sand times, though to an unsuspicious mind it seems fairly unambiguous. The presbyter, to whom Papias refers as his authority, had been himself an immediate disciple of Jesus, and Papias was personally acquainted with him.' It is hardly conceivable that he should have mistaken what this early disciple used to say (leyev) about the gospel; although he is disparaged by Eusebius, for theological reasons, as a person of very mean intelligence, Papias was quite capable of recording a fact. What is required in a witness is not largeness of mind, but fidelity. The one important fact in the testimony of the presbyter who had kept company with Jesus is this, that the gospel according to Mark is the work of a man who was the companion and interpreter of Peter. Indirectly, if not immediately, it has the authority of an apostle behind it. 2

'Euseb. Hist. Eccl., iii. 39, 7. 'And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John.' The much-discussed question whether this John whom Papias had heard is or is not one with John the son of Zebedee, the apostle to whom the fourth gospel is ascribed, is not of vital consequence here; he was in any case a 'disciple of the Lord,' which cannot mean simply a Christian, but only one who had been in contact with Jesus. Papias does not give John's opinion from a book; but in his own book, quoted by Eusebius, he reports the account the presbyter used to give about the gospel of Mark. For opposite views about John and his importance here v. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neut. Kanons, vi. 109 ff.; Harnack, Chronologie der altchr. Litteratur, 660 ff. Harnack's attempt to minimise the significance of the phrase 'the disciples of the Lord,' applied to Aristion and John, is rather ingenious than convincing. When he remarks that μanrai was ganz wesentlich auf Palästina (für die Gesammtheit) beschränkt, he seems to overlook the fact that in Acts it is freely used of Christians everywhere, and that outside of Acts and the gospels it does not occur in the New Testament at all.

Harnack, Chronologie, i. 686 f., after quoting the passage from Clem. Alex. preserved in Eusebius, H. E., vi. 14, and ending with the words (referring to Mark's composition of the gospel at the request of Peter's hearers in Rome) ὅπερ ἐπιγνόντα τὸν Πέτρον προτρεπτικῶς μήτε κωλύσαι μήτε проτрέчаσlαι,, adds: 'Das heisst doch mit dürren Worten: Dieses Evangelium hat keine petrinische Autorität; Petrus ist für dasselbe nicht verantwortlich; es steht lediglich auf sich selber.' This is only true because it is ambiguous. The book did not bear Peter's imprimatur; he issued no certificate with it to secure it a legitimate place in the Church. But though it was sent out on its own merits it had Peter's preaching

If we turn from this tradition to the gospel itself we find significant features in the narrative by which it is confirmed. Detail begins in Mark with the hour at which Peter and Andrew are called and enter into more or less constant attendance upon Jesus (ch. 1 16 ff.). The one full Sabbath day which is narrated in the gospel centres round Simon's house (1 29 ff.). When the next morning early Jesus, who had retired into a desert place to pray, was 'hunted down,' it was by 'Simon and they that were with him'; we can imagine how Peter in telling the story simply said 'we.' When Jesus appoints the Twelve, we are told how He gave Simon the surname Peter, though no explanation of the new name is given. At a later stage at what, indeed, it was once customary to regard as the crisis and the turning-point in the career of Jesus-it is Peter who confesses Jesus to be the Christ; and in close connexion with the first prediction of the Passion, which is the immediate sequel, it is Peter who remonstrates with Jesus, and draws down upon himself a severe rebuke (8 29 ff.). It is Peter again who, when the rich ruler refuses to sell all that he has, as a preliminary to following Jesus, reminds the Master that He and His companions have done what had proved too hard for this promising recruit, and tacitly at least inquires what reward they shall have. In the closing scenes of the gospel he is still more conspicuous. He is one of the little party to whom the prophetic discourse of Jesus is addressed on the Mount of Olives (13 ff.); we are told in vivid terms how he boasted of his devotion to Jesus, how he was reproached in the garden that he could not watch with his Master one hour, how in spite behind it; and the writer's qualification, according to the very passage on which Harnack bases these strong assertions, was his long and familiar acquaintance with this preaching (ὡσὰν ἀκολουθήσαντα αὐτῷ πόρρωθεν καὶ μeμvnμévov tāv λexévrov). It is in this sense it is said to have, and does have, Peter's authority.

3

27

of repeated warnings he denied Him with oaths and curses; we are told also of his swift and deep repentance (14 ff.). Finally (in ch. 16 7) there is the message of the angels to the women at the tomb: Go tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee-a message which, as has been already observed, justifies the inference that this gospel originally closed with an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, but either added to that or combined with it an appearing, to some special intent, to Peter. It is quite true that all these things about Peter might have been known and told by some other than himself. When, however, we notice the peculiar character of the events which make up the first exciting day; when we consider that incidents in the life of Jesus are depicted only from the calling of Peter onward; when we review, especially, the circumstantial and vivid narrative of the closing chapters in which the apostle plays so mournful a part, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the tradition preserved by Papias is confirmed. That tradition is not of the nature of a learned deduction; it is given as a piece of information by one who was in a position to know what he was speaking about, but it is supported by an examination of the gospel itself. It is quite safe to assume, then, that in some real sense the preaching of Peter underlies the gospel of Mark. The date at which the gospel was composed cannot be precisely determined, but there is a growing preponderance of opinion which puts it in the sixties of the Christian era, before, though not long before, the destruction of Jerusalem. 1

This early date and apostolic connexion are not to be underrated. We cannot indeed presume upon them so

Harnack puts it, as a probability, between 65 and 70: Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, i. 718; J. Weiss between 64 and 66: Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, i. 61.

far as to say that we have the testimony of an eye-witness for everything recorded in Mark, but they have, undoubtedly, historical importance. They prove that in the life and experience of one man at least there was no radical inconsistency, no breach of continuity, between an actual acquaintance with Jesus as He lived on earth and the Christian attitude to Jesus as the object of faith. The idea of much modern criticism of the gospels is that 'Jesus' can be pleaded against 'the Christ,' 'history' invoked to discredit 'faith'; but the primary fact which we have to go upon is that the very man who stood closest to the historical Jesus appealed to the historical knowledge of Him to vindicate and evoke faith. It is quite possible that at one point or another there may be secondary elements in the representation of Jesus by Mark. It is quite possible that at one point or another the Christian teaching with which the evangelist was familiar may have left traces on his language which are suggestive rather of the period at which he wrote than of that concerning which he writes. Instances of either must be judged upon their merits. When we consider, however, that the gospel of Mark was composed within thirty or forty years of the death of Jesus, that the subject with which it deals had been the matter of incessant and public teaching throughout this period, and that the narrative rests, as we have seen, at its beginning, its crisis, and its close, upon the authority of an immediate and intimate disciple, we shall probably be disposed to infer that the presumptions are strongly in favour of its historical character. Certainly we shall not feel at liberty to pronounce anything unhistorical merely because it helps to make Christianity intelligible, or to evince the continuity between the historical life of Jesus and the life of the Christian Church.

There are cruder and subtler ways in which this has

already been done. A scholar who admits the evidence which connects the second gospel with the preaching of Peter proceeds to distinguish in the narrative what can and what cannot claim to be covered by this apostolic testimony. His criterion is the very simple one that everything supernatural-perhaps one should say everything too supernatural-must be excluded. As such things cannot possibly have taken place, they cannot possibly rest on the word of an eye-witness. This short and easy method of dealing with certain elements in the gospel story is applied with cheerful confidence, for example, by Von Soden. It was more plausible to argue thus when the gospels were dated in the second century, and legends had had time and space to grow; it is not so easy to believe that the faith of Christians-for it is always faith which is the parent of the marvellous—could deform or transfigure the story of Jesus in the lifetime of those who were familiar with Him, under their very eyes, while they were engaged in bearing their own testimony to Him, and had, so far as we have any means of judging, a lively sense of the importance of its historical truth (Acts 1 21 f., 1 John 1 1). But it is not necessary to enter into this subject here, for what is ruled out by Von Soden as too supernatural has hardly an immediate bearing on the question in which we are interested. Far more important in its issues, and far subtler in itself, is the criticism of Wellhausen. There is a section in the bookthat which extends from chap. 827 to chap. 105—which, to put his opinion bluntly, is Christian, and therefore not historical. The framework of time and space is the same as in the earlier chapters, but there is a deep inward distinction. 'Here,' as it is put by Wellhausen, whose language is reproduced in what follows,' 'begins the 1 Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, 29 ff.

'Das Evangelium Marci, 65 f. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, 81, f., 113.