RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Mark
Markos Eugenikos
Gospel with xvi. 8, so also the Sinaitic Syriac and the best manuscripts of the time of Eusebius and Jerome. An alternative ending is 4. Mark known to exist in shorter form, and inxvi. 9-20. deed appears in some manuscripts alongside the longer form of conclusion. This testifies to the need felt for a fitting ending, and shows also that whoever composed the shorter form did not know of the longer. The shorter ending can be traced to the fourth century, the longer perhaps into the second. The suspicion that Aristion wrote it (so Conybeare, Resch, Rohrbach, Harnack) has little support outside of a manuscript of the Armenian version. Yet Mark hardly closed his book with the words " for they feared." Equally unsatisfactory are the hypotheses that Mark died before he finished and gave it to his friends who published it and that the last leaf was lost from the original copy. It is most probable that the original close was in times before Papias stricken out by some ecclesiastical authority because its account of the resurrection conflicted with that of the other Gospels. In manuscripts where it still existed it was marked with the obelus, and like so many other obelized passages has perished. (G. A. Julichee.) Bibliography: A large amount of pertinent matter is to be found in the literature cited under Gospels; Luke; Matthew. The reader should consult also the pertinent sections of the works on N. T. introduction (see Biblical Introduction), particularly those of Holtzmann, Weiss, Zahn, and Jiilicher. Works on the apostolic age are also to be consulted, such as E. Renan, Les Evangiles, Paris, 1877; C. Weizsacker, Das apostolische Zeitalter, Freiburg, 1892, Eng. transl., London, 1894-95; A. C. McGiffert, Hist, of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York, 1897.
On the man consult: R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, ii. 2, pp. 321-353, Brunswick, 1884; T. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., ii. 199-220, Leipsic, 1899; DB, iii. 245-248; EB, iii. 2937- 2941. H. B. Swete, in his commentary, London, 1902, has an illuminating chapter on " the personal history of St. Mark."
On questions of introduction, besides the general works already referred to, the following are suggested: F. Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften, Zurich, 1843; F. C. Baur, Das Marcusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter, Tubingen, 1851; K. R. Kbstlin, Der Ursprung und die Komposition der synoptischen Evangelien, Stuttgart, 1853; A. Klostermann, Das Marcus- Evangelium, Gottingen, 1867; J. H. Scholten, Het oudste Evangelie, Leyden, 1868; G. Volkmar, Das Evangelium, oder Marcus und die Synopsis der . Evangelien, Leipsic, 1869; W. Weiffenbach, Die Papiasfragmente uber Marcus, Berlin, 1878; P. Corssen, in TV, xv. 1, 1896; A. Link, in TSK, 1896, pp. 405 sqq.; W. Hadorn, Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums, Gutersloh, 1898; T. Calmes, Comme se sont formes les evangiles, Paris, 1899; P. Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, Tubingen, 1899; E. A. Abbott, Diatessarica, part 2, Corrections of Mark adopted by Matthew and Luke, London, 1901; A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel; Historical Study of . Mark, ib. 1901; A. Bolliger, Marcus der Bearbeiter des M atthaus-Evangelium, Basel, 1902; R. A. Hoffmann, Das Marcusevangelium und seine Quellen. Ein Beitrag zur Lbsung der Urmarcusfrage, Konigsberg, 1904; E. Wendling, Ur-Marcus. Versuch einer Wiederherstellung der altesten M ilteilungen uber das Leben Jesu, Tubingen, 1905; idem, Die Entstehung des Marcus-Evangeliums, ib., 1908; B. W. Bacon, in JBL, xxvi., part 1, 1907 (on the prologue); idem, The Beginnings of Gospel History, New Haven, 1909; Harnack, Litteratur (consult the indexes); DB, iii. 248-262; EB, ii. 1761- 1898. On the last twelve verses: P. Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcus Evangeliums, Berlin, 1894; J. W. Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of . . Mark, Oxford, 1871; F. C. Conybeare, in Expositor, 1893, 241 sqq., cf. 1894, 219 sqq., 1895, 401 sqq.
Of the host of commentaries the following may be mentioned: J. Calvin, in Eng. transl., 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1845-46; C. F. A. Fritzsche, Leipsic, 1830; J. Ford, Oxford, 1862; A. Klostermann, Gottingen, 1867; B. Weiss, Berlin, 1872; idem, Die vier Evangelien im berichtigten Text, Leipsic, 1900; R. Wenger, Stuttgart, 1879; C. A. Keil, Leipsic, 1879; L. Bonnet, Lausanne, 1880; M. Riddle, New York, 1881; P. Schanz, Freiburg, 1881 (Roman Catholic, excellent); R. F. Weidner, Philadelphia, 1881; G. F. Maclear, in Cambridge Bible, London, 1883; E. H. Plumptre, New York, 1883; J. A. Alexander, ib. 1884; T. M. Lindsay, ib. 1884; G. A. Chadwick, London, 1887; E. Bickersteth, in Pulpit Commentary, 2 vols., ib. 1888; C. S. Robinson, Studies in Mark's Gospel, New York, 1888; H. S. Solly, London, 1893; J. Morison, London, 1894 (regarded as one of the best); E. Gould, in International Critical Commentary, New York, 1896; F. L. H. Millard, ib. 1901; J. Weiss, Das alteste Evangelium, Gottingen, 1903; J. Wellhausen, 2d ed., Berlin, 1909; A. Maclaren, 2 vols., London, 1906; W. H. Bennett, The Life of Christ according to St. Mark, ib. 1907.
MARKOS EUGENIKOS: Metropolitan of Ephesus; b. at Constantinople in the latter part of the fourteenth century; d. 1443 (according to others, 1447 or 1449). He was educated by the famous Joseph Bryennios, and at the age of twentyfive became a monk. About 1436, against his will, the emperor made him metropolitan of Ephesus, and both in this capacity and as the representative of the patriarch of Antioch he attended the Council of Ferrara and Florence. After his return he resided at first in Constantinople, but his ecclesiastical polity debarred him both from that city and from Ephesus. He sought refuge in Athos, but was imprisoned at least once. In learning, Markos was inferior to such scholars as Gennadius and Gemistos Plethon, despite his thorough training in the theology and philosophy of his countrymen. He was, however, a powerful though simple orator, and was characterized by unyielding firmness. His importance in the history of the Church is due to his opposition to union with Latin Christianity; both before and after the Council of Florence he refused to sign the decree of union unless the pope would permit the use of leavened bread in the sacrament, or at least strike out the Filioque from the creed. According to his panegyrist Syropulos, he defended himself before the emperor, the patriarch, and the pope; but this seems doubtful, especially as Hierotheus of Monembasia states that he fled to Constantinople instead. His unswerving opposition to the union was not improbably the cause of its failure. His polemic nature is shown by the majority of his writings (collected in MPG, clx.), in which he considers almost all the points of controversy with the Latins, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the question of purgatory, the signification of the Epiklesis (q.v.) in the Eucharist, and the problem of the Tabor light (see Hesychasts). The respect in which he was held is clear from the fact that he was placed among the saints at an early date. An Acoluthia was composed in his honor in the fifteenth century, and a decree of the synod held by the Patriarch Seraphim in 1734 expressly termed him a saint. (Philipp Meyer.)
Bibliography: A list of the pertinent literature, mainly in Greek, is given in Hauck-Herzog, RE, xii. 287. The early life by Manuel Peloponnesius, of the 15th or 16th century, was edited by Arsenij, Moscow, 1886. Consult Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Graica, xi. 670-677, Hamburg,
Marlorat du Pasquier Mar nix