Mark the Evangelist, Saint

MARCO EVANGELISTA, Saint. — Disciple of St. Peter and St. Paul, author of the second Gospel.

I. THE EVANGELIST

The Evangelist’s full name was “John surnamed M.” (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37). Sometimes he is called simply “John” (ibid. 5:13), more often only “M.” (ibid. 15:39; Col 4:10; Philem 24; 1 Pt 5:13); he therefore bore a Hebrew name and a Latin surname.

All ancient writers and most modern scholars hold that John-M. is to be identified with the M. to whom the Second Gospel is attributed. Among Catholics who distinguished John-M., disciple of Peter, from M., disciple of Paul, are G. Baronio, the Maldonado, Patrizi, Danko and, more recently, D. De Bruyne (in Revue bénédictine, 40 [1928], pp. 201–204); among Protestants, Grotius and Schleiermacher. Yet the data concerning Peter’s M. and Paul’s M. can easily be reconciled.

His mother was named Mary; she lived in Jerusalem in the house where later the faithful gathered and where Peter went after his release from prison (Acts 12:12). Since St Peter calls him “M., my son” (1 Pt 5:13), it is probable that Peter baptized him personally.

Some identify this house with the Cenacle (v.). Many see in M. the young man (νεανίσκος) who, on the night of the Passion, followed Jesus and, to escape arrest, left his linen cloth in the hands of the officers. This episode, recorded only in the Second Gospel (Mk 14:51–52), seems precisely a hallmark of the author. Unlikely is the view of Adamantius (PG 11, 1721) and Epiphanius (ibid. 41, 880–900) that M. was one of the Seventy-Two disciples of Jesus. Papias, reporting the words of John, declares that M. was not a disciple of Jesus. The Muratorian Fragment, stating that “neither did Luke see the Lord in the flesh” (“Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne”), seems to exclude that M. was a disciple of Jesus; yet it admits that he witnessed some facts or discourses of Jesus, for it begins with the following words about M.: “[a]l[qu]ibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit.” If M. is identified with the young man mentioned above (Mk 14:52–53), this is plausible.

From St Paul (Col 4:10) we learn that M. Barnabas (v.), whom he accompanied to Antioch about AD 44 and whom he joined as an assistant (ὑπηρέτης) on the journey undertaken with Paul to the island of Cyprus. Since M., having reached Perga (v.), withdrew from the company to return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13), St Paul did not take him along on the second missionary journey (AD 49–50). For this reason Barnabas parted company with Paul and went to Cyprus with his cousin M. (ibid. 15:39).

Probably M., like Barnabas, was of Levitical stock. The Monarchian Prologue even states that M. “acted as a priest in Israel, being a Levite according to the flesh,” and that, after his conversion, he allegedly cut off his thumb so as to be irregular for priestly service (“ai sacerdoti reprobus haberetur”). In this sense one might explain the title κολοβοβέκτυλος (“with a maimed thumb”) attributed to him by the Philosophumena (7, 30, 1; PG 16, 2334) and by an ancient anti-Marcionite prologue preserved in some Vulgate manuscripts; according to others, that epithet merely means that M. had short fingers, disproportionate to the rest of his body (E. Nestle, in Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 4 [1903], pp. 347), or that he wrote a short Gospel (v. Bartlet, in Journal of Theological Studies, 6 [1905], pp. 121–24).

Between AD 61 and 63 M. was in Rome as a collaborator of the imprisoned Paul (Col 4:10–11; Philem 24). In AD 64, when Peter wrote his first letter from Rome, M. was still in the capital of the Empire (1 Pt 5:13). Since tradition presents him as a disciple and interpreter of Peter, who “had followed him for a long time” (Clement of Alexandria: PG 9, 732), it may be supposed that he accompanied Peter on his missions in Palestine and Syria (perhaps even before AD 44) or after his return from Perga or from Antioch and Cyprus (c. AD 50). By about AD 66 M. was still in the East. In 2 Tim 4:11 Paul asks Timothy to take M. with him and bring him to Rome, because he was “useful to him for the ministry.”

The remainder of M.’s life is uncertain. St Jerome certainly errs (De viris ill., 8: PL 23, 623) in writing that M. died in the eighth year of Nero (AD 62). Various writers (with Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2, 16, 1: PG 20, 173; Jerome, De viris ill. 8; Epiphanius, Haer. 51, 6; Martyrologium Romanum under 25 April) hold that M. founded or was the first bishop of the Church of Alexandria; yet this may refer to another Mark, since the Alexandrians Clement and Origen make no mention of him. The relics of St M. are preserved in his basilica in Venice, whither they were translated in AD 828. The feast of St M. on 25 April is not earlier than the ninth century.

II. THE GOSPEL

1. Subject and division. - The 16 chapters of the second Gospel can be divided into three major parts concerning: Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and its surroundings (chapters 1–9), in Judea (10–13), and the Passion and triumph (14–16); these parts are preceded by an introduction and concluded by an appendix.

a) Introduction (1:1–13). - M. omits the events of Jesus’ hidden life recounted by Matthew and Luke, limiting himself to reporting the preparation for the public life, citing the testimony of the Baptist, and alluding to Jesus’ baptism and temptations.

b) First part (1:14–9:50). - M. selects episodes from Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and its surroundings. The beginning unfolds in Capernaum and nearby (1:14–3:6); the ministry continues near the Sea of Galilee (3:7–7:23); then in the regions of Tyre and Sidon, and at Bethsaida. Numerous miracles are narrated, especially exorcisms.

c) Second part (10–13). - M. recounts episodes from the journey toward Jerusalem and within the city: the journey, departing from Galilee, rich in teachings on marriage, virginity, wealth, etc. (10:1–52); the triumphal entry into the city and subsequent instructions (11–12:44).

d) Third part (14–16:8). - M. describes the supper at Bethany, the Last Supper, with the institution of the Eucharist (14:1–31); the prayer in the garden with the episode of the young man (M.?), who escapes the guards (14:32–52); the trial, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection (14:53–16:1–8).

e) Appendix (16:9–20). - Appearances to Mary Magdalene, to two disciples, and to the Eleven. Jesus sends the Apostles into the whole world and is taken up into heaven (16:9–20).

2. Purpose. - This seems explicitly indicated by the opening words: “The beginning of the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). The author wishes to recount the first phase of this good news, presenting Jesus Christ as “the Son of God.” These last words are missing in some manuscripts (S 8 28) and in some versions (Armenian and Georgian), but they appear in the other better ones. They should therefore be regarded as genuine.

Unlike Matthew, who, writing for the Jews, sought to prove his thesis especially by citing fulfilled prophecies, the second Evangelist proves it simply by narrating miracles that show Jesus’ power over nature, diseases, death, and particularly over demons (the latter being a characteristic feature of M.).

3. Literary character. - Although it has an underlying apologetic intent, the second Gospel does not have the character of an apology like the first. It is a narrative of historical facts, written in a lively and picturesque style. It conveys the impressions of an eyewitness who is attentive to minute details. While narrating the prodigious deeds that highlight the Master’s divinity, it does not neglect the elements that bring out his humanity: Jesus is saddened, angered (3:5; 10:14), sleeps (4:38), asks who touched him (5:30), experiences fear and weariness, and submits to the Father’s will (14:34–36).

The Greek language shows both Semitic and Latin influences. If, as tradition affirms, this Gospel was written by a Jew in Greek for Romans, these influences find a natural explanation. Among the Latinisms noted are: δηνάριον (6:37); κῆνσος (12:14); λεγίων (5:9, 15); σπεκουλάτωρ (6:27); φραγελ-λόω (flagellum, 15:15); πρατζόριον (15:16); κοδράντης (quadrans, 12:42); etc.

4. Origin. - a) External evidence. - Since the second Gospel is almost entirely contained in the other two Synoptics (v.), it is difficult to say whether a quotation, made in paraphrase, is drawn from this or from some other Gospel.

The earliest witness explicitly attributing the second Gospel to M. is St. Papias (v.), bishop of Hierapolis. Here is what he wrote (c. 125): “The Presbyter (John) used to say this also: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, followed Peter, who would adapt his teachings to the needs of the moment, not with a view to compiling a connected account (σύνταξιν) of the Lord’s logia. Thus Mark in no way sinned in writing some things just as he recalled them. His sole concern was not to omit anything he had heard or to add anything false” (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 39, 15).

From this testimony, which through Papias goes back

to John the disciple of the Lord, we learn that he justified the lack of “connected account of the logia” in the second Gospel by the fact that M. reported Peter’s teachings, given in the way they were needed. It seems that this referred to the logical arrangement of the discourses: such arrangement is found in Matthew, but lacking in M. The Muratorian Fragment has come down to us mutilated at the beginning, precisely where it spoke of the first two Gospels. Since it states that the third Gospel is that of Luke and the fourth that of John, it is obvious that in the lost lines it also spoke of M.

St. Irenaeus, after saying that “Matthew, among the Hebrews in their own language, also published a writing of the Gospel, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church in Rome,” continues: “After the departure (ἔξοδος) of these, M., a disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter” (Adv. haer., III, 1, 1: PG 7, 844). The bishop of Lyons certainly attributes the second Gospel to M., whom he mentions several times.

The ancient Latin prologue, which gives M. the epithet colobodactilus, states that he, “having become the interpreter of Peter, after the latter’s departure wrote this (Gospel) in the regions of Italy” (cf. D. de Bruyne, in Revue bénédictine, 40 [1928], pp. 193–204).

Clement of Alexandria reports that M. composed the Gospel in Rome, at the request of Peter’s hearers. The Apostle would have allowed him to do so (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 14, 6); elsewhere he says that the request came from certain Caesarean knights to whom Peter was preaching in Rome (Hypotyp. in 1 Pt., 5, 13).

Other explicit testimonies are found in the works of

Origen (In Mt. tom. I: PG 13, 829), Tertullian (Adv. Marc., 4, 2: PL 2, 363), Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 24, 5–6), Jerome (De viris ill., 8: PL 23, 643). They substantially agree with that of Irenaeus.

b) Internal evidence. - Within the Gospel itself, several confirmations of the tradition’s testimonies can be discerned. This tradition states that M. wrote down Peter’s preaching. Now Peter’s preaching extended from the baptism of John to Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1:21; cf. 10:37–42) and emphasized the miracles performed by Christ (ibid., 2:22; 1:38). These are precisely the characteristics of the second Gospel.

Moreover, the Gospel of M. is the most precious source for a biography of St. Peter (P. De Ambroga, S. Pietro Apostolo, Rovigo 1951, chap. 1). The picturesque manner of describing even the minute details of events shows that the Evangelist had at his disposal a first-rate witness, attentive and impressionable, such as Peter was; and the language of M., suffused with Semitic and Latin colors, confirms what historical tradition attests about his origin.

5. Place, destination, date. - Regarding the place of composition, tradition is unanimous in pointing to Rome (Clement of Alexandria; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II, 15; Ephrem, Diat., 286; Jerome, De viris ill., 8).

The destination is clearly indicated by Clement of Alexandria: for the Romans evangelized by Peter. That these were indeed the intended recipients is shown, besides by the "Petrine" character of the second Gospel, also by the Latinisms scattered throughout II. To pagans, who knew nothing of the prophecies, it would have been superfluous to insist on these; Peter and Mark preferred to emphasize the theme of miracles, especially those concerning demons, in which one could see the idols defeated.

The date of composition of Mark’s Gospel is not easily determinable. It can be said with certainty that tradition, morally unanimous (the majority of Greek manuscripts, St. Irenaeus, Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome), agrees in asserting that Mark is the "second" Evangelist in chronological order.

Internal evidence allows us to conclude that the Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). There is no mention of this event as having occurred in the eschatological discourse (Mk 13); indeed, from the conclusion of this discourse (vv. 14–23), the opposite appears to be the case.

Tradition agrees in supposing that the second Gospel was composed before the death of St. Peter. Since a comparison of the Synoptic Gospels (q.v.) shows that Luke depends on Mark, the obvious conclusion is that Mark wrote before A.D. 63. In that year, Paul’s two-year Roman imprisonment ended, and Luke abruptly concluded and published the Acts, which were composed after the third Gospel. It remains to explain the text of St. Irenaeus, cited above, from which one might deduce that Mark published his Gospel after the deaths of Peter and Paul. In Greek it reads as follows: Metà dè tèn toútōn éxodon, Mârcos ho mathētès kaì hēmnēuteùs Pétrou, kaì autòs tà hypò Pétrou keryssómena eggráphōs hēmīn paredōken. There is no need to insist on the fact that éxodos properly means "departure," to conclude that Mark wrote, not after their deaths, but after the departure of the two Apostles from Palestine. Nor is the expedient of some (with Kaulen) who would read in Irenaeus metà dè tèn toútōn éxodon (= after the "publication" of this, i.e., the Gospel of Matthew) instead of metà dè tèn toútōn éxodon (= after the "departure" of these) of any avail. It should be noted, however, that Irenaeus does not say that Mark wrote the Gospel "after the death of Peter and Paul," but that he "handed down in writing" (eggráphōs hēmīn paredōken) the things preached by Peter; this expression seems to refer to the definitive publication, with the appendix (16:9–20) that appears to have been added later.

(photo: Sansoni)

SAINT MARK THE EVANGELIST – St. Mark in the act of writing the Gospel. Miniature from the Ferrarese school (15th century). Incipit of the Gospel of St. Mark – Vatican Library, cod. Urb. lat. 10.

Taking into account the various elements, the majority of Catholic scholars, and many non-Catholics such as J. Wellhausen and A. Harnack, hold that Mark’s Gospel was composed between Paul’s second apostolic mission (concluded in 53) and before the publication of Luke’s Gospel (62–63). Within this decade, after the composition of Matthew’s Gospel (q.v.), one may with probability seek the date of origin of the second Gospel.

6. Integrity

Various non-Catholics maintain that Mark did not write the entire book attributed to him, but only a part (the "Protomark"), which was later completed by subsequent redactors.

It may be replied that the witnesses of tradition know of no other Gospel of Mark besides the one now extant. All the papyri (including P⁴⁵, from the first half of the 3rd century), all the codices, and all the versions attest that the Gospel of Mark has always been identical to that which has come down to us.

One may only raise the question of the genuineness (not the canonicity) of the appendix (16:9–20), which is lacking in Codex Vaticanus B (though it leaves an unusual blank space after 16:8), the Sinaitic Codex (ℵ), the Syro-Sinaitic, Sahidic, Old Georgian, and Old Armenian versions. It was also missing in several codices cited by Eusebius and St. Jerome. It is found, however, in codices C Δ 33 W Θ A etc., in the Old Latin (except the Bobbio codex k), in the Vulgate, in the other Syriac versions, in the Bohairic, Gothic, and in many patristic citations (Irenaeus, Justin, Tatian, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, etc.). Some secondary manuscripts have a shorter ending (Ψ [044] 099, 0112); others have an extended ending with the insertion of a logion after V. 13 (the Freer Logion of codex W). The internal arguments against genuineness reduce to the disruption of the logical connection between V. 8 and V. 9, and to stylistic differences where Lucan reminiscences appear. There are, however, indications in favor of genuineness. It is unlikely, in fact, that the Evangelist would have wished to conclude the work with a gár without narrating anything of the appearances and the Ascension, especially since the theme of Peter’s preaching extended to this very point (Acts 1:21). One might suppose that Mark, for a reason unknown to us, had left the Gospel suspended after V. 8. Some scribe copied it and circulated it thus incomplete. Meanwhile, Luke’s Gospel was published, and Mark himself summarized (or had summarized) the last chapter of that Gospel to complete his own. Thus would be explained the stylistic differences and the absence of the appendix in some manuscripts, a lack that others supplied in different ways.

7. Directives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

On June 26, 1912, the Pontifical Biblical Commission published nine responses concerning the author, the time of composition, and the historical truth of the Gospels according to Mark and Luke (AAS, 4 [1912], pp. 463–65; Denz.-U., 215–63). With regard to Mark, these directives indicate the arguments of tradition that compel one to affirm with certainty that Mark, disciple and interpreter of Peter, is the author of the Gospel attributed to him (ad I); it is declared that the reasons adduced against the genuineness of Mk 16:9–20 do not justify excluding its canonicity or inspiration or demonstrating that Mark is not its author (ad II). Mark’s is the second Gospel in chronological order (ad V); its date cannot be postponed to after the destruction of Jerusalem; Mark wrote according to Peter’s preaching (ad VIII); it merits historical credibility (ad IX).

III. ICONOGRAPHY

St. MARK the Evangelist is depicted as an old man, often bald, holding the book of his Gospel in his hands, with a lion beside him as his evangelist’s symbol; sometimes he is shown seated on a throne, as is very typically represented in a 15th-century sculpture on the main entrance door of the church dedicated to him in Rome, where there is also a canvas by Melozzo da Forlì depicting him in the act of writing his Gospel. Nevertheless, in the 10th-century Byzantine mosaic placed above the main portal of St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice, he is to the left of Christ and still lacks his characteristic distinguishing attributes, although an inscription indicates his name. In the slightly later mosaic in the Chapel of St. Isidore of the same basilica, he already appears holding his Gospel.

The iconography of St. Mark enjoyed a very rich development first and foremost in Venetian art; St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice presents numerous examples of different types of his depictions, up to a Renaissance mosaic executed in 1545 on a cartoon designed by Titian. The basilica also contains, in the Chapel of St. Zeno, 12th–13th-century mosaics with a cycle of scenes taken from the legend of the Evangelist.

Countless are the depictions of St. Mark in Venetian art of the Renaissance. Worth mentioning for late 15th-century art is the triptych by Bartolomeo Vivarini in the Frari Church in Venice, where St. Mark is enthroned in the center,

and for the early 16th century, Titian’s altarpiece in the Church of Santa Maria della Salute with St. Mark enthroned and four saints.

Great Venetian masters have also often illustrated both the legend of the Saint, his miracles, and the history of the translation of his body from Alexandria to Venice. Noteworthy are: The Preaching of the Saint in Alexandria, painted by Gentile Bellini and now in the Brera Picture Gallery in Milan, and the canvases by Tintoretto at the Accademia in Venice with the translation of the body of St. Mark and one of his miracles, as well as at the Brera Picture Gallery The Discovery of the Body of St. Mark.

— See pl. IV.