The circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and
makes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he
is the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon.
Respecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and
valuable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the
general direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter;
and from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the
name of “Peter’s interpreter.” The very common story is also, that
it was written in _Rome_, but this is not asserted on any early or
trustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those
statements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy.
Others affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but
this story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking
as true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that
when he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or
superintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon
was the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the
same with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as
being with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too
young to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great
importance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared,
to which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure
testimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then
floating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and
in the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived
and preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All
believers in Christ had been led to that faith by the living words of
his inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone,
other means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated
truth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number,
and to those most especially in want of such a record, from the
fact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal
disciples,――Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to
make this communication to the world.
His gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single
passage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very
confidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to
Matthew’s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote,
and merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two
gospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that
it has been considered impossible to account for them on any other
supposition than this. But these and other questions have filled
volumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any
justice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however,
to answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling
with the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that,
during the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and
the writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been
proclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken
gospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and
before different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of
Jesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would
unavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last
be the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These,
Mark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing
the same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as
different apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration,
would yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor
circumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following
one account or the other, would make the trifling variations also
noticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is,
that he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies
to the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,――a
circumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself
was the immediate director of the work, and with that noble modesty,
which always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally
avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits.
Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain
statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few
of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the
other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts
rather than his sermons,――of his doings rather than his sayings, is
what he designed to give.
“Among all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of
the most ancient Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark’s
having published his gospel at Alexandria. This report, however,
prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what is related
by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by
Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. ii. cap. 16. It
appears from the word φασιν, that Eusebius mentions this only as
a report; and what is immediately added in the same place, that
the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described
by Philo, were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is
evidently false. Epiphanius, in his fifty-first Heresy, ch. vi.
gives some account of it. According to his statement, Mark
wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian
religion in that city; and after he had written it, he was sent
by Peter into Egypt. A similar account is given by Jerome in
his ‘Treatise on Illustrious Men,’ ch. viii. Lastly, the Coptic
Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and
first bishop of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself,
‘Unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, called by the grace of God,
and by his gracious will appointed to his service, and to the
see of the holy evangelist Mark.’ The Copts pretend likewise,
that Mark was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake
Menzale; but if this account be true, he was hardly buried
at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the
forgeries of early superstition.” (Michaelis, Vol. III. pp.
207‒209.)
That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among the _apostles_,
is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application
of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions
prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, “that in the eighth
year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark,
the _apostle_ and ♦evangelist, took upon him the care of that
church.” Πρωτος μετα Μαρκον τον αποστολον και ευαγγελιστην, της
εν Αλεξανδρειᾳ παροίκιας, Ανιανος την λειτουργιαν διαδεχεται.
Church History, I. 2. cap. 24. (Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel
History, Vol. III. p. 176.)
♦ “avangelist” replaced with “evangelist”
Of the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty.
Being evidently younger than most of the original apostles, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that he long survived them; but his field of
labor is unknown. The common tradition among the Fathers, after the
third century, is, that he went to Alexandria, and there founding a
church, became bishop of it till his death;――but the statement is mixed
up with so much that is palpably false, that it is not entitled to any
credit.