Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
The current essays to disentangle the literary history of the material which now forms our Gospel of Mark were described in an article by Professor Moulton in a recent number of this Review. Of the attempts to solve the problem there mentioned two seem plausible enough to warrant fuller exposition in these pages. They are the reconstructions by which Professor Hermann von Soden, of Berlin, and Professor Emil Wendling, of Zabern, have tried to resolve our Gospel into its constituent elements.
1 “The Relation of the Gospel of Mark to Primitive Christian Tradition,” Harvard Theological Review, III (1910), 403–436.
2 Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu. 1904.
3 Urmarcus. 1905. See also Die Entstehung des Marcusevangeliums. 1908.
4 For reasons which he does not explain he somewhat rearranges the sections.
5 Note especially the words μυστήριον, μετὰ χαρᾱς λαμβάνειν, διωγμός, ἐπιθυμίαι, καρποϕορεῑν, and see Wendling, Urmarcus, p. 35, note 11.
6 Cf. 2 19b, 20, also the work of Ev.
7 Cf. 5 2 with 1 23; 5 6, 7 with 1 24; 5 8–13 with 1 25; 5 13 with 1 26; 5 14–17 with 1 27. and see Wendling, Urmarcus, p. 11.
8 In the Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums (p. 204) Wendling arranges the verses from M1 in chapters 13 and 14 as follows: 13 1–2, 33, 28–29, 34–36, 14 1–2, 10–11, 3–7, 22–25, 43–46, 48–50, 65. Some minor differences in the analysis, affecting words or clauses, are registered ibid., p. 237.
9 Not including parables, where the present is not historical.
