Mark

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

[1] [2]

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

INTRODUCTION

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed,

though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the

writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the

Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas"

(Col 4:10).

But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the

tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder

how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN,

HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the

length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same

person with the John Mark of the Gospels." But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they

were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John,

surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to

this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended

Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two

travelled together

(Ac 12:25; 13:5).

And when afterwards 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 Paul again employing Mark's assistance,

recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony

(Col 4:10;

2Ti 4:11;

Phm 24).

But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or

assisting him in any capacity." And yet, as we shall presently see, no

tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by

internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the

interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of

him as "Marcus my son"

(1Pe 5:13),

that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ

through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the

Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how

different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of

labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact,

something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark

was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "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 to conclude the sameness of the

person from, 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."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's

companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was

a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel,

the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform,

and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard

it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the

testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming

the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order,

whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for

he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but

afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the

discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were

uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS

[Against Heresies, 3. 1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter

and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after

their departure (or decease), Mark,

the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in

writing the things which were preached by Peter." And

CLEMENT OF

ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to

us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having

publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the

Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as

having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had

said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the

Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when

Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor

encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts,

is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his

preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no

rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral

teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the

Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men,

and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of

Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving

in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from

excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the

Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded

his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things

of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be

memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to

ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or

"directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.;

and to JEROME, who but echoes

EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which,

confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded

as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly

from materials furnished by Peter. In DA

COSTA'S Four Witnesses the

reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all

the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer

to our remarks on

Mr 16:7,

and

Joh 18:27,

he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this

Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for

whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the

great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places,

which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were

highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to

Mr 2:18;

7:3, 4; 12:18; 13:3; 14:12; 15:42,

for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which

nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on, that it was written at

Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word

"departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it

somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is

too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years

earlier.