PART II.

CHAPTER THE THIRD.

OF ST. MARK'S GOSPEL.

I. History of St. Mark.-II, Genuineness of his Gospel.III. Its Date.-IV. Observations.

I. DOUBTS have been entertained, both in antient and modern times, whether Mark the Evangelist be the same as John, whose surname was Mark, mentioned in the Acts and in some of St. Paul's Epistles. This appears a very uncertain point; but as even Dr. Campbell, who thinks that they were different persons, admits that there is no inconsistency in the contrary supposition, I shall, with Lightfoot, Wetstein, Lardner, and Michaelis (a), consider them as the same. It is known to have been a common thing among the Jews for the same person to have different names.

We shall therefore consider Mark, the author

of

(a) Cave, Grotius, Du Pin, and Tillemont, were of a contrary opinion.

of this Gospel, as the son of Mary, who was an early convert to the religion of Christ. St. Peter, when he was delivered out of prison by an angel, went immediately to her house, where he found

many gathered together praying (b)." Thence it is inferred, that the Christians were accus◄ tomed to meet at Mary's house, even in these times of persecution, and that there was an early acquaintance between St. Peter and St. Mark. Mark was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister's son; and he is supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls him his son (c); but no circumstances of his conversion are recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different countries; but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem (d). Afterwards, when Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with them;

(b) Acts, c. 12. V. 12. (d) Acts, c. 13.

(c) 1 Pet. c. 5. v. 13.

them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas, which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterwards reconciled to St. Mark, from the manIner in which he mentions him in his Epistles written subsequent to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which he gives to Timothy; "Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is profitable to me for the ministry (e).” No farther circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is believed, upon the authority of antient writers, that soon after his journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with him for some time, perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerome, all assert that Mark preached the Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him Bishop of Alexandria. Baronius, Cave, Wetstein, and other learned moderns, have thought that Mark died a martyr; but I find no authority for that opinion in any antient writer; and it seems to be contradicted by Jerome, who says, that he died in the eighth

(e) 2 Tim. c. 4. v. II.

year

year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria (ƒ), which expression appears to imply that he died a natural death. Papias (g), and several other antient fathers, say, that Mark was not a hearer of Christ himself; but on the contrary, Epiphanius, and the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, written in the fourth century, assert that he was one of the seventy disciples, to whom our Saviour gave a temporary commission to preach the Gospel; this however does not seem probable, as there is reason to believe that he was converted to the belief of the Gospel by St. Peter.

II. DR. LARDNER thinks that this Gospel is alluded to by Clement of Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly mentions it, is Papias. It is mentioned also by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous quotations from this Gospel; and as their testimony is not contradicted by any antient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St. Mark is genuine.

The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the question concerning the identity of Mark the Evangelist,

(f) De Vir. Ill. cap. 8.

(g) Eus. Hist. Ecc. lib. 3. cap. 39.

[PART II. Evangelist, and Mark the nephew of Barnabas, since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the work which he undertook by having heard for many years the public discourses and private conversation of that Apostle. This opinion is confirmed by the Gospel itself; for many things honourable to St. Peter are omitted in it, which are mentioned by the other Evangelists (h); and it is perfectly conformable to the character of St. Peter, that he should not, either in public or private, notice circumstances of that kind; but on the other hand, the failings of Peter are all recorded in this Gospel. Thus St. Mark does not add the benediction and promise which St. Peter received from our Saviour, upon his acknowledging him to be the Messiah; but he relates at large the severe reproof which he received soon after, for not bearing to hear that Christ must suffer (i).

Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to St. Peter (k); by which title they did not mean

to

(b) Vide Jones's New Method. (i) Vice Townson on the Gospels, p. 155; ̊and compare Mark, ch. 8. with Matt. ch. 16.

(k) Licet et Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Tert. adv. Marc. lib. 4. cap. 5.

Marcus,