Mark

one of the evangelists, and probable author of the Gospel bearing his name. (Marcus was his Latin surname. His Jewish name was John, which is the same as Johanan (the grace of God). We can almost trace the steps whereby the former became his prevalent name in the Church. “John, whose surname was Mark” in (Acts 12:12,25; 15:37) becomes “John” alone in (Acts 13:5,13) “Mark” in (Acts 15:39) and thenceforward there is no change. (Colossians 4:10); Phlm 1:24; 2Tim 4:11 The evangelist was the son of a certain Mary, a Jewish matron of some position who dwelt in Jerusalem, (Acts 12:12) and was probably born of a Hellenistic family in that city. Of his father we know nothing; but we do know that the future evangelist was cousin of Barnabas of Cyprus, the great friend of St. Paul. His mother would seem to have been intimately acquainted with St. Peter, and it was to her house, as to a familiar home, that the apostle repaired, A.D. 44, after his deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12) This fact accounts for St. Mark’s intimate acquaintance with that apostle, to whom also he probably owed his conversion, for St. Peter calls him his son. (1 Peter 5:13) We hear Of him for the first time in Acts 15:25 where we find him accompanying and Barnabas on their return from Jerusalem to Antioch, A.D. 45. He next comes before us on the occasion of the earliest missionary journey of the same apostles, A.D. 48, when he joined them as their “minister.” (Acts 13:8) With them he visited Cyprus; but at Perga in Pamphylia, (Acts 13:13) when they were about to enter upon the more arduous part of their mission, he left them, and, for some unexplained reason, returned to Jerusalem to his mother and his home. Notwithstanding this, we find him at Paul’s side during that apostle’s first imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 61-63, and he Is acknowledged by him as one of his few fellow laborers who had been a “comfort” to him during the weary hours of his imprisonment. (Colossians 4:10,11); Phle 1:24 We next have traces of him in (1 Peter 5:13) “The church that is in Babylon ... saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son.” From this we infer that he joined his spiritual father, the great friend of his mother, at Babylon, then and for same hundred years afterward one of the chief seats of Jewish culture. From Babylon he would seem to have returned to Asia Minor; for during his second imprisonment A.D. 68 St. Paul, writing to Timothy charges him to bring Mark with him to me, on the ground that he was “profitable to him For the ministry.” (2 Timothy 4:11) From this point we gain no further information from the New Testament respecting the evangelist. It is most probable, however that he did join the apostle at Rome whither also St. Peter would seem to have proceeded, and suffered martyrdom with St. Paul. After the death of these two great pillars of the Church; ecclesiastical tradition affirms that St. Mark visited Egypt, founded the church of Alexandria, and died by martyrdom.—Condensed from Cambridge Bible for Schools.—ED.)

• By whom written.—The author of this Gospel has been universally believed to be Mark or Marcus, designated in (Acts 12:12,25; 15:37) as John Mark, and in ch. 5,13 as John.

• When is was written.—Upon this point nothing absolutely certain can be affirmed, and the Gospel itself affords us no information. The most direct testimony is that of Irenaeus, who says it was after the death of the apostles Peter and Paul. We may conclude, therefore, that this Gospel was not written before A.D. 63. Again we may as certainly conclude that it was not written after the destruction of Jerusalem, for it is not likely that he would have omitted to record so remarkable a fulfillment of our Lord’s predictions. Hence A.D. 63-70 becomes our limit, but nearer than this we cannot go.—Farrar.

• Where it was written .—As to the place, the weight of testimony is uniformly in favor of the belief that the Gospel was written and published at Rome. In this Clement, Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, all agree. Chrysostom, indeed, asserts that it was published at Alexandria; but his statement receives no confirmation, as otherwise it could not fail to have done, from any Alexandrine writer.—Farrar.

• In what language.—As to the language in which it was written, there never has been any reasonable doubt that it was written in Greek.

• Sources of information .—Mark was not one of the twelve; and there is no reason to believe that he was an eye and ear witness of the events which he has recorded but an almost unanimous testimony of the early fathers indicates Peter as the source of his information. The most important of these testimonies is that of Papias, who says, “He, the Presbyter (John), said, Mark, being the Interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered but he did not write in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as I said, afterward followed Peter, who made his discourses to suit what was required, without the view of giving a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord. Mark, therefore, made no mistakes when he wrote down circumstances as he recollected them; for he was very careful of one thing, to omit nothing of what he heard, and to say nothing false in what he related.” Thus Papias writes of Mark. This testimony is confirmed by other witnesses.—Abbott.

• For whom it was written.—The traditional statement is that it was intended primarily for Gentiles, and especially for those at Rome. A review of the Gospel itself confirms this view.

• Characteristics .— (1) Mark’s Gospel is occupied almost entirely with the ministry in Galilee and the events of the passion week. It is the shortest of the four Gospels, and contains almost no incident or teaching which is not contained in one of the other two synoptists; but (2) it is by far the most vivid and dramatic in its narratives, and their pictorial character indicates not only that they were derived from an eye and ear witness, but also from one who possessed the observation and the graphic artistic power of a natural orator such as Peter emphatically was. (3) One peculiarity strikes us the moment we open it,—the absence of any genealogy of our Lord. This is the key to much that follows. It is not the design of the evangelist to present our Lord to us, like St. Matthew as the Messiah, “the son of David and Abraham,” ch. 1:1, or, like St. Luke, as the universal Redeemer, “the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” ch. 3:38. (4) His design is to present him to us as the incarnate and wonder-working Son of God, living and acting among men; to portray him in the fullness of his living energy.—Cambridge Bible for Schools.

The evangelist; “John whose surname was Mark” (Acts 12:12, 25). Mark (Marcus, Col. 4:10, etc.) was his Roman name, which gradually came to supersede his Jewish name John. He is called John in Acts 13:5, 13, and Mark in 15:39, 2 Tim. 4:11, etc.

He was the son of Mary, a woman apparently of some means and influence, and was probably born in Jerusalem, where his mother resided (Acts 12:12). Of his father we know nothing. He was cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). It was in his mother’s house that Peter found “many gathered together praying” when he was released from prison; and it is probable that it was here that he was converted by Peter, who calls him his “son” (1 Pet. 5:13). It is probable that the “young man” spoken of in Mark 14:51, 52 was Mark himself. He is first mentioned in Acts 12:25. He went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey (about A.D. 47) as their “minister,” but from some cause turned back when they reached Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 12:25; 13:13). Three years afterwards a “sharp contention” arose between Paul and Barnabas (15:36-40), because Paul would not take Mark with him. He, however, was evidently at length reconciled to the apostle, for he was with him in his first imprisonment at Rome (Col. 4:10; Philemon 1:24). At a later period he was with Peter in Babylon (1 Pet. 5:13), then, and for some centuries afterwards, one of the chief seats of Jewish learning; and he was with Timothy in Ephesus when Paul wrote him during his second imprisonment (2 Tim. 4:11). He then disappears from view.

It is the current and apparently well-founded tradition that Mark derived his information mainly from the discourses of Peter. In his mother’s house he would have abundant opportunities of obtaining information from the other apostles and their coadjutors, yet he was “the disciple and interpreter of Peter” specially.

As to the time when it was written, the Gospel furnishes us with no definite information. Mark makes no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, hence it must have been written before that event, and probably about A.D. 63.

The place where it was written was probably Rome. Some have supposed Antioch (comp. Mark 15:21 with Acts 11:20).

It was intended primarily for Romans. This appears probable when it is considered that it makes no reference to the Jewish law, and that the writer takes care to interpret words which a Gentile would be likely to misunderstand, such as, “Boanerges” (3:17); “Talitha cumi” (5:41); “Corban” (7:11); “Bartimaeus” (10:46); “Abba” (14:36); “Eloi,” etc. (15:34). Jewish usages are also explained (7:3; 14:3; 14:12; 15:42). Mark also uses certain Latin words not found in any of the other Gospels, as “speculator” (6:27, rendered, A.V., “executioner;” R.V., “soldier of his guard”), “xestes” (a corruption of sextarius, rendered “pots,” 7:4, 8), “quadrans” (12:42, rendered “a farthing”), “centurion” (15:39, 44, 45). He only twice quotes from the Old Testament (1:2; 15:28).

The characteristics of this Gospel are, (1) the absence of the genealogy of our Lord, (2) whom he represents as clothed with power, the “lion of the tribe of Judah.” (3.) Mark also records with wonderful minuteness the very words (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36) as well as the position (9:35) and gestures (3:5, 34; 5:32; 9:36; 10:16) of our Lord. (4.) He is also careful to record particulars of person (1:29, 36; 3:6, 22, etc.), number (5:13; 6:7, etc.), place (2:13; 4:1; 7:31, etc.), and time (1:35; 2:1; 4:35, etc.), which the other evangelists omit. (5.) The phrase “and straightway” occurs nearly forty times in this Gospel; while in Luke’s Gospel, which is much longer, it is used only seven times, and in John only four times.

“The Gospel of Mark,” says Westcott, “is essentially a transcript from life. The course and issue of facts are imaged in it with the clearest outline.” “In Mark we have no attempt to draw up a continuous narrative. His Gospel is a rapid succession of vivid pictures loosely strung together without much attempt to bind them into a whole or give the events in their natural sequence. This pictorial power is that which specially characterizes this evangelist, so that ‘if any one desires to know an evangelical fact, not only in its main features and grand results, but also in its most minute and so to speak more graphic delineation, he must betake himself to Mark.’” The leading principle running through this Gospel may be expressed in the motto: “Jesus came...preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (Mark 1:14).

“Out of a total of 662 verses, Mark has 406 in common with Matthew and Luke, 145 with Matthew, 60 with Luke, and at most 51 peculiar to itself.” (See MATTHEW.)