4, MARK IN CHRISTIAN TRADITION. *_(i.) Mark’s position by birth.—The Preface to the Gospel found in MSS of the Vulgate contains the notice : ‘ sacer- dotium in Israhel agens, secundum carnem levita’ (Wordsworth-White, p. 171, ef. p. 173)—a_ mere deduction, it seems probable, from Mark’s kinship to Barnabas. The remembrance of a personal deformity survives in an epithet well known at Rome early in the 3rd cent.—ovre Παῦλος ὁ ἀπόστολος οὔτε Μᾶρκος ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος (Hipp. Philos. vii. 30).
A reference to this epithet is found in the Latin Prefaces to the Gospel (see, below), and with these substantially coincide the notices in one or two later writers (see Lipsius, Die Apocr. Apostelgesch. ii. 2, p. 8327; Zahn, Hint. ii. p. 211). Three ex- planations of the epithet ‘stump-fingered’ or ‘mutilated in the finger(s)’ have been suggested. (i.) Tregelles (Journal of Class. and Sacred Philol., 1855, p. 224f.) thinks that the Techn sti: tizes Mark as ‘pollice truncus,’ ‘the deserter’ ¢ Ὁ 1313), (ii.) The Pref. to the Vulgate: ‘Amputasse sibi post
idem pollicem dicitur ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur’ (so Isidore). (iii.) The Pref. to Cod. Toletanus: ‘Colobodactilus est nominatus ideo quod a cetera corporis proceritatem digitos minores habuisset’ (Wordsworth-White, p. 171). It is just possible, however, that the word may refer to some mutilation or malformation of the toes, resulting in lameness—an infirmity me oe be more likely to attract attention than a deformity 0! 6 han
(ii.) Mark's relation to the Lord’s ministry.—The
words of Papias (ap. Eus. HE iii. 39), on the |
authority of ‘John the Elder,’ are explicit—otre yap ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ.
Do the words (clearly referring to Mark), with which the Muratorian Canon begins, suggest a qualification of the asser- tion of Papias? They run thus: quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit. It is possible that the first word has been mutilated, and that we should restore aliquibus ; butsee below. The Canon is in full accord with Papias if, with, e.g., Lightfoot and Swete, we take the words to refer to Mark’s presence at St. Peter's dis- courses. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. ii. pp. 17f., 30, Find. ii. pp. 200, 211), however, niaintains that in the previous context of the Fragment it had been said that, speaking generally, Mark was not an eye-witness of the Lord’s ministry, and that then the qualification is added: ‘nevertheless he was present at some (events), and so recorded them.’ If the Canon was written at Rome, and still more, if the writer was Hippolytus (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 412 f ), it is clear that it might embody an inde-
endent and true tradition about Mark preserved by the Roman
hurch. On the other hand, in the succeeding context dealing with Luke (Lucas. . cum eum Paulus... adsumsisset... conscripsit. Dominum tamen nec ipse uidit in carne, et idem Fee assequi potuit, ita et a natiuitate Johannis incepit dicere), t is unsatisfactory to take nec (ipse) as referring to St. Paul, who has been only incidentally mentioned, as Zahn is obliged to do. The writer is cleayly throughout (comp. the es deal- ing with John and with Acts) comparing the Evangelists in regard to the power of giving a personal witness. Accordingly, both nec ipse and idem (aires) bring out the parallel in reference to this point between Murk and Luke.t Further, in the case of Luke, who was not a personal disciple of Christ, the writer notes that he was a companion of St. Paul. There was clearly still more reason for noting that Mark was a follower of Apostles. We may conjecture, therefore, that the context immediately pre- ceding the first sentence of the Fragment ran substantially thus: ‘Mark was not a disciple of Christ. But he was a follower of Paul and also of Peter. He records in his Gospel what Peter ached. But he was not continuously a companion of Peter. me, therefore, of his discourses he did not himself hear; but at others (οἷς 3i—literally translated by the quilus tamen of the Latin Fragment) he was present, and so set them down,’ On the whole, therefore, n's interpretation must be rejected, and with it goes any shred of reliable evidence that Mark had part in any events of the Gospel history.
Later traditions, however, give Mark a place in the history of the Lord’s ministry. In the Dial. 4 Adamantius with the Marcionite, a work which
* Patristic dealing with the composition of the 1 according to St. Mark are not discussed here: see the following article. ¢ This parallel is still more marked if we adopt Lightfoot’s emendation of the words referring to Luke: ‘et idem, prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et a natiuitate...’ os on *Supernat. Relig.’ p. 189n.); comp. the ‘ita posuit’ in the account of Mark.
cannot be placed earlier than the later years of Constantine (Hort in Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. p. 39f.), the orthodox disputant obviously has a con- troversial reason for asserting that Mark and Luke were among the seventy-two disciples (ed. Wetstein, p- 8). Epiphanius (H@r. pp. 50, 428 ed. Petav.) gives the same piece of information, and further tells us that Mark was one of those disciples who turned back (Jn 6%). For other references see Lipsius, p. 328f. A more interesting tradition, which first appears in a writer of the 6th cent., Theodosius (de Situ Terre Sancte 43, p. 20, ed. Gildemeister), identifies the Church Sancta Sion, mentioned ee earlier writers as the scene of the Last Supper, of the meeting of the apostles (Ac 133), and of the events of Pentecost, with ‘the house of Mark the Evangelist.’ Another writer of the same cent. —Alexander (Laudatio Barnabe 13 in Acta SS. Jun. ii. p. 440)—repeating the legend about Sancta Sion, adds a story learned from ‘the aged,’ which identifies Mark with the man ‘ bearing a pitcher of water’ (Mk 14%). For these references see Zahn, p. 212f. The idea that the young man who followed and fled on the night of the betrayal (Mk 14) was Mark, is a modern but not improbable conjecture.