MARK. John whose surname was Mark,' with whom the evangelist may almost certainly be identified, was the son of a Jewish matron of sub stance and position, residing at Jerusalem. Her house formed an ordinary place of assemblage for Christians even in times of danger and persecution (Acts xii. 12), to which St. Peter at once resorted on his miraculous deliverance from prison. Thus we find that the very first mention of John Mark prepares us for the future intimate connection be tween him and that apostle, and supports his iden tity with the evangelist. Mark is mentioned by St. Paul among those ol bres etc reptroufis (Col. iv. to), and he was therefore certainly a Jew by birth, and, according to the very probable supposition of Ewald (vi. 411), of an Hellenistic family settled at Jerusalem. Bamabas of Cyprus was his cousin (not as in the A. V. sister's son'), Col. iv. to, but we cannot thence infer, with Cave, that he was of the tribe of Levi. His original name was John ;' the Latin surname 'Marcus' having been assumed from some unexplained cause, by a process of which the change of Saul into the universally known Paul' affords an exactly analogous instance, became the prevalent name in the church. The Acts and Epistles enable us to trace the gradual ac ceptance of the new name—' John, whose surname was Mark,' cf. Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 37, is ' John' alone xiii. 5, 13 ; becomes Mark,' xv. 39; and thenceforward appears by that name alone, Col. iv. to ; Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. t t. Of his earlier history nothing can be known with any certainty. The statement that he was one of the seventy (Hippolyt. Philosophumena, vii. 20 ; Epiphan. Contr. Han, li. 6), who (as is also recorded of St. Luke with as little warrant) took offence at our Lord's hard saying,' John vi. 6o-66, is entirely groundless, and is inconsistent with the words of Papias, are -yitp icsvov row Kuptou, are wapniro XotiOno-ev atir91. Little more can be said in support of the theory first started by Townson, and elabo rately defended by Greswell, which has found con siderable acceptance, as being in keeping with the supposed ardent and impulsive character of St. Mark, that he was the `young man' mentioned by him (Mark xiv. 51, 52) as being suddenly wakened from sleep on the night of the Betrayal, and with difficulty escaping the soldiers' hands. Such iden tifications, however specious, must be always ac cepted with extreme caution, as they usually arise from an unwillingness to acquiesce in the fragmen tariness of the gospels. Da Costa's identification of him with the devout soldier' (Acts x. 7) is a still more groundless fancy. When we consider
how naturally Mark's intercourse with the apostle at his mother's house may have ripened into his conversion, we can hardly be wrong in looking on Peter as his spiritual father, and interpreting sift (t Pet. v. 13) in that sense. It has been taken as implying the natural relation by Bengel, Neander, Credncr, Hottinger, Tholuck, Stanley (Senn. on Apart. Age, p. 95), but this is contrary to the view of the earlier writers (Origen, ap. Euseb. H. E., vi. 25 ; Euseb. H. E., ii. 15 ; Jerome, de Vir. Ill., c. 8), and is based on the feeble argument, that because St. Paul always employs T &POP of the spiritual con nection, St. Peter must have done the same. Be sides, the view that it is BapuXann OTPEKXEKT7j means St. Peter's wife, has been rejected by the soundest critics (cf. Wieseler, Apostol. Zeitalt, p. 558 ; De Wette, Exeg. Handbuch, in loc.) The silence of all early writers on a point of so much interest ap pears conclusive. The visit of Saul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, as bearers of the alms of the church of Antioch immediately after Peter's miraculous deliverance, was a turning-point in the history of the young convert. The natural tie of relationship was strengthened by a closer bond, and on the return of the apostles we read they were accom panied by John, whose surname was Mark' (Acts xii. 25). On their first missionary voyage Mark attended them as their Iiirnpgrns (Acts xiii. 5) ; but on leaving the perhaps familiar ground of Cyprus, the native country of his kinsman Barnabas (Acts iv. 26), for the unknown dangers of the Asiatic mountains, his heart would appear to have failed him, and forsaking his companions at Perga in Pamphylia, where, as Dr. Howson suggests, he may have found a ship sailing to Palestine, he returned to Jerusalem,' to his mother and his home. This event was productive of most impor tant consequences. When starting a second time on their missionary enterprise, Barnabas was led by natural affection again to select his young kinsman as the companion of their journey. Paul was un willing to have the attendance of one who, from his natural timidity, might give way just when his services were most needed, and prove a hindrance and not a help. Neither was willing to yield to the other, and the issue was a sharp conten tion,' resulting in the temporary estrangement and permanent separation of the fellow-labourers. Mark accompanied Barnabas to Cyprus, where St. Luke's narrative takes leave of him (Acts xv. 37-39). The after history of Mark, it has been truly said, `affords a specimen of the rare change from timidity to boldness' (Newman, Pasch.