The gospel of Mark.

Our second canonical gospel.


Attributed author(s).
Mark; Peter.

Text(s) available.
Mark 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16 (on site, Greek only).
Online Greek Bible (Greek only).
Bible Gateway (English only).
HTML Bible: Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (Greek and English).
HTML Bible: Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (Latin Vulgate only).
Zhubert (Greek and English).
Kata Pi: Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (Greek and English).
Sacred Texts: Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (polyglot).
Gospel of Mark in codex Washingtonianus (scanned images).

Useful links.
Listed inventory of the gospel of Mark (on site).
Synoptic project (on site).
Mark at the NT Gateway.
Mark at Early Christian Writings.
Mark by Daniel Wallace.
Mark in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Mark at Kata Pi (R. M. Grant).
ECW e-Catena: Mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.
Historical Commentary on Mark (Michael Turton).
Mark Goodacre, NT Gateway Blog:

A Second Gospel (David Ross).

Archetype of the gospel of Mark (James Snapp II).
Is 7Q5 a fragment of the gospel of Mark? I doubt it.
Marcan endings.
Marcan and Johannine chronology.
Marcan chiasms.
The Matthean and Marcan miracle pattern.
Gospel manuscripts.
The five apocalyptic moments in the synoptic gospels.

Patristic tradition attributes our second canonical gospel to a certain Mark, usually identified with John Mark (Acts 12.12, 25; 13.5, 13; 15.37-39), who in turn is usually identified with the companion of Paul and Peter named Mark (Colossians 4.10; 2 Timothy 4.11; Philemon [1.]24; 1 Peter 5.13).

The famed epistle from Clement of Alexandria to Theodore (containing the text of the so-called secret Mark) has been shown to be a modern forgery or hoax.

Papias and the elder.

Late century I or early century II.

Papias, according to Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15-17:

Και τουθ ο πρεσβυτερος ελεγεν· Μαρκος μεν ερμηνευτης Πετρου γενομενος, οσα εμνημονευσεν ακριβως εγραψεν, ου μεντοι ταξει, τα υπο του κυριου η λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα. ουτε γαρ ηκουσεν του κυριου ουτε παρηκολουθησεν αυτω, υστερον δε, ως εφην, Πετρω, ος προς τας χρειας εποιειτο τας διδασκαλιας, αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων, ωστε ουδεν ημαρτεν Μαρκος ουτως ενια γραψας ως απεμνημοσευσεν. ενος γαρ εποιησατο προνοιαν, του μηδεν ων ηκουσεν παραλιπειν η ψευσασθαι τι εν αυτοις.

And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them.

Ταυτα μεν ουν ιστορηται τω Παπια περι του Μαρκου· περι δε του Ματθαιου ταυτ ειρηται· Ματθαιος μεν ουν Εβραιδι διαλεκτω τα λογια συνεταξατο, ηρμηνευσεν δ αυτα ως ην δυνατος εκαστος.

These things therefore are recorded by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew he says these: Matthew therefore in the Hebrew dialect ordered together the oracles, and each one interpreted them as he was able.

Κεχρηται δ ο αυτος μαρτυριαις απο της Ιωαννου προτερας επιστολης και απο της Πετρου ομοιως, εκτεθειται δε και αλλην ιστοριαν περι γυναικος επι πολλαις αμαρτιαις διαβληθεισης επι του κυριου, ην το καθ Εβραιους ευαγγελιον περιεχει. και ταυτα δ ημιν αναγκαιως προς τοις εκτεθεισιν επιτετηρησθω.

And he himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and set out also another record about a woman who was charged for many sins before the Lord, which the gospel according to the Hebrews has. And let these things also be necessarily observed by us on top of the things that have been set out.

Justin Martyr.

Middle of century II.

Justin Martyr uses gospel traditions which only rarely seem to derive from Mark. He never references the gospel of Mark by name, but in Dialogue with Trypho 106.1-3 he writes:

Και οτι ηπιστατο τον πατερα αυτου παντα παρεχειν αυτω, ως ηξιου, και ανεγερειν αυτον εκ των νεκρων, και παντας τους φοβουμενους τον θεον προετρεπεν αινειν τον θεον δια το ελεησαι και δια του μυστηριου του σταυρωθεντος τουτου παν γενος των πιστευοντων ανθρωπων, και οτι εν μεσω των αδελφων αυτου εστη των αποστολων, οιτινες μετα το αναστηναι αυτον εκ νεκρων και πεισθηναι υπ αυτου οτι και προ του παθειν ελεγεν αυτοις οτι ταυτα αυτον δει παθειν, και απο των προφητων οτι προεκεκηρυκτο ταυτα, μετενοησαν επι τω αφιστασθαι αυτου οτε εσταυρωθη, και μετ αυτων διαγων υμνησε τον θεον, ως και εν τοις απομνημονευμασι τον αποστολων δηλουται γεγενημενον, τα λειποντα του ψαλμου εδηλωσεν.

And that he knew that his father would let him have all things, as he asked, and raise him up from the dead, and he urged all who fear God to praise God on account of his mercy even through the mystery of the crucified one on all kinds of men who believe, and that he stood in the midst of his brethren the apostles, who after he was resurrected from the dead and they were persuaded by him that even before the passion he said to them that he must suffer these things, and that these things were preached beforehand by the prophets, repented for their leaving him when he was crucified, and when staying with them he sang hymns to God, as is also made clear in the memoirs of the apostles, the remainder of the psalm shows.

Εστι δε ταυτα· Διηγησομαι το ονομα σου τοις αδελφοις μου, εν μεσω εκκλησιας υμνησω σε. οι φοβουμενοι τον κυριον αινεσατε αυτον, απαν το σπερμα Ιακωβ δοξασατε αυτον, φοβηθητωσαν αυτον απαν το σπερμα Ισραηλ.

And these things are: I will declare your name to my brethren, in the midst of the church I will sing hymns to you. You who fear the Lord praise him, the seed of Jacob, all of you, glorify him, let all the seed of Israel fear him.

Και το ειπειν μετωνομακεναι αυτον Πετρον ενα των αποστολων, και γεγραφθαι εν τοις απομνημονευμασιν αυτου γεγενημενον και τουτο, μετα του και αλλους δυο αδελφους, υιους Ζεβεδαιου οντας, επωνομακεναι ονοματι του βοανεργες, ο εστιν υιοι βροντης, σημαντικον ην του αυτον εκεινον ειναι, δι ου και το επωνυμον Ιακωβ τω Ισραηλ επικληθεντι εδοθη και τω Αυση ονομα Ιησους επεκληθη, δι ου ονοματος και εισηχθη εις την επηγγελμενην τοις πατριαρχαις γην ο περιλειφθεις απο των απ Αιγυπτου εξελθοντων λαος.

And when it says that he changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and written in his memoirs that this also happened, with the nicknaming of others as well, two brothers, who were the sons of Zebedee, with the name of Boanerges, that is sons of thunder, this was a sign that it was that very same man through whom also the nickname of Jacob was given to be called Israel, and Hoshea was called Joshua by name, through whose name also the people who remained from those who had come out of Egypt went into the land promised to the patriarchs.

Refer to Mark 3.17 for the Boanerges detail, which is found only in Mark.

Anti-Marcionite prologues.

Late century II?

These Latin prologues, also called the Old Latin prologues, precede each of the gospels in some copies of the Latin Bible. Scholars disagree as to their exact date, but many place them in the late second century. A Matthean prologue is not extant.

Irenaeus.

Late century II.

Irenaeus of Lyons refers explicitly to all four canonical gospels.

The Muratorian canon.

Late century II.

This canonical list witnesses to the gospel of Mark only indirectly, since the beginning of the list, which would have given notice of Matthew and Mark, is missing; the wording of the notices for Luke and John, however, makes clear that two gospels preceded these in the list, and they almost indubitably must have been those to Matthew and Mark.

Theophilus of Antioch.

Late century II.

Jerome writes in epistle 121 that Theophilus compiled the sayings of the four evangelists into one work, and he refers in general to inspired gospels (in the plural). I am aware of no specific quotations of or allusions to the gospel of Mark.

Hippolytus.

Late century II, early century III.

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.30.1:

Επειδαν ουν Μαρκιων η των εκεινου κυνων τις υλακτη κατα του δημιουγου, τους εκ της αντιπαραθεσεως αγαθου και κακου προφερων λογους, δει αυτοις λεγειν οτι ουτε Παυλος ο αποστολος ουτε Μαρκος ο κολοβοδακτυλος ανηγγειλαν, τουτων γαρ ουδεν εν τω {κατα} Μαρκον ευαγγελιω γεγραπται, αλλα Εμπεδοκλης Μετωνος Ακραγαντινος, ον συλαγωγων μεχρι νυν λανθανειν υπελαμβανε την διαταγην πασης της κατ αυτον αιρεσεως απο της Σικελιας εις τους ευαγγελικους λογους μεταφερων αυταις λεξεσι.

When, therefore, Marcion or any one of his dogs barks against the demiurge, bearing forth reasons from a comparison of good and bad, we must say to them that neither the apostle Paul nor stubby-fingered Mark announced these things. For none of these is written in the gospel {according} to Mark. But rather it is Empedocles [son] of Meto, of Agrigentum, whom [Marcion] captured and imagined that even until now his reappropriation, [still] bearing the same words, of the entire heresy according to him from Sicily into the evangelical volumes would escape notice.

Clement of Alexandria.

Late century II.

From Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.5-7:

Αυθις δ εν τοις αυτοις ο Κλημης βιβλιοις περι της ταξεως των ευαγγελιων παραδοσιν των ανεκαθεν πρεσβυτερων τεθειται τουτον εχουσαν τον τροπον· Προγεγραφθαι ελεγεν των ευαγγελιων τα περιεχοντα τας γενεαλογιας, το δε κατα Μαρκον ταυτην εσχηκεναι την οικονομιαν· του Πετρου δημοσια εν Ρωμη κηρυξαντος τον λογον και πνευματι το ευαγγελιον εξειποντος, τους παροντας, πολλους οντας, παρακαλεσαι τον Μαρκον, ως αν ακολουθησαντα αυτω πορρωθεν και μεμνημενον των λεχθεντων, αναγραψαι τα ειρημενα, ποιησαντα δε το ευαγγελιον μεταδουναι τοις δεομενοις αυτου· οπερ επιγνοντα τον Πετρον προτρεπτικως μητε κωλυσαι μητε προτρεψασθαι. τον μεντοι Ιωαννην εσχατον, συνιδοντα οτι τα σωματικα εν τοις ευαγγελιοις δεδηλωται, προτραπεντα υπο των γνωριμων, πνευματι θεοφορηθεντα, πνευματικον ποιησαι ευαγγελιον. τοσαυτα ο Κλημης.

And again in the same books Clement sets the tradition of the earliest elders concerning the order of the gospels, in this way: He says that those of the gospels having the genealogies were published openly,* but that the gospel according to Mark had this economy: While Peter was preaching the word publicly in Rome and speaking out the gospel by the spirit, those who were present, who were many, called upon Mark, as having followed him from far back and remembering what was said, to write up the things that were said, and having made the gospel he gave it out to those who had requested it. When Peter came to know, he neither directly prevented nor encouraged it. But John, last of all, knowing that the bodily facts had been made clear in the gospels, urged by friends, borne by the spirit of God, made a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement.

* For translational details on the verb προγεγραφθαι, see the online article by Stephen Carlson.

From Eusebius, History of the Church 2.15.1-2:

Τοσουτον δ επελαμψεν ταις των ακροατων του Πετρου διανοιαις ευσεβειας φεγγος, ως μη τη εις απαξ ικανως εχειν αρκεισθαι ακοη μηδε τη αγραφω του θειου κηρυγματος διδασκαλια, παρακλησεσιν δε παντοιαις Μαρκον, ου το ευαγγελιον φερεται, ακολουθον οντα Πετρου, λιπαρησαι ως αν και δια γραφης υπομνημα της δια λογου παραδοθεισης αυτοις καταλειψοι διδασκαλιας, μη προτερον τε ανειναι η κατεργασαθαι τον ανδρα, και ταυτη αιτιους γενεσθαι της του λεγομενου κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιου γραφης. γνοντα δε το πραχθεν φασι τον αποστολον αποκαλυψαντος αυτω του πνευματος, ησθηναι τη των ανδρων προθυμια κυρωσαι τε την γραφην εις εντευξιν ταις εκκλησιας.

And the light of religion lit up the minds of those who heard Peter, so much so that they were not sufficiently satisfied with one single hearing, nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine preaching, and with all kinds of encouragements they besought Mark, whose gospel is extant, a follower of Peter, that he might leave for them also a note, in writing, of the teaching that had been delivered to them through the word, and they did not cease before prevailing with the man, and becoming the causes of this writing of the gospel called according to Mark. And they say that the apostle, when he came to know what had been done, it having been revealed to him by the spirit, was pleased with the desire of men, and the writing was authorized for the petition of the churches.

Κλημης εν εκτω των υποτυπωσεων παρατεθειται την ιστοριαν, συνεπιμαρτυρει δε αυτω και ο Ιεραπολιτης επισκοπος ονοματι Παπιας, του δε Μαρκου μνημονευειν τον Πετρον εν τη προτερα επιστολη, ην και συνταξαι φασιν επ αυτης Ρωμης, σημαινειν τε τουτ αυτον, την πολιν τροπικωτερον Βαβυλωνα προσειποντα δια τουτων· Ασπαζεται υμας η εν Βαβυλωνι συνεκλεκτη και Μαρκος ο υιος μου.

Clement in the eighth of the Outlines sets forth the record, and the Heirapolitan bishop, Papias by name, also testifies with him, and they say that Peter remembers Mark in in the first epistle, which he also ordered together in Rome itself, signaling this very thing, calling the city Babylon most figuratively through these words: She who is in Babylon, elect with you, greets you, as well as Mark my son.

From the Latin translation of Clement by Cassiodorus, Adumbrationes on 1 Peter 5.13:

Marcus, Petri sectator, praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his quae a Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur, sicut Lucas quoque actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur* et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam.

* An emendation; the original reading is agnosceret, which does not seem to be correct, and must be a corruption.

Mark, follower of Peter, while Peter was preaching the gospel openly at Rome before certain Caesarean knights and proferring many testimonies of Christ, was petitioned by them that they might be able to commit what things were being said to memory, and wrote from these things that were said by Peter the gospel which is called according to Mark, just as Luke is recognized by the style both to have written the acts of the apostles and to have translated the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.

Tertullian.

Early century III.

Tertullian affirms the four gospels as authoritative.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.5.3 (text and translation modified from that of Ernest Evans):

Habet plane et illud ecclesias, sed suas, tam posteras quam adulteras, quarum si censum requiras, facilius apostaticum invenias quam apostolicum, Marcione scilicet conditore, vel aliquo de Marcionis examine. faciunt favos et vespae, faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae. eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Ioannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cuius interpres Marcus. nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent.

Admittedly that gospel too has its churches, but they are its own, of late arrival and spurious. If you search out their ancestry you are more likely to find it apostatic than apostolic, having for founder either Marcion or someone from the hive of Marcion. Even wasps make combs, and Marcionites make churches. That same authority of the apostolic churches will stand as witness also for the other gospels, which no less [than that of Luke] we possess by their agency and according to their text, I mean those of John and Matthew, though that which Mark produced is stated to be of Peter, whose interpreter Mark was. The narrative of Luke also they usually attribute to Paul.

Origen.

Early century III.

Origen knows all four canonical gospels by name.

Victorinus of Pettau.

Late century III.

Victorinus knows all four canonical gospels by name.

Eusebius.

Early century IV.

Eusebius knows all four canonical gospels by name.

Jerome.

Late century IV or early century V.

Jerome knows all four canonical gospels by name.

From epistle 120 to Hebidia, writing of the apostle Paul:

Aliquotiens diximus apostolum Paulum virum fuisse doctissimum et eruditum ad pedes Gamalihel, qui in apostolorum actibus contionatur et dicit: Et nunc quid habetis cum hominibus istis? si enim a deo est, stabit; si ex hominibus, destruetur. cumque haberet sanctarum scripturarum et sermonis diversarumque linguarum gratiam possideret, unde ipse gloriatur in domino et dicit: Gratias ago deo quod omnium eorum magis linguis loquor, divinorum sensuum maiestatem digno no poterat Graeci eloquii explicare sermone. habebat ergo Titum interpretus sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est. Denique et duae epistulae, quae feruntur Petri, stilo inter se et caractere discrepant structuraque verborum; ex quo intellegimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus.

We have said several times that the apostle Paul was a very learned and erudite man at the feet of Gamaliel, who in the Acts of the Apostles proclaimed before the assembly and said: And now what do you have to do with these men? For, if it is of God, it will stand; if it is of men, it is destroyed.1 While he had the holy scriptures and possessed the gift of speech and of different tongues, whence he himself glories in the Lord and says: I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of them,2 he could not properly explain the majesty of the divine senses in eloquent Greek speech. He, therefore, had Titus as an interpreter just as the blessed Peter also had Mark, whose gospel was composed with Peter narrating and him writing. Further, the two epistles also, which are extant as of Peter, are discrepant among themselves in style and character and structure of the words, from which we understand that he used different interpreters as necessary.

1 Refer to Acts 5.34-35, 38-39.
2 Refer to 1 Corinthians 14.18.

The Monarchian prologues.

Century IV or V.

These Latin prologues precede the gospels in some manuscripts of the Latin Bible. A prologue is extant for each of the four canonical gospels.

Attestation for the gospel: The gospel of Thomas (?), the long ending of Mark, Papias, the gospel of Peter (?), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 106.3), the Epistula Apostolorum, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the gospel prologues, a tradition of the elders (Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.5-7, citing Clement), Irenaeus, the Muratorian canon, Theophilus of Antioch (Jerome, epistle 121), Celsus (Origen, Against Celsus), Clement of Alexandria (century II), Origen, Hippolytus (Refutation 7.30.1), Victorinus of Pettau (On the Apocalypse 4.4), Ƿ45 (century III), Eusebius, Ƿ88, א, B, 0059, 0188 (century IV), Jerome, A, C, D, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ. Refer to my page on gospel origins.

From Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, page 1:

The Gospel of Mark contains no ciphers, no hidden meanings, no sleight of hand:

No messianic secret designed to mask a theologically embarrassing absence of messianism from the ministry of the historical Jesus. No messianic secret designed to mask a politically dangerous presence of messianism in his ministry. No freezing of Jesuanic tradition in writing so as to halt oral pronouncements of prophets speaking in Jesus' name. No Christology of irony that means the reverse of what it says. No back-handed slap at Davidic messianism. No covert attack on divine man Christology. No pitting of the Son of man against the Christ, the Son of David, or the Son of God.

No ecclesiastical enemies lurking between the lines or behind the twelve apostles, the inner three, and Jesus' natural family. No mirror-images of theological disputes over the demands and rewards of Christian discipleship. No symbolism of discipular enlightenment in the miracles. No "way"-symbolism for cross-bearing. No bread-symbolism for the Eucharist. No boat-symbolism for the Church. No voyage-symbolism for Christian mission. No other-side-of-Galilee symbolism for a mission to the Gentiles. No Galilee-symbolism for salvation or for the Second Coming. No Jerusalem-symbolism for Judaism or Judaistic Christianity.

No apocalyptic code announcing the end. No de-apocalyptic code cooling down an expectation of the end. No open end celebrating faith over verifiability. No overarching concentric structure providing a key to meaning at midpoint. No riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

None of those. Mark's meaning lies on the surface. He writes a straightforward apology for the Cross, for the shameful way in which the object of Christian faith and subject of Christian proclamation died, and hence for Jesus as the Crucified One.

From Robert Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pages 1043-1044:

Though it does not prove a Roman provenance, the profusion of Latinisms in Mark supports the tradition of that provenance. These Latinisms include individual words (μόδιον = modius [4:21]; χόρτος = herba in the sense of a blade of grass [4:28]; λεγιών = legio [5:9, 15]; αἰτία = causa [5:33 v.1.]; σπεκουλάτωρ = speculator [6:27]; δηνάριον = denarius [6:37]; ξέστης = sextarius [7:4]; κη̂νσος = census [12:14]; κοδράντης = quadrans [12:42]; φραγελλόω = fragello [15:15]; πραιτώριον = praetorium [15:16]; κεντυρίων = centurio [15:39, 44, 45]), turns of phrase (ο̒δὸν ποιει̂ν = iter facere [2:23]; Ἡρῳδιανοί = Herodiani, like praetoriani [3:6; 12:13]; συμβούλιον ἐδίδουν = consilium dederunt [3:6]; ο̒́ ἐστιν = hoc est [3:17; 7:11, 34; 12:42; 15:16, 42]; ἐσχάτως ἔχει = in extremis esse [5:23]; εἰ̂πεν δοθη̂ναι αὐτῃ̂ φαγει̂ν = similar to duci eum iussit [5:43]; πυγμῃ̂ = pugnus [? — 7:3]; ἐκράτησεν = [memoria] tenere [? — 9:10]; κατακρινου̂σιν αὐτὸν θανάτω = capite damnare [? — 10:33]; ει̂χον... ο̒́τι = habere [11:32]; ρ̒απίσμασιν αὐτὸν ἔλαβον = verberibus eum acceperunt [14:65]; συμβούλιον ποιήσαντες = consilium capere [15:1]; τὸ ι̒κανὸν ποιη̂σαι = satisfacere [15:15]; τίθεντες τὰ γόνατα = genua ponentes [15:19]), possible Latin influence in word order and unusually frequent uses of ι̒́να in a non-telic sense (P. Dschulnigg, Sprache 276-78), and a Latin name identical with that of a Christian known to have lived in Rome (15:21 — Rufus; cf. Rom 16:13). There was more than one Rufus, of course. Latinisms crop up elsewhere in the NT (see, e.g., δὸς ἐργασίαν in Luke 12:58, which has no parallel in Mark, however; so Mark did not delete the Latinism and may not have known this tradition). The Marcan Latinisms consisting of individual words are military, judicial, and economic, such as would naturally travel wherever Rome extended her rule and as a matter of fact do appear widely even in Aramaic and late Hebrew literature (H. J. Cadbury, Making of Luke-Acts 88-89). But the other kinds of Latinisms outnumber these and deal with much more than the military, judicial, and economic; and the unusual profusion of Latinisms in Mark favors a setting in Rome.

Marcan translations:

Mark 3.17 (Boanerges, omitted in Matthew 10.2 and Luke 6.14); 5.41 (talitha kum, omitted in Matthew 9.25 and Luke 8.54); 7.11 (korban, omitted in Matthew 15.5, no parallel in Luke); 7.34 (ephphatha, omitted in Matthew 15.29-31, no parallel in Luke); 14.36 (abba, omitted in Matthew 26.39, 42 and Luke 22.42) 15.22 (Golgotha, repeated in Matthew 27.33, omitted in Luke 23.33); 15.34 (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani; repeated in Matthew 27.46, omitted in Luke 23.45-46).

Marcan nontranslations:

Mark 3.22 (Beelzebul, repeated in Matthew 12.24, 27 and Luke 11.15, 18-19); 10.51 (rabboni, replaced by Lord in Matthew 20.33 and Luke 18.41); 11.9-10 (hosanna, repeated in Matthew 21.9, omitted in Luke 19.38); 11.21 (rabbi, omitted in Matthew 21.20, no parallel in Luke).