MARK, GOSPEL OF.—I. voice of the church with one consent assigns our second gospel to Mark, the son ' (1 Pet. v. 17) and `interpreter' (Papias ap. Euseb. H. E. , iii. 39) of St. Peter. The existence of this ascription is the best evidence of its truth. Had not Mark been its author, no sufficient reason can be given for its having borne the name of one so undistin guished in the history of the Church. His identity with the John Mark' of the Acts and Epistles has usually been taken for granted, nor (see last article) is there any sufficient ground for calling it in question. It must, however, be acknowledged that there is no early testimony for the fact—as there is none against it—which appears first in the preface to the Commentary on the Evangelist usually attributed to Victor of Antioch, circa 407 A. D. (Cramer, Catena p. 263), and in a note of Ammonius (Ibid. p. iv.), where it is men tioned with some expression of doubt rcixa esTo' Mcipicos 6 awn eXtarijs . . . 71-zOcwas• se 6 N6-yos (Westcott.,. Intend., p. 212). An argument in favour of their identity has been drawn with much acuteness by Tregelles (yourn. of Philol. 1855, p. 224 ; Horne's Introd. to N. T., p. 433) from the singular epithet 'stump-fingered,' KoNopoSdtc applied to the evangelist in the Phtlosophli menu vii. 3o, as illustrated by the words of the Latin preface found in some MSS. at least nearly coeval with Jerome,' amputasse sibi post fidem pollicem dicitur ut sacerdotio reprobus haberetur ;' as though by his desertion of the apostles (Acts xiii. 13) he had become figuratively a pollice truncus ' —a poltroon.
2. Relation to St. unanimous testi mony of the early church declares that Mark wrote his gospel under the special influence and direction of St. Peter. The words of John the presbyter, as quoted by Papias (Euseb. H. E. iii. 39), are explicit on this point—' This, then, was the statement of the elder :—Mark having become Peter's interpreter (40,72pcur7js) wrote accurately all that he remembered (ip.ong6Yevoe), but he did not record the words and deeds of Christ in order (oil alv rot TCEEEL rIf tiro roU Xpurror, xexeirra &via), for he was neither a hearer nor a follower of our Lord, but afterwards, as I said, became a follower of Peter, who used to adapt his instruc tion to meet the requirements of his hearers, but not as making a connected arrangement of our Lord's discourses (ciXX' mix atnrep at5yraty riDy xycata7.3y row61.;Epos X6-ycop); so Mark com mitted no error in writing down particulars as he remembered them (tine 7/isi/as tbs aregymu6 PEVITEP), for he made one thing his object, to omit nothing of what he heard, and to make no erro neous statement in them.' The value of the fore going extract, from its almost apostolic date, is extremely great, though too much stress has been laid upon some of its expressions by Schleiermacher and others, to discredit the genuineness of the exist ing Gospel of St. Mark. In addition to St. Peter's teaching having been the basis of the gospel, we learn from it three facts of the greatest importance for the right comprehension of the origin of the gospels, 'the historic character of the oral gospel, the special purpose with which it was framed, and the fragmentariness of its contents' (Westcott, Introd., p. 168). The testimony of later writers is equally definite, though probably to a certain extent derived from that of Papias. Justin quotes from the present gospel under the title rd areamuoveli aaro Iltrpoy. Irenmus (Euseb. H. E., iii. r) asserts that Mark ' delivered in writing the things preached by Peter ;' and Origen (Ibid. vi. 25), that he composed it as Peter directed him—cis llgrpos *Ma ar° azir0 rothoarra. Clement of Alex andria enters more into detail, and according to Eusebius' report of his words (H E. vi. 14 ; 15) contradicts himself. He ascribes the origin of the gospel to the importunity of Peter's hearers in Rome, who were anxious to retain a lasting record of his preaching from the pen of his ipan YEUT4S, which, when completed, the apostle viewed with approbation, sanctioning it with his authority, and commanding that it should be read in the churches : while elsewhere we have the incon sistent statement, that when Peter knew what had been done 'he neither forbade nor encouraged it.' Tertullian's witness is to the same effect, ' Marcus quod edidit evangelium Petri affirmatur' (Adv. Mare. vi. 5) ; as is that of Eusebius (H. E.,
iii. 5), and Jerome (de Kr. c. viii. ; ad Hedib., c. ii.), who in the last passage writes, cujus (Marci) evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est.' Such, so early and so uniform, is the tradition which connects, in the closest manner, St. Mark's Gospel with the Apostle Peter. To estimate its value we must inquire how far it is consistent with facts ; and here it must be candidly acknowledged that the gospel itself supplies very little to an un biassed reader to confirm the tradition. The nar rative keeps more completely to the common cycle of the Synoptic record, and even to its language, than is consistent with the individual recollections of one of the chief actors in the history ; while the differences of detail, though most real and impor tant, are of too minute and refined a character to allow us to entertain the belief that Peter was in any way directly engaged in its composition. Any record derived immediately from St. Peter could hardly fail to have given us far more original matter than the slender additions made by Mark to the common stock of the Synoptical gospels. It is certainly true that there are a few unimpor tant passages where Peter is specially mentioned by Mark, and is omitted by one or both of the others (i. 36 ; v. 37 ; xi. zo ; xiii. 3 ; xvi. 7) ; but, on the other hand, there are still more and more prominent instances which would almost show that St. Mark was less intimately acquainted with St. Peter's life than they. He omits his name when given by Matthew (xv. 15 cf. Mark vii. 17) ; passes over his walking on the sea (Matt. xiv. 28-31 ; cf. Mark vi. 5o, 51) and the miracle of the tribute-monev (Matt. xvii. 24-27 cf. Mark ix. 33), as well as the blessing pronounced on him by our Lord, and his designation as the rock on which the Church should be built (Matt. xvi. 17-19 cf. Mark viii. 29, 3o). Although he was one of the two disciples sent to make ready the Passover (Luke xxii. 8), his name is not given by Mark (xiv. 13). We do not find in Mark the remarkable words, ' I have prayed for thee,' etc. (Luke xxii. 31-32). The notice of his repentance also, einfla game (xiv. 72), is tame when contrasted with the etamp 7.-,Kpon of Matthew and Luke. Advocates are never at a loss for plausible reasons to support their preconceived views, and it has been the habit from very early times (Eu sebius, Chrysostom) to attribute these omissions to the modesty of Peter, who was unwilling to record that which might specially tend to his own honour ; an explanation unsatisfactory in itself, and which cannot be applied with any consistency. Indeed, we can hardly have a more striking proof of the readiness with which men see what they wish to see, and make the most stubborn facts bend to their own foregone conclusions, than that a gospel, in which no unbiassed reader would have discovered any special connection with Peter, should have yielded so many fancied proofs of Petrine origin. But while we are unable to admit any considerable direct influence of Peter in the composition of the gospel, it is by no means im probable that his oral communications may have indirectly influenced it, and that it is to him the minuteness of its details and the graphic colouring which specially distinguish it are due. Its rich ness in subtle and picturesque touches, by which he sets, as it were, the scene he is describing before us in all its outward features, with the very look and demeanour of the actors, betoken the report of an eye-witness ; and with the testimony of the early Church before us, which can hardly be set aside, we are warranted in the conclusion that this eye-witness was Peter. Not that the nar rative, as we have it, was his ; but that when Mark, under the Holy Spirit's guidance, after sepa ration from his master, undertook the task of setting forth that cycle of gospel teaching, to which—from grounds never yet, nor perhaps ever to be satisfac torily explained—the Synoptists chiefly confine themselves, he was enabled to introduce into it many pictorial details which he had derived from his master, and which had been impressed on his memory by frequent repetition.