roy. des iiiscript. (Paris, 1770) ; Herzog, Real- Ency Hop. ix, 108 sq. ; Wetzer undWelte, Kirc/ien-Lexikon, yi,8'J].. (G.M.)
Marius Mercator, a layman in the Church of the 4th century, flourished at Constantinople after 421. Dr. Murdock, the editor ofMosheim, says that Marius Mercator " was undoubtedly a layman, a friend and ad- mirer of Augustine, and an active defender of his doc- trines from A.D. 418 to the year 451." Dr. Schaff (C7z. Hist. vol. iii), however, speaks of Marius Mercator first as a layman (p. 71G), and later (p. 784) mentions him ae a learned Latin monk in Constantinople (A.D. 428-451). Marius Mercator was, so supposes his biographer Baluze (Priefat. in Mercat. p. 7), an African by birth, who went to Rome about 417, when Julius and the other Pelagian chiefs were disputing in the Eternal City, and then and there produced a work against the Pelagian heresy, which is probably the Ilypogiwsticon, printed in the Appendix of vol. x of the works of St. Augustine (comp. CeiUier, Hist, des A ut. Sac. viii, 498 sq.). Ceillier gives us 421 (p. 501) as the date of Marius Mercator's arrival at Constantinople, and as the date of his decease 449 (p. 507) ; and says, " On ne voit pas qu'il ait ete em- ploye dans le ministere ecclesiastique, et il ne prend d'autre qualite dans ses ecrits que celle de serviteur de Jesus-Christ." Marius Mercator's works as collected are almost whoUy translations from the Greek fathers, particidarly Nestorius, Theodosius of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria, Proclus, Theodoret, etc., accompanied with prefaces and notes or strictures by the translator. Him- self one of the most bitter opponents of Pelagianism ( q. v.), his writings are aU designed to confute either the Pelagian or Nestorian errors. They were edited, with notes, by Job. Gamier (Paris, 1673, foUo), and still bet- ter by Stephen Baluze (Opera, Stephanus Baluzius ad fidem veterum codicum MSS. emendavit, et notis illus- travit, Paris, 1G84, 8vo). (J. H, W.)
Mark (Mapicoc, from the frequent Latin surname Marcus, as the word is Anglicized only in Col. iv, 10 ; PhUem. 24; 1 Pet. v. 13), the evangelist, is probably the same as " John whose surname was Mark" (Acts xii. 12, 25). Grotius indeed maintains the contrary, on the ground that the earliest historical writers nowhere call the evangelist by the name of John, and that they al- ways describe him as the companion of Peter and not of Paul. But John was the Jewish name, and Mark, a name of frequent use among the Romans, was, adopted afterwards, and gradually superseded the other. The places in the N. T. enable us to trace the process. The John Mark of Acts xii, 12, 25, and the John of Acts xiii, 5, 13, becomes Mark only in Acts xv, 39 ; Col. iv, 10; 2 Tim. iv, 11 ; Philem. 24. The change of John to Mark is analogous to that of Saul to Paul ; and we cannot doubt that the disuse of the Jewish name in favor of the other is intentional, and has reference to the putting away of his former life, and entrance upon a new minis- try. No inconsistency arises from the accounts of his ministering to two apostles. The desertion of Paul (Acts xiii, 13) may have been prompted jiartly by a wish to rejoin Peter and the apostles engaged in preach- ing in Palestine (Benson ; see Kuinol's note), and partly from a disinclination to a perilous and doubtfid journey. There is nothing strange in the character of a warm impulsive young man, drawn almost equally towards the two great teachers of the faith, Paul and Peter. Had mere cowardice been the cause of his withdrawal, Barnabas would not so soon after have chosen him for another journey, nor would he have accepted the choice.
John ]\Iark was the son of a certain IMary, who dwelt at Jerusalem, and was therefore probably born in that city (Acts xii, 12). He was of Jewish parentage (Col. iv, 10). He was the cousin {avt\l/i6<^) of Barnabas (Col. iv, 10). It was to iMarj-'s house, as to a familiar haunt, that Peter came after his deliverance from prison (Acts xii. 12), and there found '• many gathered together pray- ing ;" and probably John INIark was converted by Peter
MARK
756
MARK, GOSPEL OF
from meeting him in his mother's house, for he speaks of "Marcus my son" (1 I'et. v, 13). This term has been taken as implying the natural relation b}' Bengel, Nean- iler, Credner, Hottinger, Tholuck, Stanley (Setin. on the Apost. Age, p. 95), but this is contrary to the view of the earlier writers (Origen, ap. Eusebius, //. E., vi, 25 ; Eu- sebius, H. E. ii, 15 ; Jerome, De Vi?: III. c. 8). The the- ory that he was one of the seventy disciples is without any warrant. Another theory, that an event of the night of our Lord's betrayal (A.D. 29), related by Mark al<ine, isone that befell himself (01shausen,Lange), must not be so promptly dismissed. " There followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: and he left the linen cloth, and tied from them naked" (Mark xiv, 51, 52). The detail of facts is remarkably minute ; the name only is Avanting. The most probable view is that Mark suppressed his own name, while teUing a story which he had the best means of knowing. Awa- kened out of sleep, or just preparing for it, in some house in the valley of Kedron, he comes out to see the seizure of the betrayed Teacher, known to him and in some degree beloved alread}% He is so deeply interest- ed in his fate that he follows him even in his thin linen robe. His demeanor is such that some of the crowd are about to arrest him ; then, " fear overcoming shame" (Bengel), he leaves his garment in their hands and flees. We can only say that if the name of ]Mark is supplied, the narrative receives its most probable explanation. John (i, 40 ; xix, 26) introduces himself in this unob- trusive way, and perhaps Luke the same (xxiv, 18). Mary the mother of Mark seems to have been a person of some means and influence, and her house a rallying- point for Christians in those dangerous days (Acts xii, 12). A.D. 44. Her son, already an inquirer, would soon become more. Anxious to work for Christ, he went with Paul and Barnabas as their "minister" {inrijperTjg) on their first journey ; but at Perga, as we have seen above, tiu-ned back (Acts xii, 25 ; xiii, 13). On the sec- ond journey Paul would not accept him again as a com- jiauion, but Barnabas his kinsman was more indulgent; and thus he became the cause of the memorable " sharp contention" between them (Acts xv, 36-40). Whatever was the cause of Mark's vacillation, it did not separate him forever from Paul, for we find him by the side of that apostle in his first imprisonment at Kome (Col. iv, 10 ; Philem. 24). A.D. 56. In the former place a pos- sible j(iurney of Mark to Asia is spoken of. Somewhat later he is with Peter at Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13). Some consider Babylon to be a name here given to Home in a mystical sense — surely without reason, since the date of a letter is not the place to look for a figure of speech. Of the causes of this visit to Babylon there is no evi- dence. It may be conjectured that he made the jour- ney to Asia Minor (Col. iv, 10), and thence went on to join Peter at Babylon. On his return to Asia he seems to have been with Timothy at Ephesus when Paul wrote to him during his second imprisonment, and Paul was anxious for his return to Rome (2 Tim. iv, 11). A.D. 04.