We are on much more certain ground when we come to Irenzus. His testimony is as unambiguous as itis ample. He speaks of the ‘ fourfold Gospel ἢ (τετράμορφον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, iii. 11. 8). He tells us both about Mark himself and about his Gospel. He quotes the opening words, Jnitium Evangelii Jesu Christi filii Dei, etc., expressly as Mark’s (iii. 10.6); and a number of passages are given by him in exact terms (e.g. 133 in iv. 6. 6; 5% in i. 8. 3; 54-4 in v. 13. 1; 88 in iii. 16.5 ; 888 in iii. 18.6 ; 938 in iv. 37. 5; 9 in ii. 82. 1; 1088 in i. 21.3; 18% in ii. 28. 6. These quotations extend also to the disputed end- ing, 1019 being introduced thus—‘in fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus Et quidem Dominus Jesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in celum, et sedet ad dexteram Dei’ (iii. 10.6). A place in the line of historical witnesses may also be claimed for Athenagoras (Legatio, c. 33, though less def- initely), the Muratorian Canon (in all proba- bility), Hippolytus (especially Els τὰ ἅγια Ocopdveia, Lagarde’s ippol. p. 38, where Mk 17-5 is quoted, also Περὶ χαρισμάτων and contra Her. Noeti, Routh’s Opp. i. 80, 545, as compared with Mk 167-19), Tertullian (on whom see Rénsch, Das NT Tertullians, p. 148, etc.), Clement of Alex- andria (Adumbr. in Petr. p. 1007, Euseb. HE ii. 15, vi. 14), the Clementine Homilies e.g. ii. 19, iii. 64, 55, 57, xix. 20), ete.
There is evidence also to show that the second Gospel was known in the earlier heretical circles, especially the Gnostic. Trenzeus refers to a sect who separated Jesus from Christ, and preferred Mark’s Gospel (iii. 11. 7; the reference, however, is not quite certain), and to a Valentinian School as using Mk 67 (1, 3.3). Clem. Alex. also (Strom. iv. 72, Exc. 85) reports Mk 858. as quoted by Heracleon, and the statement about Christ being ‘with the wild beasts’ as quoted by certain Valentinians (ef. also Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 177, ete.; Zahn, Gesch. εἰ, NT Kanons, i. p. 741, ete.). References to our Gospel, especially to its last chapter, some doubtful, others more
256
MARK, GOSPEL OF
definite, are found in the Gospel acc. to Peter (on these see Zahn, Finleit. in d. NT, ii. p. 237, Das Ev. des Petrus, Ὁ. 58; Lods, L’évangile de St. Pierre, p. 64; Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Ev. u. d. Apoc. des Pt. p. 33; Swete, Akhmim Fragment, p. xl; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusev. pp. 27-33, etc.).
To this it must be added that, as far back as we can trace the idea of a fourfold Gospel or the prac- tice of harmonizing the Gospels, Mark forms one of the four. The idea of a fourfold Gospel, however, is probably of older date than Irenzus, some dis- covering indications of it a generation before the Bishop of Lyons (Taylor, Witness of Hermas, 1, etc.) ; and the practice of harmonizing, of which the first great evidence is Tatian’s Diatessaron, is probably of earlier date than that work. It appears, therefore, that there is valid evidence to the fact that this Gospel was in circulation by the middle of the 2nd cent.; that by the last quarter of that century it had an established position ; and that it became so generally recognized as to find a place in all the early lists of canonical books, whether of the Eastern Church or of the Western, in which the Gospels are given, and in all the great versions of the NT, including the Old Latin, the Egyptian, both Memphitic and Sahidic, and the Syriac in all its forms.
viii. AUTHORSHIP.—Ancient tradition connects the composition of this Gospel with two names— those of Mark and Peter. Much of the historical testimony, from Papias on to Jerome, which attests the early circulation and acceptance of the Gospel, also speaks to Mark as the writer, and this Mark is usually identified with the disciple of that name who appears in the NT in relation both to Paul and to Peter. This identification, indeed, has not been universally accepted. Some have taken the differ- ent accounts to point to several Marks. Hippolytus, e.g. (Fragment on the Seventy Apostles), distin- guished between the cousin of Barnabas (bishop otf Apollonia), John Mark (bishop of Bibloupolis), and the evangelist (bishop of Alexandria). On the ground that the earliest writers outside the NT do not call the person in question John, and represent him as the companion, not of Paul but of Peter, others (Grotius, Calovius, Schleiermacher, Tille- mont) have held it necessary to affirm the existence of two Marks, a Pauline and a Petrine, and have ascribed our Gospel to the former (Kienlen). But the case is best satisfied by supposing, as most have done, that all the various references in Scripture and in tradition point to one and the same individ- ual, especially as Barnabas makes the connecting link between Peter and Paul in the story of Mark.
The perscn to whom the preparation of this Gospel, therefore, is ascribed, is the disciple who in the NT is sometimes called simply Mark or Marcus (Ac 1589, Col 419, 2 Ti 411, Philem *4, 1 P 515), sometimes represented as having Mark for his surname, Ac 12! % 1587, and sometimes called John (Ac 13% 18) ; while outside the NT he is spoken of as evangelist and as bishop of Alexandria, and in the later tradition as martyr (Euseb. HF ii. 16, iii. 39; Epiph. Her. li. 6; Jer. de Vir. Ill. 8; Niceph. ii. 43). In the Gospel itself he does not appear, unless it be im the person of the young man who followed Jesus on the night of the betrayal, ‘having a linen cloth cast about his naked body’ (Mk 14%!-5?), or, as has also been conjectured, in the person of the ‘man bearing a pitcher of water’ whom the disciples were sent to meet in preparing for the passover (Mk 14:8), But elsewhere we see that he was a Jew by birth (Col 410.11), the son of a certain Mary, a Christian lady apparently of some position and means, whose house in Jerusalem was a gathering point for