MARK (JOHN).—In this art. the identity of the John Mark of the Acts with the Mark of the Pauline Epistles (Col, Philem, 2 Ti), with the Mark of 1 P, and with Mark the Evangelist, mentioned in early Christian literature, is assumed. This identifica- tion is confirmed Ὁ the link between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles supplied by Col 410 (‘cousin of Barnabas’), and by the fact that the name Mark does not appear to have been common among the Jews.
1. NAME.—The Hebrew name of this companion of the apostles was ᾿Ιωάνης ; it appears without addition in Ac 13%", To it the Roman prenomen
Mareus was added (Ἰωάνου τοῦ ἐπικαλουμένου Μάρκου, Ἴ, τὸν ἐπικληθέντα M., Ac 12)* 35). just as the Roman cognomen Paulus was added to the Hebrew name Saul. The name Marcus was that by which its bearer was commonly known among those for whom the Acts was written (τὸν "I. τὸν καλούμενον * Μᾶρκον, Ac 15%); so Col 4%, Philem™, 2 Ti 4%, 1 P 5%. For the accentuation Μᾶρκος, see Blass, Gram. NT Greek, ὃ 4. 2; the form Mdapxos is found in C/G, 5644, 6155. For the frequency of such double names among the Jews, see Deiss- mann, Bibelstudien, p. 181 tf. ; and for the common use of the name Marcus ‘among Greek-speaking peoples from the Augustan age onwards,’ see the inscriptions quoted by Swete, δέ. Mark, p.ix. There is no evidence, however, that it was common among the Jews; the only Jew of this name mentioned by Josephus is the nephew of Philo (Ant. Xvul. viii. 1, ERG 1)
2. FAMILY AND PosITION.—The father of Mark is not mentioned in the NT or by any reliable tradition. His mother bears the common Hebrew name Mary (Ac 12”), She appears as a woman of some wealth, the possessor of a house with a πυλών and with a room large enough to contain many (οὗ ἦσαν ἱκανοὶ συνηθροισμένοι), the mistress, it would seem, of a ΑΞ the duty of one παιδίσκη--- bearing a Greek name (see Blass on Ac 12!8)—being to keep the door (cf. Jn 181”). Her house is one of the centres of the life of ‘the brethren’ at Jeru- salem. St. Peter goes there as a matter of course directly he has escaped from prison, and is well known there (v.'4). It is a natural conclusion that ‘the house of Mary’ had become the home of St. Peter, and that the guest was in a sense the head of the household (ef. 1 P 5%). Again, in Col 4} Mark is spoken of as ‘the cousin’ (ὁ ἀνεψιός, see Lightfoot’s note) of Barnabas (on the name, see especially Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 175 ff.), the Joseph Barnabas of Ac 4%", of the tribe of Levi, born in Cyprus, a man of substance, and from almost the earliest days a leader among ‘the brethren.’ It is not improbable, in view of the later history, that Mark too was by birth or previous residence connected with the Jewish colony in Cyprus (Schiirer, HJP τι. ii. p. 221f.), and, if we may assume that the cousins were the sons of two brothers, we learn that he was a Levite (see below, 4 (i.)). There is every reason to think that he, like Saul, was a ‘Hebrew of Hebrews’ (Col 4"; cf. Gal 213, Tit 12).
In Ac 13° we read of Barnabas and Saul that at Salamis in Cyprus κατήγγελλον τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων: εἶχον δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάνην ὑπηρέτην. All writers, it would seem, take the last clause to mean that the apostles ‘had John as minister,’ t.e. as their assistant in their evangelistic work (cf. 10% προσέταξεν). A ditferent interpretation seems to the present writer to be at least possible. The clause stands in close connexion with the mention of ‘the synagogues.’ Further, if ὑπηρέτην were a predicate, the more natural order would have been ὑπηρέτην δὲ εἶχον καὶ ᾿Ιωάνην. A Jewish epitaph found at Rome Φλάβιος ᾿Ιουλιανὸς ὑπηρέτης (see Schiirer, Gemeinde- verfassung der Juden in Rom, pp. 28, 39; ef. HJP i. ii. p. 87) suggests that ὑπηρέτης here is John’s official title—‘ And they had with them also John, the synagogue minister’ (cf. Lk 4%), The article in such a case would be omitted (οἵ. εἰσ. CIG, 9906, ᾿Ιουλιανὸς ἱερεὺς ἄρχων. .. υἱὸς ᾿Ιουλιανοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου and inscriptions passim, also Winer-
* The reading ἐσικαλφούμενον, found in x* (quod ride) CD 61 Gig, seems to be a ‘ Western’ reading due to assimilation.
ἡ ‘Western’ (paraphrastic) readings are (a) "I. ὑπσνυρετεῖντα αὐτοῖς, Ὁ 821 syr. hl. mg.; (δ) ἔχοντες μεεδ' ἑαυτῶν καὶ "1. εἰς δια κανίαν (in ministerium, lat. vg.), E. Compare Ignat. PAtlad. xi., Φίλωνος τοῦ διακόνου, . ὃς καὶ νῦν ἐν λόγῳ eed ownperas mos,
MARK (JOHN)
MARK (JOHN)
Moulton, p. 172).* If this interpretation be the true one, we have an important fact about Mark which reveals how close his ties with Judaism were. Among his fellow Jews he was known as ᾿Ιωάνης ὑπηρέτης.
3. MARK IN THE APOSTOLIC HISTORY OF THE NT.—Mark is one of those minor characters, a careful study of whose movements throws consider- able light on the relation to each other of the apostolic leaders. In the NT he stands in close connexion with Barnabas, St. Peter, St. Paul.
(i.) The first notice of Mark in the Acts is at the time of the famine in Judea, some 15 or 16 years after the day of Pentecost. He is at Jerusalem, and Barnabas and Saul, returning thence to the Syrian Antioch, take him with them as their com- panion (συνπαραλαβόντες 12%; cf. 15°, Gal 21). It 1s important to notice that Barnabas, Mark’s cousin, still retains the leading position (Bapydfas δὲ καὶ Σαῦλος 1255), that as yet there is no hint of any evangelistic work further afield than Antioch, and that there the Church had not spread beyond the ‘Grecian Jews’ (11°), Some time—how long we have no means of discovering—after their arrival at Antioch a decisive summons comes. Barnabas and Saul, at the bidding of the Spirit, are solemnly set apart and dismissed to do ‘ the work,’ the scope of which remains still undefined. With Mark oer cross to Cyprus. After work among the Jewish settlers at Salamis, they journey westwards till at Paphos they meet the Jewish Magus among the comites of the Proconsul, and the encounter ends with the conversion of the Roman magistrate—the firstfruit of St. Paul’s Gentile converts. From Paphos they cross to the mainland, and journey inland as far as Perga. Here, perhaps when his leaders were discussing or had already determined upon the plan of crossing the Taurus and pene- trating into a wholly new district, Mark separates himself from them and returns to Jerusalem (131%), His conduct, it is clear, made a deep impression on St. Paul. What were Mark’s reasons for this act of seeming desertion? The conditions of their common work, it must be remembered, had altered since he left Jerusalem with them, in three im- portant respects. (1) The call at Antioch had Inaugurated a new epoch in the history of the Church, and as ‘the work’ advanced it became clear that it would lead the workers μάκραν (Ac 2271), (2) There were already indications that ‘ the work’ would include the Gentiles ; and that this was anew departure appears from 1457, (3) Barnabas is passing into the background, and Paul is taking his place as the acknowledged leader (note the very significant οἱ περὶ Παῦλον in 1313). For these new conditions of service Mark was not prepared.