Saint Mark

It cannot be seriously doubted that Mark the Evangelist is the same as "John who was surnamed Mark (Acts 12,2)". He was the son of a certain Mary, whose house at Jerusalem was a meeting-place of the Christians. It was to Mary's house that St. Peter went after his miraculous deliverance from prison.

From Saint Paul's Epistle to the Colossians we learn incidentally that St. Mark was the cousin of St. Barnabas (Col.4,10). It was through Barnabas that Mark made the acquaintance of St. Paul. When Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey in the spring of the year 46 A.D., they had Mark as their assistant (Acts 13,5).

At Perge in Pamphylia Mark withdrew from them and returned to Jerusalem We do not know why Mark left his companions just at the moment when they needed him most, but whatever reason he may have alleged, St. Paul did not consider it justified. We St. Paul proposed a second missionary journey after the Council of Jerusalem, Barnabas insisted on taking Mark along again; but St. Paul objected on the ground that he had proved unreliable. The feeling caused by this difference in regard to Mark's fitness was sufficient for Paul and Barnabas to follow separate courses. "Barnabas, taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus. But Paul, choosing Silas, . . . went through Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15, 36-41)".

For ten years or more we lose sight of St. Mark. In the interval he must have become reconciled with St. Paul, for about the year 61 A.D. we find him referred to as one of the faithful fellow-workers of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Writing to the Colossians, St. Paul sends greetings from "Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, and from Mark, the cousin germain of Barnabas, touching whom you have received commandments; if he comes unto you, receive him: and Jesus, that is called Justus: who are of the circumcision: these only are my helpers in the kingdom of God, who have been a comfort to me (Col.4,10-11)".

After the release of St. Paul -probably in 63 A.D.- St. Peter claimed the services of Mark. In His First Epistle he sends greetings from Rome in the name of his "son Mark (1Pet.5,13)". When St. Paul was imprisoned the second time in Rome, he wished to have the faithful companion of his first captivity with him again. "Take Mark", he writes to Timothy, who was probably at Ephesus at the time, "and bring him with thee (to Rome), for he is profitable to me for the ministry (2Tim.4,11)."

Such are the outlines of St. Mark's history as furnished to us by the New Testament. Tradition throws little further light upon it. The early Fathers of the Church agree in calling him the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter. It is impossible to say whether the term interpreter is to be taken literally, in which case it would mean that St. Mark helped to render St. Peter's native Aramaic into Greek; or, in a larger sense, to "intimate that St. Mark in his Gospel gave written expression to the oral teaching of his master". Eusebius relates that St. Mark was regarded as the founder of the great Church of Alexandria. The tradition was widespread and determined the ranking of the Patriarch of Alexandria next to the Pope of Rome amongst the Bishops of the world. The Church honors St. Mark as a martyr and celebrates his feast on the 25th of April.

St. Mark, Author of the Gospel that bears his name. There is not the least historical ground for doubting that St. Mark was the author of the Gospel that has come down to us under his name. The earliest witness is Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of St. John the Evangelist.

When Papias made inquiries of St. John about St. Mark, the aged Apostle replied: "Mark, Peter's interpreter, wrote down what the Lord said or done -so far as he remembered it- accurately, but not in order. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but later, as I said, he was a follower of Peter, who gave such instructions as circumstances required, and not an orderly account of the Lord's words. Hence Mark was not at fault in writing some things simply as he remembered them. For his one care was to omit nothing that he had heard, and to speak truthfully thereon (quoted by Eusebius, Eccles. Hist.,III,39,14)". This clear and explicit testimony is borne out by St. Irenaeus, a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna [who in turn was a disciple of St. John] and later Bishop of Lyons. "After the departure of Peter and Paul", he writes, Mark, Peter's disciple and interpreter, delivered to us in writing what Peter had preached. . . He began his Gospel thus: 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God' . . .At the close he says: 'And the Lord Jesus, after speaking with them, was received into heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God (Adv. Haer., III,1,1 and 10,6)'".

Clement of Alexandria, who was head of the famous Catechetical School of that city towards the close of the second century, adds some very interesting details about the origin of St. Mark's Gospel. "When Peter had preached the word in Rome", he says, "many there besought Mark, who had followed him of old and remembered his words, to write down what he had said; accordingly Mark composed the Gospel, and gave it to those who had made the request of him (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.,VI,14)".

St. Mark's Gospel was written for the Gentiles. There are unmistakable signs in St. Mark's Gospel that it was destined primarily for converts from the Gentile world. After reading the Gospel of St. Matthew, we conclude without hesitation that it was written for Jews of Palestine; after reading even a few chapters of St. Mark, the conviction dawns upon us that he must have had non-Jewish readers in mind. He quotes the Old Testament explicitly only once (1, 2-3). The word Law does not occur at all. The genealogy of Our Lord and other matters interesting chiefly to Jews are omitted. We look in vain for Christ's denunciations of the Scribes and Pharisees and His parable of the King's son.

St. Mark gives explanations which the Jews could not require; the Jordan is specified as a river; the habits peculiar to the Pharisees are described; the worst tenet of the Sadducees -their denial of a resurrection- is expressly mentioned; the Mount of Olives is "over against the Temple"; at the Passover men eat unleavened bread; Aramaic words are carefully interpreted; the value of the Widow's "mite" is even explained in terms of Roman money. One casual remark seems to point to Roman Christians as his readers. Speaking of Simon of Cyrene, St. Mark reminds them that he is "the father of Alexander and of Rufus (15,21)". If this Rufus was the Rufus to whom St. Paul sends greetings at the close of his Epistle to the Romans, the birthplace of St. Mark's Gospel is definitely fixed as Rome.

Sources of St. Mark's Gospel.

(Comment: While it is generally held the Saint Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek, there is evidence which points to Latin. In a Syrian manuscript it is stated, at the end of Mark's Gospel, that he wrote it at Rome in Latin before being sent by Saint Paul to Alexandria.

Moreover not only is the word "law" not used by Saint Mark, but it is even missing in places where one might expect to find it, such as from phrases like "the law and the prophets", used by the other Evangelists. This would indicate sensitivity to a Roman audience where authorities often granted to dependent nations some accommodation of local religious customs, but insisted on one law throughout the Empire.

It should also be pointed out that since Saint Mark was with Saint Peter at Rome, it would be more probable that Mark was Peter's interpreter for the Latin language.)