(111.) Mark and St. Peter.—A constant tradition in the early Church, reaching back to the confines of the apostolic age and harmonizing with the notices of the NT, certifies us that Mark was a companion of St. Peter (i.e. in his missionary labours), was with him towards the end of his life, and wrote the ee to preserve his Master's teaching. The early authorities are these: (1) Asiatic and Western: Papias ap. Eus. iii. 39 (on the authority of ‘John the Elder’); Iren. iii. 1. 1, 10.6; Canon Murat. (see above); Tert. adv. Mare. iv. 5. (2) Alexandrian: Clem. ap. Eus. HE vi. 14. Adumb. in Priorem Petri Ep. (Migne, Pat. Gr. ix. 732); Eus. ii. 15 (on the authority of Clement) ; Origen ap. Eus. HE vi. 25. For references to later writers see Lipsius, p. 322; Zahn, p. 216. The above classification of authorities is due to Swete (p. xviiif.), who notices that ‘the Asiatic tradition goes behind St. Mark’s work as an Evan-
elist, and describes the nature of his services to st. Peter. He had been the Apostle’s inter- preter.’
Some scholars maintain that the word ἐρμηνευτής (interpres) ints rather to Mark as the scholar of St. Peter, through whom is Master's teaching reached a wider circle, with special refer- ence to the composition of the Οἱ 1. This is the view taken by Zahn (Gesch, Kan. i. pp. 878 ff., Hind. ti. pp. 209, 218 ff.), who urges that Papias uses the word in close connexion with Mark's composition of the Gospel, and that no early writer preserves any detailed notice of Mark as ‘dragoman’ of the apostle. On the other hand, the following considerations seem conclusive for the strict sense of the wo; (1) Such is the usual sense of the word (see Swete, p. xix); the passages which Zahn (Geach. Kan, p. 880 n.) adduces, in which Sev and prophets are spoken of a8 ἱρμηνευταὶ τῶν θεῶν, are really instances of a metaphorical use of the term. (2) Papias himself uses the cognate verb Wears δ᾽ αὑτὰ ὡς ἣν δυνατὸς ἵκαστος) in the strict sense. (3) renwus connects the word, not with the writing of the Gospel, but with Mark’s previous relation to St. Peter, iii. 1. 1. M.,¢ »τὺὴς α. ἱρμηνευτὴς Πίτρου καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Π, χηρυσσέμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν σαραδίδωκεν, ib. 10. 6 M. interpres et sectator Petri {note the order) initium evangelicw conscriptionis fecit sic. Zahn's position is criticized by Link in Studien u. Kritiken, 1896, pp. 405-436,
The ten or twelve years which elapsed between the last mention of Mark in the Acts and St. Paul's reference to his co-operation in Rome were probably the period in which Mark accompanied St. Peter. It may well be that the help which he rendered to the apostle when the latter first worked among Greek-speaking people gained for him the title of ‘the interpreter of Peter.’ There is no reason why we should infer that, at least at the end of his life, St. Peter could not speak Greek, still less that he could not write a Greek letter. Mereover, it must be remembered that the word ‘interpreter
248 MARK (JOHN)
may have been used in reference to Latin rather than to Greek (so Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 494).
(iv.) Mark’s connexion with Rome and Alex- andria.—(a) Rome. For the evidence of the NT see above. The evidence that St. Peter at the close of his life, when Mark was certainly his companion, was at Rome, is overwhelming (Light- foot, Clement, ii. pp. 493 ff.). Moreover, all the early writers who mention the place of its com- position speak of the Gospel as written at Rome (Iren., Clem. Alex., Eus. HE ii. 15; for other references see Zahn, p. 215), the only exception being Chrysostom (vii. 7B), who says that it was written in Egypt. (Ὁ) Alexandria. It is remark- able that the great Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, make no reference to any sojourn or work of Mark in that city. Their silence cannot but throw some suspicion on the notices of later writers. The earliest witness is Eusebius, HWE ii, 16 (on ii, 24 see below), who records the tradition (φασίν) that Mark ‘was the first to found churches in Alexandria itself.’ After the time of Eusebius, notices of Mark’s work in Egypt are frequent in Christian literature—(i.) Greek: Epiph. Her. li. 6 (p. 428 ed. Petav.); Chrysost. 1.6. ; Constit. Apost. vii. 40, (ii.) Latin : Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. 8, Prol. ex Comm. in Matth. (Wordsworth-White, p. 12), Pref. to MSS of the Vulgate (Wordsworth-White, p. 173). (iii. ) Syriac: Doctr. Apost. (Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 33). For other references see Lipsius, p. 328 ff. To pass to the evidence as to the date of Mark’s work in Egypt, Eus. HZ ii. 16 (apparently), Jerome, de Vir. Illustr., and Epiph. ylace his journey there after the composition of the sospel. On the other hand, the Chronicle of f®usebius (ed. Schone, ii. pp. 152 f., 154 f.) places his arrival at Alexandria in the first (Arm.) or the third (Jer.) year of Claudius (A.D. 41-42 or 43-44) ,* the appointment of Annianus, his successor as bishop, in the eighth year of Nero (A.D. 62-63; so Eus. HF ii. 24).¢ It seems to be impossible to reconcile these dates with the statements of the NT. If we accept the tradition of Mark’s work at Alexandria, we must apparently place it either in the ten or twelve years to which we have already assigned his journeys as St. Peter’s ‘interpreter,’ or in the period after the death of that apostle. ἢ