b. The day after, the fig tree cursed 12-14 the temple purged 15-19 c. The day after that,
1. Near the fig tree, he shows the power of faith 20-26
2. In the temple,
1. His authority vindicated 27-33
2. The parable of the wicked husbandmen Mark 12:1-12
3. Of paying tribute to Cesar 13-17
4. Of the resurrection 18-27
5. Of the great commandment 28-34
6. Of David's Lord 35-37
7. He warns the people of the scribes 38-40
8. Commends the poor widow 41-44
3. On Mount Olivet, he foretells the destruction of the city and temple, and the end of the world Mark 13:1-37 d. Two days before the passover; his enemies bargain with Judas Mark 14:1-11
e. On the first day of unleavened bread,
1. The passover prepared 12-16
2. The Lord's Supper instituted 17-25
3. After the hymn, the offence of the disciples and Peter's denial foretold 26-31
4. In Gethsemane, Jesus prays; wakes his disciples 32-42 Is betrayed; taken; forsaken of all 43-52
5. In the high priest's palace, He is condemned to death 53-65 Denied by Peter 66-72
2. By himself, To Mary Magdalene 9-11 To two going into the country 12,13 To the eleven sitting at meat 14 III. The Gospel,
1. Committed by Christ to his apostles after his resurrection 15-18
2. Confirmed after his ascension 19,20
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Gospel According to St. Mark. With a Short Accou
CLA_MAR.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST.
MARK. WITH A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE.
FOR an explication of the word GOSPEL, and the title SAINT, see the Preface to Matthew {Matthew 1:1.} p. ii-v. MARK. This person, the second in the commonly received order of the four evangelists, was named JOHN MARK, and was the son of a pious woman called Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem: she was an early believer, and the disciples used to meet at her house. Peter, having been delivered out of prison by an angel, came to the house of Mary, mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying, Acts 12:12. This very first mention of John Mark assures us of Peter’s intimacy in that family: it is almost universally allowed that Mark, mentioned by Peter, 1 Peter 5:13, is this evangelist, and that he is the same with him who is called sister’s son to Barnabas, Colossians 4:10, and is supposed to have been converted by Peter to the Christian faith. Mr. W. Whiston supposes him to have been Peter’s own son. See his Primitive New Test. Notes at the end. He travelled from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 12:25, and some short time after he accompanied them to other countries as their minister, Acts 13:5. When they returned to the continent, and came on shore at Perga in Pamphylia, he departed from them and returned to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13. Afterwards he would have gone with Paul and Barnabas, but the former refused to take him, because of his having left them at Pamphylia; Paul and Barnabas then separated, and Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, Acts 15:36-41. Afterwards Paul and he were fully reconciled, as evidently appears from 2 Timothy 4:11: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry. This appears also from Philemon, Philemon 1:24, where Mark is styled Paul’s fellow-labourer; and from Colossians 4:10, where we find the apostle recommending him in a particular manner to the Church of God at that place. He is generally supposed to have been particularly intimate with St. Peter, to have written his Gospel at ROME, A. D. 64, and to have died at Alexandria in Egypt, in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Dr. LARDNER has fully proved that Mark the evangelist, and John Mark nephew to Barnabas, were one and the same person. See his Works, vol. vi. p. 77, &c.
How Mark composed his Gospel, is a question not yet decided among learned men. Many of the primitive fathers, such as Papias, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, &c., believed that he was only the amanuensis of St. Peter; that this apostle, through modesty, would not put his name to the work, but dictated the whole account, and Mark wrote it down from his mouth. St. Augustine appears to have been the first who maintained that Mark abridged St. Matthew’s Gospel; and that it is not to be considered as an original work:-on this opinion several remarks will be made in the course of these notes. Others suppose that Mark compiled it, partly out of Matthew’s Gospel, and partly out of the Gospel of Luke. But most of these are conjectures which appear to have very little foundation. Critics are also divided concerning the language in which it was written, and the people to whom it was sent. Some have contended for a Latin original, because of several Latin words found in it, such as σπεκουλατωρ, Mark 6:27, one of the guard; κεντυριων, Mark 15:39, 44, 46, a centurion, a captain of one hundred men; συσσημον, Mark 14:44, a signal, a sign agreed on. But such words are better accounted for by supposing that his Gospel was written for the use of the Roman people; and that it is on this account that he wholly passes by the genealogy of our Lord, as being a point of no consequence to Gentile converts, though very necessary for the Jews, and especially the Jews of Palestine. That it was originally written in Greek, is a point now acknowledged by almost all learned men.
It may be necessary to state the things omitted by Mark in the beginning of his Gospel which are mentioned by Matthew and Luke.
16. Christ’s JOURNEY to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, Luke 2:40-48.
From the particulars enumerated here, it appears that the things omitted by Mark are also omitted by John, except the Preface; and that St. Luke is the most circumstantial.
For other particulars relative to this Gospel, see at the end of the last chapter.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK
-Usherian year of the World, 4030.
-Alexandrian year of the World, 5528.
-Antiochian year of the World, 5518.
-Constantinopolitan Æra of the World, 5534.
-Rabbinical year of the World, 3786.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4740.
-Æra of the Seleucidæ, 338.
-Year of the Christian Æra, 26.
-Year of the CCI. Olympiad, 2.
-Year of the building of Rome, 769.
-Year of the Julian Æra, 71.
-Year of the Cæsarean Æra of Antioch, 74.
-Year of the Spanish Æra, 64.
-Year of the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, 27.
-Year of the Christian Lunar Cycle, or Golden Number, 8. -Year of the Rabbinical Lunar Cycle, 5.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 7.
-Dominical Letter, F.
-Epact, 17.
-Year of the Emperor Tiberius, 14.
-Consuls, C. Calvisius Sabinus, and Cn. Corn. Lentulus Getulicus, from January 1 to July 1; and Q. Marcius Barca and T. Rustius Nummus Gallus, for the remainder of the year. The reason why two sets of Consuls appear in this Chronology is this: the Consuls were changed every year in July; therefore, taking in the whole year, four Consuls necessarily appear: two for the first six months, and two for the latter half of the year.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 479
GOSPEL OF SAINT MARK.
PREFACE
It is generally supposed by commentators, on the authority of ancient writers, that the person whom St. Peter speaks of, 1 Peter 5:13, and terms, “Marcus his son,” was the author of this gospel; and that it was the second gospel that was written in order of time. Papias’s testimony on the former of these points, preserved by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl., lib. 3. cap. 39,) is very important; and, as he is the oldest witness, ought first to be produced. “This is what is related by the elder;” (that is, John, not the apostle, but a disciple of Jesus;) “Mark, being Peter’s interpreter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order wherein things were spoken and done by the Lord; for he was not himself a hearer of our Lord, but he afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who gave instructions as suited the occasions, but not as a regular history of our Lord’s teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing such things as occurred to his memory; for of this one thing he was careful, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert no falsehood in his narrative.” Such is the testimony of Papias, which is the more to be regarded, as he assigns his authority, namely, John the elder, or presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and companion of the apostles, by whom he had been intrusted with a ministry in the church. Now, what is advanced by Papias, on the authority of John, is contradicted by none. On the contrary, it is confirmed by all who take occasion to mention the subject. But it will be sufficient to insert here the account given by Irenæus, (Adv. Hær., lib. 3. cap. 1,) which is the rather subjoined to that of Papias, because it serves to ascertain another circumstance, namely, that the publication of Mark’s gospel soon followed that of Matthew. After telling us that Matthew published his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, he adds, “After their departure, (εξοδον,) Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter.” The Greek word rendered “departure,” in this sentence, like the English word by which it is so translated, may either denote death, or a departure out of the city. It is here probably used in the latter of these senses, because, according to the accounts given by some others, Mark’s gospel was published in Peter’s life-time, and had his approbation. But, not to insist on this, which cannot be now ascertained, it is sufficient for us that we know by whom this gospel was written, and whence the writer drew his information. Indeed this latter point has, from the earliest times, been considered as so well authenticated, that some have not scrupled to denominate this, “The Gospel according to Peter.” Not that they intended thereby to dispute Mark’s title to be esteemed the writer, but to express, in a stronger manner, that every thing here advanced had the sanction of that apostle’s testimony, than whom no disciple more closely attended our Lord’s ministry, from its commencement to its consummation.
Some have thought that the writer of this gospel was the person of whom mention is several times made in the Acts and some of Paul’s epistles, called “John, whose surname is Mark,” and whose mother’s name was Mary, (Acts 12:12,) of whom we are likewise told, (Colossians 4:10,) that he was sister’s son to Barnabas. But, from the little that we are able to collect out of the apostolical writings, this appears rather improbable. Of John, surnamed Mark, one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together, Acts 12:25; 13:5. And when afterward there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find him again employing Mark’s assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honourable testimony, Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24. But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. This account is so different from that which the most ancient writers give of the Evangelist Mark, that, though they cannot be said to contradict each other, they can hardly be understood as spoken of the same individual. To the above may be added, that no ancient author, in speaking of this evangelist, ever calls him “John,” (the name given to the nephew of Barnabas,) but always “Mark.” In brief, the accounts given of Paul’s attendant, and those of Peter’s interpreter, concur in nothing but the name “Mark,” or “Marcus;” too slight a circumstance from which to conclude the sameness of the person, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither.
That Mark wrote his gospel in Greek, is as evidently conformable to the testimony of antiquity, as that Matthew wrote his in Hebrew. “Cardinal Baronius,” says Dr. Campbell, “is the only person who has strenuously maintained the contrary, affirming that this evangelist published his work in Latin. I know no argument, worthy the name of argument, but one, that he produces in favour of his opinion. ‘This gospel,’ says he, ‘was published at Rome for the benefit of the Romans. Can we then suppose it would be written in any other than the language of the place?’ I shall admit that this gospel was published at Rome; though that is not universally believed, some rather supposing it to have been at Alexandria, after Mark had been intrusted with the superintendence of that church. But though the design of the publication had been the benefit of those residing at Rome, it would not have been exclusively intended for the natives. Let it be observed, that the ministry of Peter, to whom Paul tells us, Galatians 2:7, the gospel of the circumcision was committed, was chiefly employed in converting and instructing his countrymen the Jews, who abounded at that time in the imperial city. Now, it was customary with such of the Jews as went abroad, (I may say, generally with travellers of all nations, especially from the East,) to make themselves masters of the Greek tongue, which was become a kind of universal language, and was more used by strangers at Rome, than the language of the place. It was with such that the first Christian missionaries were principally concerned. The Apostle Paul, accordingly, wrote to them in Greek, and not in Latin, which would not have been done, if the former language had not then been better understood in the Christian congregation than the latter. Now, if there was no impropriety in Paul’s writing them a very long epistle in Greek, neither was there any in Mark’s giving them his gospel in that language.
“From this gospel, as well as from the former, we should readily conclude that the author was by birth and education a Jew. The Hebraisms in the style, or examples of what has been called the idiom of the synagogue, are very evident throughout the whole. At the same time, as some critics have observed, there are several expressions here used which clearly indicate that the writer had been accustomed for some time to live among the Latins. Not only does he use the Latin words which are to be found in the other gospels, and seem to have been current in Judea, as, λεγεων, ‘legion,’ and δηναριον, ‘a denarius;’ but he employs some which are peculiar to himself, as κεντυριον, ‘centurion,’ and σπεκουλατωρ, ‘sentinel.’ These have been pleaded as evidences that the original was Latin; but, in fact, they are much stronger marks of a Greek writer who had lived some years among the Latins, and had been accustomed to use such names of offices as were familiarly known in the place.
“Augustine considers this evangelist as the abridger of Matthew: Marcus Matthæum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. It is indeed true that Mark sometimes copies the very expressions used by Matthew. That he is not, however, to be considered as an abridger, may be evinced by the following reasons: First, he omits altogether several things related by Matthew, — our Lord’s pedigree, his birth, the visit of the Magians, Joseph’s flight into Egypt, the cruelty of Herod. As his intention appears to have been to give, in brief, the history of our Lord’s ministry, he begins very properly with the preaching of the Baptist. Again: there are some other things in Matthew, whereof, though they fall within the time to which Mark had confined himself, he has taken no notice; and some things are mentioned by Mark which had been overlooked by Matthew. Further: he has not always followed the same arrangement with his predecessor; and his relation of some facts, so far from being an abridgment of Matthew’s, is the more circumstantial of the two. His style, in general, instead of being more concise, is more diffuse. That he had read Matthew’s gospel, cannot be doubted. For their exact conformity in expression in several places, Grotius has an ingenious manner of accounting. He supposes that Mark had carefully read Matthew’s gospel in the original Hebrew, before it was translated into Greek; and that he had the particulars fresh in his memory, when he was occupied in writing his gospel. Again: he supposes that the translator of Matthew into Greek has thought it safest to adopt the expressions of Mark, wherever they would suit the Hebrew, from which he was translating. But this, it must be confessed, though not implausible, is mere conjecture. It is generally our Lord’s discourses which are abridged by Mark. As to his miracles, he has rather more fully related them. The additional circumstances and incidents recorded in his gospel appear to rest upon the authority of the apostles, but principally on that of Peter.” As to the travels and labours of this evangelist, it is said that for some time he preached the gospel, in conjunction with St. Peter, in Italy and at Rome. Afterward, he was sent by him into Egypt, fixing his chief residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabouts; where he was so successful in his ministry, that he converted multitudes, both men and women, to the Christian faith. He afterward removed westward, toward the parts of Lybia, going through the countries of Marmorica, Pentapolis, and others thereabouts, where, notwithstanding the barbarity and idolatry of the inhabitants, he planted the gospel. Upon his return to Alexandria, he ordered the affairs of the church, and there suffered martyrdom in the following manner: About Easter, at the time the solemnities of Serapis were celebrated, the idolatrous people, being excited to vindicate the honour of their deity, seized St. Mark, when engaged in the solemn celebration of divine worship; and, binding his feet with cords, dragged him through the streets and most craggy places to the Bucelus, a precipice near the sea, and then for that night shut him up in prison, where he had the comfort of a divine vision. Early the next morning the tragedy began again: they dragged him about in the same manner, till, his flesh being raked off, and his blood run out, his spirits failed, and he expired. Some add that they burned his body, and that the Christians decently interred his bones and ashes near the place where he used to preach. This is supposed to have happened A.D. 68. Some writers assert, that the remains of St. Mark were afterward, with great pomp, translated from Alexandria to Venice. However, he is the tutelary patron of that republic, and has a very rich and stately church erected to his memory. See the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Gospel According to St. Mark.
SUT_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 160
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. MARK.
OF St. Mark, Papias writes, as he had heard from John the elder, that “Mark being the interpreter or scribe of Peter, accurately wrote whatever he remembered, but not exactly in the order in which the words were spoken, or the actions done; for he was not a hearer of the Lord, nor yet an immediate follower. But he afterwards accompanied Peter, who preached the doctrine of the gospel profitably to those that heard him, though not as a regular history of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark committed no error in having written some things as he had heard them; for he made one thing his chief design, to omit nothing that he had heard, nor yet to introduce any thing on secondary evidence.” Eusebius.
Origen varies from this opinion of Papias. He contends that Mark was one of the seventy two disciples, and that he had seen Christ in the flesh, and heard him preach. Now, as Origen spent his whole life in Alexandria, the final seat of Mark’s labours, he had the most extensive means of knowing these facts, which he boldly asserts.
Jerome has left us the subsequent life of Mark, to the effect that “Mark, the disciple and interpreter, or amanuensis of Peter, being desired by the brethren at Rome, wrote a concise gospel, as he heard Peter preach and verbally declare the words of Christ. This gospel, after being examined by Peter, was approved, and published under his authority, that it might be read in the congregations, as St. Clement records in his book entitled Dispositions.” Before Jerome’s time, Tertullian had ventured to call it the gospel of Peter.
Peter also in his first epistle, 1 Peter 5:13, under the name of Babylon, figuratively put for Rome, has these words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.” — “Wherefore,” continues Clement, “he took the gospel which he himself had written, and went into Egypt, and was the first of all men to preach Christ in Alexandria, where he raised a church [ecclesia] founded on such pure doctrine and perfect discipline, as induced all who professed Christ to follow his example.”
Philo also, the elegant writer of the jews, perceiving that the first christians of Alexandria still persevered in the Hebrew religion, wrote a book of their good conversation, delicately ascribing the praise to his own nation. And as Luke records how all things were common among the faithful in Jerusalem, so Philo gave an impartial memoir of whatever he saw in the church of Alexandria, while Mark taught and preached in that city. Mark died there in the eighth year of the reign of Herod the third, and was buried in Alexandria. He was succeeded by Ananias.
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, who spent the latter part of his life in writing the Credibility of the Gospel History, is decidedly of opinion that there was but one John Mark, though others have thought that John and Mark were distinct persons. Paul makes honourable mention of him in two places. In Colossians 4:10, he says, “Salute Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments; if he come to you, receive him.” He requests Timothy to bring Mark along with him, as a fellow-labourer, adding, “For he is profitable to me for the ministry.” 2 Timothy 4:11. Truly, this is a high and honourable testimony. The first essays of Mark’s labours among the gentiles of which we read, was with his uncle Barnabas, and with St. Paul. With the former of whom he sailed to Cyprus, after Paul had preferred Silas as a fellow-labourer. His first name was John, Acts 15:37, his surname Mark, always accounted the first name after its assumption for reasons rounded on custom. Thus Barsabas is surnamed Justus; and Simeon, Niger: Hebrew names being barbarous to a Greek and Roman ear.
Eusebius, after stating that St. Peter had arrived at Rome, and preached the gospel of Christ with admirable success, adds, “that those who heard him were so enkindled with the love of the truth, that they could not contain themselves. They therefore prayed him to leave with them in writing the gospel which they had heard him declare. For this reason, he prayed Mark, who was his disciple, to leave them the manuscript of the gospel, in order that they might have it always at hand as they had heard it preached; nor did they desist from their entreaties till they had obliged Mark to write the gospel, which now bears the name of this saint.” — Demon. Evang. lib. 2. cap. 15.
The Lord Jesus having had twelve apostles, Chrysostom asks, “Why there were but two who had undertaken to write the gospel; St. Mark, as well as St. Luke, being but disciples of the apostles?” He rejoins, “it was because men so holy did nothing for glory, but in all things conducted themselves by the movements of God, and with a view to edify the church.” Eusebius says, “that St. Mark wrote his gospel in the third year of Claudius, which was the forty third year of Christ, and ten years after his death.”
The church from the beginning abounded with gospels, and some of them of great merit; but they are seldom quoted by the fathers, except for some collateral expletives, because they were not canonized, nor delivered to the churches as written under the influences of the Holy Ghost. Augustine asserts that Mark has followed Matthew, as it were foot by foot, and is apparently his abbreviator. Marcus Matthæum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. Though this assertion may seem true, yet Mark has added many things not in Matthew, and related others with greater minuteness, and placed in better order as to juxtaposition. To these we may add another testimony, as collected by Professor Du Pin, in the introductory volume to his ecclesiastical history. St. Gregoire de Nazianze dans ses Poëmes, 34 et 44, ecrit que St. Marc, &c. That is, St Gregory Nazianzen, in his poems 34 and 44, writes that St. Mark composed his gospel for Italy, from the dictations of St. Peter. — The author of the Synopsis, attributed to Athanasius, affirms “that it was this apostle [Peter] who dictated the gospel according to St. Mark.” — Tertullian therefore had strong reasons for the efforts he made to have it called the Gospel according to St. Peter.
Daniel Whedon
Mark the Evangelist.
WHD_CO10.PDF, source PDF p. 476
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Acts 12:28” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 476). The surrounding discussion of Barnabas and Saul taking John Mark with them corresponds to Acts 12:25 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 476.
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “2 Peter 5:13” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 476). The surrounding discussion of Mark with Peter at Babylon corresponds to 1 Peter 5:13 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 476.
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “1 Peter 5:23” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 476). The surrounding discussion of Mark with Peter at Babylon corresponds to 1 Peter 5:13 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 476.
MARK
MARK THE EVANGELIST.
JOHN, surnamed MARK, (by the addition, according to custom, of a Gentile to a Jewish name,) was son of Mary, a pious woman at Jerusalem, at whose house the first Christians sometimes assembled. He was converted to the Christian faith by St. Peter. He was nephew to Barnabas, He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their visit to the Gentiles, (Acts 12:28,) but he left them at Pamphylia and returned to Jerusalem. On account of this retreat St. Paul thought not good to take him on the next journey, which caused a variance between him and Mark’s uncle, Barnabas. They separated, and Barnabas took Mark with him to Cyprus. Mark recovered the confidence of Paul and was his fellow-prisoner at Rome. He was also with St. Peter at Babylon. (2 Peter 5:13.) Tradition says he preached the Gospel in Egypt, and the Coptic or Egyptian Church at this day claims him as its founder. He remained at Egypt, and died, it is said, in the eighth year of Nero, A.D. 61 or 62.
Mark’s Gospel is brief, but is not a mere abridgement of either of the other Gospels. It omits much, but what it relates is sometimes given more fully than by any other evangelist. His frequent explanations of Jewish phrases show that he wrote for Gentiles. It is said that he wrote by dictation of St. Peter. But Mark writes with the minuteness, freshness, and circumstantial ease of an independent eye-witness.
Mark being a resident at Jerusalem, at the house of his Christian mother, during our Saviour’s life, probably had opportunity for a full acquaintance with all the facts of our Saviour’s history. I am of the decided opinion that he was himself the young man described by himself (Mark 14:51) as following Jesus, and narrowly escaping apprehension, as his friend, by the soldiery. (Acts 12:12; Colossians 4:10; Acts 12:25; 13:5-13; 15:37-39; Philippians 24; 2 Timothy 4:11; 1 Peter 5:23.)
Richard Watson
Introduction
WAT_EXPO.PDF, source PDF p. 565
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK
INTRODUCTION
ST. MARK was the son of Mary, a disciple resident at Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians often assembled. He is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, where the apostle calls him “Marcus my son.” There seems little reason for doubting that he was the John Mark of Jerusalem, who travelled for awhile as the companion of Paul and Barnabas, and who incurred the displeasure of the former for having left them before the whole tour they proposed was completed. Upon the separation of Paul and Barnabas, on his account, Mark travelled with the latter. That it was nothing which affected the personal or ministerial character of Mark which occasioned this dispute, and St. Paul’s refusal to have him as a companion on a second tour, may be gathered from the honourable mention made of him by that apostle in 2 Timothy 4:11: “Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” He finally attached himself to St. Peter, with whom he continued until the death of that apostle. After he had written his gospel, which was done while he was the companion of St. Peter, he is said by Eusebius and Jerome to have laboured in Egypt, and planted the celebrated Church of Alexandria. It was so certainly admitted in the earliest times that Mark wrote his gospel under the eye of St. Peter, that among the primitive Christians it was known as familiarly by the name of the gospel of St. Peter as the gospel of St. Mark. Although this gospel was composed at Rome, the notion of some, that it was written in Latin, is not sustained by sufficient evidence. No ancient author ever affirmed this; and the testimony is uniform that it was written in Greek, the only language which then had any pretence to be universal. That it was designed for the Gentile, not Jewish converts only, is clear from the explanation he subjoins to words and customs which to Jews were sufficiently familiar. Critics have discovered in it many Latinisms; which may be accounted for from Mark having long lived at Rome, and no doubt speaking the Latin tongue. That the gospel which bears the name of St. Mark was in reality written by him, the testimony of antiquity is uniform and decisive; and equally so, that, if he was not the amanuensis of St. Peter, he acted at his suggestion, and embodied his relations of the facts of the history of our Lord, as he had heard them stated by him, and under the inspiration of the same Spirit. Whether he published his gospel before the death of St. Peter, or only collected the materials, and completed the work after the martyrdom of that apostle, is uncertain. This renders the exact time of its publication a matter of conjecture; but it is evident, from his concluding words, that it was not till after the apostles had left Judea, and had dispersed “everywhere preaching the word.” The date may be fixed at from A.D. 60, to A.D. 63.
Notwithstanding the strong similarity of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, in many parts, there is no reason to doubt that the latter is not strictly an original work. St. Mark is often more copious and circumstantial than St. Matthew, and sometimes much less so, while he introduces several entirely new circumstances and narrations.
The longer discourses of Christ are generally omitted; and the whole may be considered in the light, not of a perfect gospel, — for that is the character of none of them taken separately, and the perfection lies in the COLLECTION of the four, — but as a compendium of the stupendous works of the Divine Founder of our religion, and as a most convincing manual of its evidences, as founded upon the character, actions, and miracles of its Author. See the Introduction to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
John Wesley
Notes on the Gospel According to St. Mark.
WES_NTN1.PDF, source PDF p. 134
NOTES ON THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.
THIS CONTAINS,
I. The beginning of the Gospel,
a. John prepares the way Mark 1:1-8 b. Baptizes Jesus, who is proclaimed the Son of God 9-11 c. Tempted of Satan, served by angels 12,13
II. The Gospel itself,
A. In Galilee: where we may observe three periods, a. After John was cast into prison, In general,
1. The place and matter of his preaching, 14,15
2. The calling of several of the apostles 16-20 In particular,
1. Actions not censured by his adversaries
1. He teaches with authority 21, 22
2. Cures the demoniac 23-28
3. Heals many sick 29-34
4. Prays 35
5. Teaches every where 36-39
6. Cleanses the leper 40-45
2. Actions censured by them, Here occur,
1. The paralytic forgiven and healed Mark 2:1-12
2. The call of Levi, and eating with publicans and sinners 13-17
3. The question concerning fasting answered 18-22
4. The ears of corn plucked 23-28
5. The withered hand restored: Snares laid Mark 3:1-6
3. Our Lord's retirement,
1. At the sea 7-12
2. In the mountain, where the apostles are called 13-19
3. In the house, where after refuting the blasphemy of the Pharisees, he shows who are his mother and his brethren 20-35
4. In the ship; various parables Mark 4:1-34
5. On the sea, and beyond it 35-41 Mark 5:1-20
6. On this side the sea: Again: Jairus, and the woman with the flux of blood 21-43
7. At Nazareth: His countrymen offended Mark 6:1-6
8. The apostles sent forth 7-13
b. After John was put to death,
1. Herod's hearing of Jesus, and judgment of him 14-29
2. Christ's retiring with his apostles, now returned 30-32
3. The earnestness of the people; Christ's compassion; five thousand fed 33-44
4. His walking on the sea 45-52
5. He heals many in the land of Gennesaret 53-56
6. And teaches what defiles a man Mark 7:1-23
7. A devil cast out in the coasts of Tyre and Sidon 24-30
8. At the sea of Galilee, the deaf and dumb healed; four thousand fed 31-37 Mark 8:1-9
9. He comes into the parts of Dalmanutha, and answers concerning the sign from heaven Mark 8:10-13
10. In the ship, he warns them of evil leaven 14-21
11. At Bethsaida, heals the sick 22-26
c. After he was acknowledged to be the Son of God,
1. Peter confessing him, he enjoins his disciples silence; foretells his passion; reproves Peter; exhorts to follow him 21 Mark 9:1
2. Is transfigured: casts out a devil; foretells his passion 2-32
3. Reproves and instructs his disciples 33-50 B. In Judea,
a. In the borders Mark 10:1
1. He treats of divorce 2-12
2. Of little children 13-16
3. Of entering into life, and of the danger of riches 17-31 b. In his way to the city,
1. He foretells his passion a third time 32-34
2. Answers James and John, and instructs them all 35-45
3. At Jericho, gives sight to Bartimeus 46-52
4. At Jerusalem Mark 11:1
a. His royal entry 2-11
b. The day after, the fig tree cursed 12-14 the temple purged 15-19 c. The day after that,
1. Near the fig tree, he shows the power of faith 20-26
2. In the temple,
1. His authority vindicated 27-33
2. The parable of the wicked husbandmen Mark 12:1-12
3. Of paying tribute to Cesar 13-17
4. Of the resurrection 18-27
5. Of the great commandment 28-34
6. Of David's Lord 35-37
7. He warns the people of the scribes 38-40
8. Commends the poor widow 41-44
3. On Mount Olivet, he foretells the destruction of the city and temple, and the end of the world Mark 13:1-37 d. Two days before the passover; his enemies bargain with Judas Mark 14:1-11
e. On the first day of unleavened bread,
1. The passover prepared 12-16
2. The Lord's Supper instituted 17-25
3. After the hymn, the offence of the disciples and Peter's denial foretold 26-31
4. In Gethsemane, Jesus prays; wakes his disciples 32-42 Is betrayed; taken; forsaken of all 43-52
5. In the high priest's palace, He is condemned to death 53-65 Denied by Peter 66-72
f. Friday, What was done,
1. In Pilate's palace Mark 15:1-20
2. In the way 21
3. At Golgotha 22
1. The wine and myrrh offered 23
2. The crucifixion; his garments parted 24,25
3. The title 26
4. The two malefactors 27,28
5. Revilings 29-32
6. The darkness; the cry of Jesus; the scoff; the vinegar; his death; the veil rent 33-38
7. The saying of the centurion; the women looking on 39-41
4. In the evening, the burial 42-47
g. Sunday, Our Lord's resurrection declared,
1. By an angel Mark 16:1-8
2. By himself, To Mary Magdalene 9-11 To two going into the country 12,13 To the eleven sitting at meat 14 III. The Gospel,
1. Committed by Christ to his apostles after his resurrection 15-18
2. Confirmed after his ascension 19,20
Adam Clarke
Preface to the Gospel According to St. Mark. With a Short Accou
CLA_MAR.PDF, source PDF p. 3
PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST.
MARK. WITH A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE.
FOR an explication of the word GOSPEL, and the title SAINT, see the Preface to Matthew {Matthew 1:1.} p. ii-v. MARK. This person, the second in the commonly received order of the four evangelists, was named JOHN MARK, and was the son of a pious woman called Mary, who dwelt at Jerusalem: she was an early believer, and the disciples used to meet at her house. Peter, having been delivered out of prison by an angel, came to the house of Mary, mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying, Acts 12:12. This very first mention of John Mark assures us of Peter’s intimacy in that family: it is almost universally allowed that Mark, mentioned by Peter, 1 Peter 5:13, is this evangelist, and that he is the same with him who is called sister’s son to Barnabas, Colossians 4:10, and is supposed to have been converted by Peter to the Christian faith. Mr. W. Whiston supposes him to have been Peter’s own son. See his Primitive New Test. Notes at the end. He travelled from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, Acts 12:25, and some short time after he accompanied them to other countries as their minister, Acts 13:5. When they returned to the continent, and came on shore at Perga in Pamphylia, he departed from them and returned to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13. Afterwards he would have gone with Paul and Barnabas, but the former refused to take him, because of his having left them at Pamphylia; Paul and Barnabas then separated, and Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, Acts 15:36-41. Afterwards Paul and he were fully reconciled, as evidently appears from 2 Timothy 4:11: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry. This appears also from Philemon, Philemon 1:24, where Mark is styled Paul’s fellow-labourer; and from Colossians 4:10, where we find the apostle recommending him in a particular manner to the Church of God at that place. He is generally supposed to have been particularly intimate with St. Peter, to have written his Gospel at ROME, A. D. 64, and to have died at Alexandria in Egypt, in the eighth year of the reign of Nero. Dr. LARDNER has fully proved that Mark the evangelist, and John Mark nephew to Barnabas, were one and the same person. See his Works, vol. vi. p. 77, &c.
How Mark composed his Gospel, is a question not yet decided among learned men. Many of the primitive fathers, such as Papias, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, &c., believed that he was only the amanuensis of St. Peter; that this apostle, through modesty, would not put his name to the work, but dictated the whole account, and Mark wrote it down from his mouth. St. Augustine appears to have been the first who maintained that Mark abridged St. Matthew’s Gospel; and that it is not to be considered as an original work:-on this opinion several remarks will be made in the course of these notes. Others suppose that Mark compiled it, partly out of Matthew’s Gospel, and partly out of the Gospel of Luke. But most of these are conjectures which appear to have very little foundation. Critics are also divided concerning the language in which it was written, and the people to whom it was sent. Some have contended for a Latin original, because of several Latin words found in it, such as σπεκουλατωρ, Mark 6:27, one of the guard; κεντυριων, Mark 15:39, 44, 46, a centurion, a captain of one hundred men; συσσημον, Mark 14:44, a signal, a sign agreed on. But such words are better accounted for by supposing that his Gospel was written for the use of the Roman people; and that it is on this account that he wholly passes by the genealogy of our Lord, as being a point of no consequence to Gentile converts, though very necessary for the Jews, and especially the Jews of Palestine. That it was originally written in Greek, is a point now acknowledged by almost all learned men.
It may be necessary to state the things omitted by Mark in the beginning of his Gospel which are mentioned by Matthew and Luke.
1. The PREFACE, found in Luke and John, Luke 1:1; John 1:1.
2. The CONCEPTION of Elizabeth, Luke 1:5-25.
3. The SALUTATION of Mary, Luke 1:26-38.
4. Mary’s VISIT to Elizabeth, Luke 1:39-56.
5. John Baptist’s BIRTH, Luke 1:57-79.
6. The Angel’s APPEARANCE to Joseph, Matthew 1:18-25.
7. The BIRTH of CHRIST, Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:1-7.
8. The GENEALOGY of CHRIST, Matthew 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38.
9. The Appearance of the Angel to the SHEPHERDS, Luke 2:8-20.
10. The CIRCUMCISION of CHRIST, Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:21.
11. The PRESENTATION of Christ in the Temple, Luke 2:22-38.
12. The Coming of the MAGI, Matthew 2:1-12.
13. The FLIGHT into Egypt, Matthew 2:13-15.
14. Herod’s MURDER of the INNOCENTS, Matthew 2:16-18.
15. The RETURN of the Holy Family from Egypt, Matthew 2:19-23; Luke 2:39.
16. Christ’s JOURNEY to Jerusalem when twelve years of age, Luke 2:40-48.
From the particulars enumerated here, it appears that the things omitted by Mark are also omitted by John, except the Preface; and that St. Luke is the most circumstantial.
For other particulars relative to this Gospel, see at the end of the last chapter.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK
-Usherian year of the World, 4030.
-Alexandrian year of the World, 5528.
-Antiochian year of the World, 5518.
-Constantinopolitan Æra of the World, 5534.
-Rabbinical year of the World, 3786.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4740.
-Æra of the Seleucidæ, 338.
-Year of the Christian Æra, 26.
-Year of the CCI. Olympiad, 2.
-Year of the building of Rome, 769.
-Year of the Julian Æra, 71.
-Year of the Cæsarean Æra of Antioch, 74.
-Year of the Spanish Æra, 64.
-Year of the Paschal Cycle or Dionysian Period, 27.
-Year of the Christian Lunar Cycle, or Golden Number, 8. -Year of the Rabbinical Lunar Cycle, 5.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 7.
-Dominical Letter, F.
-Epact, 17.
-Year of the Emperor Tiberius, 14.
-Consuls, C. Calvisius Sabinus, and Cn. Corn. Lentulus Getulicus, from January 1 to July 1; and Q. Marcius Barca and T. Rustius Nummus Gallus, for the remainder of the year. The reason why two sets of Consuls appear in this Chronology is this: the Consuls were changed every year in July; therefore, taking in the whole year, four Consuls necessarily appear: two for the first six months, and two for the latter half of the year.
Joseph Benson
Preface
BEN_VOL6.PDF, source PDF p. 479
GOSPEL OF SAINT MARK.
PREFACE
It is generally supposed by commentators, on the authority of ancient writers, that the person whom St. Peter speaks of, 1 Peter 5:13, and terms, “Marcus his son,” was the author of this gospel; and that it was the second gospel that was written in order of time. Papias’s testimony on the former of these points, preserved by Eusebius, (Hist. Eccl., lib. 3. cap. 39,) is very important; and, as he is the oldest witness, ought first to be produced. “This is what is related by the elder;” (that is, John, not the apostle, but a disciple of Jesus;) “Mark, being Peter’s interpreter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered, not indeed in the order wherein things were spoken and done by the Lord; for he was not himself a hearer of our Lord, but he afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who gave instructions as suited the occasions, but not as a regular history of our Lord’s teaching. Mark, however, committed no mistake in writing such things as occurred to his memory; for of this one thing he was careful, to omit nothing which he had heard, and to insert no falsehood in his narrative.” Such is the testimony of Papias, which is the more to be regarded, as he assigns his authority, namely, John the elder, or presbyter, a disciple of Jesus, and companion of the apostles, by whom he had been intrusted with a ministry in the church. Now, what is advanced by Papias, on the authority of John, is contradicted by none. On the contrary, it is confirmed by all who take occasion to mention the subject. But it will be sufficient to insert here the account given by Irenæus, (Adv. Hær., lib. 3. cap. 1,) which is the rather subjoined to that of Papias, because it serves to ascertain another circumstance, namely, that the publication of Mark’s gospel soon followed that of Matthew. After telling us that Matthew published his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, he adds, “After their departure, (εξοδον,) Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered us in writing the things which had been preached by Peter.” The Greek word rendered “departure,” in this sentence, like the English word by which it is so translated, may either denote death, or a departure out of the city. It is here probably used in the latter of these senses, because, according to the accounts given by some others, Mark’s gospel was published in Peter’s life-time, and had his approbation. But, not to insist on this, which cannot be now ascertained, it is sufficient for us that we know by whom this gospel was written, and whence the writer drew his information. Indeed this latter point has, from the earliest times, been considered as so well authenticated, that some have not scrupled to denominate this, “The Gospel according to Peter.” Not that they intended thereby to dispute Mark’s title to be esteemed the writer, but to express, in a stronger manner, that every thing here advanced had the sanction of that apostle’s testimony, than whom no disciple more closely attended our Lord’s ministry, from its commencement to its consummation.
Some have thought that the writer of this gospel was the person of whom mention is several times made in the Acts and some of Paul’s epistles, called “John, whose surname is Mark,” and whose mother’s name was Mary, (Acts 12:12,) of whom we are likewise told, (Colossians 4:10,) that he was sister’s son to Barnabas. But, from the little that we are able to collect out of the apostolical writings, this appears rather improbable. Of John, surnamed Mark, one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together, Acts 12:25; 13:5. And when afterward there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find him again employing Mark’s assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honourable testimony, Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24. But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. This account is so different from that which the most ancient writers give of the Evangelist Mark, that, though they cannot be said to contradict each other, they can hardly be understood as spoken of the same individual. To the above may be added, that no ancient author, in speaking of this evangelist, ever calls him “John,” (the name given to the nephew of Barnabas,) but always “Mark.” In brief, the accounts given of Paul’s attendant, and those of Peter’s interpreter, concur in nothing but the name “Mark,” or “Marcus;” too slight a circumstance from which to conclude the sameness of the person, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither.
That Mark wrote his gospel in Greek, is as evidently conformable to the testimony of antiquity, as that Matthew wrote his in Hebrew. “Cardinal Baronius,” says Dr. Campbell, “is the only person who has strenuously maintained the contrary, affirming that this evangelist published his work in Latin. I know no argument, worthy the name of argument, but one, that he produces in favour of his opinion. ‘This gospel,’ says he, ‘was published at Rome for the benefit of the Romans. Can we then suppose it would be written in any other than the language of the place?’ I shall admit that this gospel was published at Rome; though that is not universally believed, some rather supposing it to have been at Alexandria, after Mark had been intrusted with the superintendence of that church. But though the design of the publication had been the benefit of those residing at Rome, it would not have been exclusively intended for the natives. Let it be observed, that the ministry of Peter, to whom Paul tells us, Galatians 2:7, the gospel of the circumcision was committed, was chiefly employed in converting and instructing his countrymen the Jews, who abounded at that time in the imperial city. Now, it was customary with such of the Jews as went abroad, (I may say, generally with travellers of all nations, especially from the East,) to make themselves masters of the Greek tongue, which was become a kind of universal language, and was more used by strangers at Rome, than the language of the place. It was with such that the first Christian missionaries were principally concerned. The Apostle Paul, accordingly, wrote to them in Greek, and not in Latin, which would not have been done, if the former language had not then been better understood in the Christian congregation than the latter. Now, if there was no impropriety in Paul’s writing them a very long epistle in Greek, neither was there any in Mark’s giving them his gospel in that language.
“From this gospel, as well as from the former, we should readily conclude that the author was by birth and education a Jew. The Hebraisms in the style, or examples of what has been called the idiom of the synagogue, are very evident throughout the whole. At the same time, as some critics have observed, there are several expressions here used which clearly indicate that the writer had been accustomed for some time to live among the Latins. Not only does he use the Latin words which are to be found in the other gospels, and seem to have been current in Judea, as, λεγεων, ‘legion,’ and δηναριον, ‘a denarius;’ but he employs some which are peculiar to himself, as κεντυριον, ‘centurion,’ and σπεκουλατωρ, ‘sentinel.’ These have been pleaded as evidences that the original was Latin; but, in fact, they are much stronger marks of a Greek writer who had lived some years among the Latins, and had been accustomed to use such names of offices as were familiarly known in the place.
“Augustine considers this evangelist as the abridger of Matthew: Marcus Matthæum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. It is indeed true that Mark sometimes copies the very expressions used by Matthew. That he is not, however, to be considered as an abridger, may be evinced by the following reasons: First, he omits altogether several things related by Matthew, — our Lord’s pedigree, his birth, the visit of the Magians, Joseph’s flight into Egypt, the cruelty of Herod. As his intention appears to have been to give, in brief, the history of our Lord’s ministry, he begins very properly with the preaching of the Baptist. Again: there are some other things in Matthew, whereof, though they fall within the time to which Mark had confined himself, he has taken no notice; and some things are mentioned by Mark which had been overlooked by Matthew. Further: he has not always followed the same arrangement with his predecessor; and his relation of some facts, so far from being an abridgment of Matthew’s, is the more circumstantial of the two. His style, in general, instead of being more concise, is more diffuse. That he had read Matthew’s gospel, cannot be doubted. For their exact conformity in expression in several places, Grotius has an ingenious manner of accounting. He supposes that Mark had carefully read Matthew’s gospel in the original Hebrew, before it was translated into Greek; and that he had the particulars fresh in his memory, when he was occupied in writing his gospel. Again: he supposes that the translator of Matthew into Greek has thought it safest to adopt the expressions of Mark, wherever they would suit the Hebrew, from which he was translating. But this, it must be confessed, though not implausible, is mere conjecture. It is generally our Lord’s discourses which are abridged by Mark. As to his miracles, he has rather more fully related them. The additional circumstances and incidents recorded in his gospel appear to rest upon the authority of the apostles, but principally on that of Peter.” As to the travels and labours of this evangelist, it is said that for some time he preached the gospel, in conjunction with St. Peter, in Italy and at Rome. Afterward, he was sent by him into Egypt, fixing his chief residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabouts; where he was so successful in his ministry, that he converted multitudes, both men and women, to the Christian faith. He afterward removed westward, toward the parts of Lybia, going through the countries of Marmorica, Pentapolis, and others thereabouts, where, notwithstanding the barbarity and idolatry of the inhabitants, he planted the gospel. Upon his return to Alexandria, he ordered the affairs of the church, and there suffered martyrdom in the following manner: About Easter, at the time the solemnities of Serapis were celebrated, the idolatrous people, being excited to vindicate the honour of their deity, seized St. Mark, when engaged in the solemn celebration of divine worship; and, binding his feet with cords, dragged him through the streets and most craggy places to the Bucelus, a precipice near the sea, and then for that night shut him up in prison, where he had the comfort of a divine vision. Early the next morning the tragedy began again: they dragged him about in the same manner, till, his flesh being raked off, and his blood run out, his spirits failed, and he expired. Some add that they burned his body, and that the Christians decently interred his bones and ashes near the place where he used to preach. This is supposed to have happened A.D. 68. Some writers assert, that the remains of St. Mark were afterward, with great pomp, translated from Alexandria to Venice. However, he is the tutelary patron of that republic, and has a very rich and stately church erected to his memory. See the Encyclopædia Britannica.
Joseph Sutcliffe
The Gospel According to St. Mark.
SUT_VOL4.PDF, source PDF p. 160
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST. MARK.
OF St. Mark, Papias writes, as he had heard from John the elder, that “Mark being the interpreter or scribe of Peter, accurately wrote whatever he remembered, but not exactly in the order in which the words were spoken, or the actions done; for he was not a hearer of the Lord, nor yet an immediate follower. But he afterwards accompanied Peter, who preached the doctrine of the gospel profitably to those that heard him, though not as a regular history of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark committed no error in having written some things as he had heard them; for he made one thing his chief design, to omit nothing that he had heard, nor yet to introduce any thing on secondary evidence.” Eusebius.
Origen varies from this opinion of Papias. He contends that Mark was one of the seventy two disciples, and that he had seen Christ in the flesh, and heard him preach. Now, as Origen spent his whole life in Alexandria, the final seat of Mark’s labours, he had the most extensive means of knowing these facts, which he boldly asserts.
Jerome has left us the subsequent life of Mark, to the effect that “Mark, the disciple and interpreter, or amanuensis of Peter, being desired by the brethren at Rome, wrote a concise gospel, as he heard Peter preach and verbally declare the words of Christ. This gospel, after being examined by Peter, was approved, and published under his authority, that it might be read in the congregations, as St. Clement records in his book entitled Dispositions.” Before Jerome’s time, Tertullian had ventured to call it the gospel of Peter.
Peter also in his first epistle, 1 Peter 5:13, under the name of Babylon, figuratively put for Rome, has these words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.” — “Wherefore,” continues Clement, “he took the gospel which he himself had written, and went into Egypt, and was the first of all men to preach Christ in Alexandria, where he raised a church [ecclesia] founded on such pure doctrine and perfect discipline, as induced all who professed Christ to follow his example.”
Philo also, the elegant writer of the jews, perceiving that the first christians of Alexandria still persevered in the Hebrew religion, wrote a book of their good conversation, delicately ascribing the praise to his own nation. And as Luke records how all things were common among the faithful in Jerusalem, so Philo gave an impartial memoir of whatever he saw in the church of Alexandria, while Mark taught and preached in that city. Mark died there in the eighth year of the reign of Herod the third, and was buried in Alexandria. He was succeeded by Ananias.
Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, who spent the latter part of his life in writing the Credibility of the Gospel History, is decidedly of opinion that there was but one John Mark, though others have thought that John and Mark were distinct persons. Paul makes honourable mention of him in two places. In Colossians 4:10, he says, “Salute Mark, sister’s son to Barnabas, touching whom ye received commandments; if he come to you, receive him.” He requests Timothy to bring Mark along with him, as a fellow-labourer, adding, “For he is profitable to me for the ministry.” 2 Timothy 4:11. Truly, this is a high and honourable testimony. The first essays of Mark’s labours among the gentiles of which we read, was with his uncle Barnabas, and with St. Paul. With the former of whom he sailed to Cyprus, after Paul had preferred Silas as a fellow-labourer. His first name was John, Acts 15:37, his surname Mark, always accounted the first name after its assumption for reasons rounded on custom. Thus Barsabas is surnamed Justus; and Simeon, Niger: Hebrew names being barbarous to a Greek and Roman ear.
Eusebius, after stating that St. Peter had arrived at Rome, and preached the gospel of Christ with admirable success, adds, “that those who heard him were so enkindled with the love of the truth, that they could not contain themselves. They therefore prayed him to leave with them in writing the gospel which they had heard him declare. For this reason, he prayed Mark, who was his disciple, to leave them the manuscript of the gospel, in order that they might have it always at hand as they had heard it preached; nor did they desist from their entreaties till they had obliged Mark to write the gospel, which now bears the name of this saint.” — Demon. Evang. lib. 2. cap. 15.
The Lord Jesus having had twelve apostles, Chrysostom asks, “Why there were but two who had undertaken to write the gospel; St. Mark, as well as St. Luke, being but disciples of the apostles?” He rejoins, “it was because men so holy did nothing for glory, but in all things conducted themselves by the movements of God, and with a view to edify the church.” Eusebius says, “that St. Mark wrote his gospel in the third year of Claudius, which was the forty third year of Christ, and ten years after his death.”
The church from the beginning abounded with gospels, and some of them of great merit; but they are seldom quoted by the fathers, except for some collateral expletives, because they were not canonized, nor delivered to the churches as written under the influences of the Holy Ghost. Augustine asserts that Mark has followed Matthew, as it were foot by foot, and is apparently his abbreviator. Marcus Matthæum subsecutus tanquam pedissequus et breviator ejus videtur. Though this assertion may seem true, yet Mark has added many things not in Matthew, and related others with greater minuteness, and placed in better order as to juxtaposition. To these we may add another testimony, as collected by Professor Du Pin, in the introductory volume to his ecclesiastical history. St. Gregoire de Nazianze dans ses Poëmes, 34 et 44, ecrit que St. Marc, &c. That is, St Gregory Nazianzen, in his poems 34 and 44, writes that St. Mark composed his gospel for Italy, from the dictations of St. Peter. — The author of the Synopsis, attributed to Athanasius, affirms “that it was this apostle [Peter] who dictated the gospel according to St. Mark.” — Tertullian therefore had strong reasons for the efforts he made to have it called the Gospel according to St. Peter.
Daniel Whedon
Mark the Evangelist.
WHD_CO10.PDF, source PDF p. 476
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “Acts 12:28” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 476). The surrounding discussion of Barnabas and Saul taking John Mark with them corresponds to Acts 12:25 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 476.
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “2 Peter 5:13” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 476). The surrounding discussion of Mark with Peter at Babylon corresponds to 1 Peter 5:13 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 476.
Editorial note: The supplied edition prints “1 Peter 5:23” here (WHD_CO10.PDF, physical PDF page 476). The surrounding discussion of Mark with Peter at Babylon corresponds to 1 Peter 5:13 in the King James Version. The origin of the printed numbering is not established here; the historical wording is retained. WHD_CO10.PDF, PDF page 476.
MARK
MARK THE EVANGELIST.
JOHN, surnamed MARK, (by the addition, according to custom, of a Gentile to a Jewish name,) was son of Mary, a pious woman at Jerusalem, at whose house the first Christians sometimes assembled. He was converted to the Christian faith by St. Peter. He was nephew to Barnabas, He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their visit to the Gentiles, (Acts 12:28,) but he left them at Pamphylia and returned to Jerusalem. On account of this retreat St. Paul thought not good to take him on the next journey, which caused a variance between him and Mark’s uncle, Barnabas. They separated, and Barnabas took Mark with him to Cyprus. Mark recovered the confidence of Paul and was his fellow-prisoner at Rome. He was also with St. Peter at Babylon. (2 Peter 5:13.) Tradition says he preached the Gospel in Egypt, and the Coptic or Egyptian Church at this day claims him as its founder. He remained at Egypt, and died, it is said, in the eighth year of Nero, A.D. 61 or 62.
Mark’s Gospel is brief, but is not a mere abridgement of either of the other Gospels. It omits much, but what it relates is sometimes given more fully than by any other evangelist. His frequent explanations of Jewish phrases show that he wrote for Gentiles. It is said that he wrote by dictation of St. Peter. But Mark writes with the minuteness, freshness, and circumstantial ease of an independent eye-witness.
Mark being a resident at Jerusalem, at the house of his Christian mother, during our Saviour’s life, probably had opportunity for a full acquaintance with all the facts of our Saviour’s history. I am of the decided opinion that he was himself the young man described by himself (Mark 14:51) as following Jesus, and narrowly escaping apprehension, as his friend, by the soldiery. (Acts 12:12; Colossians 4:10; Acts 12:25; 13:5-13; 15:37-39; Philippians 24; 2 Timothy 4:11; 1 Peter 5:23.)
Richard Watson
Introduction
WAT_EXPO.PDF, source PDF p. 565
THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK
INTRODUCTION
ST. MARK was the son of Mary, a disciple resident at Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians often assembled. He is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, where the apostle calls him “Marcus my son.” There seems little reason for doubting that he was the John Mark of Jerusalem, who travelled for awhile as the companion of Paul and Barnabas, and who incurred the displeasure of the former for having left them before the whole tour they proposed was completed. Upon the separation of Paul and Barnabas, on his account, Mark travelled with the latter. That it was nothing which affected the personal or ministerial character of Mark which occasioned this dispute, and St. Paul’s refusal to have him as a companion on a second tour, may be gathered from the honourable mention made of him by that apostle in 2 Timothy 4:11: “Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry.” He finally attached himself to St. Peter, with whom he continued until the death of that apostle. After he had written his gospel, which was done while he was the companion of St. Peter, he is said by Eusebius and Jerome to have laboured in Egypt, and planted the celebrated Church of Alexandria. It was so certainly admitted in the earliest times that Mark wrote his gospel under the eye of St. Peter, that among the primitive Christians it was known as familiarly by the name of the gospel of St. Peter as the gospel of St. Mark. Although this gospel was composed at Rome, the notion of some, that it was written in Latin, is not sustained by sufficient evidence. No ancient author ever affirmed this; and the testimony is uniform that it was written in Greek, the only language which then had any pretence to be universal. That it was designed for the Gentile, not Jewish converts only, is clear from the explanation he subjoins to words and customs which to Jews were sufficiently familiar. Critics have discovered in it many Latinisms; which may be accounted for from Mark having long lived at Rome, and no doubt speaking the Latin tongue. That the gospel which bears the name of St. Mark was in reality written by him, the testimony of antiquity is uniform and decisive; and equally so, that, if he was not the amanuensis of St. Peter, he acted at his suggestion, and embodied his relations of the facts of the history of our Lord, as he had heard them stated by him, and under the inspiration of the same Spirit. Whether he published his gospel before the death of St. Peter, or only collected the materials, and completed the work after the martyrdom of that apostle, is uncertain. This renders the exact time of its publication a matter of conjecture; but it is evident, from his concluding words, that it was not till after the apostles had left Judea, and had dispersed “everywhere preaching the word.” The date may be fixed at from A.D. 60, to A.D. 63.
Notwithstanding the strong similarity of the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, in many parts, there is no reason to doubt that the latter is not strictly an original work. St. Mark is often more copious and circumstantial than St. Matthew, and sometimes much less so, while he introduces several entirely new circumstances and narrations.
The longer discourses of Christ are generally omitted; and the whole may be considered in the light, not of a perfect gospel, — for that is the character of none of them taken separately, and the perfection lies in the COLLECTION of the four, — but as a compendium of the stupendous works of the Divine Founder of our religion, and as a most convincing manual of its evidences, as founded upon the character, actions, and miracles of its Author. See the Introduction to St. Matthew’s Gospel.