| } Ϊ
MARK, GOSPEL OF
believers (Ac 1913}, and cousin (ἀνεψιός) of Barna- bas (Col 4). See preceding article.
In the NT the traditional author of the second Gospel is associated mostly with Paul. He is mentioned as returning to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, after their visit to Jerusalem with the contributions of the Antioch Christians (Ac 12%); as going with Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey, in the capacity of their ὑπηρέτης (Ac 135); as breaking away from them at Perga, and returning to Jerusalem (Ac 1318); as causing a ‘sharp contention’ between the two friends when Paul proposed to revisit the Churches and declined to take him with them (Ac 15%), He reappears, however, in Paul’s company at the time of his first imprisonment, and sends salutations along with others through Paul (Col 410, Philem 4), And he is referred to in appreciative terms by the great apostle in his second imprisonment in Rome as a friend whose presence he desired (2 Ti 411).
In the NT his association with Peter is quite subordinate. It is suggested in the notice of Mary his mother and Peter’s reception in her house after his deliverance from prison (Ae 12!*), and it is implied in 1 P 51, where he is spoken of as Peter’s convert (vids μου, however, not τέκνον μου). But this is all. In the non-canonical literature all is different. There the relation to Paul drops out of sight, and Mark is statedly associated with Peter. The tradition is both very ancient and remarkably continuous, beginning with Papias (reporting the Presbyter John, and giving also explanations of his own), and carried on by Justin Martyr, Irenieus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, ‘Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, ete. In these writers it assumes different forms, but as regards the main points it is consistent.
In Papias (Euseb. HE iii. 89) the presbyter speaks of Mark as Peter’s ἑρμηνευτής, a term which is understood by not a few to mean that Mark acted as interpreter or dragoman, translating Peter’s Aramaic into Greek; some (e.g. Bleek) supposing him to have served as Latin interpreter. It is better taken, however, to express the fact that he did the part of amanuensis, committing to writing, with more or less freedom in the composi- tion, the oral communications of Peter. The Elder further says of him that he wrote down accurately, not, however, in order (ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει), all the things that he remembered, both those said and those done by Christ; that he was not himself a hearer of the Lord, but was indebted for his matter to Peter’s instructions, which were adapted to the needs of his hearers, and were not designed to give a connected account of the Lord’s words (οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λόγων) ; and that he made no mistake, but made one thing his care, namely, neither to omit any- thing he had heard nor to set down anything false. It is to be noticed also that this statement defines the scope of Mark’s work, or, as it is understood by Zahn and others, the extent of his dependence on Peter. What he is said thus to have written down is ‘Some things as he remembered them’ (οὐδὲν ἥμαρτε Μᾶρκος, οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπε- μνημόνευσεν).
If Justin’s ἀπομνημονεύματα αὐτοῦ (Dial. 106) are taken in their most probable sense as Peter's memoirs, Justin also is a witness to the belief that Mark’s Gospel was substantially Peter’s. Irenzus likewise speaks of Mark as the μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμην- εὐτὴς Πέτρου. the interpres et sectator Petri, who ‘committed to writing the things preached by Peter,’ but adds that he did this after the decease of Peter and Paul (iii. 1. 1, 10. 6). Clement Alex. (Hypotyp., as in Euseb. HE ii. 14) enlarges the tradition, stating that when Peter had preached
MARK, GOSPEL OF
at Rome many who had heard him urged Mark to write down what had been spoken; that the evangelist did this ; and that when Peter came to know it, he ‘neither forbade nor encouraged it.’ Tertullian (adv. Mare. iv. 5) says of the Gospel which Mark published that it ‘might be affirmed to be the Gospel of Peter, whose interpreter Mark was’; and Origen (Euseb. HE vi. 25) speaks of Mark as having written ‘as Peter directed him.’ Eusebius himself, who has much to say on the subject, goes beyond Clement’s negative position, and gives the report that the apostle confirmed or authorized Mark’s writing at the request of the Churches (κυρῶσαί re τὴν γραφὴν els ἔντευξιν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, HE ii. 15). And Jerome, who also speaks of Mark as Peter’s disciple and interpreter (de Vir, Ill. c. 1), states in one passage that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter approved of it and authorized it to be read in the Churches (de Vir. Til. ¢. 8), while in another (Zp. ad. Hedib. c. 2) he describes the Gospel as composed by Peter narrat- ing and Mark writing (‘habebat ergo Titum inter- pretem sicut et beatus Petrus Marcum, cujus Evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente com- positum est’).
There are variations, therefore, in the traditions, particularly as to the time when the Gospel was written and the measure of its dependence on the apostle. In some forms it is represented as written during Peter’s lifetime ; in others, as com- posed after his decease. As time goes on, too, the tendency is to make Peter more and more re- sponsible for it, until in Eusebius it is described as authorized by the apostle to be read in the churches, and in Jerome it is said to have been dictated as well as sanctioned and authorized by Peter, but the tradition is consistent all through in referring the authorship of the Gospel in one sense to Mark and in another to Peter. And the general view which it gives us of the Gospel is that of a composition embodying Peter’s recollections of Christ’s words and deeds,written by Mark froin his notes of the apostle’s discourses, and giving the substance of these discourses exactly as he heard them. The tradition is so ancient, so consistent in its main affirmations, and so widely extended, that only internal considerations of exceptional weight could justify its rejection. Does the Gospel as we have it, then, tally with it or not ?