in his life. Lange ingeniously conjectures that his mother owned the garden of Gethsemane or a
house close by.
Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas as their minister (ὑπηρέτης) on their first great
missionary journey; but left them half-way, being discouraged, it seems, by the arduous work, and
returned to his mother in Jerusalem. For this reason Paul refused to take him on his next tour, while
Barnabas was willing to overlook his temporary weakness (Acts 15:38). There was a "sharp
contention" on that occasion between these good men, probably in connection with the more serious
collision between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11 sqq.). Paul was moved by a stern sense of
duty; Barnabas by a kindly feeling for his cousin.^945 But the alienation was only temporary. For
about ten years afterwards (63) Paul speaks of Mark at Rome as one of his few "fellow-workers
unto the kingdom of God," who had been "a comfort" to him in his imprisonment; and he commends
him to the brethren in Asia Minor on his intended visit (Col. 4:10, 11; Philem. 24). In his last Epistle
he charges Timothy to bring Mark with him to Rome on the ground that he was "useful to him for
ministering" (2 Tim. 4:11). We find him again in company with Peter at "Baby]on," whether that
be on the Euphrates, or, more probably, at Rome (1 Pet. 5:3).
These are the last notices of him in the New Testament. The tradition of the church adds
two important facts, that he wrote his Gospel in Rome as the interpreter of Peter, and that afterwards
he founded the church of Alexandria. The Coptic patriarch claims to be his successor. The legends
of his martyrdom in the eighth year of Nero (this date is given by Jerome) are worthless. In 827
his relics were removed from Egypt to Venice, which built him a magnificent five-domed cathedral
on the Place of St. Mark, near the Doge’s palace, and chose him with his symbol, the Lion, for the
patron saint of the republic.
His Relation to Peter.
Though not an apostle, Mark had the best opportunity in his mother’s house and his personal
connection with Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and other prominent disciples for gathering the most authentic
information concerning the gospel history.
The earliest notice of his Gospel we have from Papias of Hierapolis in the first half of the
second century. He reports among the primitive traditions which he collected, that "Mark, having
become the interpreter of Peter (ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος], ωροτε δοων αχχυρατελψ [ἀκριβῶς
ἔγραψεν) whatever he remembered,^946 without, however, recording in order (τὰξει) what was either
said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as
I said, [he followed] Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but not in the
way of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses.^947 So then Mark committed no error
in thus writing down such details as he remembered; for he made it his one forethought not to omit
or to misrepresent any details that he had heard."^948(^945) ἀνεψιός,Col. 4:10.
(^946) ἐμνημόνευσε. It is so translated by Valois, Lardner, Meyer, Weiss, Lightfoot. The rendering "recorded," which is preferred
by Crusé and Morison, makes it tautological with the preceding ἔγραψεν. The "he" may be referred to Mark or to Peter, probably
to the former.
(^947) ἀλλ ̓ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν λόγων(orλογίων, oracles).
(^948) Euseb., Hist, Eccl., III. 39. For a critical discussion of this important testimony see Weiss and Morison, also Lightfoot in
the "Contemp. Rev.," vol. XXVI. (1875), pp. 393 sqq. There is not the slightest evidence for referring this description to a
fictitious pre-canonical Mark, as is still done by Davidson (new ed., I. 539).
A.D. 1-100.