The legends of Mark’s mission to Aquileia and of the translation of his body to Venice belong to medieval hagiology, and lie outside the scope of this article. See Lipsius, pp. 346-353.
(v.) The Acts of Mark.—The Greek text is given in Migne, Pat. Gr. exv. 164-170. The document has been translated into Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Lipsius (p. 345) assigns it to a date between the middle of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th century. Internal evidence shows that it was written at Alexandria. It is historically worthless, telling the usual story of a successful war against idolatry, a growing Church, perse- cution, martyrdom. The evangelist expires as he 4 being dragged through the streets by an infuri- ated mob, who burn his remains, but are at last dispersed by a tempest. Some forms of the Acts give a detailed account of his person, clearly in part
* The Chrsmicon Paschale (Migne, Pat. Gr. xcii, 559, ef. 546) places the foundation of the Church of Alexandria by Mark in the same vear (a.p. 39) as the foundation of the Church of Antioch by S.. ”eter, adding that Mark presided over the former 22 years.
+ The Armenian version puts Annianus’ appointment a year earlier. For the emperurs’ regnal years see art. CuroNoLOGY or NT, i. p. 4150,
+ With the belief that Mark founded the Church at Alexandria is connected the ascription to him of the Liturgy. In the Acts of Mark (c. 7) his enemies find him ras εὐχὰς τῆς θεϊκῆς ἀναφορᾶς ποιούμενον. According to Swainson (Phe Greek Liturgies, ). xxix), ‘the first time that we hear of a Liturgy of St. Mark is in the 11th or 12th cent.’ (ef. Brightman, Liturgies, p. lxvi).
—.-.- OOO
MARK, GOSPEL OF
| a reminiscence of the portrait of St. Paul in the Acta Thecle.
(vi.) Περίοδοι BapydSa.—These Greek Acts are printed by Tischendorf in his Acta Apost. Apocry- pha, pp. 64-74. ‘The author writes in the name of Mark, who is made to describe himself before his conversion as a servant of a high priest of Zeus. The Acts are wholly unhistorical. The local colouring shows that the writer was a Cypriot. The aim of the document is, by asserting for the Church of Cyprus an apostolic origin and the possession of the tomb of Barnabas, to support her claim to be independent of the see of Antioch. Hence Lipsius places the date of its composition late in the 5th cent., probably 485-488.
(vil.) Martyrdom.—Early writers are silent as to the time and manner of Mark’s death. ‘The state- ment of Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. 8 (Mortuus est octauo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriz) is obviously a mere inference from Eusebius’ notice of the appointment of Annianus. It would seem that no document earlier than the Acts of Mark gives the evangelist the glory of martyrdom. In these Acts, as in the Menologium of Basil, and as in the later tradition of the Western Church, April 25 is fixed upon as the day of his death. The different texts of the Martyriwn Hieronymianum mention May 18, Sept. 28, Oct. 3, 7 as Mark’s memorial day (Lipsius, p. 326; cf. Dict. Chr. Antig. p. 1089).
LITERATURE.—S wete, The Gospel according to St. Mark,1898, has a full and suggestive chapter on the ‘ Personal History of St. Mark.’ Exhaustive collections and discussions of Patristic and other authorities are to be found in Lipsius, Die Apoeryphen Apostelgesch. u. Apostellegenden, 1854, li. 2, pp. 321-858 ; Zahn, Einleitung in das NT, ii. (1899), pp. 199-220, Reference may also be made to Harnack’s article * Mark’ (1883) in the Hneveclo-
pedia Britannica. F. H. CHASE.
**MARK, GOSPEL OF.—
Introduction. i. Compass and Contents. . Selection and Arrangement of Matter. . Diction and Style. iv. Original Language. . State of Text and Integrity of the Book. . Genius of the Gospel. i. Historical Attestation. i. Authorship. . Sources. . Relation to Matthew and Luke. i. Purpose. i. Destination. . Place and Date. Literature.
Of the four canonical Gospels the one which has come down to us with the title ‘according to Mark’ is the simplest, the most pointed and con- cise. Its brevity was noticed by Jerome in the account which he gave of its composition (de Vir. 111. c. 8); and the peculiarity of its narrative, in respect of things omitted, has been the subject of comment from ancient times. On all that concerns its origin it is resolutely silent. It has no such descriptive statement as is found in the opening paragraph of the third Gospel. It neither names nor indicates its writer. It gives not the remotest hint that could put us on his track, if we had nothing outside itself. All that we know of its authorship rests, in the first instance, on tradition. The question is whether that tradition is historically credible, and whether it tallies with the contents and character of the writing.
In the ancient lists of the New Testament books this Gospel does not always occupy the same place. In a considerable number of MSS, almost entirely Latin and Greco-Latin (D, a, ὃ, e, f, ff; q, "), as well as in the Gothic Version, the Apostolical Constitu- tions, and the Latin Stichometry of Codex Claro- montanus, it is placed last (with the variation third) in the number of Gospels. But in the great
** Copyright, 1900, by Charles Scrimer’s Sons