Mark the Evangelist, Saint

MARK THE EVANGELIST, 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 only "John" (ibid. 5:13), more often only "M." (ibid. 15:39; Col. 4:10; Philem. 24; 1 Pt. 5:13); he therefore had a Hebrew name and a Latin surname.

All the ancient writers and the majority of the moderns hold that John-M. is to be identified with the M. to whom the second Gospel is attributed. They distinguished John-M., the disciple of Peter, from M., the disciple of Paul: among Catholics, G. Baronio, Maldonado, Patrizi, Danko and recently D. De Bruyne (in Revue bénédictine, 40 [1928], pp. 201-204); among Protestants, Grotius and Schleiermacher. But the data concerning the M. of Peter and the M. of Paul can easily be reconciled.

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

Some look for the cenacle (v.) in this house. Many recognize M. in that young man (νεχνιόχος) who, on the night of the Passion, followed Jesus and who, to escape arrest, left the linen cloth in the hands of the guards. This episode, recorded only by the second Gospel (Mk. 14:51 f.), seems precisely a mark of the author. The opinion of Adamantius (PG 11, 1721) and of Epiphanius (ibid. 41, 880-900), who sees in M. one of the 72 disciples of Jesus, is not probable. Papias, reporting the words of John, declares that M. was not a disciple of Jesus. The Muratorian Fragment, saying that "not even" Luke saw the Lord in the flesh ("Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne"), seems to exclude that M. was a disciple of Jesus; it admits, however, that he was present at some deed or discourse of Jesus; in fact it begins with the following words concerning M.: "[a]l[qu]ibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit". If one identifies M. with the young man mentioned above (Mk. 14:52 f.), the matter is plausible.

From St. Paul (Col. 4:10) it is known that M. was a cousin of Barnabas (v.), who brought him to Antioch around the year 44 and associated him as an assistant (ὑπρένες) in the journey undertaken with Paul to the island of Cyprus. Since M., on reaching Perge (v.), had withdrawn from the company to return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13), St. Paul did not want him with him on the second apostolic journey (49-50). For this reason Barnabas separated from Paul and with his cousin M. went to Cyprus (ibid. 15:39).

Probably M. too, like Barnabas, was of Levitical stock. The Monarchian Prologue even says that M. "served as a priest in Israel, being a Levite according to the flesh" and that, after his conversion, he would have amputated his thumb in order to be irregular ("ai sacerdoti reprobus haberetur"). In this sense the title of κολοβοβέκτυλος ("short-thumbed") attributed to him by the Philosophumena (7, 30, 1; PG 16, 2334) and by an ancient anti-Marcionite prologue, preserved in some codices of the Vulgate, would have to be explained; according to others that epithet would mean only that M. had short fingers, disproportionate to the rest of the body (E. Nestle, in Zeitschrift für neutest. Wissenschaft, 4 [1903], pp. 347), or else that he wrote a short Gospel (V. Bartlet, in Journal of theol. stud., 6 [1905], pp. 121-24).

Between 61 and 63 M. was in Rome as a collaborator of the imprisoned Paul (Col. 4:10 f.; Philem. 24). In 64, when Peter wrote his first letter from Rome, he 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), one may hold that he followed Peter on his missions in Palestine and Syria (perhaps already before the year 44) or after his return from Perge or from Antioch and Cyprus (around the year 50). Around the year 66 M. was still in the East. In 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul begs Timothy to take M. with him and bring him to Rome, because he was "useful to him in the ministry."

The rest of M.'s life is uncertain. St. Jerome (De viris ill., 8: PL 23, 623) is certainly wrong in writing that M. died in the eighth year of Nero (A.D. 62). Several writers (with Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 2, 16, 1: PG 20, 173; Jerome, De viris ill., 8; Epiphanius, Huer., 51, 6; Martyr. Romanum for April 25) hold that M. was the founder or first bishop of the Church of Alexandria; perhaps, however, this concerns another Mark, because the Alexandrians Clement and Origen do not speak of him. The relics of St. M. are preserved in his basilica in Venice, where they were transported in 828. The feast of St. M. on April 25 is not earlier than the 9th century.

II. THE GOSPEL

1. Subject matter and division

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

a) Introduction (1:1-13). - M. omits the facts of the hidden life of Jesus recounted by Matthew and Luke, and limits himself to relating the preparation for the public life, citing the testimony of the Baptist, and alluding to the Baptism of Jesus and his temptations.

b) First part (1:14-9:50). - M. chooses episodes from the ministry of Jesus in Galilee and its surroundings. The beginnings unfold at Capernaum and in the vicinity (1:14-3:6); the ministry continues by the lake of Gennesaret (3:7-7:23); then in the regions of Tyre and Sidon, at Bethsaida. The miracles narrated are numerous, especially deliverances of the possessed.

c) Second part (10-13). - M. relates episodes of the journey toward Jerusalem and in that city: the journey, setting out from Galilee, rich in lessons on marriage, virginity, riches, etc. (10:1-52); the triumphal entry into the city and the ensuing 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 from the guards (14:32-52); the trial, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection (14:53-16:1-8).

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

2. Purpose

It seems indicated explicitly by the first words: "The beginning of the good news (gospel) of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (1:1). The author wishes to recount the first phase of this good news, which presents Jesus Christ as "Son of God." These last words are missing in some codices (S 8 28) and in some versions (Armenian and Georgian), but they are read in the other, better ones. They must therefore be considered genuine.

Unlike Matthew, who, writing for the Hebrews, wished to prove his thesis especially by citing fulfilled prophecies, the second Evangelist proves it by simply recounting the miracles that show the power of Jesus over nature, illnesses, death and particularly over demons (the latter is a characteristic 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, in a lively and picturesque style. It relates the impressions of an eyewitness, who takes an interest in minute particulars. While it narrates the prodigious facts that highlight the divinity of the Master, it does not neglect the elements that bring out his humanity: Jesus grows sad, becomes angry (3:5; 10:14), sleeps (4:38), asks who has touched him (5:30), suffers fear and weariness, submits to the will of the Father (14:34-36).

The Greek language shows both Semitic and Latin influences. If, as tradition affirms, the present Gospel is the work of a Hebrew who was writing in Greek a book destined for the Romans, these influences find an easy explanation. Among the Latinisms one notes: δηνάριον (6:37); κῆνσος (12:14); λεγίων (5:9, 15); σπεκουλάτωρ (6:27); φραγελ-λόω (flagello, 15:15); πραιτώριον (15:16); κοδράντης (quadrans, 12:42); etc.

4. Origin

a) External arguments. - Since the second Gospel is almost entirely contained in the other two Synoptics (v.), it is difficult to say whether a citation, made loosely, is drawn from this or from some other Gospel.

The most ancient witness who explicitly attributes the second Gospel to M. is St. Papias (v.), bishop of Hierapolis. Here is what he wrote (around 125): "This too the presbyter (John) used to say: M., having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote diligently, though not in order, all the things done and said by the Lord that he remembered. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but, later, as I said, followed Peter, who gave his teachings according to the needs, not with the intention of making a coordination (σύνταξιν) of the logia of the Lord. So that M. did not sin at all in writing some things thus, as he remembered them. Of one thing alone he was careful: not to omit anything of what he had heard, or to add anything false to it" (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 39, 15).

From this testimony, which through Papias goes back to John, disciple of the Lord, one learns that he justified the lack of "coordination of the logia" in the second Gospel by the fact that M. reported the teachings of Peter, given thus, according to the needs. Apparently, it was a matter of the logical coordination of the discourses: such coordination is noted in Matthew, and is 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 says 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 in Rome and founding the Church," continues: "After the departure (ἔξοδος) of these, M., 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 cites several times.

The ancient Latin prologue, which attributes to M. the epithet of colobodactilus, says that he, "having become the interpreter of Peter, after the departure of the latter wrote this (Gospel) in the regions of Italy" (cf. D. de Bruyne, in Revue bénédictine, 40 [1928], pp. 193-204).

Clement of Alexandria informs us that M. composed the Gospel in Rome, at the request of the hearers of Peter. The Apostle would have let him do it (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 14, 6); elsewhere he says that the request would have come from certain Caesarean knights to whom Peter was preaching in Rome (Hypotyp. in I Pt., 5, 13).

Other explicit testimonies are read 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 agree substantially with that of Irenaeus.

b) Internal arguments. - In the Gospel itself various confirmations of the testimonies of tradition are grasped. This informs us that M. wrote the preaching of Peter. Now the preaching of Peter extended from the Baptism of John up to the ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:21; cf. 10:37-42), and insisted on the miracles worked by Christ (ibid. 2:22; 1:38). Such are precisely the characteristics of the second Gospel.

Furthermore, the Gospel of M. is the most precious source for a biography of St. Peter (P. De Ambroggi, S. Pietro Apostolo, Rovigo 1951, ch. 1). The picturesque way of describing even the minute particulars of the facts shows that the Evangelist had at his disposal a first-rate witness, attentive, impressionable, 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

On the place of composition tradition is in agreement for 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 in fact the recipients is evident not only from the "Petrine" character of the second Gospel, but also from the Latinisms scattered throughout it. For pagans, who knew nothing of the prophecies, it was superfluous to insist on these; Peter and M. prefer to give greater prominence to the argument from miracles, especially those over demons, in which the idols could be seen as defeated.

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

Internal indications allow us to conclude that the Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). There is no mention of that event as having occurred in the eschatological discourse (Mk. 13): indeed, from the conclusion of that discourse (vv. 14-23), the contrary emerges.

Tradition agrees in supposing that the second Gospel was composed before the death of St. Peter. Since from a comparison of the Synoptic Gospels (v.) it emerges that Luke depends on M., the conclusion is obvious that M. wrote before 63. In that year the two-year period of Paul's Roman imprisonment was ending, and Luke was abruptly concluding and publishing the Acts, composed after the third Gospel. There remains to be explained the text of St. Irenaeus, cited above, from which one might deduce that M. published his Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul. In Greek it reads thus: Μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον, Μάρκος ὁ μαθητὴς καὶ ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν. There is no point in insisting on the fact that ἔξοδος properly means "departure," in order to conclude that M. wrote not after the death but after the departure of the two Apostles from Palestine. Nor is the expedient of some (with Kaulen) of any use, who would read in Irenaeus μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον (= after the "publication" of this, that is, of Matthew's Gospel) instead of μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον (= after the "departure" of these men). Note, however, that Irenaeus does not say that M. wrote the Gospel "after the death of Peter and Paul," but that he "handed down to us in writing" (ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν) the things preached by Peter: this expression seems to concern the definitive publication, with the appendix (16:9-20) that appears to have been added later.

Irenaeus, moreover, was not much concerned with chronological exactness; his testimony therefore cannot be decisive for a late date of the second Gospel.

Taking into account the various elements, the majority of Catholic scholars, and many non-Catholics with J. Wellhausen and A. Harnack, hold that M.'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 (v.), the date of origin of the second Gospel can probably be sought.

6. Integrity

Several non-Catholics maintain that M. did not write the whole book attributed to him, but only a part (Proto-Mark), which would then have been completed by subsequent redactors.

One can reply that the witnesses of tradition know no other Gospel of M. besides the present one. All the papyri (including P 45, from the first half of the 3rd cent.), all the codices, all the versions attest that the Gospel of M. was always identical to the one that has come down to us today.

A question can be raised only about the genuineness (not the canonicity) of the appendix (16:9-20), which is missing in cod. Vaticanus B (which, however, leaves an unusual blank space after 16:8), in the Sinaiticus (S), in the Syro-Sinaitic, Sahidic, Georgian, and Old Armenian versions. It was also missing in several codices cited by Eusebius and St. Jerome. It is found, on the other hand, 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, in the Gothic, and in many citations of the Fathers (Irenaeus, Justin, Tatian, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, etc.). Some secondary codices have a shorter ending (Ψ [044] 099, 0112); or an expanded ending with the insertion of a logion after v. 13 (Freer logion of cod. W). The internal arguments against genuineness reduce to the break in the logical connection between v. 8 and v. 9, and to differences of style in which Lucan reminiscences surface. Nevertheless, there is no lack of indications in favor of genuineness. Indeed, it is improbable that the Evangelist wished to cut off the work with a γάρ, without recounting anything of the appearances and the Ascension, all the more so since the theme of Peter's preaching extended to this last point (Acts 1:21). One might hold that M., for some reason that escapes us, had left the Gospel suspended after v. 8. Some copyist copied it and circulated it thus incomplete. Meanwhile Luke's Gospel was published, and M. himself summarized (or had summarized) the last chapter of that Gospel to complete his own. Thus the differences of style and the absence of the appendix in some codices would be explained, an absence that was supplied differently by others.

7. Directives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

On 26 June 1912 the Pontifical Biblical Commission published nine responses concerning the author, the time of composition, and the historical truth of the Gospels according to M. and Luke (AAS, 4 [1912], pp. 463-65; Denz-U, 215-63). As regards M., the arguments from tradition are indicated there that compel us to affirm with certainty that M., 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 give the right to exclude its canonicity or inspiration and do not prove that M. is not its author (ad II). That of M. is the second Gospel in chronological order (ad V); its date cannot be postponed to after the destruction of Jerusalem; M. wrote according to the preaching of Peter (ad VIII); it merits historical credence (ad IX).

III. ICONOGRAPHY

St. Mark the Evangelist is depicted as an old man, often bald, with the book of his Gospel in his hands, having beside him a lion, his symbol as an evangelist; sometimes he is seen seated on a throne, as represented in a highly typical manner by a fifteenth-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 that depicts him in the act of writing his Gospel. Nevertheless, in the 10th-century Byzantine mosaic placed above the main portal of the basilica of St. Mark in Venice, he is on the left of Christ still without 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 with his Gospel in his hands.

The iconography of St. Mark had above all a very rich development in Venetian art; the basilica of St. Mark in Venice presents numerous examples of various types of his depictions, up to a Renaissance mosaic executed in 1545 from a cartoon drawn by Titian. The basilica also contains, in the chapel of St. Zeno, mosaics of the 12th-13th century with a cycle of scenes taken from the legend of the Evangelist.

Innumerable are the depictions of St. Mark in the Venetian art of the Renaissance. To be mentioned for the art of the late fifteenth century is the triptych by Bartolomeo Vivarini in the church of the Frari in Venice, where St. Mark enthroned occupies the center, and, for the early sixteenth century, the altarpiece by Titian in the church of St. Maria della Salute with St. Mark enthroned and four saints.

Very great Venetian masters also often illustrated both the legend of the Saint, and his miracles, and the history of the translation of his body from Alexandria to Venice. To be remembered are: The preaching of the Saint in Alexandria, painted by Gentile Bellini, 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.

Witold Wehr

IV. FOLKLORE

The date on which the Saint's feast falls (25 April) explains the character of the various popular customs and beliefs relating to the Saint himself, all more or less connected with country life in the spring period. In Venice, of which the Saint is patron, it is still customary on his feast day to present a rosebud (bocolo) to girls: the custom has inspired a moving legend. In Sicily the fields are blessed as on rogation days, and the peasants bring back blessed flowers and divide them among the families. Also in Sicily the Saint is regarded as the patron of wind; indeed the common people identify St. M. with the wind that usually blows on that day, that is, the sirocco; whence the proverb "S. Marcu è lu lupu di la campagna". A charming Roman legend, perhaps imagined to explain the custom of an offering of firstfruits, relates that M., to gratify the wish of a pope, miraculously ripened the cherries, although it was still April. Protector of notaries, basket-makers and masons, he is invoked for a good harvest. As appears from numerous proverbs, on his day omens are drawn for the weather or for the ripening of fruit, or advice is given for hunting, grazing, and the rearing of silkworms. - See plate IV.

Paolo Toschi