Gospel According to Mark馬可福音

General Information 一般信息

Mark is the second Gospel in the New Testament of the Bible. It is the earliest and the shortest of the four Gospels. Papias, an early church father, ascribed this Gospel to Mark, an interpreter of Peter who is often identified with Mark, the cousin of Saint Barnabas and companion of Barnabas and Saint Paul on their first missionary journey. Irenaeus said that Mark wrote this Gospel after Peter and Paul had died.馬克是第二個福音在新約聖經。這是最早的,最短的4個福音。帕皮亞,早期教會的父親,賦予這個福音馬克,翻譯彼得誰往往是確定的優勢,表姐的聖巴納巴斯和同伴的巴拿巴和聖保羅首傳教之旅。馬克依說,寫這本福音後彼得和保羅已經死了。 Most scholars today, therefore, date the book AD 65 - 70.大多數學者今天,因此,這本書之日起公元65 - 70 。

The Gospel was probably written in Rome for a primarily Gentile audience, to convince them that Jesus of Nazareth, in spite of his sufferings and death, was the Son of God. It has been called a Gospel of action because it records 18 miracles (similar in count to Matthew and Luke) but only 4 parables (Matthew includes 18 parables and Luke 19). Jesus' victory over evil through his deeds and death receives emphasis. Much material in Mark is repeated in Matthew and in Luke, leading most scholars to conclude that Mark was written first and used independently by the other writers.可能是福音書面在羅馬為主要詹蒂萊聽眾,說服他們,拿撒勒的耶穌,儘管他的痛苦和死亡,是神的兒子。 它被稱為福音的行動 ,因為它記錄的18個奇蹟(類似在計數馬修和盧克) ,但只有4個比喻(馬太包括18寓言和路加福音19 ) 。 耶穌戰勝邪惡通過他的事蹟和死亡得到重視。大部分材料馬克重複馬太和路加福音,導致大多數學者得出這樣的結論:馬克寫第一和獨立使用的其他作家。

BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site相信宗教信息來源
Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects我們所列出的2300名宗教科目
E-mail電子郵件
Douglas Ezell道格拉斯Ezell

Bibliography 參考書目
RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (1950); CFD Moule, The Gospel According to Mark (1965); V Taylor, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (1966); E Trocme, The Formation of the Gospel According to Mark (1975).相對濕度娜萊,福音訊息的聖馬克( 1950年) ;的CFD Moule ,該馬可福音( 1965年) ; V泰勒福音聖馬克( 1966年) ; é特羅克梅,組建馬可福音( 1975年) 。


Gospel According to Mark馬可福音

Brief Outline簡要概述

  1. Baptism and Temptation of Jesus (1:1-13)洗禮和誘惑耶穌( 1:1-13 )
  2. Galilean Ministry (1:14-9:50)伽利略部( 1:14-9:50 )
  3. Ministry in Perea (10)部佩雷亞( 10 )
  4. Passion Week and Resurrection (11-16)受難週和復活( 11月16日)


Mark馬克

Advanced Information 先進的信息

Mark, the evangelist; "John whose surname was Mark" (Acts 12:12, 25).馬克福音; “約翰的姓是馬克” (使徒行12:12 , 25 ) 。 Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John.馬克(馬庫斯上校4時10等) ,是他的羅馬名字,它逐漸取代了他的猶太名字約翰。 He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim.他被稱為美國的行為13點05分, 13日,馬克在15:39 , 2蒂姆。 4:11, etc. He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12). 4時11分,等他的兒子,瑪麗,一個女人顯然一些手段和影響,可能是出生在耶路撒冷,而他母親居住(使徒12:12 ) 。 Of his father we know nothing.他的父親,我們什麼都不知道。 He was cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10).他的表弟巴納巴斯(上校4時10分) 。 It was in his mother's house that Peter found "many gathered together praying" when he was released from prison; and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his "son" (1 Pet. 5: 13).這是在他母親的房子,彼得發現“許多聚集在一起祈禱, ”當他被從監獄釋放,並很可能就是在這裡,他是轉換彼得,誰要求他的“兒子” ( 1寵物。 5 : 13 ) 。 It is probable that the "young man" spoken of in Mark 14:51, 52 was Mark himself.這是可能的“青年”在談到馬克14:51 , 52馬克本人。 He is first mentioned in Acts 12: 25.他是第一次提到的行為12 : 25 。 He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about AD 47) as their "minister," but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 12:25; 13:13).他與保羅和巴拿巴首旅(約公元47 ) ,作為他們的“部長” ,而是由一些原因回頭當他們走到Perga在潘菲利亞(使徒12時25分; 13時13分) 。

Three years afterwards a "sharp contention" arose between Paul and Barnabas (15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him.三年後,一個“尖銳爭論”之間出現保羅和巴拿巴( 15:36-40 ) ,因為保羅不會馬克他。 He, however, was evidently at length reconciled to the apostle, for he was with him in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10; Philemon 24).不過,他顯然是在長度和解的倡導者,因為他同他首次監禁在羅馬(上校4點10分;腓利門書24 ) 。 At a later period he was with Peter in Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning; and he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during his second imprisonment (2 Tim. 4:11).在以後的時期,他與彼得在巴比倫( 1寵物。 5點13分) ,然後,有些百年之後,一個主要的席位猶太人學習;和他與蒂莫保羅在以弗所時寫道:他在第二次監禁( 2蒂姆。四點十一分) 。 He then disappears from view.然後,他消失的觀點。

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary) (伊斯頓圖解詞典)


Gospel according to Mark馬可福音

Advanced Information 先進的信息

It is the current and apparently well-founded tradition that Mark derived his information mainly from the discourses of Peter.這是當前和顯然有充分理由的傳統,馬克衍生的信息主要是從他的話語彼得。 In his mother's house he would have abundant opportunities of obtaining information from the other apostles and their coadjutors, yet he was "the disciple and interpreter of Peter" specially.在他母親的家,他將有機會獲得豐富的資料,其他使徒和他們的coadjutors ,但他是“門徒和口譯的彼得”特別。 As to the time when it was written, the Gospel furnishes us with no definite information. Mark makes no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, hence it must have been written before that event, and probably about AD 63.至於何時是書面的,福音提供我們沒有明確的信息。馬克並沒有提及耶路撒冷的破壞,因此它必須被寫入之前的事件,大概公元63 。 The place where it was written was probably Rome.的地方寫可能是羅馬。 Some have supposed Antioch (comp. Mark 15:21 with Acts 11:20).有些人理應安提阿( comp.馬克15點21分的行為11:20 ) 。 It was intended primarily for Romans.它的目的主要是為羅馬。

This appears probable when it is considered that it makes no reference to the Jewish law, and that the writer takes care to interpret words which a Gentile would be likely to misunderstand, such as, "Boanerges" (3:17); "Talitha cumi" (5:41); "Corban" (7:11); "Bartimaeus" (10:46); "Abba" (14:36); "Eloi," etc. (15:34).這似乎有可能時,認為它沒有提到以色列法律規定,而且作家照顧解釋了詹蒂萊的話可能會產生誤解,如“ Boanerges ” ( 3時17分) ; “ Talitha cumi “ ( 5時41分) , ”古爾邦節“ ( 7時11分) ; ” Bartimaeus “ ( 10:46 ) ; ”阿爸“ ( 14時36分) ; ”埃洛伊“等( 15時34分) 。 Jewish usages are also explained (7:3; 14:3; 14:12; 15:42).猶太慣例也解釋( 7時03分, 14時03 ; 14:12 ; 15點42分) 。 Mark also uses certain Latin words not found in any of the other Gospels, as "speculator" (6:27, rendered, AV, "executioner;" RV, "soldier of his guard"), "xestes" (a corruption of sextarius, rendered "pots," 7:4, 8), "quadrans" (12:42, rendered "a farthing"), "centurion" (15:39, 44, 45).馬克也使用某些拉丁美洲的話中沒有發現任何其他福音,因為“投機者” ( 6時27分,提供影音, “劊子手”右“ ,他的衛隊士兵” ) , “ xestes ” (腐敗的sextarius ,使“壺, ”七點04分, 8 ) , “ quadrans ” ( 12點42 ,使“一個farthing ” ) , “百夫長” ( 15時39分, 44 , 45 ) 。 He only twice quotes from the Old Testament (1:2; 15:28).他只有兩次引用舊約( 1:2 ; 15:28 ) 。

The characteristics of this Gospel are, (1) the absence of the genealogy of our Lord, (2) whom he represents as clothed with power, the "lion of the tribe of Judah."的特點,這是福音, ( 1 )缺席的情況下家譜我們的上帝, ( 2 )他的衣服代表與權力, “獅子的猶太部落的。 ” (3.) Mark also records with wonderful minuteness the very words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36) as well as the position (9:35) and gestures (3:5, 34; 5:32; 9:36; 10:16) of our Lord. ( 3 。 )馬克也記錄的非常精彩的話minuteness ( 3點17分; 5點41分, 7時11分, 34 ; 14時36分) ,以及位置( 9點35 )和姿態( 3時05分, 34 ; 5時32分;九時36分; 10:16 )我們的上帝。 (4.) He is also careful to record particulars of person (1:29, 36; 3:6, 22, etc.), number (5:13; 6:7, etc.), place (2:13; 4:1; 7:31, etc.), and time (1:35; 2:1; 4:35, etc.), which the other evangelists omit. ( 4 。 )他還仔細地記錄細節的人( 1時29分, 36 ; 3點06 , 22等) ,數量( 5點13分, 6點07等) ,到位( 2點13 ; 4:1 ; 7時31分,等等) ,時間( 1時35 ; 2:1 ; 4:35 ,等等) ,而其他福音省略。 (5.) The phrase "and straightway" occurs nearly forty times in this Gospel; while in Luke's Gospel, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times. ( 5 ) 。 “並馬上”發生近40次在這福音;而在路加福音,這是多長時間,這是只使用7倍,僅在美國的4倍。 "The Gospel of Mark," says Westcott, "is essentially a transcript from life. “福音馬克說, ” Westcott , “本質上是一個記錄生活。

The course and issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest outline." "In Mark we have no attempt to draw up a continuous narrative.課程和問題的事實是在它拍攝的清晰的輪廓。 “ ”馬克我們沒有試圖制定一個連續的敘述。 His Gospel is a rapid succession of vivid pictures loosely strung together without much attempt to bind them into a whole or give the events in their natural sequence.他的福音是一種快速繼承生動的圖片鬆散串成沒有太多企圖結合成一個整體的事件,或在它們的自然順序。 This pictorial power is that which specially characterizes this evangelist, so that 'if any one desires to know an evangelical fact, not only in its main features and grand results, but also in its most minute and so to speak more graphic delineation, he must betake himself to Mark.'" The leading principle running through this Gospel may be expressed in the motto: "Jesus came......preaching the gospel of the kingdom" (Mark 1:14). "Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew, 60 with Luke, and at most 51 peculiar to itself." (See Matthew).這圖案電源是專此傳道的特點,因此,如果任何一個想要知道一個福音事實上,不僅在其主要特點和大的成果,而且在其最分鐘,可以說更多的圖形描述,他必須betake自己馬克' 。 “主要原則貫穿這可能是福音中所表達的座右銘: ”耶穌來到......宣揚福音王國“ (馬克1,14 ) 。 ”在總共662詩句,馬克已與406共同的馬修和盧克, 145與馬修, 60路,並在51個最特有的本身。 “ (見馬修) 。

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary) (伊斯頓圖解詞典)


Gospel of Saint Mark聖馬克福音

Catholic Information 天主教新聞

The subject will be treated under the following heads:這個問題將被視為以下首長:

I. Contents, Selection and Arrangement of Matter;一,內容,選擇和安排的事項;

II.二。 Authorship;作者;

III.三。 Original Language, Vocabulary, and Style;原始語言,詞彙和作風;

IV.四。 State of Text and Integrity;國家的文字和完整性;

V. Place and Date of Composition;五,地點和日期的成分;

VI.六。 Destination and Purpose;目標和宗旨;

VII.七。 Relation to Matthew and Luke.與馬修和盧克。

I. CONTENTS, SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF MATTER一,內容,選擇和安排的事宜

The Second Gospel, like the other two Synoptics, deals chiefly with the Galilean ministry of Christ, and the events of the last week at Jerusalem.第二個福音,像其他兩個Synoptics ,主要涉及伽利略部基督,和所發生的事件上週在耶路撒冷。 In a brief introduction, the ministry of the Precursor and the immediate preparation of Christ for His official work by His Baptism and temptation are touched upon (i, 1-13); then follows the body of the Gospel, dealing with the public ministry, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus (i, 14-xvi, 8); and lastly the work in its present form gives a summary account of some appearances of the risen Lord, and ends with a reference to the Ascension and the universal preaching of the Gospel (xvi, 9-20).在簡短的介紹,該部的前體,並立即準備基督正式工作的他的洗禮和誘惑是涉及(一, 1月13日) ;然後如下身體的福音,處理公共事務部,受難,死亡和復活的耶穌(一, 14 - 16 , 8 ) ;和最後的工作,其目前的形式給出了簡要的一些表現了復活的救主,並最後提到阿森松和普遍說教福音(十六, 9月20日) 。 The body of the Gospel falls naturally into three divisions: the ministry in Galilee and adjoining districts: Phoenicia, Decapolis, and the country north towards Cæarea Philippi (i, 14-ix, 49); the ministry in Judea and (kai peran, with B, Aleph, C*, L, Psi, in x, 1) Peræ, and the journey to Jerusalem (x, 1-xi, 10); the events of the last week at Jerusalem (xi, 11-xvi, 8).該機構的福音瀑布自然分為三個部門:該部在加利利和毗連區:腓尼基, Decapolis ,該國北部對Cæarea立(一, 14九, 49 ) ;該部在朱迪亞和(啟peran ,與乙,阿萊夫和c * , L時,帕普西,在X , 1 ) Peræ ,以及旅程耶路撒冷(十,一喜, 10 ) ;的事件上週在耶路撒冷(十一, 11 - 16 , 8 ) 。

Beginning with the public ministry (cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37), St. Mark passes in silence over the preliminary events recorded by the other Synoptists: the conception and birth of the Baptist, the genealogy, conception, and birth of Jesus, the coming of the Magi, etc. He is much more concerned with Christ's acts than with His discourses, only two of these being given at any considerable length (iv, 3-32; xiii, 5-37).首先是公共事務部(參見行為1點22分, 10時37分) ,聖馬克通行證在沉默了初步事件記錄的其他Synoptists :概念與誕生的浸信會的家譜,概念,並誕生耶穌,在今後的賢士,等他更關心與基督的行為,而不是他的話語中,只有兩個正在考慮在任何相當長(四3-32 ;第十三5-37 ) 。 The miracles are narrated most graphically and thrown into great prominence, almost a fourth of the entire Gospel (in the Vulg., 164 verses out of 677) being devoted to them, and there seems to be a desire to impress the readers from the outset with Christ's almighty power and dominion over all nature.奇蹟是最生動地敘述扔進非常突出,幾乎四分之一的整個福音(在Vulg 。 , 164詩句了677 )專用於他們,似乎有一種願望,使讀者從一開始與基督的全能的權力和統治所有的性質。 The very first chapter records three miracles: the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, and the healing of a leper, besides alluding summarily to many others (i, 32-34); and, of the eighteen miracles recorded altogether in the Gospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52; xi, 12-14) occur in the first eight chapters.在第一章記錄三個奇蹟:鑄造了一個不乾淨的精神,在治愈彼得的岳母,和癒合的台階,除了暗指草率許多其他(一,32 - 34 ) ;以及18奇蹟的記錄完全在福音,但三個(九16-28 ;第十46-52 ;十一, 12月14日)發生在今年頭8章。 Only two of these miracles (vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar to Mark, but, in regard to nearly all, there are graphic touches and minute details not found in the other Synoptics.只有兩個奇蹟(七31-37 ;八, 22日至26日)的特殊標誌,但在幾乎所有方面,有圖形觸及和微小的細節中找不到其他Synoptics 。 Of the parables proper Mark has only four: the sower (iv, 3-9), the seed growing secretly (iv, 26-29), the mustard seed (iv, 30-32), and the wicked husbandman (xii, 1-9); the second of these is wanting in the other Gospels. Special attention is paid throughout to the human feelings and emotions of Christ, and to the effect produced by His miracles upon the crowd.適當的寓言馬克只有四個:播種者(四, 3月9日) ,種子日益秘密(四, 26日至29日) ,芥籽(四30-32 ) ,以及邪惡的husbandman (十二, 1 -9 ) ;第二,這些是希望在其他福音。特別注意的是整個人類的感情和情緒的基督,並影響他的奇蹟所產生的人群。 The weaknesses of the Apostles are far more apparent than in the parallel narratives of Matt.弱點使徒更為明顯的平行說明馬特。 and Luke, this being, probably due to the graphic and candid discourses of Peter, upon which tradition represents Mark as relying.和盧克,這是,可能是由於圖形和坦誠的話語彼得的,可賴以傳統代表馬克依賴。

The repeated notes of time and place (eg, i, 14, 19, 20, 21, 29, 32, 35) seem to show that the Evangelist meant to arrange in chronological order at least a number of the events which he records.一再指出的時間和地點(例如,我, 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 29 , 32 , 35 )似乎表明,傳播者意味著安排順序至少有一些事件,他的記錄。 Occasionally the note of time is wanting (eg i, 40; iii, 1; iv, 1; x, 1, 2, 13) or vague (eg ii, 1, 23; iv, 35), and in such cases he may of course depart from the order of events.偶爾注意到時間是想(如:一, 40 ;三, 1 ;四, 1 ;十, 1 , 2 , 13 )或模糊(如二, 1 , 23 ;四, 35歲) ,並在這種情況下,他可當然背離秩序的活動。 But the very fact that in some instances he speaks thus vaguely and indefinitely makes it all the more necessary to take his definite notes of time and sequence in other cases as indicating chronological order.但是,這一事實本身,在一些情況下,他說話含糊和無限期從而使得更有必要採取明確指出他的時間和順序在其他情況下,作為顯示順序。 We are here confronted, however, with the testimony of Papias, who quotes an elder (presbyter), with whom he apparently agrees, as saying that Mark did not write in order: "And the elder said this also: Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, (he attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [vl "words"]. So then Mark made no mistake [Schmiedel, "committed no fault"], while he thus wrote down some things (enia as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he had heard, or set down any false statement therein" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxix). Some indeed have understood this famous passage to mean merely that Mark did not write a literary work, but simply a string of notes connected in the simplest fashion (cf. Swete, "The Gospel acc. to Mark", pp. lx-lxi). The present writer, however, is convinced that what Papias and the elder deny to our Gospel is chronological order, since for no other order would it have been necessary that Mark should have heard or followed Christ. But the passage need not be understood to mean more than that Mark occasionally departs from chronological order, a thing we are quite prepared to admit. What Papias and the elder considered to be the true order we cannot say; they can hardly have fancied it to be represented in the First Gospel, which so evidently groups (eg viii-ix), nor, it would seem, in the Third, since Luke, like Mark, had not been a disciple of Christ. It may well be that, belonging as they did to Asia Minor, they had the Gospel of St. John and its chronology in mind. At any rate, their judgment upon the Second Gospel, even if be just, does not prevent us from holding that Mark, to some extent, arranges the events of Christ's like in chronological order.我們來到這裡面對,然而,隨著證詞帕皮亞,誰報價長老(牧師) ,同他顯然也同意,說,馬克沒有寫,以便: “和老人說,這還:馬克,已成為翻譯彼得,寫下正確的一切,他記得,但不記錄,以便可以說是什麼或做的事。對他也沒有聽到上帝,也沒有跟他走,但後來,正如我所說的, (他出席)彼得,誰適應他的指示的需要(他的聽眾) ,但沒有設計使連接到主的神諭[輕“改為” ] 。那麼馬克沒有錯誤[ Schmiedel , “承諾沒有過錯“ ] ,而因此,他寫下了一些東西( enia作為他想起他們,因為他使他的一個小心不要忽略任何東西,他聽到,或規定任何虛假陳述有” (優西比烏, “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ” ,第三,第39屆) 。一些確實理解這個著名的通道意味著僅僅是標誌不寫文學作品,而僅僅是一連串的說明中最簡單的連接方式(參見Swete , “行政協調會的福音。馬克”頁。迅LX - LXI聯盟) 。目前的作家,但是,相信什麼帕皮亞和老否認我們的福音是時間順序,因為沒有任何其他命令它有必要的標誌應該聽到或之後基督。但通過不必理解為是指超過馬克偶爾背離時間順序排列,東西我們很願意承認。什麼帕皮亞和老認為是真正為了我們不能說,他們可以很難想像它是代表在第一福音,而這一點明顯的群體(例如第八至第九) ,也沒有,看來,在第三次,因為盧克,像馬克,沒有基督信徒。很可能是,因為他們沒有屬於到小亞細亞,他們的福音聖約翰及其年表一點。無論如何,他們的判斷後,第二福音,即使是公正,並不妨礙我們認為馬克,在一定程度上,安排的活動基督像順序。

II.二。 AUTHORSHIP

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached.所有早期傳統連接第二福音有兩個名字,是聖馬克和聖彼得大教堂,馬克被關押寫什麼彼得曾鼓吹。 We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about AD 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time.我們剛剛看到,這是鑑於帕皮亞和老年的人,他指。帕皮亞寫道不得遲於約公元130 ,這樣的證詞老可能讓我們重新回到二十一世紀,並顯示出已知的第二福音在小亞細亞和歸因於聖馬克在早期的時間。 So Irenæus says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" ("Adv. Hær.", III, i; ibid., x, 6).所以Irenæus說: “馬克,門徒和口譯的彼得,自己也給我們以書面形式所宣揚的是彼得” ( “病毒。 Hær 。 ” ,三,一;同上。 ,第十, 6 ) 。 St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elder presbyters", tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark "composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv).聖克萊門特的亞歷山德里亞,依靠權威的“老presbyters ” ,告訴我們,當彼得曾公開鼓吹在羅馬,許多人誰聽見他告誡馬克,作為一個長期遵循誰彼得和懷念他的說,將它寫下來,這標誌“組成的福音和送給那些誰要求它” (優西比烏, “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ” ,六,十四) 。 Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work ("Hist. Eccl.", II, xv).奧利說, (同上,六, XXV )號決議標誌著寫他作為導演彼得(全部彼得莫利維huphegesato汽車) ,並報告自己的優西比烏傳統彼得批准或授權馬克的工作( “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ”二, XV )號決議。 To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: "The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was" ("Contra Marc.", IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of he Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers ("Dial.", 106), when he sags that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the "Diatessaron", makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.這些早期東歐證人可能會增加,來自西方的作者穆拉多利片段,它在其第一行幾乎肯定是指馬克出席彼得的話語和他組成的福音因此( Quibus塔門interfuit等意大利posuit ) ;特土良,誰規定: “福音標誌著出版( edidit肯定是彼得的,他們的翻譯馬克” ( “康特拉馬克。 ” ,四,五) ;聖杰羅姆,誰在一個地方說,馬克寫了短期福音書的要求,兄弟在羅馬,並授權其彼得閱讀教會( “者病毒。伊利諾伊州” ,第八章) ,並在另一個馬克福音組成,彼得和馬克敘事寫作(石化narrante等illo scribente - “廣告Hedib 。 ”內啡肽。 cxx ) 。在每一個這些古老當局馬克被視為作者的福音,這是視同時擁有使徒的權威,因為大幅度至少它來自於聖彼得。鑑於這一傳統聯接的,他與聖彼得福音,但毫無疑問,這是它聖賈斯汀烈士,寫在中東的第二個世紀,是指( “撥號。 “ , 106 ) ,當他給凹陷基督”稱號Boanerges “的兒子號Zebedee (一個事實中提到的新約全書只有在馬克三時17分) ,這是寫在”藝伎回憶錄“彼得(中文tois apopnemaneumasin autou -在他剛剛任命彼得) 。雖然聖賈斯汀沒有名稱標示為作家的回憶錄,但事實上,他的弟子塔蒂安我們目前使用的標誌,甚至包括過去十二個月的詩句,組成的“ Diatessaron ” ,這使得幾乎肯定街賈斯汀知道我們目前的第二個福音,和其他父親一樣連接與聖彼得。

If, then, a consistent and widespread early tradition is to count for anything, St.如果,然後,一致和廣泛的早期傳統是指望什麼,聖 Mark wrote a work based upon St. Peter's preaching.馬克寫了工作依據聖彼得講道。 It is absurd to seek to destroy the force of this tradition by suggesting that all the subsequent authorities relied upon Papias, who may have been deceived.這是荒謬的企圖破壞力量的這一傳統,建議所有隨後當局依靠帕皮亞,誰可能被欺騙。 Apart from the utter improbability that Papias, who had spoken with many disciples of the Apostles, could have been deceived on such a question, the fact that Irenæus seems to place the composition of Mark's work after Peter's death, while Origen and other represent the Apostle as approving of it (see below, V), shows that all do not draw from the same source.除了完全不大可能的帕皮亞,誰曾與許多弟子的使徒,可能已被蒙蔽的這樣一個問題,這一事實似乎發生Irenæus組成馬克的工作後,彼得的死亡,而奧利和其他代表使徒作為批准的IT (見下文,五) ,結果表明,所有不提請來自同一來源。 Moreover, Clement of Alexandria mentions as his source, not any single authority, but "the elders from the beginning" (ton anekathen presbuteron--Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv).此外,克萊門特亞歷山大提到他的來源,而不是任何單一的權力機構,但“老人從一開始就” (噸anekathen presbuteron - Euseb 。 “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ” ,六,十四) 。 The only question, then, that can be raised with any shadow of reason, is whether St. Mark's work was identical with our present Second Gospel, and on this there is no room for doubt.唯一的問題,那麼,可以提出任何陰影的原因,是聖馬可的工作是與我們目前的相同第二福音,並在此不存在疑問。 Early Christian literature knows no trace of an Urmarkus different from our present Gospel, and it is impossible that a work giving the Prince of the Apostles' account of Christ's words and deeds could have disappeared utterly, without leaving any trace behind.早期基督教文學知道任何痕跡的Urmarkus不同於我們目前的福音,這是不可能的,一個工作給予王子的使徒到基督的言行可能完全消失,沒有留下任何痕跡了。 Nor can it be said that the original Mark has been worked up into our present Second Gospel, for then, St. Mark not being the actual writer of the present work and its substance being due to St. Peter, there would have been no reason to attribute it to Mark, and it would undoubtedly have been known in the Church, not by the title it bears, but as the "Gospel according to Peter".也不能說,原來的商標已制定了到我們目前的第二個福音,當時,聖馬克沒有實際作家本工作和其實質是由於聖彼得大教堂,就沒有任何理由以屬性為標誌,它無疑將在已經知道的教會,而不是由它承擔的標題,但作為“福音彼得” 。

Internal evidence strongly confirms the view that our present Second Gospel is the work referred to by Papias.內部證據證實強烈認為,我們目前是第二個福音工作提到帕皮亞。 That work, as has been seen, was based on Peter's discourses.這項工作,因為已經看到的那樣,是基於彼得的論述。 Now we learn from Acts (i, 21-22; x, 37-41) that Peter's preaching dealt chiefly with the public life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.現在我們學習的行為(一, 21日至22日;十, 37-41 )的彼得講道主要涉及與市民生活,死亡,復活,和阿森松基督。 So our present Mark, confining itself to the same limits, omitting all reference to Christ's birth and private life, such as is found in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, and commencing with the preaching of the Baptist, ends with Christ's Resurrection and Ascension.因此,我們本馬克,局限於同一限制,省略所有提及耶穌的誕生和私人生活,如被發現在該章節的馬修開放和盧克,並開始與講道的浸信會,目的是耶穌的復活和阿森松。 Again (1) the graphic and vivid touches peculiar to our present Second Gospel, its minute notes in regard to (2) persons, (3) places, (4) times, and (5) numbers, point to an eyewitness like Peter as the source of the writer's information.再次( 1 )圖形和生動涉及我們目前所特有的第二福音,其分鐘說明,關於( 2 )人, ( 3 )地方, ( 4 )倍, ( 5 )號碼,指向一名目擊者像彼得的來源,作者的信息。 Thus we are told (1) how Jesus took Peter's mother-in-law by the hand and raised her up (i, 31), how with anger He looked round about on His critics (iii, 5), how He took little children into His arms and blessed them and laid His hands upon them (ix, 35; x, 16), how those who carried the paralytic uncovered the roof (ii, 3, 4), how Christ commanded that the multitude should sit down upon the green grass, and how they sat down in companies, in hundred and in fifties (vi, 39-40); (2) how James and John left their father in the boat with the hired servants (i, 20), how they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John (i, 29), how the blind man at Jericho was the son of Timeus (x, 46), how Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21); (3) how there was no room even about the door of the house where Jesus was (ii, 2), how Jesus sat in the sea and all the multitude was by the sea on the land (iv, 1), how Jesus was in the stern of the boat asleep on the pillow (iv, 38); (4) how on the evening of the Sabbath, when the sun had set, the sick were brought to be cured (i, 32), how in the morning, long before day, Christ rose up (i, 35), how He was crucified at the third hour (xv, 25), how the women came to the tomb very early, when the sun had risen (xvi, 2); (5) how the paralytic was carried by four (ii, 3), how the swine were about two thousand in number (v. 13), how Christ began to send forth the Apostles, two and two (vi, 7).因此,我們被告知( 1 )如何耶穌拿起彼得婆婆的手,她提出了(我31 ) ,如何與憤怒,他回頭望望關於對他的批評(三,五) ,如何他的孩子們到他的胳膊和祝福,並把他的手對他們(第九, 35條;十, 16 ) ,如何進行這些誰發現的麻痺的屋頂(二,三,四) ,如何指揮基督的眾多應該坐下來後,綠草,以及他們是如何在公司坐了下來,在100和50 (六, 39-40 ) ; ( 2 )如何詹姆斯和約翰離開他們的父親在船的僱用人員(一, 20歲) ,他們是如何來到進了屋子的西蒙和Andrew ,詹姆斯和約翰(一, 29 ) ,如何瞎子在傑里科的父親是Timeus (十, 46 ) ,如何西蒙的昔蘭尼是亞歷山大的父親和魯弗斯( 15 , 21 ) ; ( 3 )如何沒有房間的門甚至在房子裡耶穌(二, 2 ) ,如何耶穌坐在海上和所有的眾多是在海邊的土地上(四, 1 ) ,如何耶穌在船尾的船睡覺枕頭上(四, 38 ) ; ( 4 )如何在安息日晚上,當太陽已經確定,病人被送到治愈(我32 ) ,如何在上午,早一天,基督奮起(一, 35歲) ,他被釘在十字架上的第三個小時( 15 , 25 ) ,如何來的婦女在1830年早期,當太陽已經上升( 16 , 2 ) ( 5 )如何麻痺進行的4項(二,三) ,如何豬大約2000的數目(五13 ) ,如何開始基督發出宗徒,兩個和兩個(六,七) 。 This mass of information which is wanting in the other Synoptics, and of which the above instances are only a sample, proved beyond doubt that the writer of the Second Gospel must have drawn from some independent source, and that this source must have been an eyewitness. And when we reflect that incidents connected with Peter, such as the cure of his mother-in-law and his three denials, are told with special details in this Gospel; that the accounts of the raising to life of the daughter of Jaïrus, of the Transfiguration, and of the Agony in the Garden, three occasions on which only Peter and James and John were present, show special signs of first-hand knowledge (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xliv) such as might be expected in the work of a disciple of Peter (Matthew and Luke may also have relied upon the Petrine tradition for their accounts of these events, but naturally Peter's disciple would be more intimately acquainted with the tradition); finally, when we remember that, though the Second Gospel records with special fullness Peter's three denials, it alone among the Gospels omit all reference to the promise or bestowal upon him of the primacy (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17), we are led to conclude that the eyewitness to whom St. Mark was indebted for his special information was St. Peter himself, and that our present Second Gospel, like Mark's work referred to by Papias, is based upon Peter's discourse.這種大規模的信息是希望在其他Synoptics ,和其中上述情況僅僅是一個範例,證明毫無疑問,作家第二福音必須從一些獨立的消息來源,這來源必須是目擊者。當我們反映了這一事件與彼得,如治愈他的岳母和他的三個否認,被告知有特殊的細節在此福音;該賬戶的提高生命的女兒Jaïrus ,的變形和痛苦的花園,三次就只有彼得和詹姆斯和約翰人出席,顯示特別的跡象第一手知識(參見Swete ,同前。同上。 ,第XLIV )號決議,如可能預計工作中的弟子彼得(馬太和路加福音也可能依靠伯多祿傳統的帳目這些活動,但自然彼得弟子將更為熟悉的傳統) ;最後,當我們還記得,儘管第二福音記錄特別豐滿彼得三個否認,但光靠它省略的福音所有提到許諾或授予他的首要(參見馬太16:18-19 ;盧克22時32分;約翰21:15 - 17 ) ,我們正在導致得出這樣的結論:目擊者向誰聖馬克是負債為他的特別信息是聖彼得自己,而且我們目前的第二個福音,像馬克的工作提到帕皮亞,是根據彼得的話語。 This internal evidence, if it does not actually prove the traditional view regarding the Petrine origin of the Second Gospel, is altogether consistent with it and tends strongly to confirm it.這內部的證據,如果沒有實際證明的傳統觀點關於伯多祿起源第二福音,是完全符合它,而且往往強烈證實。

III.三。 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, VOCABULARY, AND STYLE原始語言,詞彙和作風

It has always been the common opinion that the Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no solid reason to doubt the correctness of this view.一直共同認為,第二個福音寫在希臘,沒有堅實的理由懷疑是正確的這一觀點。 We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very widely spoken at Rome in the first century.我們從韋納爾(週六,三, 60平方米;六, 187 sqq 。 )和武術( Epig. ,十四, 58歲) ,希臘非常廣泛在羅馬的第一個世紀。 Various influences were at work to spread the language in the capital of the Empire. "Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and the trading classes there were swarms of Greek and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek; children were taught it by Greek nurses; and in after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation" (Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", p. lii).各種影響是在工作中的語言傳播中的資本帝國。 “事實上,有一種雙重傾向的擁抱一次班兩端的社會尺度。一方面除奴隸和貿易班有群對希臘和希說東方人。另一方面在較高行列,這是時尚發言希臘;兒童被教導它的希臘護士;並在以後的生活中使用它進行的音調做作“ (桑迪和Headlam , “羅馬書” ,第LII )號。 We know, too, that it was in Greek St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and from Rome St. Clement wrote to the Church of Corinth in the same language.我們還知道,這是在希臘聖保祿寫信給羅馬,從羅馬聖克萊門特寫信給教會科林斯在同一種語言。 It is true that some cursive Greek manuscripts of the tenth century or later speak of the Second Gospel as written in Latin (egrathe Romaisti en Rome, but scant and late evidence like this, which is probably only a deduction from the fact that the Gospel was written at Rome, can be allowed on weight. Equally improbable seems the view of Blass (Philol. of the Gosp., 196 sqq.) that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic. The arguments advanced by Blass (cf. also Allen in "Expositor", 6th series, I, 436 sqq.) merely show at most that Mark may have thought in Aramaic; and naturally his simple, colloquial Greek discloses much of the native Aramaic tinge. Blass indeed urges that the various readings in the manuscripts of Mark, and the variations in Patristic quotations from the Gospel, are relics of different translations of an Aramaic original, but the instances he adduces in support of this are quite inconclusive. An Aramaic original is absolutely incompatible with the testimony of Papias, who evidently contrasts the work of Peter's interpreter with the Aramaic work of Matthew. It is incompatible, too, with the testimony of all the other Fathers, who represent the Gospel as written by Peter's interpreter for the Christians of Rome.確實,一些行草希臘手稿十世紀或稍後的第二次發言的書面福音在拉丁美洲( egrathe Romaisti恩羅馬,但很少和晚期的證據這樣,這可能是唯一扣除這一事實是福音寫在羅馬,可允許的重量。同樣不大可能似乎認為布拉斯( Philol.的Gosp 。 , 196 sqq 。 )該福音原來亞拉姆語寫的。提出的觀點布拉斯(參見也艾倫在“ Expositor “ ,第6次系列,我, 436 sqq 。 )只是顯示在最該標記可能有思想的阿拉姆;自然他的簡單,通俗希臘披露許多本地阿拉姆色彩。布拉斯確實敦促各讀數的手稿馬克和變化教父引用福音,是文物的不同翻譯的阿拉姆原始,但1971的情況下,他支持這一相當定論。一個阿拉姆原來是完全不符合的證詞帕皮亞,誰明顯反差工作彼得與阿拉姆語翻譯工作的馬修。這是不相容的,也與證詞的所有其他父親,誰代表了福音書面彼得的翻譯為基督徒的羅馬。

The vocabulary of the Second Gospel embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names.詞彙第二福音包括1330年不同的字,其中60個是適當的名稱。 Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elsewhere in the New Testament; this, however, is a small number in comparison with more than 250 peculiar words found in the Gospel of St. Luke. 80字,其中不包括適當的名稱,沒有發現其他地方的新約全書;然而,這是一個很小的數目相比, 250多個特殊的話中發現的福音聖盧克。 Of St. Mark's words, 150 are shared only by the other two Synoptists; 15 are shared only by St.聖馬可的話, 150只分享了另外兩個Synoptists ; 15人共享只有通過街 John (Gospel); and 12 others by one or other of the Synoptists and St. John. Though the words found but once in the New Testament (apax legomena) are not relatively numerous in the Second Gospel, they are often remarkable; we meet with words rare in later Greek such as (eiten, paidiothen, with colloquialisms like (kenturion, xestes, spekoulator), and with transliterations such as korban, taleitha koum, ephphatha, rabbounei (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xlvii). Of the words peculiar to St. Mark about one-fourth are non-classical, while among those peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke the proportion of non-classical words is only about one-seventh (cf. Hawkins, "Hor. Synopt.", 171). On the whole, the vocabulary of the Second Gospel points to the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the literary use of the language.約翰(福音) ;和12人的一個或其他的Synoptists和聖約翰。雖然找到的字詞,但一旦在新約( apax legomena )不相對許多在第二福音,他們往往是顯著的;我們開會罕見的文字,如後來希臘( eiten , paidiothen ,與口語像( kenturion , xestes , spekoulator ) ,並與transliterations如korban , taleitha布庫姆, ephphatha , rabbounei (參見Swete ,同前。同上。 ,第四十七) 。的話特有的聖馬克大約四分之一的非經典,而在這些特有的聖馬太或聖盧克的比例,非經典話只有大約七分之一(參見霍金斯, “賀。 Synopt 。 ” , 171 ) 。整體而言,詞彙第二福音點,筆者作為一個外國人,誰是熟悉口語希臘,而是一個比較陌生的文學使用的語言。

St. Mark's style is clear, direct, terse, and picturesque, if at times a little harsh.聖馬克的風格很明顯,直接,簡潔,和風景如畫,如果有時有些苛刻。 He makes very frequent use of participles, is fond of the historical present, of direct narration, of double negatives, of the copious use of adverbs to define and emphasize his expressions.他讓非常頻繁使用詞,喜歡歷史目前,直接敘事,雙重否定,對大量使用副詞來界定,並強調他的表情。 He varies his tenses very freely, sometimes to bring out different shades of meaning (vii, 35; xv, 44), sometimes apparently to give life to a dialogue (ix, 34; xi, 27).不同的時態,他很自由,有時帶出深淺不同的含義(第七章, 35條;十五, 44歲) ,有時顯然是為了讓生活的對話(九, 34 ;十一27 ) 。 The style is often most compressed, a great deal being conveyed in very few words (i, 13, 27; xii, 38-40), yet at other times adverbs and synonyms and even repetitions are used to heighten the impression and lend colour to the picture.風格往往是最壓縮,大量傳達非常幾句話(一, 13 , 27 ;十二, 38-40 ) ,但在其他時間副詞和同義詞,甚至重複使用,以提高貸款的印象和顏色圖片。 Clauses are generally strung together in the simplest way by kai; de is not used half as frequently as in Matthew or Luke; while oun occurs only five times in the entire Gospel. Latinisms are met with more frequently than in the other Gospels, but this does not prove that Mark wrote in Latin or even understood the language.條款中一般串成最簡單的方法就是由Kai ;日沒有使用半那樣頻繁地在馬太或盧克;而群僅發生5次在整個福音。 Latinisms遇到多於其他福音,但這一並不能證明馬克寫在拉丁美洲,甚至理解的語言。 It proves merely that he was familiar with the common Greek of the Roman Empire, which freely adopted Latin words and, to some extent, Latin phraseology (cf. Blass, "Philol. of the Gosp.", 211 sq.), Indeed such familiarity with what we may call Roman Greek strongly confirms the traditional view that Mark was an "interpreter" who spent some time at Rome.這證明,他只是熟悉共同希臘羅馬帝國,它自由地通過文字和拉丁美洲,在一定程度上,拉美用語(參見布拉斯“ Philol 。的Gosp 。 ” , 211平方米) ,事實上,這種熟悉我們可致電羅馬希臘強烈證實了傳統認為,馬克是一個“翻譯”誰花了一些時間在羅馬。

IV.四。 STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY狀態的文字和完整性

The text of the Second Gospel, as indeed of all the Gospels, is excellently attested.案文第二福音,實際上所有的福音,是極好證明。 It is contained in all the primary unical manuscripts, C, however, not having the text complete, in all the more important later unicals, in the great mass of cursives; in all the ancient versions: Latin (both Vet. It., in its best manuscripts, and Vulg.), Syriac (Pesh., Curet., Sin., Harcl., Palest.), Coptic (Memph. and Theb.), Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic; and it is largely attested by Patristic quotations.它載於所有主要unical手稿,丙,但是,沒有完整的文字,在更加重要,後來unicals ,在大質量cursives ;在所有古老的版本:拉丁美洲(包括獸醫。它。 ,在其最好的手稿,並Vulg 。 ) ,敘利亞( Pesh. ,刮匙。 ,黃大仙。 , Harcl 。 , Palest 。 ) ,科普特( Memph.和Theb 。 ) ,亞美尼亞語,哥特式,以及埃塞俄比亞和它在很大程度上證明了教父報價單。 Some textual problems, however, still remain, eg whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20.一些文字上的問題,但是,仍然存在,例如是否Gerasenon或Gergesenon是在讀五, 1 , eporei或epoiei在六,第20條,以及是否困難autou ,證明了乙,阿萊夫的A , L或autes是要閱讀六, 20 。 But the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses.但是,偉大的文字問題的福音關注的真實性過去12詩句。 Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation."三個結論的福音是眾所周知的:從長遠的結論,因為在我們的聖經,其中載有詩句9月20日,結束了短暫的詩句8 ( ephoboumto噶爾) ,和一個中間形式(與一些輕微的改動)運行如下: “他們立即告知所有已命令那些關於彼得。而在此之後,耶穌自己似乎給他們,並通過他們發送提出從東到西的神聖和廉潔宣布永恆的拯救。 ” Now this third form may be dismissed at once.現在,這一第三種形式可能會被解僱了。 Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii).四unical手稿,歷史可以追溯到第七至第九世紀,給它,事實上,在第十六屆,第9 ,但每個人也提到了再結束作為替代(對細節比照。 Swete ,同前。前。頁。簡歷- cvii ) 。 It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion.它也緣行草手稿274 ,在緣Harclean敘利亞文和兩個手稿的Memphitic版本;並在一些手稿的衣索比亞它與詩8和普通的結論。 Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form.只有一個權力機構,舊拉丁美洲鉀,給它單獨(在一個非常腐敗渲染) ,沒有任何提及不再形式。 Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.這樣的證據,特別是相比,對其他兩個結局,不可能有任何重量,而在事實上,沒有一個學者認為,這中間有任何的結論冠軍接受。

We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, ie between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8.我們可以傳遞,然後考慮如何案件看台之間的長期和短期內結束,即接受十六之間, 9月20日,作為一個真正的部分原始福音,或使原有的16月底, 8 。 In favour of the short ending Eusebius ("Quaest. ad Marin.") is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt. xxviii, 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Christ's Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel.有利於短期內結束優西比烏( “ Quaest 。廣告馬林。 ” )是呼籲說,一個代言人可能擺脫任何困難所引起的比較馬特。二十八, 1 ,與馬克,十六, 9日,在關於到小時的基督的復活,指出,通過在馬克開始詩句9不包含在所有的手稿的福音。 The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing". But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339). St. Jerome also says in one place ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin. Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20, we have mentioned all the evidence that can be adduced in favour of the short conclusion. The external evidence in favour of the long, or ordinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong. The passage stands in all the great unicals except B and Aleph--in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M, (N), S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma), Omega, Beth--in all the cursives, in all the Latin manuscripts (OL and Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and most manuscripts of the Armenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the "Acts of Pilate", the "Apostolic Constitutions", and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark's Gospel ("In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus", etc.--Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the "Diatessaron", and most probably by Justin ("Apol. I", 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.歷史學家接著他說,在幾乎所有的手稿的標誌,至少,在準確的( schedon恩apasi tois antigraphois 。 。 。鉭goun akribe ,福音結束十六, 8 。這是事實,優西比烏給出了第二次答辯的辯護士可能,並假設的真實性有爭議的通道,他說,這可能是後者的答复提出一個“誰也不敢預留任何的一切,發現以任何方式福音的寫作。 “但是,整個通道清楚地表明,到優西比烏傾向於拒絕一切後,本篤十六世, 8 。這是普遍的,也說,他並不適用於他的大砲爭議詩句,從而清楚地顯示,他不認為它們作為一個部分的原始文本(見,但是, Scriv 。 “ Introd 。 ”二, 1894年, 339 ) 。聖杰羅姆還表示,在一個地方( “廣告。 Hedib 。 ” ) ,即是希望通過在幾乎所有希臘手稿(綜合Græciæ藏書poene罰款特設頭在非habentibus ) ,但他在其他地方引號( “評論。對馬特。 ” , “廣告Hedib 。 ” ) ,和我們知道,他把它的拉丁文聖經。很顯然,整個通道,在那裡傑爾姆使聲明對有爭議的詩句缺席希臘手稿,是借來的幾乎逐字由優西比烏,它可能會懷疑是否真的增加了他的發言的任何獨立重量的聲明優西比烏。看來,最有可能還維克多的安提阿,第一評論員第二福音,認為十六, 8日,作為結論。如果我們加上福音十六結束, 8日,在希臘這兩個最古老的手稿,乙和阿萊夫,在黃大仙。敘利亞和幾個埃塞俄比亞手稿,以及22行草手稿和一些亞美尼亞手稿表明懷疑是否真正結束是在詩詩8或20 ,我們已提到的所有證據,可以提出有利於短期內結束。外部證據,有利於長期,或普通,結論是非常強勁。看台的通道在所有偉大的unicals除B和阿萊夫-中, C類, ( d )項中,英,男,則質子,男, (北) ,硫, ü ,五,十,伽瑪,德爾塔航空公司, (皮,六西格瑪) ,歐米茄,貝絲-在所有的cursives ,在所有的拉丁手稿(其他職等和Vulg 。 )除鉀,在所有版本的敘利亞除外Sinaitic (在Pesh 。 ,刮匙。 , Harcl 。 , Palest 。 ) ,在埃及,哥特式,大部分手稿亞美尼亞。這是引用或提到的,在四世紀,由Aphraates ,敘利亞表的規例,馬卡里烏斯馬格內斯, Didymus ,敘利亞使徒行傳, Leontius ,偽Ephraem ,西里爾耶路撒冷,埃皮法尼烏斯,劉漢銓,奧古斯丁和金口;在第三個世紀,由西波呂, Vincentius ,該行為“彼拉多”的“使徒憲法” ,並可能由塞爾蘇斯;在第二, Irenæus最明確的結束馬克福音( “精細autem evangelii阿伊特馬庫斯等quidem主耶穌Dominus Jesus ”等-馬克十六, 19 ) ,由塔蒂安在“ Diatessaron ” ,並極有可能由賈斯汀( “ Apol 。一” , 45歲)和赫馬(牧師,九,二十五, 2 ) 。此外,在第四世紀肯定,並可能在第三,通過採用禮儀希臘教會,充分的證據表明,毫無疑問,無論是娛樂作為其真實性。因此,如果通過的真實性要判斷僅通過外部證據,有可能很難有任何疑問的。

Much has been made of the silence of some third and fourth century Father, their silence being interpreted to mean that they either did not know the passage or rejected it.已經取得了很大的沉默,一些第三和第四世紀父,他們的沉默被解釋為意味著他們或者不知道通過或否決。 Thus Tertullian, SS.因此,特土良,黨衛軍。 Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria are appealed to.塞浦路斯,亞他那修,羅勒大,格雷戈里的高利,和西里爾亞歷山大的呼籲。 In the case of Tertullian and Cyprian there is room for some doubt, as they might naturally enough to be expected to have quoted or alluded to Mark, xvi, 16, if they received it; but the passage can hardly have been unknown to Athanasius (298-373), since it was received by Didymus (309-394), his contemporary in Alexandria (PG, XXXIX, 687), nor to Basil, seeing it was received by his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (PG, XLVI, 652), nor to Gregory of Nazianzus, since it was known to his younger brother Cæsarius (PG, XXXVIII, 1178); and as to Cyril of Alexandria, he actually quotes it from Nestorius (PG, LXXVI, 85).如德爾圖良和塞浦路斯有餘地一些疑問,因為它們可能自然足以預計引用或提到馬克,十六, 16歲,如果他們得到它,但很難通過已不知阿坦那修斯( 298-373 ) ,因為它受到Didymus ( 309-394 ) ,他在亞歷山大當代公司( PG ,三十九, 687 ) ,也不是要羅勒,看到它受到弟弟格雷戈里的藍公司( PG ,四十六, 652 ) ,也不是格雷戈里的高利,因為它是眾所周知的弟弟凱撒公司( PG ,三十八, 1178年) ;和以西里爾的亞歷山大,他實際報價從涅斯多留公司( PG , LXXVI , 85 ) 。 The only serious difficulties are created by its omission in B and Aleph and by the statements of Eusebius and Jerome.唯一的嚴重困難,也造成了其遺漏, B和阿萊夫和報表的優西比烏和杰羅姆。 But Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1 sqq.) that the two famous manuscripts are not here two independent witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands. Moreover, in both manuscripts, the scribe, though concluding with verse 8, betrays knowledge that something more followed either in his archetype or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary to his custom, he leaves more than a column vacant after verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed by an elaborate arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the whole manuscript, showing that the scribe was aware of the existence of some conclusion which he meant deliberately to exclude (cf. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99; Salmon, "Introd.", 144-48).但是,提申多夫證明演示( Proleg. ,第XX條, 1 sqq 。 )這兩個著名的手稿在這裡不是兩個獨立的證人,因為抄寫的B複製葉阿萊夫就站在我們的通道。此外,在這兩個手稿的編劇,但結論與詩8 ,暴露知識,更多的東西之後無論是在他的原型或其他手稿,為在B相反,他的習慣,在他離開超過一欄空缺後詩8 ,並在阿萊夫詩8其次是精心arabesque ,如是見了無處整個手稿顯示,抄寫意識到存在一些結論意味著他蓄意排除(參見Cornely , “ Introd 。 ” ,三, 96 -99 ;鮭魚, “ Introd 。 ” 144-48 ) 。 Thus both manuscripts bear witness to the existence of a conclusion following after verse 8, which they omit.因此這兩個手稿見證存在一個結論下列詩句8後,他們省略。 Whether B and Aleph are two of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to have copies for his new capital we cannot be sure; but at all events they were written at a time when the authority of Eusebius was paramount in Biblical criticism, and probably their authority is but the authority of Eusebius.無論是B和阿萊夫是兩個50手稿的君士坦丁委託優西比烏有副本的新的資本,我們不能確定,但在所有這些活動的書面時,優西比烏的權威是至高無上的聖經批評,也許他們的權力是權威的,但優西比烏。 The real difficulty, therefore, against the passage, from external evidence, is reduced to what Eusebius and St. Jerome say about its omission in so many Greek manuscripts, and these, as Eusebius says, the accurate ones.真正的困難,因此,對通道,從外部證據,是減少到什麼優西比烏和聖杰羅姆說其不作為在如此眾多的希臘手稿,而這些,作為優西比烏說,準確的。 But whatever be the explanation of this omission, it must be remembered that, as we have seen above, the disputed verses were widely known and received long before the time of Eusebius.但無論是解釋這一遺漏,必須記住,我們已經看到上述情況,有爭議的詩句是眾所周知的,並收到之前很久的優西比烏的時間。 Dean Burgon, while contending for the genuineness of the verses, suggested that the omission might have come about as follows.迪恩根,而爭的真實性的詩句,建議遺漏可能出現如下。 One of the ancient church lessons ended with Mark, xvi, 8, and Burgon suggested that the telos, which would stand at the end of such lesson, may have misled some scribe who had before him a copy of the Four Gospels in which Mark stood last, and from which the last leaf, containing the disputed verses, was missing.一個古老的教會教訓結束馬克,十六, 8 ,和根建議, telos ,這將結束時,站在這樣的教訓,可能會誤導一些抄誰收到了他的副本,其中四福音馬克站在最後,從其中最後葉,含有有爭議的詩句,是失踪。 Given one such defective copy, and supposing it fell into the hands of ignorant scribes, the error might easily be spread.鑑於這樣一個有缺陷的複製,並假設它落入無知文士,錯誤可能會很容易被傳播。 Others have suggested that the omission is probably to be traced to Alexandria.另一些人認為,不作為可能是要追溯到亞歷山大。 That Church ended the Lenten fast and commenced the celebration of Easter at midnight, contrary to the custom of most Churches, which waited for cock-crow (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria in PG, X, 1272 sq.).該教會的四旬期快結束並開始慶祝復活節午夜,這違背了自定義的大多數教會,其中等待公雞,烏鴉(見狄奧尼修斯亞歷山大指引,第十, 1272平方米) 。 Now Mark, xvi, 9: "But he rising early", etc., might easily be taken to favour the practice of the other Churches, and it is suggested that the Alexandrians may have omitted verse 9 and what follows from their lectionaries, and from these the omission might pass on into manuscripts of the Gospel.現在馬克,十六, 9 : “但是他早日上升”等,可能很容易被帶到贊成票的做法,其他教會,並因此建議Alexandrians可以省略詩句9和從他們lectionaries ,和從這些遺漏可能轉嫁到手稿的福音。 Whether there be any force in these suggestions, they point at any rate to ways in which it was possible that the passage, though genuine, should have been absent from a number of manuscripts in the time of Eusebius; while, on the other and, if the verses were not written by St.是否有任何部隊的這些建議,他們指出,不管怎麼說,以何種方式有可能通過,但真正的,應該已經不存在了一些手稿時代的優西比烏;而另一方面,並如果沒有書面的詩句所街 Mar, it is extremely hard to understand how they could have been so widely received in the second century as to be accepted by Tatian and Irenæus, and probably by Justin and Hermas, and find a place in the Old Latin and Syriac Versions. 3月,這是極其難以了解它們如何能夠被如此廣泛接受的第二個世紀,以接受塔蒂安和Irenæus ,並可能由賈斯汀和書,並尋求在拉丁美洲和敘利亞文舊版本。

When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking.當我們轉向內部證據,數量,更的性質,特點的無疑是驚人的。 The following words or phrases occur nowhere else in the Gospel: prote sabbaton (v. 9), not found again in the New Testament, instead of te[s] mia[s] [ton] sabbaton (v. 2), ekeinos used absolutely (10, 11, 20), poreuomai (10, 12, 15), theaomai (11, 14), apisteo (11, 16), meta tauta and eteros (12), parakoloutheo and en to onomati (17), ho kurios (19, 20), pantachou, sunergeo, bebaioo, epakoloutheo (20).以下字詞或詞組出現在任何其他地方的福音:蛋白sabbaton (五9 ) ,而不是再次發現在新約,而不是特[西]米婭[西] [噸] sabbaton (五2 ) , ekeinos使用絕對( 10 , 11 , 20 ) , poreuomai ( 10 , 12 , 15 ) , theaomai ( 11日, 14日) , apisteo ( 11日, 16日) ,中繼tauta和eteros ( 12 ) , parakoloutheo和EN以onomati ( 17 ) ,何kurios ( 19日, 20日) , pantachou , sunergeo , bebaioo , epakoloutheo ( 20 ) 。 Instead of the usual connexion by kai and an occasional de, we have meta de tauta (12), husteron [de] (14), ho men oun (19), ekeinoi de (20).而不是通常的聯接和偶爾開年,我們已中繼日tauta ( 12 ) , husteron [日] ( 14 ) ,男子何群( 19 ) , ekeinoi日( 20 ) 。 Then it is urged that the subject of verse 9 has not been mentioned immediately before; that Mary Magdalen seems now to be introduced for the first time, though in fact she has been mentioned three times in the preceding sixteen verses; that no reference is made to an appearance of the Lord in Galilee, though this was to be expected in view of the message of verse 7.那麼它就是敦促問題的詩句9沒有提到前夕;這瑪利亞瑪達肋納現在似乎是首次提出,但實際上她已提到的3倍,前16詩句;沒有提到一個外觀主加利利,雖然這是早在意料之中,鑑於信息詩句7 。 Comparatively little importance attached to the last three points, for the subject of verse 9 is sufficiently obvious from the context; the reference to Magdalen as the woman out of whom Christ had cast seven devils is explicable here, as showing the loving mercy of the Lord to one who before had been so wretched; and the mention of an appearance in Galilee was hardly necessary.相對較少的重視過去3點,為主題的詩9顯然是不夠的範圍;的提法馬格德林的女子名,其中基督投7德弗爾斯是在這裡解釋,因為這表明熱愛仁慈的上帝誰在一個已經如此悲慘;和提到的外觀,幾乎在加利利必要。 the important thing being to prove, as this passage does, that Christ was really risen from the dead, and that His Apostles, almost against their wills, were forced to believe the fact.最重要的事情是要證明,因為這一段確實是真的,基督從死者中復活,他的使徒,幾乎對他們的意志,被迫相信這一事實。 But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Marcan origin of the passage is considerable.但是,即使這是說,累積的證據力量對Marcan起源通過相當。 Some explanation indeed can be offered of nearly every point (cf. Knabenbauer, "Comm. in Marc.", 445-47), but it is the fact that in the short space of twelve verse so many points require explanation that constitutes the strength of the evidence.一些解釋實際上可以提供的幾乎每一個點(參見Knabenbauer , “商業。在馬克。 ” 445-47 ) ,但它是一個事實,即在短短的12詩句需要這麼多點的解釋,構成了實力證據。 There is nothing strange about the use, in a passage like this, of many words rare with he author.沒有什麼奇怪的使用,在通過這樣難得的許多話與他的作家。 Only in the last character is apisteo used by St. Luke also (Luke 24:11, 41), eteros is used only once in St. John's Gospel (xix, 37), and parakoloutheo is used only once by St. Luke (i, 3). Besides, in other passages St. Mark uses many words that are not found in the Gospel outside the particular passage.只有在最後一個字符是apisteo使用的聖盧克也(路加福音24:11 , 41 ) , eteros是只能使用一次在聖約翰福音( 19 , 37 ) ,並parakoloutheo是只能使用一次的聖盧克(一, 3 ) 。另外,在其他段落聖馬克採用了很多話,沒有發現以外的福音特別通道。 In the ten verses, Mark, iv, 20-29, the writer has found fourteen words (fifteen, if phanerousthai of xvi, 12, be not Marcan) which occur nowhere else in the Gospel.在10詩句,馬克,四, 20日至29日,筆者發現14字( 15 ,如果phanerousthai的本篤十六世, 12日,是不是Marcan )發生在其他地方的福音。 But, as was said, it is the combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, that leaves room for doubt as to the Marcan authorship of the verses.但是,正如有人說,這是相結合的如此眾多的特點,不僅是詞彙量,但與建設的問題,即餘地懷疑作者的Marcan的詩句。

In weighing the internal evidence, however, account must be take of the improbability of the Evangelist's concluding with verse 8.在權衡內部的證據,但是,必須考慮採取的疑惑的傳播者的結論與詩句8 。 Apart from the unlikelihood of his ending with the participle gar, he could never deliberately close his account of the "good news" (i, 1) with the note of terror ascribed in xvi, 8, to some of Christ's followers.除了不可能與他的結束詞噶爾,他從來沒有蓄意關閉其帳戶的“好消息” (一, 1 )的說明恐怖歸因於十六, 8日,一些基督的追隨者。 Nor could an Evangelist, especially a disciple of St. Peter, willingly conclude his Gospel without mentioning some appearance of the risen Lord (Acts 1:22; 10:37-41).也不能一個福音,尤其是門徒聖彼得,心甘情願地結束他的福音而不提一些外觀復活的主(使徒1時22分; 10:37-41 ) 。 If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more.如果,那麼,馬克與詩8 ,它必須是因為他已經死亡或之前已中斷他可以寫更多。 But tradition points to his living on after the Gospel was completed, since it represents him as bringing the work with him to Egypt or as handing it over to the Roman Christians who had asked for it.但是,傳統的點,他的生活後,完成了福音,因為它代表他的工作使他對埃及或交給了羅馬基督徒誰要求它。 Nor is it easy to understand how, if he lived on, he could have been so interrupted as to be effectually prevented from adding, sooner or later, even a short conclusion.它也不是很容易了解,如果他的生活,他本來可以使中斷得到有效阻止增加,遲早,即使是短期的結論。 Not many minutes would have been needed to write such a passage as xvi, 9-20, and even if it was his desire, as Zahn without reason suggests (Introd., II, 479), to add some considerable portions to the work, it is still inconceivable how he could have either circulated it himself or allowed his friends to circulate it without providing it with at least a temporary and provisional conclusion.沒有多少分鐘本來需要寫這樣一個通道為十六, 9月20日,即使是他的願望,因為沒有理由表明贊恩( Introd. ,二, 479 ) ,增加了相當部分的工作,它仍是不可想像的,他可能已分發給本人或他的朋友們可以散發它沒有向它提供至少是暫時的,臨時的結論。 In every hypothesis, then, xvi, 8, seems an impossible ending, and we are forced to conclude either that the true ending is lost or that we have it in the disputed verses.在每一個假設,那麼, 16日, 8日,似乎是不可能結束,我們不得不得出結論,要么是真正的遺失或結束,我們已經在有爭議的詩句。 Now, it is not easy to see how it could have been lost.現在,它是不容易看到它如何能已丟失。 Zahn affirms that it has never been established nor made probable that even a single complete sentence of the New Testament has disappeared altogether from the text transmitted by the Church (Introd., II, 477).贊恩申明,它沒有建立,也沒有可能,甚至提出一個完整的句子的新約全書已經完全消失的案文轉交的教堂( Introd. ,二, 477頁) 。 In the present case, if the true ending were lost during Mark's lifetime, the question at once occurs: Why did he not replace it?在目前情況下,如果真正結束期間丟失馬克的一生中,這一問題再次發生:他為什麼不能取代它? And it is difficult to understand how it could have been lost after his death, for before then, unless he died within a few days from the completion of the Gospel, it must have been copied, and it is most unlikely that the same verses could have disappeared from several copies.這是很難理解它如何能已經失去了在他死後,為在此之前,除非他死在幾天之內完成從福音,它必須被複製,這是最不可能,同樣的詩句可能已經消失了幾個副本。

It will be seen from this survey of the question that there is no justification for the confident statement of Zahn that "It may be regarded as one of the most certain of critical conclusions, that the words ephobounto gar, xvi, 8, are the last words in the book which were written by the author himself" (Introd., II, 467).這將是從本次調查的問題,沒有任何理由相信聲明贊恩說: “這可被視為一個最重要的某些結論,這幾個字ephobounto噶爾,十六, 8日,是去年話在書中寫的是作者自己“ ( Introd. ,二, 467 ) 。 Whatever be the fact, it is not at all certain that Mark did not write the disputed verses.無論是事實,這是不能確定馬克沒有寫有爭議的詩句。 It may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer, and were appended to the Gospel in the first century or the beginning of the second.這也許是因為他沒有;它們是從筆其他一些作家的啟發,並附加在福音中的第一個世紀的開頭或第二。 An Armenian manuscript, written in AD 986, ascribes them to a presbyter named Ariston, who may be the same with the presbyter Aristion, mentioned by Papias as a contemporary of St. John in Asia. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark.一名亞美尼亞手稿,寫在公元986 ,賦予他們一個牧師名為阿里斯頓,誰可能是同一的發起人Aristion ,提到帕皮亞作為當代聖約翰在亞洲。天主教徒不受舉行的詩句是寫的聖馬克。 But they are canonical Scripture, for the Council of Trent (Sess. IV), in defining that all the parts of the Sacred Books are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one (cf. Theiner, "Acta gen. Conc. Trid.", I, 71 sq.).但它們典型聖經,安理會的遄達( Sess.四) ,在確定的所有部分的聖書是將收到的神聖和規範,尤其是在查看了有爭議的部分福音,而這結束標誌是(參見Theiner , “獸類根。濃。 Trid 。 ” ,我, 71平方米) 。 Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.因此,無論是誰寫的詩句,激勵他們,必須等收到的每一個天主教徒。

V. PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION五,地點和日期的組成

It is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome.可以肯定的是,福音寫在羅馬。 St. Chrysostom indeed speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3), but he probably misunderstood Eusebius, who says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the Gospel which he had written ("Hist. Eccl.", II, xvi).聖金口確實談到了埃及的地點組成( “磡。一對馬特。 ” , 3 ) ,但他可能誤以為優西比烏,誰說,馬克被送往埃及和鼓吹有福音了他的書面( “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ” ,二,十六) 。 Some few modern scholars have adopted the suggestion of Richard Simon ("Hist. crit. du Texte du NT", 1689, 107) that the Evangelist may have published both a Roman and an Egyptian edition of the Gospel.一些現代學者們很少通過的建議,理查德西蒙( “組織胺。臨界。杜文本杜新台幣” , 1689年, 107 )的傳播者可能已經出版了羅馬和埃及版的福音。 But this view is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers.但這種觀點是充分駁斥了沉默的亞歷山大父親。 Other opinions, such as that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor or at Syrian Antioch, are not deserving of any consideration.其他意見,如福音寫在亞洲未成年人或在敘利亞安提阿,不值得任何考慮。

The date of the Gospel is uncertain.日期的福音是不確定的。 The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much.外部證據是不是決定性的,和國內不協助非常。 St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter's death.聖克萊門特的亞歷山德里亞,俄利根,優西比烏,德爾圖良和聖杰羅姆表明,這是寫在聖彼得死亡。 The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (AD 38-40).認購許多後來unical和草書手稿國家,這是寫在第十屆或12年後,阿森松島(公元38-40 ) 。 The "Paschal Chronicle" assigns it to AD 40, and the "Chronicle" of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (AD 43).在“復活節紀事”分配到公元40 ,而“紀事”的優西比烏的第三年克勞迪烏斯(公元43 ) 。 Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, AD 42 (cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", II, xiv; Jer., "De Vir. Ill.", i).可能是這些早期日期可能只是扣除的傳統,彼得來到羅馬的第二年克勞迪烏斯,公元42 (參見Euseb 。 “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ”二,第十四條;哲。 “者病毒。伊利諾伊州“ ,一) 。 St. Irenæus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon--"Adv. Hær.", III, i).聖Irenæus ,另一方面,似乎發生的組成福音去世後彼得和保羅(元日10杜頓exodon - “病毒。 Hær 。 ” ,三,一) 。 Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter's discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead.帕皮亞也聲稱馬克寫道根據他的回憶彼得論述,已採取意味著彼得已經死了。 This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome.然而,這並不一定遵循的話,帕皮亞,為彼得可能已經離開羅馬。 Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work.此外,克萊門特的亞歷山德里亞(優西比烏, “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ” ,六,十四)似乎說,彼得還活著,並在羅馬的時候馬克寫道,儘管他的傳播者沒有幫助他的工作。 There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenæus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenæus and accept the later date for Mark's Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint's testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew's Gospel to Mark's.有左,因此,證詞街Irenæus對所有其他早期證人;這是一個有趣的事實,即大多數當今的理性主義和新教的學者更願意遵循Irenæus並接受日後的馬克福音,但他們幾乎一致反對的聖的證詞,因為在同樣的背景和支持的所有文物,有利於優先的馬太福音馬克。 Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenæus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, eg Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 76-78; Patrizi, "De Evang.", I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct.各種嘗試已作出解釋通行Irenæus ,使他與其他早期當局(見,例如Cornely , “ Introd 。 ” ,三, 76-78 ;柏德, “德Evang 。 ”我, 38 ) ,但本作家,他們似乎不成功如果現有案文必須被視為是正確的。 It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenæus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter's death (AD 64 or 67).這似乎更合理,但是,相信Irenæus是錯誤比所有其他當局的錯誤,因此,外部的證據將表明,馬克彼得前寫的死亡(公元64或67 ) 。

From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before AD 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place.從內部證據,我們可以得出結論,福音是在公元70寫,因為沒有針對破壞耶路撒冷的聖殿,如可能自然會預期鑑於預測十三, 2 ,如果這一事件已發生。 On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (AD 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts, xiv, 26; xv, 3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale.另一方面,如果本篤十六世, 20 : “但是,他們會提出鼓吹無處不在” ,是從聖馬克筆,福音不能很好已書面結束前第一使徒聖保羅之旅(公元49或50 ) ,因為它是從行為,十四, 26 ;十五, 3 ,只有當時的轉換外邦人開始大規模。 Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (AD 50-51).當然是可能的,以前這個使徒了深遠和廣泛宣揚的分散的猶太人,但是,從總體上看,它似乎更可能是最後詩的福音,發生在一個工作為歐洲讀者,不能有寫前聖保祿抵達歐洲(公元50-51 ) 。 Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between AD 50 and 67.考慮外部和內部證據共同努力,我們可以得出這樣的結論的日期可能是福音之間公元50和67 。

VI.六。 DESTINATION AND PURPOSE目的地和目的

Tradition represents the Gospel as written primarily for Roman Christians (see above, II), and internal evidence, if it does not quite prove the truth of this view, is altogether in accord with it.傳統的代表的書面福音主要用於羅馬基督教徒(見上文,二) ,和內部的證據,如果沒有相當的真相證明這種觀點,是完全符合它。 The language and customs of the Jews are supposed to be unknown to at least some of the readers.語言和習俗的猶太人都應該是不知道的至少有一些讀者。 Hence terms like Boanerges (iii, 17), korban (vii, 11), ephphatha (vii, 34) are interpreted; Jewish customs are explained to illustrate the narrative (vii, 3-4; xiv, 12); the situation of the Mount of Olives in relation to the Temple is pointed out (xiii, 3); the genealogy of Christ is omitted; and the Old Testament is quoted only once (i, 2-3; xv, 28, is omitted by B, Aleph, A, C, D, X).因此諸如Boanerges (三17 ) , korban (第七章, 11人) , ephphatha (第七章, 34條)的解釋;猶太海關的解釋,說明的說明(七, 3月4日; 14 , 12 ) ;的情況橄欖山與寺是指出(十三, 3 ) ;的家譜基督省略;和舊約引述只有一次(一, 2月3日;十五, 28歲,被忽略的B ,阿萊夫,甲,丙,丁,十) 。 Moreover, the evidence, as far as it goes, points to Roman readers.此外,證據,盡可能不用,點,羅馬讀者。 Pilate and his office are supposed to be known (15:1--cf. Matthew 27:2; Luke 3:1); other coins are reduced to their value in Roman money (xii, 42); Simon of Cyrene is said to be the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21), a fact of no importance in itself, but mentioned probably because Rufus was known to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:13); finally, Latinisms, or uses of vulgar Greek, such as must have been particularly common in a cosmopolitan city like Rome, occur more frequently than in the other Gospels (v, 9, 15; vi, 37; xv, 39, 44; etc.).彼拉多和他的辦公室被認為是已知的( 15:1 -比照。馬修27:2 ;路加福音3:1 ) ;其他硬幣減少到它們的價值在羅馬錢( 12 , 42 ) ;西蒙的昔蘭尼據說的父親亞歷山大和魯弗斯( 15 , 21 ) ,這個事實的本身並不重要,但可能是因為提到魯夫斯被稱為羅馬基督教徒(羅馬書十六點13分) ;最後, Latinisms ,或利用庸俗希臘,例如作為必須是特別常見的一個國際大都會一樣,羅馬更頻繁地發生比其他福音(五, 9日, 15日;六, 37 ;十五, 39 , 44 ;等等) 。

The Second Gospel has no such statement of its purpose as is found in the Third and Fourth (Luke 1:1-3; John 20:31).第二個福音沒有這種聲明的目的是發現在第三和第四(路加福音1:1-3 ;約翰20:31 ) 。 The Tübingen critics long regarded it as a "Tendency" writing, composed for the purpose of mediating between and reconciling the Petrine and Pauline parties in the early Church.長期的蒂賓根大學的批評看作是一種“趨勢”書面組成,目的是調解和調和伯多祿和保各方在早期教會的使命。 Other Rationalists have seen in it an attempt to allay the disappointment of Christians at the delay of Christ's Coming, and have held that its object was to set forth the Lord's earthly life in such a manner as to show that apart from His glorious return He had sufficiently attested the Messianic character of His mission.其他理性主義已經看到在它試圖消除失望的基督教徒的拖延基督的未來,並認為其目的是闡明上帝的俗世生活的方式表明,除了他光榮返回他充分證明了彌賽亞性質他的使命。 But there is no need to have recourse to Rationalists to learn the purpose of the Gospel.但沒有必要訴諸理性主義學習的目的是福音。 The Fathers witness that it was written to put into permanent form for the Roman Church the discourses of St. Peter, nor is there reason to doubt this.證人的父親,這是書面付諸永久形式的羅馬教會的聖彼得的論述,也沒有理由懷疑這一點。 And the Gospel itself shows clearly enough that Mark meant, by the selection he made from Peter's discourses, to prove to the Roman Christians, and still more perhaps to those who might think of becoming Christians, that Jesus was the Almighty Son of God.和福音本身清楚地表明,到標誌的意思,他的選擇從彼得的論述,證明羅馬基督徒,更或許是對那些可能會認為誰成為基督信徒,耶穌是萬能的神的兒子。 To this end, instead of quoting prophecy, as Matthew does to prove that Jesus was the Messias, he sets forth in graphic language Christ's power over all nature, as evidenced by His miracles.為此目的,而不是引用的預言,正如Matthew並不證明耶穌是弭賽亞,他闡述了在圖形語言基督的權力,所有的性質,證明了他的奇蹟。 The dominant note of the whole Gospel is sounded in the very first verse: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (the words "Son of God" are removed from the text by Westcott and Hort, but quite improperly--cf. Knabenb., "Comm. in Marc.", 23), and the Evangelist's main purpose throughout seems to be to prove the truth of this title and of the centurion's verdict: "Indeed this man was (the) son of God" (xv, 39).主導注意到整個福音響起的第一詩句: “一開始的福音耶穌基督,上帝之子” (改為“上帝之子”是從文字和園藝Westcott ,但非常不當-比照。 Knabenb 。 “商業。在馬克。 ” , 23 ) ,和傳播者的主要目的似乎是整個證明的真理此標題和百夫長的判決: “實際上這個人是(的)的兒子上帝“ ( 15 , 39 ) 。

VII.七。 RELATION TO MATTHEW AND LUKE關係馬修和LUKE

The three Synoptic Gospels cover to a large extent the same ground.這三個天氣福音覆蓋在很大程度上同地面。 Mark, however, has nothing corresponding to the first two chapters of Matthew or the first two of Luke, very little to represent most of the long discourses of Christ in Matthew, and perhaps nothing quite parallel to the long section in Luke, ix, 51-xviii, 14.馬克,但是,沒有任何相應的頭兩章的馬修或前兩路,很少代表大多數長期論述基督在馬太,也許沒有完全平行的長的路段,在路,九, 51 - 18 , 14 。 On the other hand, he has very little that is not found in either or both of the other two Synoptists, the amount of matter that is peculiar to the Second Gospel, if it were all put together, amounting only to less than sixty verses.另一方面,他已經很少沒有發現一方或雙方的其他兩個Synoptists的數額問題,是特有的第二福音,如果都集中在一起,總額只有不到六十詩句。 In the arrangement of the common matter the three Gospels differ very considerably up to the point where Herod Antipas is said to have heard of the fame of Jesus (Matthew 13:58; Mark 4:13; Luke 9:6).在安排的共同問題的三個福音差異很大最多的地方是希律安提帕表示從未聽過的名聲耶穌(馬太13:58 ;馬克4時13分;路加福音9:6 ) 。 From this point onward the order of events is practically the same in all three, except that Matthew (xxvi, 10) seems to say that Jesus cleansed the Temple the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and cursed the fig tree only on the following day, while Mark assigns both events to the following day, and places the cursing of the fig tree before the cleansing of the Temple; and while Matthew seems to say that the effect of the curse and the astonishment of the disciples thereat followed immediately.從這一點起,秩序的事件,實際上是同在所有三個,但馬修( 26 , 10 )似乎說,耶穌潔淨聖殿的一天,他凱旋進入耶路撒冷和詛咒的無花果樹只能在第二天,而馬克分配這兩項活動的第二天,和地方的詛咒的無花果樹前清洗聖殿;而馬修似乎說的影響,詛咒和驚訝的弟子該處緊隨其後。 Mark says that it was only on the following day the disciples saw that the tree was withered from the roots (Matthew 21:12-20; Mark 11:11-21).馬克說,這只是於翌日門徒看到,樹枯根(馬太21:12-20 ;馬克11:11-21 ) 。 It is often said, too, that Luke departs from Mark's arrangement in placing the disclosure of the traitor after the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, but it, as seems certain, the traitor was referred to many times during the Supper, this difference may be more apparent than real (Mark 14:18-24; Luke 22:19-23).人們經常說,也說,盧克背離馬克的安排,將披露叛徒後機構的祝福聖餐,但它,因為似乎可以肯定,叛徒被稱為多次在晚餐,這種差異可能是更為明顯多於實際(馬可福音14:18-24 ;路加福音22:19-23 ) 。 And not only is there this considerable agreement as to subject-matter and arrangement, but in many passages, some of considerable length, there is such coincidence of words and phrases that it is impossible to believe the accounts to be wholly independent.並不僅是有此協議,以相當大的主題事項和安排,但在許多段落,其中一些相當長,有這樣的巧合的單詞和短語,這是不可能相信的賬目是完全獨立的。 On the other hand, side by side with this coincidence, there is strange and frequently recurring divergence. "Let any passage common to the three Synoptists be put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows: first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause or two not only wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth; with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions.另一方面,並肩與此巧合的是,有奇怪的是,經常反复出現的分歧。 “讓我們共同的任何通行的三個Synoptists受到考驗。現象提出將大大如下:第一,也許,我們應有三年,五年,或更多的字相同;然後許多完全不同的;然後兩個或以上的條款中所表達的同樣的話,但不同的秩序;然後一個條款,載於一個或兩個,而不是在第三;然後幾個關鍵詞相同的,然後有一個從句或兩個不僅完全不同,但顯然不一致,等等;與復發相同的任意和不正常的改建,巧合,和transpositions 。

The question then arises, how are we to explain this very remarkable relation of the three Gospels to each other, and, in particular, for our present purpose, how are we to explain the relation of Mark of the other two?接下來的問題時,我們如何解釋這種關係非常顯著的三個福音對方,尤其是,我們目前為此,我們如何解釋的關係,馬克與其他兩名? For a full discussion of this most important literary problem see SYNOPTICS.充分討論這一問題最重要的文學見SYNOPTICS 。 It can barely be touched here, but cannot be wholly passed over in silence.它可以在這裡幾乎沒有接觸,但不能完全通過保持沉默。 At the outset may be put aside, in the writer's opinion, the theory of the common dependence of the three Gospels upon oral tradition, for, except in a very modified form, it is incapable by itself alone of explaining all the phenomena to be accounted for.首先可以擱置,在作者的見解,理論的共同依賴三個福音經口頭傳統,因為除了極修改形式,它本身是不能單獨解釋所有的現象是佔為了。 It seems impossible that an oral tradition could account for the extraordinary similarity between, eg Mark, ii, 10-11, and its parallels. Literary dependence or connexion of some kind must be admitted, and the questions is, what is the nature of that dependence or connexion?這似乎是不可能,口頭傳統,可佔的非常相似,如馬克,二, 10月11日,其相似之處。文學依賴或聯接某種必須承認,和問題,是什麼性質的依賴或聯接? Does Mark depend upon Matthew, or upon both Matthew and Luke, or was it prior to and utilized in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected through their common dependence upon earlier documents or through a combination of some of these causes?是否馬克取決於馬修,或對雙方馬修和盧克,或者是它之前和利用兩個或三個,也許連他們共同的依賴較早文件或通過結合一些原因? In reply, it is to be noted, in the first place, that all early tradition represents St. Matthew's Gospel as the first written; and this must be understood of our present Matthew, for Eusebius, with the work of Papias before him, had no doubt whatever that it was our present Matthew which Papias held to have been written in Hebrew (Aramaic).在回答時要指出的是,擺在首位,所有早期的傳統代表聖馬太福音第一書面;這必須理解我們目前的馬修,為優西比烏,與工作帕皮亞在他面前,已經毫無疑問,這是我們目前的馬修這帕皮亞舉行已書面希伯來文(阿拉姆) 。 The order of the Gospels, according to the Fathers and early writers who refer to the subject, was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.秩序的福音,根據父親和早期作家誰提到這個問題,是馬太,馬克,路加,約翰。 Clement of Alexandria is alone in signifying that Luke wrote before Mark (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", VI, xiv, in PG, XX, 552), and not a single ancient writer held that Mark wrote before Matthew.克萊門特亞歷山大是單獨這意味著盧克前寫馬克(優西比烏, “組織胺。 Eccl 。 ” ,六,十四,在前列腺素,第XX號, 552 ) ,而不是一個單一的古代作家認為,馬克前寫馬修。 St. Augustine, assuming the priority of Matthew, attempted to account for the relations of the first two Gospels by holding that the second is a compendium of the first (Matthæum secutus tanquam pedisequus et breviator--"De Consens. Evang.", I, ii).聖奧古斯丁,假設馬修的優先權,試圖帳戶關係的頭兩個福音舉行,第二次是第一次彙編( Matthæum secutus tanquam pedisequus等breviator - “者Consens 。 Evang 。 ”時,我,二) 。 But, as soon as the serious study of the Synoptic Problem began, it was seen that this view could not explain the facts, and it was abandoned.但是,只要認真研究問題的天氣開始,它被認為這種看法無法解釋的事實,它被遺棄。 The dependence of Mark's Gospel upon Matthew's however, though not after the manner of a compendium, is still strenuously advocated.依賴馬克福音時馬修然而,雖然不是在編的方式,仍然竭力主張。 Zahn holds that the Second Gospel is dependent on the Aramaic Matthew as well as upon Peter's discourses for its matter, and, to some extent, for its order; and that the Greek Matthew is in turn dependent upon Mark for its phraseology.贊恩認為第二福音依賴於阿拉姆馬修以及各國彼得論述的問題,在某種程度上,其秩序;和希臘馬修又取決於馬克的用語。 So, too, Besler ("Einleitung in das NT", 1889) and Bonaccorsi ("I tre primi Vangeli", 1904).同樣, Besler ( “導論中存在新台幣” , 1889年)和Bonaccorsi ( “我愛primi Vangeli ” , 1904年) 。 It will be seen at once that this view is in accordance with tradition in regard to the priority of Matthew, and it also explains the similarities in the first two Gospels.可以看出,這一次的觀點是按照傳統的關於優先權的馬修,並且也解釋了相似的頭兩個福音。 Its chief weakness seems to the present writer to lie in its inability to explain some of Mark's omissions.其主要弱點似乎本作家在於它無法解釋的一些馬克的遺漏。 It is very hard to see, for instance, why, if St. Mark had the First Gospel before him, he omitted all reference to the cure of the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13).很難見,例如,為什麼,如果聖馬克的第一福音在他面前,他沒有提到的所有治療百夫長的僕人(馬太8:5-13 ) 。 This miracle, by reason of its relation to a Roman officer, ought to have had very special interest for Roman readers, and it is extremely difficult to account for its omission by St. Mark, if he had St. Matthew's Gospel before him.這個奇蹟,由於其與羅馬幹事,應該有非常特殊的興趣羅馬讀者,這是非常困難的帳戶其不作為的聖馬克,如果他聖馬太福音在他面前。 Again, St. Matthew relates that when, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had come to the disciples, walking on water, those who were in the boat "came and adored him, saying: Indeed Thou art [the] Son of God" (Matthew 14:33).同樣,聖馬太涉及時,餵養後的5000 ,已經到了耶穌的門徒,散步的水,是誰在這條船“來崇拜他,他說:實際上你是[在]兒子上帝“ (馬太14:33 ) 。 Now, Mark's report of the incident is: "And he went up to them into the ship, and the wind ceased; and they were exceedingly amazed within themselves: for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was blinded" (Mark 6:51-52).現在,馬克的報告的事件是: “和他走到他們融入船舶,風停止,並且他們在自己非常驚訝:因為他們不理解的麵包,但他們的心被蒙蔽” (馬克6 :51 - 52 ) 。 Thus Mark makes no reference to the adoration, nor to the striking confession of the disciples that Jesus was [the] Son of God.因此,馬克沒有提到的崇拜,也不是要突出招供的門徒,耶穌是[在]上帝之子。 How can we account for this, if he had Matthew's report before him? Once more, Matthew relates that, on the occasion of Peter's confession of Christ near Cæsarea Philippi, Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).我們如何能夠考慮到這一點,如果他馬修的報告在他面前?再次馬修涉及,值此彼得的懺悔基督附近撒利亞腓立比,彼得說: “你是基督,兒子的活著的上帝” (馬太16:16 ) 。 But Mark's report of this magnificent confession is merely: "Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ" (Mark 8:29).但是馬克的報告這一宏偉的供詞只不過是: “彼得回答對他說:你是基督” (馬克8時29分) 。 It appears impossible to account for the omission here of the words: "the Son of the living God", words which make the special glory of this confession, if Mark made use of the First Gospel.看來不可能帳戶遺漏這裡的話: “兒子的活著的上帝”的話,使這個特殊的榮耀招供,如果馬克利用第一福音。 It would seem, therefore, that the view which makes the Second Gospel dependent upon the First is not satisfactory. The prevailing view at the present among Protestant scholars and not a few Catholics, in America and England as well as in Germany, is that St. Mark's Gospel is prior to St. Matthew's, and used in it as well as in St. Luke's.似乎因此,認為這使得第二個福音取決於首先是不能令人滿意的。普遍的看法目前新教學者之間,而不是少數的天主教徒,在美國和英國,以及在德國,是聖。馬克福音是前聖馬太,並使用它,以及在聖盧克。 Thus Gigot writes: "The Gospel according to Mark was written first and utilized by the other two Synoptics" ("The New York Review", Sept.-Dec., 1907).因此吉戈特寫道: “在馬可福音寫第一次和利用其他兩個Synoptics ” (下稱“紐約書評” , 9月, 12月, 1907年) 。 So too Bacon, Yale Divinity School: "It appears that the narrative material of Matthew is simply that of Mark transferred to form a framework for the masses of discourse" .也培根,耶魯大學神學院: “看來,說明材料的馬修很簡單,即馬克轉移,形成了一個框架,為群眾的話語” 。 . . "We find here positive proof of dependence by our Matthew on our Mark" (Introd. to the NT, 1905, 186-89). “我們在這裡找到積極的證明依賴我們的馬修在我們的馬克” ( Introd.向NT , 1905 , 186-89 ) 。 Allen, art.阿倫,藝術。 "Matthew" in "The International Critical Commentary", speaks of the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels as "the one solid result of literary criticism"; and Burkitt in "The Gospel History" (1907), 37, writes: "We are bound to conclude that Mark contains the whole of a document which Matthew and Luke have independently used, and, further, that Mark contains very little else beside. This conclusion is extremely important; it is the one solid contribution made by the scholarship of the nineteenth century towards the solution of the Synoptic Problem". “馬修”的“國際評論文章” ,講的優先第二其他兩個天氣福音作為“一個堅實的結果,文學批評” ;和伯基特在“福音史” ( 1907年) , 37 ,寫入: “我們一定會得出這樣的結論:馬克包含整個文件的馬修和盧克有獨立使用,並進一步標誌著包含很少別人旁邊。這個結論是極其重要的,它是一個堅實的所作的貢獻獎學金在十九世紀對解決天氣問題“ 。 See also Hawkins, "Horæ Synopt."又見霍金斯, “ Horæ Synopt 。 ” (1899), 122; Salmond in Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", III, 261; Plummer, "Gospel of Matthew" (1909), p. ( 1899 ) , 122 ;薩蒙德在你。 “快譯通。聖經” ,三, 261 ;盧默, “馬太福音” ( 1909年) ,第 xi; Stanton, "The Gospels as Historical Documents" (1909), 30-37; Jackson, "Cambridge Biblical Essays" (1909), 455.十一;斯坦頓說: “福音書作為歷史文獻” ( 1909年) , 30-37 ;傑克遜, “劍橋聖經散文” ( 1909年) , 455 。

Yet, notwithstanding the wide acceptance this theory has gained, it may be doubted whether it can enable us to explain all the phenomena of the first two, Gospels; Orr, "The Resurrection of Jesus" (1908), 61-72, does not think it can, nor does Zahn (Introd., II, 601-17), some of whose arguments against it have not yet been grappled with.然而,儘管廣泛接受這一理論已經獲得,可能是懷疑它是否能夠使我們能夠解釋所有現象的頭兩個,福音;奧爾說: “耶穌復活” ( 1908年) , 61-72 ,不認為它可以,也沒有贊恩( Introd. ,二, 601-17 ) ,他們的一些論點,反對它尚未應付。 It offers indeed a ready explanation of the similarities in language between the two Gospels, but so does Zahn's theory of the dependence of the Greek Matthew upon Mark.它提供了確實是一個隨時準備解釋相似的語言兩國之間的福音,但並不贊恩理論的依賴希臘馬修經馬克。 It helps also to explain the order of the two Gospels, and to account for certain omissions in Matthew (cf. especially Allen, op. cit., pp. xxxi-xxxiv).這也有助於解釋這兩條的順序福音,並考慮到某些疏漏馬修(參見尤其是阿倫,同前。前。頁。三十一,三十四) 。 But it leaves many differences unexplained.但它使許多不明原因的分歧。 Why, for instance, should Matthew, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, omit reference to the singular fact recorded by Mark that Christ in the desert was with the wild beasts (Mark 1:13)?為什麼,例如,應馬修,如果他馬克的福音在他面前,省略參考奇異的事實記錄的馬克基督在沙漠中是與野獸(馬克1:13 ) ? Why should he omit (Matthew 4:17) from Mark's summary of Christ's first preaching, "Repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15), the very important words "Believe in the Gospel", which were so appropriate to the occasion?他為什麼要省略(馬太四點17分)由馬克的總結基督的第一次講道, “悔改並相信福音” (馬克1:15 ) ,非常重要的話“相信福音” ,這是不太恰當的紀念? Why should he (iv, 21) omit oligon and tautologically add "two brothers" to Mark, i, 19, or fail (iv, 22) to mention "the hired servants" with whom the sons of Zebedee left their father in the boat (Mark 1:20), especially since, as Zahn remarks, the mention would have helped to save their desertion of their father from the appearance of being unfilial.為什麼要他(四21 )省略oligon和tautologically加上“兩兄弟”馬克,我, 19歲或失敗(四, 22 )提到“在聘用人員”與他們的兒子號Zebedee離開他們的父親在船(馬克1:20 ) ,尤其是因為,作為贊恩講話中,提到將有助於保存其遺棄他們的父親從外觀的不孝。 Why, again, should he omit viii, 28-34, the curious fact that though the Gadarene demoniac after his cure wished to follow in the company of Jesus, he was not permitted, but told to go home and announce to his friends what great things the Lord had done for him (Mark 5:18-19).為什麼同樣,如果他省略八, 28-34 ,好奇的事實,但Gadarene飄移治愈後,他想按照該公司的耶穌,他是不允許的,但告知可以回家,並宣布他是偉大的朋友上帝的事情做了,他(馬克5:18-19 ) 。 How is it that Matthew has no reference to the widow's mite and Christ's touching comment thereon (Mark 12:41-44) nor to the number of the swine (Matthew 8:3-34; Mark 5:13), nor to the disagreement of the witnesses who appeared against Christ?是如何認為馬修沒有提及寡婦的蟎蟲和基督的動人評論(馬克12:41-44 ) ,也不給一些豬(馬太8:3-34 ;馬克5點13 ) ,也不是分歧證人似乎誰反對基督? (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:56, 59). (馬太26:60 ;馬克14:56 , 59 ) 。

It is surely strange too, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, that he should seem to represent so differently the time of the women's visit to the tomb, the situation of the angel that appeared to them and the purpose for which they came (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-6).這無疑是太奇怪,如果他馬克的福音在他面前,他應該代表似乎如此不同的時候,婦女的訪問墓,這種情況的天使,看來他們的目的,他們來到(馬太28:1-6 ;馬克16:1-6 ) 。 Again, even when we admit that Matthew is grouping in chapters viii-ix, it is hard to see any satisfactory reason why, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, he should so deal with the Marcan account of Christ's earliest recorded miracles as not only to omit the first altogether, but to make the third and second with Mark respectively the first and third with himself (Matthew 8:1-15; Mark 1:23-31; 40-45).同樣,即使我們承認,馬修是分組章第八至第九,這是很難看出任何令人滿意的原因,如果他馬克的福音在他面前,他應該這樣處理Marcan到基督的最早記錄的奇蹟不僅省略第一次完全,但使第三名和第二名分別與馬克的第一和第三,他(馬太8:1-15 ;馬克1:23-31 ; 40-45 ) 。 Allen indeed.阿倫確實。 (op. cit., p. xv-xvi) attempts an explanation of this strange omission and inversion in the eighth chapter of Matthew, but it is not convincing. (同前。山口十五,十六)試圖解釋這一奇怪的疏漏和反轉在第八章的馬修,但它是不能令人信服的。 For other difficulties see Zahn, "Introd.", II, 616-617.對於其他方面的困難見贊恩, “簡介” 。 ,二, 616-617 。 On the whole, then, it appears premature to regard this theory of the priority of Mark as finally established, especially when we bear in mind that it is opposed to all the early evidence of the priority of Matthew.總體上,然後,似乎為時尚早,這一理論方面的優先順序標示為最終建立,特別是當我們銘記,它是反對一切的早期證據優先的馬修。 The question is still sub judice, and notwithstanding the immense labour bestowed upon it, further patient inquiry is needed.這個問題仍然是待審,儘管巨大的勞動力賦予它進一步病人調查是必要的。

It may possibly be that the solution of the peculiar relations between Matthew and Mark is to be found neither in the dependence of both upon oral tradition nor in the dependence of either upon the other, but in the use by one or both of previous documents.這可能是解決辦法的特殊關係馬修和馬克是要找到既不依賴都呼籲口頭傳統,也不依賴任何的其他,但在使用的一個或兩個以前的文件。 If we may suppose, and Luke, i, 1, gives ground for the supposition, that Matthew had access to a document written probably in Aramaic, embodying the Petrine tradition, he may have combined with it one or more other documents, containing chiefly Christ's discourses, to form his Aramaic Gospel. But the same Petrine tradition, perhaps in a Greek form, might have been known to Mark also; for the early authorities hardly oblige us to hold that he made no use of pre-existing documents.如果我們可以假設,以及盧克,我, 1 ,使地面的假設,即馬修獲得的書面文件可能是出色的,體現了伯多祿的傳統,他可能與它相結合的一個或多個其他文件,主要包含基督論述,形成了阿拉姆福音。但是,同樣的伯多祿的傳統,也許在希臘的形式,可能已經知道馬克也;為早日當局幾乎迫使我們認為,他並沒有使用原有的文件。 Papias (apud Eus., "HE" III, 39; PG XX, 297) speaks of him as writing down some things as he remembered them, and if Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus., "HE" VI, 14; PG XX, 552) represents the Romans as thinking that he could write everything from memory, it does not at all follow that he did.帕皮亞(羧Eus 。 , “他”三, 39歲;指引二十, 297 )談到了他寫下的一些事情,他記得他們,如果克萊門特亞歷山大( ap. Eus 。 , “他”六,第14條;指引二十, 552 )代表在羅馬的思想,他寫的一切從記憶體,它沒有在所有的後續,他做到了。 Let us suppose, then, that Matthew embodied the Petrine tradition in his Aramaic Gospel, and that Mark afterwards used it or rather a Greek form of it somewhat different, combining with it reminiscences of Peter's discourses. If, in addition to this, we suppose the Greek translator of Matthew to have made use of our present Mark for his phraseology, we have quite a possible means of accounting for the similarities and dissimilarities of our first two Gospels, and we are free at the same time to accept the traditional view in regard to the priority of Matthew.讓我們假設,那麼,這體現了馬修伯多祿傳統在他的阿拉姆福音,而且馬克事後用它還是一個希臘形式的它有所不同,與它相結合的回憶彼得的論述。如果,除了這一點,我們猜想希臘翻譯馬修已經使用了我們目前的馬克,他的措辭,我們有相當可能的手段會計的異同我們的頭兩個福音,我們都是免費在同一時間接受傳統的觀點在關於優先權的馬修。 Luke might then be held to have used our present Mark or perhaps an earlier form of the Petrine tradition, combining with it a source or sources which it does not belong to the present article to consider.盧克可能會被認為使用了我們目前的馬克或較早形式的伯多祿傳統,結合它的來源或來源不屬於本條款加以考慮。

Of course the existence of early documents, such as are here supposed, cannot be directly proved, unless the spade should chance to disclose them; but it is not at all improbable.當然存在的早期文件,如在這裡假定,不能直接證明,除非鐵鍬機會應披露他們;但並非在所有難以置信。 It is reasonable to think that not many years elapsed after Christ's death before attempts were made to put into written form some account of His words and works.可以合理地認為,沒有多年過去了後,基督的死亡之前曾試圖付諸書面形式到一些他的話和作品。 Luke tells us that many such attempts had been made before he wrote; and it needs no effort to believe that the Petrine form of the Gospel had been committed to writing before the Apostles separated; that it disappeared afterwards would not be wonderful, seeing that it was embodied in the Gospels.路加告訴我們,許多這樣的企圖已收到他寫; ,它需要不遺餘力認為,伯多祿形式的福音一直致力於前書面使徒分開; ,它消失之後將不會美妙,看到這體現在福音。 It is hardly necessary to add that the use of earlier documents by an inspired writer is quite intelligible.這是沒有必要補充的是,使用以前的文件由作家的啟發是相當可理解的。 Grace does not dispense with nature nor, as a rule, inspiration with ordinary, natural means.格雷斯並不免除性質,也不作為一項規則,與普通的靈感,自然的手段。 The writer of the Second Book of Machabees states distinctly that his book is an abridgment of an earlier work (2 Maccabees 2:24, 27), and St. Luke tells us that before undertaking to write his Gospel he had inquired diligently into all things from the beginning (Luke 1:1).作者的第二次圖書Machabees狀態明顯,他的書是縮短了以前的工作( 2馬加比2時24分, 27歲) ,和聖盧克告訴我們,以前的承諾寫他的福音,他認真詢問了所有的東西從一開始就(路1:1 ) 。

There is no reason, therefore, why Catholics should be timid about admitting, if necessary, the dependence of the inspired evangelists upon earlier documents, and, in view of the difficulties against the other theories, it is well to bear this possibility in mind in attempting to account for the puzzling relations of Mark to the other two synoptists.沒有任何理由,因此,為什麼天主教徒應該膽小的承認,如有必要,依賴靈感的福音派在以前的文件,並在查看的困難對其他理論,它很好地承擔這種可能性銘記試圖帳戶令人費解的關係,馬克與其他兩個synoptists 。

Publication information Written by J. MacRory.出版信息書面由J. MacRory 。 Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX.轉錄的恩尼Stefanik 。天主教百科全書,體積九。 Published 1910. 1910年出版。 New York: Robert Appleton Company.紐約:羅伯特阿普爾頓公司。 Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Nihil Obstat ,十月一日,一九一零年。 Remy Lafort, Censor.雷米Lafort ,檢查員。 Imprimatur.認可。 +John M. +約翰M Farley, Archbishop of New York法利,大主教紐約

Bibliography目錄

See the article GOSPEL OF ST.見文章ST段的福音。 LUKE for the decision of the Biblical Commission (26 January, 1913).盧克的決定,聖經委員會( 1913年1月26日) 。


This subject presentation in the original English language本主題介紹在原來的英文


Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail發送電子郵件的問題或意見給我們:電子郵箱

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at主要相信網頁(和索引科目),是在