The Gospel of Mark
The author of the second Gospel, as they stand in the Canon, was Mark; the same who is mentioned in the First Epistle of Peter, v. 13; but whether he was the same as John Mark, of Jeyusalem, who travelled for a while with Paul and Barnabas, has been doubted by Grotius, Cave, Dupin, and Tillemont; but the common opinion is in its favour, and the objections to it, are not of much weight: and as thftre is no clear evi’lence, that there were two persons of this nam&, mentioned in Scripture, I shall consider all that is said of Mark, as having reference to the same person.
Paul was offended at him because he declined accompanying him and Barnabas trn the whole tour which they took, to preach the Gospel; for, when they came to Perga, Mark departed from thm, and returned to Jt-rurtalcm. And when Paul and Barnabas were about to undertake a second journey, together, the latter insisted on taking Mark, as their minister, but Paul, would by no means consent to it, because he had forsakon them on their first mission. This dilTereuce of opinion gave rise (.0 a sharp altercation, which terminated in the separation of these venerable colleagues. Mark now travelled with Barnabas, but probably, soon afterwards attached himself to Peter, with whom he seems to have continued until the death of that apostle.
But Paul himself seems to have been reconciled to Mark, and to have valued his assistance, in the work of the ministry; for, in his second Epistle to Timothy, he writes, *’ Take Mark and bring him with thee for he is profitable unto me for the ministry/. He also mentions him in his Epistle to Philemon.
When this gospel was composed, has not heea particularly mentioned by any ancient author, except that it is said to have been after Peter came to Rome, which could not be much earlier than A. D. 62, or A. D. 63. It is stated, that Mark was requested by the brethren at Rome to put down in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching; and on this account, this Gospel among the primitive Christians was as familiarly know by the name of the Gospel of Peter, as of Mark. This circuinstance has led some to assert that Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin, as this was the language of Rome; but in those days, almost all the Romans, understood Greek; and the Jewish converts who composed a large portion of the first churches, untierstood Greek much better than Latin, But
2 Tim, iv, 11, Phil, 24, there is no nred to nrguo his point. There is no ancient anihi»r who ti-siifit’s ;hat Mdik wnte in Latin. The tesiimony is uniform, that he wrote in G»eek.
Baronius is almost the only leirucl man who has advfK’atcd the Latin oria;inaJ i.f the Gospel of MtIc, and he h <s iioihing to produce in fivonr of this opiiion, fnvn anti; lity, except the subsr rip, tion to th’- Syriac, Arabic, and Ferpic versions of the New Testament, where, .tit the end of Mark’s Gospel, ii is said, ‘* He ^•poke and preached in Lafin at Rome,” but this does not say that he wrote his Gospel in Latin.
But these subscriptions are of very little authority in matterp of this kind. No one knows wheti, or by whom, they were placed there: ami althouu;h three version are mentioned, they m ike up no more than one witness, for probably all the others borrowed this insciiption froin the Syriac.
AuGusTiNi; called Mark, the abridgcr of Matthew; and it must be confessed, that he often uses the same wordx, and tells more concisely what the other h id related more copiously; yet there is satisfactory evidence, tl,a; Mark’s Gospel is an original work. There are many thinii;s which arc not in the Gospel of Matthew, and some, mentioned by that Evangelist,are here related with additional circumstances.
All authors do not agree that Mark wrote his Gospel at Konae, but some think at Alexandria:
fhe former opinion, however, was received by the Falhei -5 vvi;h almost universal consent.
Some of th-; Testimonies of the Fathers respecting ir.is (iosppl, will now be given.
El ^! BTc’s, out of Papias and a lost work of Clbaient of Al-’X.>nfiria, relates, “That when Ptter,iii th.- rcigi! of Clau’iins, had come to Rome, ax, ’ hdd defeaifid Simon Marus, thr pe pie were So inflamed ‘. ith love for the Chi’iatian truths, as not to be satished with the hearing of them, unless they also had them wiitttu down. Tha:,accordi!igly,triey, with earnest entreaties, applii d tht mselves to Mark, the companion of Peter, and whose Gospel we no-.^ have, praying him that he would write down for them and leave with them, an account of the doctrines which had been preached to tht in: that tht-y did not desist in their request, till they had prevailed on him, and pr jcured his writing ihat, which is now the Oosp -1 of Mark. Thai when Peter came t.^ know this, he was, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, pleased with the request of the people, and confirmed the Gospel which was written for the use of the Churches.”**^
Thi same Eusebius relaies,in anoilierpart of his works, what Papjas had testified concerning Mark’s Gospel, “That Mark, who wa. — Peter’s intei |jr ier, exacily wrote down whaisoever he remembered, though not in the same order of time
=*’ Ecc. Hist. Lib. II. c 25.
io which the sevei’al things were said or done by Christ; for he neither heard nor foHowefl Christ, but was a companion of Peter, and composcil his Gospel, rather with the intent of the people’s profit, than writing a regular history; so that he is in no faidt, if he wro’c some things according to his memory, he designing no more than to omit nothing which he had heard, and to relate nothing false,”*
Another testimony, from Clement of Alexandria, is given by Eusebius, in which it is said, “When Peter was publicly preaching the Gospel at Rome, by the influences of the Holy Spirit many of the converts desired Mark, as having been a long companion of Peter, and who well remembered what he preached, to write down his discourses: that upon this he composed his Gospel, and gave it to those who made this request, which when Peter knew, he neither obstructed nor encouraged the work.”t
iRENiEus says, “That after the death of Peter and Paul, who had been preaching at Rome, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote dowa what he had heard him preach.”
Tertullian informs us, ‘* That the Gospel published by Mark may be reckoned Peter’s, whose interpreter lie was.”
Origen adds, “That Mark wrote his Gospel according to the dictates of Peter.”
* Ecc. Hist. Lib. iii. c. 39. f Lib- vi. c. 14.
Jerome tells us,” That Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote a short Gospel, from what he had heard of Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which when Peter knew, he approved, and published it in our churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority.’* Besides these testimonies which are very explicit? and all go to show, that Mark received his Gospel from the preaching of Peter, there are some internal evidences which look the same way. There are in the other Evangelists several circumstances and facts which make very much for the credit of Peter, not one of which is hinted at in this Gospel. Particular instances of this kind may be read, in the Third Volume of Jones on the Canon.
Of the Canonical authority of this Gospel, no one of the ancients, I believe, ever entertained a doubt. Some of the moderns, however, have questioned whether we have any evidence, that Mark and Luke wrote by a plenary inspiration, since they were not apostles. But that Mark’s Gospel is Canonical, is established by all the rules applicable to the case. It was always contained in the early catalogues; was read as Scripture in the churches; was quoted as Scripture by the Fathers; was inserted in the earliest versions; and never doubted formerly, by any christian writer. But this subject will be resumed, hereafter.
Ettsebius reports, ‘’That Peter, out of the abundance of his modesty, did not think himself worthy to write a Gospel; but Mark, who was his iriend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter’s relations, and the acts of Jesus.’* And again, “Peter testifies these things of himself, for all things recorded by Mark, are said to be memoirs of Peter’s discourses.”
In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, “That the Gospel according to Mark waS dictated by Peter, at Rome, alid p;iblished by Mark; and preached by him in Alexandria, Pentapolis, and Lybia.”
The testimony of Epiphanius is, “That Mat. thew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a companion of Peter, at Rome; — that Mark was one of the seventy disciples, and likewise one ol those who were offmded at the words of Christ, recorded in the sixth chapt’?r of the Gospel of John; — that he then forsook the Saviour, but was afterwards reclaimed by Peter, and being filled with the Spirit, wrote a Gospel.”
Gregory N azianzen says, * ‘That Mark wrote his Gospel for the Italians.”
Chrysostom testifies, that ‘’Mark wrote in Egypt at the request of the believers there;” but in another place, he says, “lt cannot be ascertained in what place each of the Evangelists wrote.”
Victor informs us, That Mark was also called John, and was the vSon of Mary; — that he tvrote a Gospel after Matthew; — that for a while he accompanied Paul, and Barnabas his relation, but when he came to Rome, he joined Peter. When he was obliged to quit Rome, he was requested by the brethren to write a history of his preaching, and of his heavenly doctrine; with which request he readily complied.”
CosMAs of Alexandria, writes, “That Mark the second Evangelist, wrote a Gospel at Rome, by the dictalion of Peter.”
CEcuMEMUs says, “This John, who also is called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the Gospel which goes by his name; and was also the disciple Df Peter.”
Theophylact informs us, ^’’ That the Gospel according to Mark, was written at Rome,ten years after the ascension of Jesus Christ, at the request of the believers there; for, this Mark was a disciple of Peter. His name was John, and he was nephew to Barnabas, the companion of Paul.”
EuTHYMius concurs exactly in this testimony. His words are, “The Gospel of Mark was written about ten years after our Lord’s ascension, at the request of the believers at Rome; or as some say, in Egypt; — that Mark was, at first, much with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul, but afterwards went with Peter to Rome, from whom he received the whole history of his Gospel.”
NicEPHORUs says, “Only two of the Twelve have left memoirs of our Lord’s life, and two of the Seventy, Mark and Luke.” And a little after-
“Mark and Luke puhlishcd their Gospels, by the direction of Peter and Paul.”
EuxrcHius, patriarch of Alexandria, has the following words, “In the time of Nero, Peter the prince of the apostles, making use of Mark, wrote a Gospel at Rome, in the Roman languasje.”
The reader will recollect, that this last writer lived as late as the tenth century, which will ac” count for his callino; Peter the prince of the apostles, a language entirely foreign to the early Ecclesiastical writers. And Selden is of opinion, that l)y the Roman language, he meant the Greek, which was then in common use, at Rome; and it is well known, that in our times, the modern Greek language, is called, Uomaic. Jones and Lardner concur in the opinion of Selden.
ji a.