae II, 125; Xenophon. Anabasis I, 2, 17; Bgg. 42, 23; 1 Cor. 14, 28). In the latter sense it is understood, for example: Lightfoot J. V. The Apostolic Fathers. V40;ol. 2. London, 1890. P. 494; Link A. Die Dolmetscher des Petrus // Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1896. No. 3. S. 405–436; Swete H. B. St. Mark in Early Tradition // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (10). P. 268; Blass F. Philology of the Gospels. London, 1898. P. 192. Both of these understandings are not mutually exclusive, because a publicly available translation is always an explanation. Blzh. Jerome understands the term “ἑρμηνευτής” in the sense of an interpreter-writer: “(Paulus) habebat Titum interpretem sicut et beatus Petrus – Marcum, cujus Evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est. Denique et duae epistolae, quae feruntur Petri, stylo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus, pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus” [(Paul) had an interpreter, Titus, as did Blessed Peter, Mark, whose Gospel was composed like this: Peter spoke, and Mark wrote down. In general, the two epistles that are considered to belong to Peter differ in style, character and style. From which it becomes clear that, of necessity, he used different interpreters] (Niegopumus Stridonensis. Epistula 120, ad Hedibiam, 11, PL 22, 1002; cp. Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 24, not. 4; Ibid. P. 85). A similar opinion is that Mark became and was the interpreter of St. ap. Peter as the writer of the Gospel, is supported by many scholars to this day (Fritzsche, Tiersch, Klostermann, Gran, Weiss, Scharfe and especially Th. Zahn (see Link A. Op. cit. S. 407 ss.), in 1898 Dalman G. Die Worte Jesu. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1898. S. 48), but it is not fair even philologically (cp. Blass K Op. cit. P. 192, not. 1). “Γενόμενος” [was] Papias clearly shows that when the Gospel was compiled, Mark was no longer the interpreter, since this is a past fact. Likewise, it is not clear from anywhere that he participated in writing the Petrovs’ letters. This is A's guess. Link even connects with the question of the authenticity of the latter (Link A. Op. cit. S. 433 ss.). It is true, undoubtedly, that St. ap. Peter needed an interpreter, as can be seen from the legend about another “hermeneut” Glaucius (according to the testimony of Basilides apud Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata VII, 17, PG 9, 549). It is also possible that the speeches were translated into Greek (Link, Blass, Swete), and not into Latin (J. B. Lightfoot with Peshitto and Syrus Harklensis). However, ap. Paul often adopted interpretations, and therefore it cannot be concluded from this that the evangelists could not expound themselves or dictate in Greek. So in Glubokovsky-1899. In Glubokovsky-1907: “...in his head.” In the 1911 edition: “...in his memory,” which is quite obviously more correct. – Ed. There is no noun μνημονίαι in Greek. It is impossible to say with complete certainty what word Glubokovsky had in mind, but it is likely that it is “μνῆμαι” (plural of “ἡ μνήμη”) in the meaning of “memories”, “memorable records”. Based on this assumption, we translate two Greek phrases here. -Ed. So in Glubokovsky-1899. In Glubokovsky-1907: “...perfect history.” -Ed. H. B. Sweet, figuring out “τάξει” [in order] from the further “σύνταξιν” [in order], attributes it more to “the artificial arrangement (of the material) and literary treatment than to the chronological order” (Swete N. V. St. Mark in Early Tradition // The Expositor. 1897. Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (10). In its harshest form, this judgment will be an extreme and an exaggeration of Papias’ news, because “memories” could not bind the creative freedom of the historian [as in Glubokovsky-1899. In Glubokovsky-1907 - “author”, and in Glubokovsky-1911 - “historian”. -Ed.] and their meaning entirely extends only to the real correspondence of the word to the deed itself. This remark seems to have only an approximate meaning, and seems to point to the first Gospel by the implied "what Matthew did"; therefore, in no case can it determine the content of Peter’s sermon and the Gospel of Mark, as if they did not contain the speeches of the Savior. So with Glubokovsky. The parenthesis should probably come further, after the words “not particularly strong.” The Greek οὐδέν [nothing] in the translation of the fragment under study by Papias corresponds to the Russian “nothing” (has not sinned against the truth). -Ed. There is no reason to give the term ἔνια only a qualitative meaning: somewhat (evaded), like Klosterman, or, like Corneli, an exclusively quantitative meaning: in a little. Without a doubt, “presbyter” does not define here the entire content of Mark’s Gospel (then ο ὕ τως [thus] would be redundant and would stand as “οὐ πάντα, ἀλλ ᾿ ἔνια” [not all, but only a little]), characterized above, but indicates formal merits in quantitative terms ( ἔνια [a little]) and in qualitative (ο ὕ τως – ὡ ς [so – as]) relations. Their name is Legion; some were mentioned when analyzing hypotheses about the mutual relationship of weather forecasters. Schleiermacher was the first to speak out in this sense with particular force: Schleiermacher F. D. E. Ueber Koloff // Theologische Studienund Kritiken. 1832. No. 2. S. 497–537. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1, 1, PG 7, 845 (apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica V, 8, PG 20, 449). Clemens Alexandrinus apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 14, PG 20, 552. Origenes. Commentaria in Matthaeum I, PG 13, 829 (apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica VI, 25, PG 20, 581). Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 621. Idem. Epistula 120, ad Hedibiam, 11, PL 22, 1002. Muratorian fragment: Westcott V. F. A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. Cambridge-London, 6 1889. P. 522. [The quoted fragment of a sentence begins the fragment of the Muratori canon that has come down to us. It is generally accepted that this refers to the stories of Peter: Mark was present at them and placed them in an undistorted form in his Gospel. -Ed.] Pseudo-Athanasius Alexandrinus. Synopsis scripturae sacrae, 76, PG 28, 433. Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in epistolam ad Philemonem, ad 23–24, PL 26, 618. It is similar in some Greek italic manuscripts, for example 293, as well as Scrivener's qиry. Tertullianus. Adversus Marcionem IV, 5: “Evangelium quod edidit Marcus, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus” [The Gospel published by Mark was confirmed by Peter, of which Mark was the interpreter] (PL 2, 367); Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 1: “Evangelium juxta Marcum, qui auditor ejus (scilicet Petri) et interpres fuit, hujus dicitur” [The Gospel according to Mark, who was the listener and interpreter of Peter, is considered Petrine] (PL 23, 609). Justinus Martyr. Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo, 106, PG 6, 724. This tradition is all the more certain because, despite the evidence of Acts and Paul's epistles, it mainly develops the only reference to 1 Pet. 5, 13 and almost always presents Mark as a disciple of St. ap. Peter, teaching the latter the second Gospel. Exceptions are found only in the unclear and dubious instructions of Hippolytus of Rome [probably referring to the already mentioned fragment in Philosophumena VII, 30, PG 16, 3334. -Ed.] and “Constitutiones apostolicae” (II, 57, PG 1, 729). It goes without saying that the church tradition could not deviate so far from the New Testament written justifications without absolutely undeniable and strictly coercive factual grounds. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 58, 2, PG 58, 568; Ibid. 85, 1, PG 58, 758; Eusebius Caesariensis. Demonstratio evangelica III, 5, PG 22, 216 ss. Against Davidson: Davidson S. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, critical, exegetical and theological. Vol. 2. London. P. 97. [It is unclear whether this is the first (1868) or second (1882) edition of Samuel Davidson's work. -Ed.] Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867. S. 31–32. See Hilgenfeld A. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig, 1875. S. 576; Davidson S.Op. cit. P. 102; Renan E. Vie de Jésus. Paris, 1864. P. XXI. Strauss D. F. Das Leben Jesu. Tübingen, 1840. Bd. 1. S. 66 ss.; Credner K. A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Halle, 1836. S. 123; Davidson S.Op. cit. P. 81; Renan E. Op. cit. P. XIX; Reuss E. Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments. Braunschweig, 4 1864. § 187. S. 176–178. Gebhardt O. L. iop. Novum Testamentum grace. Lipsiae, 1891; T; Tr, tom. 1; Westcott B.E, Hort F.J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. P. 28 ss.; cp. Westcott B. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels. London, 1858. P. 225, 338, not. Burgon J. W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark, Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors. Oxford-London, 1871; Scrivener II, p. 337 ss. See about them above. [Us. 74 ff. -Ed.] Wed. Gwynn J. Memoranda on Codex // Scrivener I, p. 94–95, not 1. Cm. Scrivener II, p. 337, no. 1. G. Hoskier (Hoskier G. // The Expositor. Vol. 10. P. 457–464) energetically refutes the opinion of Tischendorf (cf. Tischendorf S. // Theologischer Jahresbericht. Vol. 9. P. 83), but back in 1898 E. von Dobschutz wrote: “NB nur zwei Handschriften einer Textgruppe, also im Grunde nur ein Zeuge sind” [Note that the two manuscripts belong to the same group, and therefore are, in essence, one witness] (Dobschütz, E. Iop. // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1898. No. 10. S. 269). Tischendorf S. Prolegomena, in codex Sinaiticus. P. XXXI [probably referring to the edition: Tischendorf S. Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Petropoli, 1862. Vol. 1: Prolegomena. Commentarius. Tabulae. – Ed.]. Cm. Eusebius Caesariensis. De vita Constantini IV, 36–37, PG 20, 1185. Gregorius Nyssenus. In resurrectionem oratio 2, PG 46, 644–645, 652. [Most likely this work belongs to Severus Antioch. -Ed.] See scholia in Cramer's edition. [Referring to the publication: Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum / Ed. J. A. Cramer. Vol. 1. Oxford, 1840. pp. 261–447. -Ed.] Hieronymus stridonensis. Epistula 120, ad Hedibiam, 3, PL 22, 987; cp. Mai A. apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Quaestiones evangelicae ad Marinum I, 1, not. 25, PG 22, 937. Hieronymus stridonensis. Dialogus adversus Pelagianos II, 15, PL 23, 550. πλείστοις ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖνται, ὡ ς νόθα νομίσαντες αὐτὰ ε ἶ ναι , ἀλλ ᾿ ἡμεῖς ἐξ ἀκριβῶν ἀντιγράφων ἐν πλείστοις εὑρόντες αὐτὰ, καὶ κατὰ τὸ Παλαιστιναῖον εὐαγγέλιον, ὡς ἔχει ἡ ἀλήθεια Μάρκου , συντεθείκαμεν καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ἐπιφερομένην δεσποτικὴν ἀνάστασιν [Most copies do not contain it, as it is considered forged, but we, having found it in numerous impeccable copies, and in agreement with the Palestinian Gospel, which contains the truth of Mark, added the story about the Master's resurrection set out in it]. [Cm. Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum. P. 447. -Ed.] Eusebius Caesariensis. Quaestiones evangelicae ad Marinum I, 1, PG 22, 937. Apud Constitutiones apostolicae VIII, 1, PG 1, 1061; Ibid. VI, 15, PG 1,948–949. For citations see Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 96; and to it cp. Scrivener II, p. 340–341. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 10, 6, PG 7, 879. Literally: “satellite”. A book containing an index of the fragments or fragments themselves of the New Testament to be read at Mass. -Ed. See Conybeare F. S. Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark // The Expositor. 1893. Vol. 10. P. 241–254; cp. Idem // The Expositor. 1894. Vol. 9. P. 219–220. Cp. Harnack A. [Rezension] // Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1893. No. 23. S. 561 ss. – Rez. op.: Conybeare F. C. Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark; Zahn T. Aristion der Verfasser der letzten 12 Verse des Markus // Theologisches Literaturblatt. 1893. No. 51. S. 591–594 (reprinted in: The Expositor. 1894. Vol. 9. P. 220–226); Resch A. Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien. Hf. 2: Paralleltexte zu Matthaeus und Marcus (TU 10/2). Leipzig, 1894. S. 449–456 (reprinted in: The Expositor. 1894. Vol. 9. P. 226–232). The first-person phrase that unexpectedly surfaced here is unique to Glubokovsky’s “Lectures.” It is repeated in Glubokovsky-1907, but in the 1911 edition it is replaced by the neutral “... this guess is extremely doubtful...”. -Ed. In all editions it costs 986 g, although earlier, in the introduction, Glubokovsky correctly indicated the date of the manuscript (see p. 82). For the 1907 edition, the author re-worked this fragment. In particular, the number of the Armenian uncial is given here - 229. At the moment, the Etchmiadzin Gospel of 989 has number 2374 in the catalog of Matenadaran - the Institute for the Study of Ancient Manuscripts of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. -Ed. Here, both in Glubokovsky-1899 and in Glubokovsky-1907, “Eritzon” is mistakenly written. The words in the inscription ) are used in the genetive. -Ed. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica IV, 6, PG 20, 313. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op.cit. III, 39, PG 20, 297–300. Cp. for this point and Archbishop Mesrop Ter-Movsesyan. History of Bible translation into Armenian. St. Petersburg, 1902. P. 65. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1907. -Ed.] See also Archbishop Mesrop Ter-Movsesyan. Quote Op. pp. 200–203. [Link taken from Glubokovsky-1907. -Ed.] Reithmayr F. X. Einleitung in die canonischen Bücher des Neuen Bundes. Ratisbon, 1852. S. 394; Valroger, H. de. Introduction historique et critique aux livres du Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1861. Vol. 2. P. 72; Aberle, M. von. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1877. S. 59; Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. P. 98; cp. Dionysius Alexandrinus. Epistula canonica ad Basilidem episcopum, 1, PG 10, 1272 ss. So in our liturgy on Holy Saturday we have Matthew. 28, 1–20. Mk. 16:9–20 refers to the matins of the third week of Easter of the “myrrh-bearing women,” and Mk. 16, 1–8 constitutes the morning Sunday Gospel of the second week of All Saints. This link is also unconvincing, as see in the readings on the Epistle to the Romans [probably referring to the essay: Glubokovsky N.N. The Conversion of Saul and the “Gospel” of St. Apostle Paul: Speech delivered at the solemn annual act of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on February 17. 1896 Kharkov, 1896; rebake from: Christian Reading. 1896. No. 2 (March-April). pp. 241–388. – Ed.]. This refers to Clement of Alexandria. The origin of this epithet (repeated in the editions of 1899 and 1907) remains unknown to us. In Glubokovsky-1911 the word “red” no longer exists. -Ed. Westcott V. F, Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. P. 49. Clemens Alexandrinus apud Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. VI, 14, PG 20, 552. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. II, 15, PG 20, 172. Wette, W. M. L. de. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testamentes. Bd. 2: Lehrbuch der historischkritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen Bücher des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 6 1860. § 996. S. 204; etc. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit., loc. cit.; Hieronymus stridonensis. Op. cit., loc. cit. Isn’t the origin of Mk connected with this? 16, 9–20 ? Is it because at the end Mark is so short that now he did not have the formal approval of St. for his edition? ap. Petra? Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867. S. 343 ss. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 15, PG 20, 172; cp. Ibid. VI, 14, PG 20, 552; and also Clemens Alexandrinus. Adumbrationes in 1 epistulam Petri, PG 9, 732. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1, 1, PG 7, 845; Ephraem Syrus. Evangelii concordantis expositio / Tr. J. B. Aucher; ed. G. Mosinger. Venetiis, 1876. P. 286; Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 51.6, PG 41, 897–900; Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 621; Theophylactus Bulgariae archiepiscopus. Enarratio in Evangelium Marci, praefatio, PG 123, 492. Joannes Chrysostomus. In Matthaeum hom. 1, 3, PG 57, 17. CaesarBaronius. Annales ecclesiastici. Annus 45, n. 39 ss. (T. 1. Antverpiae, 1610. P. 353); Bellarminus. De Verbo Dei II, 7 (Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei. T. 1. Coloniae Agrippinae, 1620. S. 87–88). Danko J. Historia revelationis divinae Novi Testamenti. Vienna, 1867. P. 282; also Montfaucon, B. de. Diarium Italicum. Paris, 1702. P. 55. [Glubokovsky has the name “Iter Italicum”, most likely by mistake. -Ed.] Augustinus Aurelius. De consensu Evangelistarum I, cap. 2, PL 34, 1044; Hieronymus stridonensis. Praefatio in quatuor Evangelia, PL 29, 527. On the question of why the Gospel for the Roman Christians was written in Greek and not in Latin, see the speech on the letter to the Romans [see above: Glubokovsky N.N. Conversion of Saul and the “Gospel” of St. Apostle Paul: Speech delivered at the solemn annual act of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on February 17. 1896 Kharkov, 1896. -Ed.]. That the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome is categorically recognized by Prof. A. Harnack: Harnask A. // Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1902. S. 163 ss. [Footnote taken from Glubokovsky-1907. – Ed. ] Τὸ ῥ ηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιήλ [spoken by Daniel] in the eschatological speech of Mark. 13, 14 is recognized as borrowed from Matt. 24, 15 (Scrivener I, p. 12); T Tr (L) WH N does not have these words. T WH N omit this verse entirely; it is not recognized as genuine by Scrivener (Scrivener I, p. 12). [This opinion is also shared by modern editors of the New Testament, who place the verse Mark. 15, 28 only in the device: see Greek-English NT. -Ed.] Mk. 6, 27: σπεκουλάτωρ speculator [guard]; Mk. 7, 4: ξέστης sextarius [mug], in two Greek κοτύλη 0.547 liters or a little more than 1/25 of a bucket, that is, about half a glass; Mk. 15, 39, 44, 45: κεντυρίων centurio [centurion], commander of the 60th part of the legion; Mk. 12, 14: κῆνσος census [submit]; Mk. 5, 9, 15: λεγιών legio [legion] of 3600 people; Mk. 15, 15: φραγελλοῦν flagellare [scourge]; Mk. 6, 37; 12, 15; 14, 5: δηνάριον denarius [denarius], about 21.6 kopecks. silver; Mk. 15, 16: πραιτώριον castra praetoriana urbis, praetorium [urban residence of the praetor, praetorium]; Mk. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12; 6, 55: κράββατος grabatus [bed]. Mk. 15, 15: ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι satis facere [do what pleases]; Mk. 5, 23: ἐσχάτως ἔχειν in extremis esse [to be near death], etc. Clemens Alexandrinus. Adumbrationes in 1 epistulam Petri, PG 9, 732. About this expression and regarding the “praetorium” Phil. 1, 13 see: Glubokovsky N.N. Lectures on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, read to students of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1897/8, St. Petersburg, 1897. P. 429 ff. Lightfoot J. V. The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 2. London, 1890. P. 497. Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 15, PG 20, 172; Hieronymus stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 621. Klostermann A. Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Quellenwerthe für die evangelische Geschichte. Göttingen, 1867. S. 329, 336. Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit., loc. cit.; cp. Hieronymus stridonensis. Op. cit., loc. cit. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses III, 1,1, PG 7, 845; Eusebius Caesariensis. Op. cit. V, 8, PG 20, 449. Aristoteles. Poetica, 12 (1452b). Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Op. cit. III, 1,1, PG 7, 844. However, Victor of Antioch, apparently, read from Irenaeus “μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτου ἔκδοσιν” [after his (the Gospel according to Matthew) appearance], because he said: “μετὰ δὲ "[after the appearance of the Gospel according to Matthew]. [Cm. Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum / Ed. J. A. Cramer. Vol. 1. Oxford, 1840. P. 264. -Ed.] Epiphanius constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 51, 6: “After Matthew, Mark writes the Gospel, who was Peter’s companion in Rome. After completing this deed, he was sent by Peter to Egypt” (PG 41, 897–900). Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 15, PG 20, 172. In the Synodal translation of Acts. 10, 42 instead of “convince everyone” it is worth “testifying”, which also corresponds to the Greek text. -Ed. The Russian translation of this passage “in order to have some fruit among other nations” represents an incomprehensible and unintelligible deviation from both the Slavic and Greek texts: καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν [so that I may have some fruit among you, as well as among other nations]. [We do not know which edition of the Russian translation of the Bible Glubokovsky criticizes. In the modern version of the Synodal translation of Rom. 1, 13 the Greek text is correctly rendered. In the edition of the "Explanatory Bible" 1911–1913. the same correct translation. In Glubokovsky-1907 this footnote is present, in Glubokovsky-1932 it is absent. -Ed.] Seneca apud Augustinus Aurelius. De civitate Dei VI, 11, PL 41, 192. Josephus Flavius. Contra Apionem II, 39. D. Iunius Iuvenalis. Saturae XIV, 96 ss.; Cornelius Tacitus. Historiae V, 5. This terminology is recent and artificial, in no way indicating the existence of legalized classes of proselytizing Jewish society. See Schürer E. Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. Bd. 3. Leipzig, 3 1898. S. 126 ss.; and cp. Rybinsky V.P. The religious influence of the Jews on the pagan world at the end of the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New Testament history. Kyiv, 1898. P. 58 ff. See also Allen W.C. On the Meaning of προσήλυτος in the Septuagint // The Expositor. 1894. V40;ol. 10. P. 264–275. Acts 13, 43: οἱ σεβόμενοι προσήλυτοι [God-worshipping proselytes]; Acts 13, 50; 16, 14; 17, 4: ἐπείσθησαν τῶν τε σεβόμενων Ἑ λλήνων πλῆθος πολύ [and some of them (the Jews) believed and a great many Greeks who worshiped God]; Acts 17, 17; 18, 7; Josephus Flavius. Antiquitates Judaicae XIV, 7, 2: “It is not surprising that such riches flock to our church, "[for all the Jews living throughout the universe and others who worshiped God brought offerings to him]. In Glubokovsky-1932, the author cites Mk. as confirmation. 3:27: “No one can steal the vessels of a strong man when he enters his house, unless he binds them first with the strong one.” -Ed. In the 1932 edition, Glubokovsky speaks of “one of the political-national functions” and makes a footnote: “Cf. Headlam A. S. The Doctrine of the Chruch and Christian Reunion. London, 2 1921. P. 12: in Rome “even if foreign cults are introduced, they are brought in as new developments of the State religion.” -Ed. The words "υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ " [Son of God] Tischendorf and Nestle omit and consider them inauthentic (T, p. 215), Westcott-Hort, doubting the authenticity (Westcott V. F., Hort F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek. Vol. 2: Introduction. Appendix. London, 1882. P. 23), are placed (WH, p. 72) in the field υἱοῦ θεοῦ [Son of God] (as in Lch Tg in the text), and Gebhardt (Gebhardt O. L. von. Novum Testamentum graece. Lipsiae, 1891) classifies them under the line. א, in two minuscules (26, 255 [the numbering of minuscules in Glubokovsky differs from the modern one: cf. Greek-English NT. Ad 10c. -Ed.]) and in most ancient fathers. But already the first reference of the Codex Sinaiticus, hardly the junior of the scribe himself, adds them, as is found in all other Greek manuscripts and ancient translations. True, Origen, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome and some others do not mention them, but this is because, defining the beginning of the second Gospel in comparison with the others, they were content with only a general indication that Mark is speaking from the preaching of John; for them the terms “υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ” are not needed. For the same reason, Irenaeus also omits them in such cases (Adversus haereses III, 11, 8, PG 7, 888), although there is no doubt that he knew these words and relied on them in his polemics against heretics (Ibid. III, 10, 5, PG 7, 878; Ibid. III, 16, 3, PG 7, 922). Ἰ ησοῦ Χρίστοῦ [Jesus Christ] in this place is genitivus subjectivus or auctoris [genitive subject or author] (the Gospel that came from Jesus Christ and belongs to Him as His work and, together, His quality), but not objectivus [genitive complement] (The Gospel of Jesus Christ: Bede, Maldonat, and Lapide, Volkmar); therefore, the term εὐαγγέλιον cannot mean here “gospel history” (Scholten, W. Grimm, Muretov M. D. Gospel // Orthodox Review. 1890, February. pp. 195–228, see p. 200). See Schanz, R. iop. Commentar über das Evangelium des heiligen Markus. Freiburg, 1881. S. 63. In Glubokosty-1932, the author adds at the end of the paragraph: “But it goes without saying that the individual and natural son of God is the entire God.” -Ed. The author points here to the absence of the genealogy of the Lord in the Gospel of Mark, which is formulated more clearly in a parallel passage in the 1932 edition. M. Tullius Cicero. De divinatione I, 54 [in modern editions a different numbering is adopted: I, 122. -Ed.]. In the 1932 edition, Glubokovsky lists all the Gospel passages where this term appears (Matthew 10, 1; 12, 43; Mark 1, 23, 26, 27; 3, 11, 30; 5, 2, 8, 13; 6, 7; 7, 25; 9, 25; Luke. 4, 33, 36; 6, 18; 9, 42; 11, 24), and notes that besides them, the expression can be found only twice in Acts (Acts 5, 16; 8, 7) and twice in the Apocalypse (Rev. 16, 13; 18, 2). -Ed. Wed. Matt. 4:23: “And Jesus went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.” This is the case in a huge number of codes. Sinaiticus and several others (L, 13, 69, 124, 346) and very few translations (Itala, Syriac and Persian) add "ὁ υἱὸς τσῦ θεοῦ ( τοῦ ζῶντος)" [Son of God (Living)], but, in addition to the authority of most manuscripts, the inauthenticity of these words can also be proven theoretically, according to the train of thought of the Gospel of Mark. [The Editorial Committee also omits the addition to Mark. 8, 29 in Greek-English NT. The Glubokovsky-1932 edition cites parallel passages from the Gospels of Matthew (Matthew 16:16: “Christ, the Son of the living God”) and Luke (Luke 9:20: “Christ of God”) to emphasize the difference from the simple “Christ” of Mark. -Ed.] In Matt. 27, 54 and Luke. 23, 47 simply “ὄντως ὁ ἄνθρωπος σ ὗ τος δίκαιος ἦ ν” [truly this man was a righteous man]. [Probably Glubokovsky’s inaccuracy, reproduced in all editions. This reading is only in Luke, while in Matthew in all codices the text coincides with the Gospel of Mark (except for a slightly different word order). See Greek-English NT. Ad Jos.; also Church Slavonic and Synodal translations. -Ed.] Instead of "τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ " [Gospel of the Kingdom of God] Μκ. 1, 14 textus receptus (cp. Slav, and Russian), it seems, needs to be read simply: "τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ " [The Gospel of God]. See (L) T Tr WH Ν, as well as Westcott V. F. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels London, 1858. P. 357, not 2. [B. Glubokovsky-1932 author gives a different argument: “We read this saying without an intermediate τῆς βασιλείας not only on textual-critical grounds, but also on a contextual logical connection, where the “Gospel of God” preached by Christ is first stated (Μκ. 1, 14), and then its content is immediately indicated in “the kingdom of God” (Μκ. 1, 15).” There is also no intermediate insertion in the Greek-English NT -Ed.] Regarding the definition of the kingdom as “ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ,” Glubokovsky notes in the 1932 edition that Mark “exclusively uses this formula (as, indeed, does Luke, although with different associations).” -Ed. In the 1932 edition, the author explains the contrast: “this is an obvious fact in the scriptural depiction...” (our italics). -Ed. Hilarius Pictaviensis. Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei, in 9, 30, PL 9, 965. Hieronymus stridonensis. Commentaria in Evangelium Matthaei, in 28, 17, PL 26, 218; cp. Joannes Chrysostomus. In principium actorum hom. 4, 8, PG 51, 109; Idem. In acta apostolorum hom. 1, 4, PG 60, 19; etc. For an explanation of some of the chronological deviations in Mark's Gospel, see Comely R. Introductio specialis in singulos libros Novi Testamenti. Paris, 1888. § 30. P. III ss. Chronologically, one would expect that after the baptism the rejection of Christ by the Nazarenes would be mentioned, then the miracle in Capernaum and the calling of the first apostles; Meanwhile, in Mark the call of Peter and other disciples is at the beginning, and the Lord’s stay in Nazareth is reported much later (Mark 1:16–46; 6:1–6). The reason for this probably lies in the basic view of the evangelist on the life and work of the Redeemer, as noted above. Wanting to portray the Savior by the power of God in miracles, St. ap. Mark did not find it convenient to lead the scriptures to say that Jesus “could not perform any miracle there; He only laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them” (Mark 6:5). Likewise, he talks about the calling of the apostles earlier in order to indicate in them the witnesses of the pre-elected, reliable eyewitnesses of the events. Therefore, he speaks about suspicions of the Lord’s relationship with Beelzebub too early (Mark 3:22-30), before the transfiguration (cf. Lk. 11, 14–23) to prevent such doubts in the readers, since they were already refuted during the life of Christ. Mk. 6, 17–29 (about the death of the Forerunner) should precede Mark. 6, 14–16, and Mk. 14, 3–9 (about the anointing of the Savior’s feet) – follow Mark. 14, 1–2, but here the evangelist clearly does not adhere to chronological order and talks about these episodes on occasion, parentetically [from Greek. παρενθήκη, “insertion”, “addition”. -Ed.]. Credner K. A. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Bd. 1. Halle, 1836. §49. S. 102–103. This is true in all publications containing this chapter. Obviously, this is a typo, which, combined with some confusion a little further, does not allow us to establish with certainty where, according to Glubokovsky, the “first part” of the Gospel of Mark ends. The end certainly cannot be the verse of Mark. 9, 28, for it does not complete the thought and therefore closely adjoins the next verse. It is logical to conduct a section on Mark. 9, 29 or Mk. 9, 50. -Ed. Mk. 4, 37–38: τὰ κύματα ἐπέβαλλεν εἰς τὸ πλοῖον καὶ αὐτὸς ἦ ν ἐν τ ῇ πρύμν ῃ ἐπὶ τὸ προσκεφάλαιον καθεύδων [the waves beat into the boat, and He slept at the stern at the head]; Mk. 6, 38; Mk. 6, 48: καὶ ἤ θελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς [and He wanted to pass by them]; Mk. 9, 3, 14–16; Mk. 10, 50: ὁ δὲ ἀποβαλ ὼ ν τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ἀναπηδήσας ἦ λθεν [he took off his outer clothing, stood up and came]; Mk. 15, 44. Mk. 1.20: μετὰ τῶν μισθωτῶν [together with mercenaries]; Mk. 4, 36: καὶ ἄλλα δὲ πλοῖα ἦ ν μετ ᾿ αὐτοῦ [and other boats were with Him]; Mk. 6, 41: καὶ τούς δύο ἰχθύος ἐμέρισεν π ᾶ σιν [and he divided the two fish among everyone]; Mk. 14, 51–52; Mk. 14.3: συντρίψασα τὴν ἀλάβαστρον [breaking the alabaster vessel]. Mk. 6, 52; 8, 32; 9, 10; 10, 24, 32; 11.10. Mk. 3, 5, 34; 5, 32; 6, 6; 10, 21, 23; 11.11. Mk. 6, 31, 34; 8, 3; 9, 21, 25, 27; 10, 3, 5. Mk. 1.15: πεπλήρωτοα ὁ καιρός πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελί ῳ [the time is fulfilled believe in the Gospel]; Mk. 4, 11; 7, 8; 8, 38; 9, 12, 39; 10, 21, 30; 11, 17, 24; 12, 6; 13, 32; 14, 18, 37. Mk. 3, 17: βοανηργές [Boanerges]; Mk. 5, 41: ταλιθὰ κοῦμ (ι) [talifa kumi]; Mk. 7, 11: κορβ ᾶ ν [corvan]; Mk. 7, 34: ἐφφαθά [effatha]; Wed Mk. 9, 43; 10, 46. [Here Glubokovsky obviously cites Semitisms - words of the language in which the Lord spoke, transmitted in Greek without changes. The last link, however, is wrong. -Ed.] Mk. 1, 29, 36; 2, 26; 3, 6, 22; 7, 26; 11, 11, 21; 13, 3; Mk. 14, 65: οἱ ὑπηρέτοα [servants]; Mk. 15, 7, 21; 16, 7. Mk. 5, 13; 6, 7, 40; 14, 30. Mk. 1, 35 and Wed. Mk. 16, 2; Mk. 2,1; 4, 35; 6, 2; 11, 11; 14, 68; 15, 25. Mk. 2, 13 and Wed. Mk. 3, 7; Mk. 4, 1; 5, 21; 5, 20; 7, 31; 8, 10; 12, 41; 13, 3; 14, 68; 15, 39; 16, 5. Mk. 3, 14, 30; 5, 20; 7, 2–4; 11.13; Wed Mk. 6, 13; 5, 4–5. Mk. 5, 26: μηδὲν ὠ φεληθεῖσα, ἀλλὰ μ ᾶ λλον εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα [received no benefit, but ended up in an even worse state]. Mk. 1, 42: ἀπῆλθεν ἡ λέτρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη [the leprosy disappeared and he became clean]. Mk. 1, 40, 44; 2, 3 ss.; 11, 1 ss.; 14, 43, 66, etc. Mk. 4, 39: σιώπα, πεφίμωσο [be silent, stop]; Mk. 5, 8: ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον [come out, unclean spirit]; Mk. 6, 23, 31; 12.6, etc. Mk. 1, 13: ἦ ν (ἐκεῖ) ἐν τ ῇ ἐρήμ ῳ [He was (there) in the desert]; Mk. 2, 20: τότε ἐν ἐκείν ῃ τ ῇ ἡμέρ ᾳ [then on that day]; Mk. 3, 29: οὐκ ἔχει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ ἔνοχός ἐστιν αἰωνίου ἁ μαρτήματος [there will be no forgiveness for him forever, but he is subject to eternal condemnation]; Mk. 4, 33, 34; 5, 26, etc.; Mk. 6, 25: εὐθύς μετὰ σπουδῆς [immediately with haste]; Mk. 7, 21: ἐσωθεν ἐκ τῆς καρδίας [from the inside from the heart], etc. Mk. 2, 19–20: “Can they fast when the groom is with them? As long as the groom is with them, they cannot fast. But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast”; Mk. 2, 27; 3, 1, 3; 4:15 (cf. Matthew 13:19 and Luke 8:12); Mk. 5, 41–42; 6, 17–18 (cf. Matt. 14, 3–4); Mk. 10, 13 (cf. Matthew 19, 13 and Luke 18, 15); Mk. 14, 66–67 (cf. Matt. 26, 69 and Luke 22, 55–56). Mk. 9, 15; 14, 33; 16, 5–6: ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι [to be amazed, horrified]; Mk. 9, 36; 10, 16: ἐναγκαλίζεσθαι [hug]; Mk. 13, 11: προμεριμν ᾷ ν [take care in advance]; Mk. 5, 24, 31: συνθλίβειν [to crowd]. Credner K. A. Op. cit. § 49. S. 105. You might be interested in: