Mark
Evangelium secundum MarcumIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
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.
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.
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.
Haydock
St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Irenaeus, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. VII. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, haer. 51, ch. V. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case:
Omnia Graecè; Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latinè. ---Juvenal, Satyr vi.
The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark 1:40; 7:32; 8:22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a most pleasing simplicity and elegance.
It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.
Douay 1582/1609
THE ARGVMENT OF S. MARKES GOSPEL. 8 paragraphs
S. Markes Gospel may be vvel diuided into foure partes.
The first part, of the preparation that was made to the manifestation of Christ: chap. 1. in the beginning.
The Second, of his manifesting himselfe by Preaching and Miracles, and that in Galilee: the residue of the 1. chap. vnto the 10. chap.
The third, of his comming into Iurie, tovvards his Passion: chap. 10.
The fourth, of the Holy weeke of his Passion in Hierusalem: chap. 11. to the end of the booke.
Of S. Marke and his conuersation with the tvvo Apostles S. Paul and S. Barnabee, vve haue at large Act. 12 and 15. somevvhat also Col. 4. and 2. Tim. 4. and to Philémon. Moreouer of his familiaritie vvith the Prince of the Apostles S. Peter, vve haue 1 Pet. 5. For so it pleased our Lord, that onely tvvo of the Euangelistes should be of his tvvelue Apostles, to vvit, S. Matthew and S. Iohn. The other tvvo, S. Marke and S. Luke, he gaue vnto vs of the Disciples of his two most principal and most glorious Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul. Whose Gospels therefore were of Antiquitie counted as the Gospels of S. Peter and S. Paul them selues. In Catal. Script. Ecclesiast. Marke the disciple and interpreter of Peter (saith S. Hierom) according to that which he heard of Peters mouth, wrote at Rome a briefe Gospel at the request of the Brethren (about 10 or 12 yeres after our Lordes Ascension.) Which when Peter had heard, he approued it, and with his authoritie did publish it to the Church to be read, as Clemens Alexandrinus writeth li. 6. hypotypos.
In the same place S. Hierom addeth, hovv he vvent into Aegypt to preach, and vvas the first Bishop of the cheefe Citie there, named Alexandria: and hovv Philo Iudaeus at the same time seeing and admiring the life and conuersation of the Christians there vnder S. Marke, Philo de Supplicibus. vvho vvere Monkes, vvrote a booke thereof, vvhich is extant to this day. In Catalogo. And not onely S. Hierom (in Marco, & in Philone) but also Eusebius Hist. li. 2. ca. 15. 16. 17. Epiphanius Secta 29 Nazaraeorum, li. 1. to. 2. Cassianus de Instit. Caenobiorum li. 2. c. 5. Sozomenus li. 1. c. 12. Nicephorus li. 2 c. 15. and diuerse others, do make mention of the said Monkes out of the same Author. Finally, He died (saith S. Hierom) the 8 yere of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria, Anianus succeding in his place. But from Alexandria he vvas Naucler. generat. 28. translated to Venice, Anno Dom. 830.
It is also to be noted, that in respect of S. Peter, vvho sent S. Marke his scholer to Alexandria, and made him the first Bishop there, this See vvas esteemed next in dignitie to the See of Rome, and the Bishop thereof vvas accounted the cheefe Metropolitane or Patriarch of the East, and that by the first Councel of Nice. Whereof see S. Leo ep. 53. S. Gregorie li. 5. ep. 60. & li. 6. ep. 37.
Cornelius a Lapide
INTRODUCTION 32 paragraphs
"MARK," says S. Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, "was a disciple and interpreter of S. Peter. At the request of the brethren at Rome, he wrote a short Gospel, based upon what he had heard S. Peter relate. This, when Peter had heard, he approved of, and sanctioned its being read in the Church." Shortly afterwards, S. Jerome proceeds to say, "Mark took his Gospel, which he had compiled, and went to Egypt. He first preached Christ at Alexandria, and founded a Church there, which possessed such great purity of doctrine and life that it influenced all followers of Christ by its example. In short, Philo, the most eloquent of the Jews, beholding the primitive Church of Alexandria, as yet Judaizing, wrote a book upon its peculiarities, as it were in praise of his own people. And similarly as S. Luke records that at Jerusalem those who believed had all things common, so has Philo preserved the memory of what he saw at Alexandria under S. Mark as the teacher of the Christians. He died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria. Anianus succeeded him."
Clement of Alexandria (Strom. l vi.) and Papias of Hierapolis attest the same things; so does Eusebius (H. E. ii. 15), who adds that S. Peter confirmed S. Mark's Gospel, and delivered it to be read for all time in the Churches. S. Athanasius (Synops. sub fin.) and S. Epiphanius (Hæres. 51) say the same. Wherefore Tertullian (l. iv. cont. Marcion) attributes the Gospel of S. Mark to S. Peter, because, as S. Jerome says, "it was compiled from what S. Peter related, Mark being the writer." The same S. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the preface to his Commentary on S. Mark, says, "After Matthew soweth Mark, He, I say, who roareth as a lion, who flieth as an eagle, who learneth as a man, who sacrificeth as a priest, who watereth as a river, who flourisheth as a field, who fermenteth as wine. For Christ who is spoken of is man by being born, is a calf by dying, a lion by rising again, an eagle by ascending into heaven."
For this cause the cherubim of Ezek. i. and the Apocalypse, which have four faces, signify the four Evangelists. For the face of a man denotes Matthew, who relates the works of Christ's humanity; the face of an eagle, John, who speaks of the divinity of Christ; the face of an ox denotes Luke, who begins with the priesthood of Zacharias; and the face of a lion designates Mark, because he begins his Gospel from the loud roaring of John the Baptist, as it were of a lion. For these four have drawn the chariot of the glory of God, the chariot of the Gospel, through the whole world, and have subdued all nations to Him, that He may triumph.
The name Mark happily agrees with this symbolism, whether we derive it from the Hebrew or from Latin. For Mark in Hebrew, says Pagninus (in inteterpret. Heb. nomin.), means the same as smoothed, polished, cleansed from rust. It is derived from מרק, marak, to clean, to Polish. As Jeremiah (xlvi. 4) says, "Stand in the helmets, polish the lances;" where for polish the Heb. has מרקו, mircu, polish ye. Thus S. Mark polished the lance of his Gospel and preaching, that it, like a lion, might subdue the Egyptians and other nations to Christ. But S. Isidore (1. vii. Origen, c. 9) says, " Mark means high in commandment " (but I know not from what root), that is to say, on account of the Gospel of the Most High, which he preached. Again, the Heb. of Mark may be, as it were, מר כום, mar cos, or the Lord of the Chalice, that is to say, of suffering and martyrdom.
But in Latin, Carolus Signonius (de Nom. Roman.) says, "He is called Marcus who is born in the month of March." But Isidore says Mark means a strong hammer, Marcellus is a moderate-sized hammer, and Maculus a litle one. Thus S. Mark was a mighty and strong hammer, breaking in pieces the rock, i.e., bruising with compunction the strong hearts of the Gentiles, and moving them to repentance and a Christian life. Mark, then, and Marcellus are the same as, Martellus, a hammer. So Charles, the grandfather of Charlemagne, was called Charles Martel, because of his warlike prowess, by which he crushed a host of 300,000 Saracens. Or Marcus may be taken to be the same as Martius, a sort of heavenly Mars. The Marcian gens at Rome, an ancient patrician family, was so called from Ancus Marcius, the fourth king of Rome. King Ancus was called the sacrificial, because he restored worship which had fallen into decay, or had been improperly performed.
How religious and brave S. Mark was appears from the institution of the Essæi, who were the first religious, and the prototypes of all religious, of whose wondrous sanctity more anon.
Lastly, the Romans used to give the prænomen Marcus to first-born sons. Marcus Tullius Cicero was so called because he was a first-born son. Thus Mark was a first-born son, and singularly beloved of S. Peter. Thus he speaks of him as Marcus, my son (1 Pet. v.). For he as a son had drunk of S. Peter's spirit, and was an express image of the wisdom and holiness of S. Peter.
You will ask, Of what country, who, and what was S. Mark? I answer. 1. That he was of the Hebrew nation, and of the tribe of Levi. Bede adds that he was a priest, of the family of Aaron.
2. Theophilus, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius think that this Mark was the same as John Mark, who was nephew of Barnabas, and who journeyed with him and S. Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, the same S. Mark as he to whom S. Paul refers in his Epistle to Philemon, and Col. iv., and 2 Tim. iv. But I say that this Mark was a different person from John Mark, for at the same time that John Mark was with Paul and Barnabas in Greece, this Mark was with S. Peter at Rome, and was sent by him to preach first at Aquileia, and afterwards at Alexandria.
3. Origen (lib. de Recta Fide), S. Epiphanius (Hæres. 51), and Dorotheus (in Synops.) think that Mark was one of Christ's seventy-two disciples. But the contrary, namely, that he was converted and baptized by S. Peter after Christ's death, is more probable. For he calls him his (spiritual) son (1 Pet. v. 13), "The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." So S. Jerome, Eusebius (H. E. vii. 14), &c., who say that S. Mark was a disciple and companion of S. Peter.
4. S. Austin (l. 1, de Cons. Evang. c. 2) calls Mark the abbreviator of Matthew, not because he made a compendium of his Gospel, as some say, but because he often relates more briefly, as he had received them from S. Peter, the things which Matthew records at greater length. I said "often," for occasionally Mark relates events in the life of Christ more fully than Matthew does, as is plain from the account of Peter's denial. Some things also he unfolds with greater clearness than Matthew. Mark is fuller in narrative than Matthew, but has less of Christ's doctrine. Mark's, therefore, is an independent Gospel. Whence the Arabic prefixes the following title to his Gospel: In the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, One God, the Gospel of the Father, Patriarch, Apostle, S. Mar (i.e., Lord) Mark the Evangelist.
5. Mark wrote this Gospel A.D. 45, in the third year of the reign of Claudius, as Eusebius says (in Chron.), shortly before he went to Alexandria, where he governed for nineteen years the Church which he there founded. His disciples were so excellent that they were called Essæi, that is, holy and pious. For they, as the first religious, lived in such purity and holiness as to become the admiration of the whole world, and afforded a mirror of perfection to all other Churches. Hence S. Jerome and Cassian call S. Mark the chief and founder of the Cœnobites. See what I have said concerning the Essæi in Acts v. 2.
Moreover, S. Mark founded the first Christian school at Alexandria, from which so many holy doctors, bishops, and martyrs proceeded. This school of Alexandria wonderfully flourished under the Emperor Commodus, A.D. 180, when Pantænus presided over it. Pantænus was succeeded by Clement, Clement by Origen.
Finally, S. Mark added to the laurels of an Apostle, Doctor, and Evangelist the crown of martyrdom. In the Roman Martyrology for the 25th of April we read concerning him thus, "At Alexandria, the natal day of B. Mark the Evangelist, he, for the faith of Christ, being stretched and bound with cords, was dragged over the rocks, and grievously tormented. Afterwards, being shut up in prison, he was first comforted by an angelic vision, and at last by the appearance of the Lord Himself, by whom he was called to the heavenly kingdom in the eighth year of Nero." The body of S. Mark was translated by merchants from Alexandria to Venice, A.D. 827. There it is cherished with the utmost veneration, insomuch that the Senate have adopted as their insignia a lion, the emblem of S. Mark; and when they issue any command, they call it the mandate of S. Mark.
You will ask, secondly, in what language Mark wrote his Gospel, in Latin or Greek? Many think he wrote it in Latin. And the reason seems plain. For Mark wrote at Rome for the Romans; therefore, say they, he must have written in the Latin tongue. For the Romans did not understand Greek (as Baronius abundantly proves) in A.D. 45. For although S. Chrysostom on Mark asserts that he wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, yet S. Jerome, Eusebius, Clement, and other Fathers declare, passim, that he wrote it at Rome. And the author of that Commentary upon S. Mark was not S. Chrysostom, as I will prove hereafter. So the Syriac version, which at the end of S. Mark's Gospel adds expressly, "Here endeth the holy Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, which he spake and preached at Rome, in the Roman language." S. Gregory Nazianzen, in the poem in which he gives a catalogue of Holy Scripture, thus assigns the Evangelists to languages and nations, "The wonders of Christ for the Hebrews S. Matthew did write;
S. Mark for Westerns; for Greeks S. Luke in learning bright;
For all S. John, who soared aloft with heavenly sight."
On the other hand, S. Jerome affirms expressly, in the preface to the Gospel, that Mark wrote in Greek. "I am speaking," he says, "of the New Testament, which, without doubt, was written in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who first in Judæa published the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew." And he adds that he for this reason, at the command of Pope Damasus, corrected the ancient Latin Vulgate version of the New Testament, and therefore of S. Mark's Gospel, in accordance with the Greek original. S. Augustine teaches us the same thing: "Matthew is said to have written in Hebrew, all the rest in Greek." The same was the common opinion of ancient and modern writers.
Reason favours the same view. For S. Mark wrote his Gospel when he was about to pass to Alexandria, that he might preach it there. But the inhabitants of Alexandria spoke at that time the Greek language. For Alexandria was founded, and its name given, by Alexander the Great. SS. Athanasius and Cyril, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, and the rest wrote in Greek. Again, Mark was more skilled in Greek than he was in Latin. Wherefore, also, the Greek text of his Gospel is more polished and elegant than the Latin. For the Jews, who were neighbours of Greek-speaking countries, and subjects of Alexander the Great and his successors, learned thoroughly the Greek language, but not so the Latin, as being far distant from Latin-speaking countries. Moreover, the Greek language was then very widely diffused, as Cicero says. For this reason the Romans, especially the patricians and the wealthier sort of people, were skilled in Greek. Indeed, they sent their sons to Athens that they might be thoroughly grounded in Grecian wisdom and eloquence. And Mark wrote this Gospel not for the Roman plebeians, but for patricians and nobles, for such persons as S. Clement, S. Pudens. Listen to Clement of Alexandria (tom. 6, in Biblioth. Patr. in Edit. Parisiensi.), "Mark, the follower of Peter, when Peter was preaching the Gospel publicly at Rome, in the presence of certain knights of Cæsar's household, and was advancing many testimonies about Christ, being requested by them, wrote from the things which were spoken by Peter a Gospel, which is called that according to Mark." In like manner S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, as I have shown in my preface to that Epistle.
Lastly, S. Mark was present with S. Peter at Antioch, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians. And at Antioch Greek was spoken. Hence Greek was more familiar to Mark than Latin, and it is possible that Greek was his mother tongue. For although the Apostles and primitive believers received the gift of tongues from the Holy Spirit, yet they received it for sufficiency, not for elegance, and so they spoke each their own vernacular better and more elegantly.
You will reconcile both opinions if you say that Mark wrote his Gospel both in Greek and Latin, as Genebrard thinks, and our Barradi (tom. 1, l. c. 19) and Possevin. Hear Peter Natalis (in Cat. Sanct. l. 4, c. 86), "Peter sent Mark to Aquileia as its first bishop. There he wrote again his Gospel in Greek, which he had previously written in Latin at Rome, which Gospel, together with the ivory chair in which he sat to write it, is still shown in the church of Aquileia."
Further, some imagine that the Latin original of Mark has perished through the injuries of time, as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has perished. But it is difficult to believe so. For how would the Roman Church, so faithful to her trust, and so careful a guardian of the sacred writings, and especially in those early ages from Mark to Constantine, when it was so ardent and constant in zeal for religion, have suffered so great a treasure committed to her to he lost? Surely she who kept so faithfully what pertained to others did not lose her own. What, did so many copies of the Gospel of S. Mark, which noble Romans and other Italians, converted to Christ by SS. Peter and Paul, would emulously cause to be transcribed, perish to a single copy, so that not even one has survived? Wherefore we shall say, with greater probability, that Mark, for the reasons already assigned, wrote originally in Greek, but immediately afterwards, either by himself or by some other translator, rendered the Greek into Latin, and delivered both to the Romans, in a similar way to S. Paul, who wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, but sent the same to them translated into Latin by Tertius, his scribe and interpreter. The reasons are 1st Because SS. Jerome and Austin affirm that Mark wrote in Greek, not in Latin. 2nd Because, as Bellarmine has rightly perceived (de Script. Eccles. in Marc.), it is evident, from a collation of the Greek and Latin texts, that the Old Latin and the Vulgate editions, both of Matthew and Mark, have been translated from the Greek. This is proved by Franc. Lucas by many examples. To these you may add that the Latin translator of Mark Grecized, as when he says (ii. 2) et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad januam, words which are obscurely translated into Latin from the Greek, which reads clearly and elegantly, ώστε μηκέτι χωζείν μηδὲ τὰ πζὸς τὴν θύραν, ie., so that not even the places about the door could contain the crowd. Again, in iv. 10, the Vulgate has, et cum esset singularis, whilst the Greek is plain, καταμόνας, i.e., alone. Also vii. 17, 18, 20, Quæ de homine exeunt, illa communicant hominem, the Gr. κοινοί, i.e., make a man common or unclean, is clear. For the Hebrews call common unclean things, that is, things which all, even the impure, use promiscuously and in common. So, again, in chap. i. 47, διαφημίζειν, is translated verbally, diffamare, to make known abroad. Again, προσάββατον is rendered ante sabbatum, i.e., the day before the Sabbath.
The original of the Gospel of S. Mark is religiously preserved at Venice, but the letters are so corroded and worn away by age that they cannot be deciphered. When I was inquiring about the matter at Rome, several reliable persons, who had carefully investigated the subject, wrote to me to this effect, that the following is the tradition among the Venetians. They say that this Gospel was written by S. Mark at Aquileia, and left by him there, and that it was brought from thence to Venice. For when Attila took Aquileia after a three years' siege, and destroyed it, many of the inhabitants fled to the marshes bordering on the Adriatic, and there, in a marvellous manner, laid the foundations of Venice, A.D. 452. Moreover, a trustworthy man, a canon of S. Mark's at Venice, who has the custody of this relic, and is therefore an eye-witness, wrote to me in answer to my inquiries, within the last few days, that this autograph of S. Mark is written in Greek, and was brought from Aquileia to Venice A.D. 1472.
Pagnini has written a dissertation on this question, dedicated to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which he maintains that S. Mark in the first instance wrote his Gospel in Latin at Rome, and afterwards in Greek at Aquileia, but that the Latin has been lost, since the present Latin of S. Mark is a translation from the Greek. He cites many passages which go to prove the great prevalence of Greek at Rome in those times. He also cites Damasus as saying, (lib. de Vit. Pont.) in the Life of S. Peter, that the Evangelists wrote in Latin (mentioning Mark), in Greek, and Hebrew. But it is well known that this work is not by Damasus, but by Anastasius, the librarian. What Pagnini adds, that S. Peter preached to the Romans in Greek, and that S. Mark, as his interpreter, rendered his words into Latin, cannot be considered worthy of credit. Besides, the duty of an interpreter was different from this, as I have shown on 1 Cor. xii. 10.
The Syrians, as Fabricius tells us in the preface to his Syriac New Testament, assert that Mark wrote in Latin. They also say that the same Mark translated not only his own Gospel into his Galilean or Syriac mother tongue, but all the other books of the New Testament.
But it is difficult to believe this. For there is no mention of such a translation by Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, S. Jerome, or other Fathers, who either were Syrians, or who lived in Syria and Egypt, and treated carefully the subject of the various editions and translations of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore this Syriac translation of the New Testament seems to have been made later than S. Mark's time.
Lastly, S. Mark's Gospel has always been reckoned amongst the canonical Scriptures, with the exception of the last chapter, doubts about which were formerly entertained by some, as S. Jerome testifies (Ep. 150, ad Hedib. q. 3), because it contained certain things which savoured of Manichæism, which S. Jerome recites (lib. 2, cont. Pelag.). The words were these, "And they were satisfied, saying, Substance is that world of iniquity and unbelief, which suffereth not through wicked spirits the true power of God to be apprehended: therefore now call back thy righteousness." But these words have been since removed.
Observe Mark's whole strength is given to narration, and does not care for the order in which things were done. Hence he places events which were done afterwards before some which were prior to them in order of time, and vice versa. Hear S. Jerome (Introd. to S. Matt.), "Second, Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, who indeed had not himself seen the Lord, the Saviour, but had heard his master's preaching, related according to the truth of the things which were done, rather than the order in which they were done."
There is extant a second volume of S. Chrysostom's Commentary upon S. Mark, which, although not devoid of genius, learning, and piety, nevertheless seems to be wanting in the style, spirit, and subtlety of S. Chrysostom. Hence Bellarmine says that it is undoubtedly not the work of that Saint, but of a certain simple monk, who expounded the Gospel to his brethren.
Victor of Antioch, an ancient author, wrote especially upon S. Mark, whom one Theodore Peltanus has translated out of Greek into Latin.
The author of the Commentary or Scholiast upon S. Mark in the works of S. Jerome is not S. Jerome himself, for he shows himself to be unskilled both in Greek and Hebrew.
Here only a few things occur to be noted, because most have been spoken of in S. Matthew. There the reader will find them annotated. Here, therefore, I shall be brief.
Catena Aurea
Jerome: (Comm. in Esa.) In which words, it is shewn that Christ is called a servant, because He is formed from the womb. For, before these words it is said: Thus saith the Lord, that formed me from the womb to be his servant. It had indeed been the will of the Father, that the wicked tillers of the vineyard should receive the Son whom He had sent; wherefore Christ says of them to His disciples, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat. 10:5, 6) Because then Israel was not brought back to God, for that reason the Son of God speaks to the unbelieving Jews, saying, My God shall be my strength, who also has consoled me on the casting away of my people. And he hath said to me, It is a small thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, which have fallen by their own wickedness, and to restore the preserved, or remnant of Israel. For instead of them, I have given thee for a light to all the Gentiles, that thou shouldest illuminate the whole world, and shouldest cause my salvation, by which men are saved, to reach to the ends of the world.
Gloss: (non occ.) From the words then, which have been quoted, we can infer two things; first, the divine virtue which was in Christ, by which He was able to lighten the Gentiles; for it is said, My God shall be my strength. (2 Cor. 5:19) God therefore was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, as the Apostle says to the Corinthians; whence also the Gospel, by which believers are saved, is the power of God unto salvation, to every one who believeth, (Rom. 1:16) as the same Apostle says to the Romans. The second thing is, the enlightening of the Gentiles, and the salvation of the world, fulfilled by Christ, according to the will of the Father; for it is said, I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles. Wherefore the Lord after His resurrection, that He might fulfil the will of the Father, sent His disciples to preach, saying, Go ye, and teach all nations; some He sent to the Jews, some received the ministry of preaching to the Gentiles. But because it was right that the Gospel should not only be preached for those who then lived, but also be written for those who were to come, the same distinction is observed in the writers of the Gospel. For Matthew wrote the Gospel to the Jews in Hebrew, and Mark was the first to write a Gospel amongst the Gentiles.
Continue reading 9 paragraphs
Eusebius: (Hist. Eccles. 2.15) For when the glorious light of the word of God had arisen over the city of Rome, the doctrine of truth and of light, which Peter was then preaching to them, so shone upon the minds of all, by their patience in listening, that they heard him daily without ever being weary. Whence also they were not content with hearing only, but they earnestly beg of Mark his disciple, to commit to writing those things which he preached by word of mouth, that they might have a perpetual memorial of them, and might continue both at home and abroad in meditations of this sort upon the word. And they did not leave off their importunities, till they obtained what they had requested. This then was the cause of the writing of the Gospel of Mark. But Peter, when by the Holy Ghost he discovered the pious theft which had been put upon him, was filled with joy, for he saw by this, their faith and devotion; and he gave his sanction to what was done, and handed down the writing to the Churches, to be read for ever.
Pseudo-Jerome: (sup. Marc. in Præfat.) He begins at once with the announcement of the more perfect age of Christ, nor does he spend his labour on the birth of Christ as a little child, for he speaks of his perfection as the Son of God.
Chrysostom: (Hom. iv. in Matt) But he makes a compendious and brief beginning, in which he has imitated his master Peter, who was a lover of brevity.
Augustine: (de Cons. Evan. i. 3) Matthew, who had undertaken to relate what concerned the kingly person of Christ, had Mark assigned to him for a companion and an abbreviator, who was to attend upon his steps. For it belongs to kings not to be without a train of attendants. Since again the priest used to enter alone into the Holy of Holies, Luke, whose design had regard to the priesthood of Christ, had no companion to follow his steps, and in a manner to abbreviate his narration.
Bede: (in Marc. i. 1) It is also to be observed, that the holy Evangelists have each fixed upon a different commencement for their narration, and each a different ending. For Matthew, setting out from the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, has carried on the thread of his narrative up to the time of our Lord’s resurrection. Mark, beginning with the first preaching of the Gospel, goes on to the ascension of the Lord, and the preaching of His disciples to all nations throughout the world. But Luke, commencing with the birth of the Forerunner, has ended with our Lord’s ascension. John, taking his beginning from the eternity of the Word of God, reaches in his Gospel up to the time of the Lord’s resurrection.
Ambrose: (in Luc. in Præfat. v. vol. i. p. viii.) Because then Mark began with expressing the divine power, he is rightly represented under the figure of a lion.
Remigius: Mark is signified by the lion; for as a lion sends forth his dreadful voice in the wilderness, so Mark begins with the voice in the wilderness, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness.
Augustine: (de Cons. Evan. i. 6) Although the figure might also be otherwise interpreted. For Mark did not wish to relate either his kingly race, as Matthew did, who for this is figured by a lion, or his priestly kindred, or consecration, as Luke, figured by a calf; yet he is shewn to have had for his subject the things which the man Christ did, and therefore appears to be signified by the figure of a man, in the four animals.
Theophylact: (in Marc. in Præfat.) Or, the eagle points out the Gospel according to Mark, for it begins with the prophecy of John; for prophecy views with acuteness things which are afar, as an eagle.
Cursus Scripturae Sacrae
Cum Petrus per angelum.e carcere esset liberatus, venit ad domum Mariae matris Ioannis qui cognominatus est Marcus, ubi erant multi congregali et orantes (Act. 12,12). Inde docemur domum matris Marci fuisse sat amplam , in quam quasi in ecclesiam Christifideles convenire solebant, et proinde Marci familiam in urbe Ierusalem satis fuisse opulentam et nobilem et ab initio rei christianae fidelem. Petrum autem illam familiam ad fidem Christi adduxisse vel saltem Marcum veritate fidei imbuisse merito ex eo concluditur quod Marcum vocat filium suum (1 Petr. 5,13); talem enim loquendi usum tempore illo saepe deprehendimus (1 Cor. &,14. 15. 17. 2 Cor. 6,13. Gal. 4,19. 1 Tim. 1,9. 18. Tit. 1,4. Philem. 10. 1 Ioan. 2,1 etc.). Erat Marcus consobrinus (ἀνεψιός) Barnabae (Col. 4,10) levitae (Act. 4,36); quare eum quoque ex levitico genere fuisse concludunt; immo Ps. Hieronymus (in Marc. praef. M. 30,589) eum vocat Petri discipulum et sacerdotem et Beda scribit : tradunt hunc ortum sacerdotali prosapia (in Marc. expos. epist. ad Accam ; M. 92,133). Cum Barnabas et Saulus traditis eleemosynis in itinere apostolico; « habebant autem et Ioannem in ministerio » (Act. 13,5), dum scil. proficiscerentur Seleuciam, Cyprum, Pergen sus est Ierosolymam (Act. 13,13). Quare discesserit alii coniectant eum laborum et molestiarum minus fuisse patientem, alii ei displicuisse liberiorem agendi modum Pauli quo ab observatione legalium recederet. Paulum in illo discessu quidquam inconstantiae deprehendisse neque eum approbasse consequitur ex eo quia postmodum cum ad secundum iter apostolicum se accingeret noluit acquiescere Barnabae cupienti secum assumere etiam loannem Marcum ; Paulus autem censebat eum (ut qui discessisset ab eis de Pamphilia et non isset cum eis in opus) non debere recipi ; facta est autem dissensio ita ut discederent ab invicem (Paulus et Barnabas) et Barnabas quidem assumpto Marco navigaret Cyprum ab Antiochia (Act. 15,36-39). Postea vero Paulus, cum esset Romae in priore captivitate, Marcum consobrinum Barnabae laudat inter eos, qui « soli sunt adiutores mei in regno Dei qui mihi fuerunt solatio » (Col. 4,10. 11) eumque iterum in epistola ad Philemonem suum appellat adiutorem. Et quia et Colossensibus et Philemoni scribit salutationes ἃ Marco, Marcum iis in regionibus operi evangelico institisse concludendum erit , et Paulus Roma eum iterum misit in easdem regiones; scribit enim Colossensibus : si venerit ad vos excipite illum. In altera quoque captivitate romana Paulus desiderat Marcum apud se habere; scribit enim ad Timotheum : Marcum assume et adduc tecum; est enim mihi utilis in ministerium (9 Tim. &,11).
Marcum etiam multum cum Petro versatum esse, innuitur in epistola Petri (1 Petr. 5,13) et certo affirmatur traditione ecclesiastica. Cum enim Petrus electis advenis dispersionis Ponti, Galatiae, Cappadociae, Asiae et Bithyniae scribat : salutat vos Marcus filius meus, haud immerito assumitur Marcum in iis quoque regionibus ad evangelium propagandum laborasse. Eum autem Petri socium quoque fuisse traditione ecclesiastica affirmatur. llla enim appellatur ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου, interpres Petri; ità eum vocant Papias (apud Euseb. ἢ. e. 3,39; M. 20,300), Irenaeus (adv. haer. 3,1), Tertullianus (c. Marc. 4,5), Hieronymus aliique. Quo autem sensu nominetur interpres, declarat Hieronymus scribens Marcum fuisse beati Petriinterpretem, quia eius evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est; « denique et duae epistolae quae feruntur Petri, stilo inter se et caractere discrepant structuraque verborum ; ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum esse interpretibus » (ep. ad Hedib. 120,11; M. 22,1002). Atque ipsum evangelium Marci, uti omnes fatentur, luculentum reddit testimonium Marcum diutius cum Petro esse commoratum atque plurima ex Petri narrationibus in suum librum transtulisse. De qua re postea erit agendum. Papias, vel potius presbyter ille loannes, dicit Marcum non audivisse Dominum neque eum esse secutum (l. c.), i. e. Marcus non fuit inter discipulos et comites Iesu assiduos; nimium inde concludere videtur Hieronymus : Dominum Salvatorem ipse non vidit (1n Matth. prolog. M. 26,18), sed certe falsum est quod Epiphanius asserit eum fuisse inter septuaginta duos discipulos Iesu (haer. 51,6; M. 41,900). Recentiores quidam putabant adolescentem illum (νεανίσκον) de quo Marc. 15,51 fuisse ipsum Marcum ; de qua opinione vide infra ad 15,51. Referunt Eusebius, Hieronymus aliique Marcum in Aegyptum quoque profectum et evangelium quod conscripserat ibidem praedicasse et in urbe Alexandria ecclesias constituisse (Euseb. ἢ. e. 9,16; Hier. de vir.
Continue reading 32 paragraphs
ill. 8). Ceterum vide Acta Sanct. bolland. Sept. VII p. 357; Cornely, Introd. III p. 80-85.
Marcum scripsisse evangelium constat testimoniis quae ad ipsa tempora apostolica ascendunt adeoque certissima sunt. lam Papias nobis refert quae presbyter foannes (probabilissime ipse loannes apostolus) de evangelio Marci dixerit : « Marcus interpres Petri, quorumcumque meminit!, accurate perscripsit, non tamen ordine, Christi dicta et facta; neque enim ipse Dominum audiverat neque secutus fuerat, sed postea , ut dixi, Petrum , qui pro necessitate doctrinam tradidit , minime vero, ut sermonum Domini seriem completam contexeret. Quare nullo modo peccavit Marcus qui nonnulla (ἔνια) ita scripsit prout (Petrus) narraverat; ad id unum enim attente invigilavit ne quid eorum quae audierat praetermitteret neve in iis falleret » (Euseb. h. e. 3,39). Erat autem Papias, ut Irenaeus dicit, loannis auditor et sodalis (ἑταῖρος) Polycarpi, quod Irenaei testimonium eo gravius est, quia ipse ex Asia oriundus a Polycarpo in re christiana erat institutus (cf. Euseb. h. e. 5,90). Quare verba Papiae omni consideratione digna sunt. Illa autem de nostro quod nos habemus evangelio Marci dici pariter certum est ex Eusebii testimonio qui Papiae libros novit et qui praeterea inter alia testatur : « in ipso huius operis exordio polliciti sumus veterum nos Ecclesiae presbyterorum et scriptorum verba suo loco adducturos quibus ea quae a maioribus sibi tradita accepissent de sacris testamenti libris exposuerunt » (5,8). Undeapertum est illa Papiae verba ab Eusebio recitari, ut constet quid de evangelio Marci quod tempore Eusebii habebatur sentiendum sit. [dem elucet ex ipsis verbis quibus 3,39 Eusebius Papiae testimonium inducit se scil. referre velle traditionem (πα- ρζδοσιν) ἢ περὶ Moo τοῦ τὸ εὐχγγέλιον γεγραφότος ἐχτέθειται. Iam tempore Eusebii idem illud evangelium exstitisse quod nos habemus nemo negat; idcirco pariter certum est, uti Eusebius testimonium Papiae de nostro evangelio intellexit, ita etiam de eodem evangelio dici. Quare nullo modo audiendi sunt recentiores quidam (Schleiermacher, Credner, Schwegler, Baur, Strauss, Davidson, Renan, Reuss) qui quamvis libros Papiae nunquam viderint tamen contendunt verba Papiae non valere de nostro evangelio, sed de alio quodam prisco opere quod nostri evangelii forsitan fuerit fundamentum. Quod quam temere et quam gratuito asseratur aliis quoque testimoniis facile ostenditur.
Exstat scil. ettam Clementis alexandrini testimonium, qui affirmat se accepisse rem ἃ vetustioribus presbyteris traditam παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσζυτέρων : cum Petrus in urbe Roma verbum Dei publice praedicasset, multi qui aderant Marcum cohortati sunt, utpote qui Petrum iamdudum sectatus fuisset et dicta eius memoria teneret, ut quaeab apostolo praedicata erant conscriberet ; Marcus igitur evangelium composuit. Marci itaque evangelium ex tali occasione ortum est (Euseb. h. e. 6,15; cf. 2,15). Quod Clementis testimonium ut rite aestimetur, iterum considerandum est eum id referre de evangelio Marci quod ipse habuit ac novit. Iam pariter extra controversiam est Clementem non alio usum esse evangelio quam eo quod nos vocamus evangelium Marci. Dein attendere oportet eum referre non suam sententiam , sed παράδοσιν traditionem acceptam τῶν ἀνέκαθεν πρεσδυτέρων. Qui sunt οἱ ἀν. πρ.} Clemens erat discipulus Pantaeni ; Pantaenus proin ipsi erat et habebatur πρεσδύτερος; sed ut attingantur οἱ ἄν. mp., etiam per unam generationem erit ascendendum; Pantaenus autem ab apostolorum discipulo de re christiana erat edoctus; proinde quod .Clemens refert est illud quod discipuli apostolorum tradiderunt et docuerunt de evangelio Marci et eo quidem evangelio quod, ut Eusebius dicit, φέρεται i. e. in usu est (2,15).
Neque minus ponderis habet testimonium Irenaei qui discipulus erat Polycarpi auditoris loannis apostoli : Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, quaea Petro praedicata fuerant perscripta nobis tradidit (ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωκεν). Irenaeum autem eodem evangelio usum esse quo nos utimur a nullo negatur. Iam ut eius testimonium quid valeat et valere omnino debeat bene percipiatur, oportet nofare, quantopere Irenaeus pro re quavis quae ad doctrinam spectet sollicitussit eam comprobare et definire ex apostolorum traditione. Varios ex eius scriptis locos adduxi in Comment. Matth. I p. 5. 6 et ibidem ita conclusi quod eodem modo dici debet de evangelio Marci : qui vero ita sentit neque ullam doctrinam amplectitur nisi eam ab apostolis traditam cognoverit, certe is non integrum librum tamquam a Petri discipulo conscriptum et Petri praedicationem referentem adeoque maximae auctoritatis documentum suscepisset , nisi certissime scivisset librum esse revera eius cui inscribitur, et qui pro reliquis doctrinis traditionem postulat apostolicam , quomodo censeri posset librum sine tali traditione omnino certa et indubitata agnovisse?
Ad Petri praedicationem evangelium Marci pariter refertur ab Origene qui eodem modo ad antiquam traditionem provocat (iv παραδόσει flv) evangelium composuisse Marcum, prout Petrus ipsi exposuerat (ὡς Πέτρος ὑφηγήσατο αὐτῷ, Euseb. h. e. 6,25); neque aliter Tertullianus : evangelium quod Marcus edidit Petri affirmatur cuius interpres Marcus (c. Marc. &,5). Quia itaque Marci evangelium ad Petrum tamquam auctorem primarium referebatur, etiam intelligitur cur Iustinus qui evangelia appellat ἀπομνημονεύματα commentaria apostolorum dicat in commentariis Petri scriptum esse filios Zebedaei cognomen habuisse Boanerges. — Adde evangelium hoc ex temporeantiquissimo titulo esse inscriptum χατὰ Mápxov , κατὰ autem more hellenistico semper de auctore et scriptore esse intellectum (cf. Cornely, Introd. ΠῚ p. 13). Quare testimoniis historicis quae plerumque ipsi traditioni apostolicae innituntur constat librum hunc evangelii ad Marcum scriptorem et Petrum rerum testem et narratorem esse referendum. Totius antiquitatis sententiam merito ita complectitur Hieronymus : Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri iuxta quod Petrum referentem audierat rogatus Romae & fratribus breve scripsit evangelium. Quod cum Petrus audisset probavit et Ecclesiae legendum sua auctoritate dedit , sicut scribit Clemens in sexto ὑποτυπώσεων libro et Papias, hieropolitanus episcopus (de vir. illust. 8; cf. Prolog. in Matth., epist. ad Hedib. 120,11).
Duo itaque traditione antiquissima asseruntur, Marcum scripsisse secundum ea quae Petrüm referentem audierat, eumque Romae Romanis evangelium edidisse. Iam haec duo iis congruunt iisque confirmantur quae ratione et indole evangelii accuratius considerata deprehenduntur.
Et primo quidem hoc evangelium merito dictum est petrinum. Nam, ut a generali quadam ratione et descriptione incipiamus, Petrus suae praedicationis formam breviter designat Act. 1,92 et 10,37 seq., qua scil. initium capiatur a baptismate [oannis, dein Iesus exhibeatur in Galilaea, unctus Spiritu sancto et virtute, pertransiens benefaciendo, sanans omnes oppressos ἃ diabolo, quem occiderint suspendentes in ligno, quem Deus suscitaverit tertia die dederitque manifestum fieri testibus praeordinatis, qui suos iusserit praedicare, qui tandem assumptus sit (Act. 1,92) et sedeat a dextris Dei (1 Petr. 3,22). Atque evangelium has veluti lineas et hanc quasi adumbrationem accurate sequitur. Incipit a baptismate quod praedicavit loannes, Iesum ostendit peragrantem Galilaeam et plurimis sanationibus manifestantem virtutem divinam, neque aliud est evangelium, in quo tot referantur eiectiones daemonum. In ultima parte evangelii narratur mandatum Christi praedicandi, eius in coelos assumptio et sessio a dextris Dei; quae cum adeo accurate respondeant formae a Petro designatae, simul extremam evangelii partem 16,9-20 à multorum oppugnatione egregie vindicant (de qua re vide plura in comment. post 16,20).
Uti in generali hac forma exprimitur praedicatio Petri, ita in plurimis Petrus singulari quodam modo locum obtinet praecipuum. Vocatio Petri primo narratur 1,16; e synagoga Iesus venit in domum Simonis 1,99; sanatio socrus Simonis accuratius narratur et diligentius, ita ut qui ipse vidit et interfuit referri solet : statim dicunt ei de ea (cum Iesus intraret), Iesus accedens elevavit eam apprehensa manu eius; vespere (fama de sanatione sparsa) omnis civitas erat congregata ad ianuam; 1,36 Simon et qui cum illo erant; 3,16 etimposuit Simoni nomen Petrus ; 5,37-43 narrantur varia de suscitatione filiae Iairi quae solum ab eo qui interfuit sciri poterant, Petrusautem cum Ioanne et lacobo admissus erat; 9,6 Petri verba quae in monte transfigurationis dixit eo modo perstringuntur quo ab ipso solo esse perstricta patet : non enim sciebat quid diceret; 11,21 et recordatus Petrus dixit : rabbi ecce ficus etc., dum apud Matthaeum id generatim de discipulis referatur; item 13,3 interrogabant eum separatim Petrus et lacobus et loannes et Andreas; Matth. 24,1 et Luc. 21,5 solum de discipulis quibusdam sermo est; dein negatio Petri 18,66-72 accurata conditionum loci , hominum, verborum descriptione refertur ; 16,6 ite, dicite discipulis eius et Petro.
Porro in hocevangelio minutae quaedam loci , temporis, personarum earumque modi agendi conditiones accurate designari solent atque ita ad vivum exprimi et describi, ut solum ab eo fieri consuevit qui ipse rebus narratis interfuit et qui vidit quae narrat. Hac igitur indole narrationum valide comprobatur quod e traditione hausimus Marcum ea scripsisse quae Petrum audierat narrantem.
Haec exempla quae Marco propria sunt si quem non pigeat lustrare, narrare, ut vivus quidam deprehendatur modus describendi minutas conditiones quales ille afferre solet qui rebus gesüs interfuit; quem narrandi modum merito ad Petrum referentem spectare fere omnes affirmant. Atque quis non videat hac narrationum conformatione egregie confirmari, uti dictum est, quod veteres Marci evangelium esse Petri dixerunt? |
Alterum traditione affirmari antiquitus audivimus, Romae evangelium esse conscriptum. Atque hoc quoque libro accuratius inspecto confirmatur duplici modo, quibusdam locutionibus et tota ratione proponendi et explicandi evangelium. Et linguam quidem colore quodam latino esse tinctam concedunt! omnes. Exempla sunt χρζύδατος 9,5. 9. 11. 12; 6,55; ἐσχάτως ἔχει, esse in extremo 5,93; σπεχουλτωο 6,91; ξέστης sextarius 7,&; τὸ ἱχανὼν ποιῆσαι 15,15; χεντυρίων centurio 15,39. &&. δ. Propter Rom. 16,13 non est improbabile nomina filiorum Simonis cyrenaei, Alexandri et Rufi, 15,91 efferri ratione habita Romanorum ; officium et munus Pilati 15,1 seq. notum esse supponitur. Legem romanam respicere videtur evangelista 10,12 : et si uxor dimiserit virum suum et alii nupserit moechatur. Librum iis destinari qui linguam ususque ludaeorum non cognoscant patet eo quod verba aramaica diligenter explicentur 3,17. 22; 5,51; 7,11. 3*; 15,36; 15,92. 34. 42 et consuetudines Iudaeorum describantur 7,3. ^; 15,19. Idem elucet ex eo quod quae apud Matthaeum speciali modo de Iudaeis dicuntur, apud Marcum non reperiuntur; ita non leguntur particulares reprehensiones eorum in concionibus Ioannis baptistae, in sermone Iesu ad apostolos, neque illae parabolae quae praesertim Iudaeos tangunt (v. g. de filio inobediente, de nuptiis) vel quae ex usu iudaico enatae sunt v. g. de decem virginibus. Ad idem spectat usus sat rarus vaticiniorum veteris testamenti. Pariter concludi potest iis esse librum destinatum quibus regiones palaestinenses haud notae erant; 1,5 Iordani additur designa- ' tio fluminis, 1,9 Nazareth Galilaeae, 11,1 Bethania ad montem olivarum.
Uti colligitur ex Act. 28,92 et pariter ex epistola ad Romanos, longe maior pars Christifidelium Romae ex proselytis et ethnicis erat constituta (cf. Cornely , Introd. III p. 459). Atque Marcum eos ob oculos habere qui non ex circumcisione venerint ad fidem Christi, maxime apparet , si eius evangelium cum libro Matthaei comparatur. Neque enim. apud Marcum illud cernitur studium praecipua quaeque comprobandi vaticiniis adductis , explicandi rationem quae inter legem mosaicam et evangelium intercedat , revocandi plebem ab auctoritate pharisaeorum, exponendi plurimis scelera principum Iudaeorum, quae adeo apud Matthaeum prominent. Marcus autem totus in eo est, ut sicut Petrus centurioni Cornelio Caesareae [esum annuntiavit Dominum omnium Act. 10,36-42, ita ipse quoque Iesum ostenderet Filium Dei et Dominum. Brevi compendio ex illa Petri concione discimus quomodo Petrus proselyto Cornelio (erat enim εὐσεδὴς «ai φοδούμενος τὸν Θεόν, 10,2) viam aperuerit ad fidem Christi ; quid probabilius erit quam Petrum idem fecisse Romae et eadem ratione narratis Iesu miraculis eum demonstrasse Filium Dei et eius doctrinam commendasse et singula accurate explicasse quae summatim in concione ad Cornelium habita perstringuntur? lam vero supra iam monui evangelium Marci eadem adumbratione et forma constitui et esse quasi explicationem et declarationem eorum quae ibi Petrus delineavit. Hisce itaque simul continetur quale in. scribendo consilium Marcus secutus sit. Hoc innuisse sufficiat, cum eadem de re pluribus egerit Cornely , Introd. III p. 103 seq. recensitis quoque aliorum sententiis.
Ex eo quod Marcus praedicationem Petri litteris consignaverit etiam explicatur, cur in eius libro ea de Petro desiderentur quae ei maximopere laudi et commendationi vertuntur. lta quae Matth. 16,17-19 referuntur de laude a Iesu ei tributa et de primatu et potestate clavium, apud Marcum desiderantur; pariter Matth. 17,93-26 de statere in ore piscis invento, de ambulatione super aquas. lam veteres notarunt talia apud Marcum deesse causamque assignarunt quod Petrus iis de rebus modeste tacuerit (Eusebius, dem. ev. 3,5) vel etiam prohibuerit ne Marcus ea scriberet (S. Chrys. hom. in Matth. 58,2) vel Marcum ea DE EVANGELIO SECUNDUM MARCUM. 44 facuisse ne videretur velle adulari Petrum magistrum suum (Victor antioch. in catena quam edidit Cramer; vide infra ad 8,29), et postea quoque apud plerosque idem explicatur ratione modestiae et humilitatis Petri. Immo Schegg aliique pauci contendunt Marcum ea ne scivisse quidem , quin et ignarum fuisse primatus Petro collati. Id vero merito negant Schanz (Commentar zu Marc. p. 20. 22), Cornely (l. c. p. 93). Cur autem primatus mentionem Marcus non fecerit, Schanz exinde explicat quod propter suspicionem magistratus romani consultum fuerit silentio premere coetum Christifidelium regi auctoritate quadam suprema ab alienigena. Dubito tamen num hac ratione res satis explicetur. Nam eo timore Marcus non potuit prohiberi ne alia referret quae ad Petri laudem cederent. Insuper Paulus in suis epistolis nullo modo veretur palam profiteri se auctoritate pollere in fideles, se ab iis exigere obedientiam, a se puniri contumaces, et si scribit ecclesiis, non videtur timere, ne coetus illi tamquam collegia illicita a magistratu romano poenis subiiciantur. Neque Marcus veritus est scribere Iesum salutari tamquam talem qui regnum David restituat : benedictum quod venit regnum patris nostri David (11,10) ; porro si regnum Dei appropinquasse annuntiatur et saepe sermo fit in evangelio de regno Dei (1,15. 15; &,11. 26. 30; 9,56; 10,15. 15. 23-95; 19,35; 15,53), dubito num qui talia scribit sollicitus sit ne excitet suspicionem magistratus romani ideoque omiserit illud : beatus es, super te aedificabo Ecclesiam meam etc. Cur igitur omisit! responderi haud inepte potest alia interrogatione : cur Marcus qui toties populum nobis describit admiratione captum de Iesu doctrina, de hac ipsa doctrina fere nihil refert? cf. 1,22; 2,13; 4,1; 6,9. 35; 10,1.
De tempore quando Marcus evangelium scripserit sat magna est interpretum dissensio. Sunt qui id iam anno &2 scriptum esse velint (Patrizi, Schegg, Aberle, Hundhausen, Riess, apud Schanz p. ^8), dum alii usque ad tempora Domitiani (81-96; Hilgenfeld) et ad persecutionem Traiani (115-190; Keim) descendunt. Anni qui interiacent alii ab aliis assignantur; ita intra an. 49-&& Kaulen, intra an. 42-49 Reithmayer et Gilly; intra 55-57 Hitzig, ante an. 60 Schenkel; non ante an. 52 neque post an. 62 Cornely; an. 67-68 Bisping; ante an. 70 Schanz, Fillion, Keil, Weiss; post destructionem Ierusalem de Wette, Bleek, Weisse; an. 73 Volkmar evangelium esse fidelibus traditum arbitrantur.
Qui evangelium post mortem Petri editum esse affirmant, duobus potissimum argumentis nituntur quae ex verbis Papiae et ex lrenaeo colliguntur. Dici enim in illis Marcum scripsisse Christi dicta et facta quorumcumque meminit, eum nullatenus peccasse qui nonnulla ita scripserit prout eorum recordatus est; unde innui videri Marcum scripsisse eo tempore quo soli suae recordationi et memoriae potuerit fidere et iam non Petrum consulere. lam supra monui vocem ἐμνημύνευσεν utraque notione posse adhiberi : meminit, memoravit; vox altera ἀπεμνημόνευσεν utique ex usu potius vertenda esse videtur, ut Kaulen vult : memoravit, enarravit, ut sensus sit : Marcus nonnulla scripsit non temporis ordine, sed ita ut Petrus ea proponere solebat (id quod v. g. explica de variis Christi effatis rebusque gestis quae non ordine temporis, sed alia ratione propter materiae cognationem inter se coniuncta sint). Quae vocum explicatio si assumitur, verbis Papiae iam non innuitur Marcum post Petri mortem scripsisse. Alterum argumentum ex lrenaeo petitum gravius esse videtur. Dicit enim : μετὰ τὴν τούτων ἔξοδον Μάρχος... τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν παραδέδωχεν, id quod communiter ita explicant : post horum (scil. Petri et Pauli) mortem Marcus ea quae a Petro annuntiata erantscripto nobis tradidit. Unde evangelium Marci post mortem duorum illorum apostolorum videtur esse scriptum vel saltem fidelibus traditum. Quae acceptio confirmari videtur eo quod Clemens alexandrinus dicit se accepisse a vetustioribuspresbyteris priusscripta esseillaevangelia quae genealogias continent (Euseb. h. e. 6,14). Evangelium autem Lucae manifesto scriptum est ante Actus apostolorum (Act.1,1), qui profecto, uti patet 28,30, anno 63 vel 6& conscripti sunt. Porro narrat Clemens, dum Petrus Romae praedicaret fideles petiisse a Marco, ut conscriberet ea quae ille dixerat et cum hoc fecisset ut traderet evangelium iis qui illo indigerent (ποιήσαντα δὲ τὸ εὐχγγέλιον μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ) ; quod cum Petrus cognovisset neque impedivisse neque approbasse explicite (προτρεπτικῶς). Proinde non dicit Clemens evangelium iam conscriptum ἃ Petro esse cognitum , sed solum eum novisse quid fideles postularent ἃ Marco eumque neque. impedivisse quominus Marcus eorum desiderio satisfaceret neque eum impulisse ut satisfaceret. Quare res ita concipi potest ut Marcus dum Petrus viveret inceperit librum componere, verum illum non absolverit neque fidelibus tradiderit nisi illo vita defuncto. Cui acceptioni etiam facile reliqua aecedunt quae referuntur; ita si Tertullianus dicit de evangelio Marci : Petri affirmatur, id omnino verum est quia continet id quod Petrus praedicavit. Neque aliud affirmat S. Hieronymus; quamvis enim in epistola ad Hedibiam dicat Petro narrante et Marco scribente evangelium esse ortum, id omnino explicari potest et debet secundum ea quae alibi de eadem re tradit, Marcum scil. scripsisse « iuxta quod Petrum referentem audierat » (de vir. ill.) et « ea quae magistrum audierat praedicantem iuxta fidem magis gestorum narravit quam ordinem » (Prolog. in Matth.).
Verum nihilominus fatendum est ne ex Irenaei quidem loco certo effici Marci evangelium esse scriptum post mortem apostolorum. Nam, ut ostendit Corne/y, Introd. ΠῚ p. 76 seq., locus Irenaei si accurate in suo consideratur contextu , satis probabiliter ita est explicandus, ut Irenaeus dicat post apostolorum ex Palaestina profectionem Marcum Scripsisse τὰ χηρυσσόμενα; nam praecedente phrasi latina apud Irenaeum dictum est apostolos « in fines terrae eziisse »; unde qualis ἔξοδος intelligi vel possit vel debeat indicari videtur. Insuper cum scribat τὰ ὑπὸ Πέτρου κηρυσσόμενα, utens participio temporis praesentis, non Petrum vita functum, sed tum praedicantem cum scriberet Marcus designare videtur.
Si de ordine quaeritur qui in evangelio deprehendi potest, uti iam supra dictum est, Marcus eum sequitur quem Act. 10,37 Petrus delineavit. Quare libri divisio inde quoque commode peti poterit. Habetur itaque introductionis loco baptismus quem praedicavit loannes cui intime iungitur ipse Christi baptismus eiusque in desertum secessus 1,1- 13. Post baptismum quem praedicavit loannes incipit Iesu ministerium in Galilaea Act. 10,37. 38 et Marc. 1,1& postquam traditus est loannes venit Iesus in Galilaeam praedicans evangelium regni Dei et usque ad 9,416 Marcus refert quae Iesus ea in regione egerit et docuerit. Dein a cap. 10 enarrat quae in regione ludaeorum et lerusalem acta sint, uti Act. 10,39 indicatur; demum breviter quoque ea adumbrantur quae Act. 10,50. 41 proponuntur. Et sicut Petrus distincte effert : nos testes sumus omnium (cf. Act. 1,21), ita in evangelio Marci peculiari quoque studio exhibetur institutio discipulorum. Post introductionem igitur tres partes distingui possunt : ea quae gesta sunt in Galilaea, quae acta sunt in [udaea, Iesu resurrectio et ascensio in coelum.
Prima pars ceteris longe amplior est. Orditur Iesus a vocatione aliquorum discipulorum, qui sint comites eius et testes actionum; doctrina sua et expulsione daemonis, sanatione socrus Petri multorumque aliorum populi admirationem excitat; a Capharnaum transit benefaciendo et sanando oppressos a diabolo (1,15-55). Sicut turbae cum admiratione eum sequuntur, ita duces populi et primores, scribae et pharisaei, eum odio et inimicitiis persequi incipiunt. lam a capite 2 evangelista varia narrat quibus eorum in Iesum discipulosque simultas et invidia ostenditur; eum vocant blasphemum quia peccata remittit; murmurant quod cum peccatoribus conversatur neque suos ad ieiunandum adigit neque reprehendit vellentes spicas et quod sabbato sanat (2,1-3,6). Dum pharisaei et herodiani iam inter se deliberant de modo eum perdendi et turbae ex dissitis quoque regionibus ad eum confluunt et testes sunt miraculorum, ipse seligit duodecim apostolos quibus virtutem miracula patrandi largitur. Horum iam institutionem in subsequentibus evangelista cumprimis nobis exhibet; illis enim Christus ostendit modum agendi cum variis, parabolas explicat de regno Dei eiusque natura, suam manifestat potentiam in sedata tempestate maris, in eiectione daemonum, in resuscitatione puellae mortuae; verum exemplo Nazarethanorum eos simul edocet fore ut non omnes praedicationi et miraculis fidem adhibeant. Ita institutos mittit ad praedicandum ut muneris sui experimentum capiant. Cum apostolis praedicantibus et daemonia eiicientibus nomen Iesu undique celebraretur, etiam Herodes de caede [oannis baptistae stimulis conscientiae angitur. Refert evangelista hac usus occasione quomodo praecursor Iesu e vivis sit sublatus, praeco iustitiae ex feminae insidiis et odio (3,7-6,99). Prosequitur evangelista ministerium Iesu et institutionem apostolorum enarrans modum agendi Iesu cum turbis quas in deserto bis miraculose pascit, ostendens eius potentiam in ambulatione super aquas et in plurimis sanationibus, et exhibens Iesum convellentem doctrinas pharisaeorum et discipulos ab eorum conversatione removentem. Tali institutione multisque quae viderant omnis generis miraculis. edoctos interrogat quasi fructum ex tot documentis collecturus : quem me esse dicitis. Et cum eum profiterentur Messiam, iam incipit eos docere de munere messiano per passionem et mortem implendo et de abnegatione omnibus necessaria. Qua doctrina ne absterreantur, fidem discipulorum Iesus corroborat gloria sua in transfiguratione aliquibus ostensa et omnibus in ferocissimi daemonis eiectione. Repetito suam iis praedicit passionem eosque de humilitate et serio studio virtutum edocet (6,30-9,49). Atque hisce ministerium Iesu in Galilaea absolvitur.
In regione autem ludaeorum occasione capta a quaestione pharisaeorum docet matrimonium dissolvi non iam posse; exemplo et adhortatione commendat curam parvulorum, explicat praestantiam paupertatis voluntariae; denuo praedicit passionem, ex ambitione filiorum Zebedaei occasionem capit docendi de humilitate (10,1-45). Uti a caeco prope lerichosalutatur filius David, ita sollemni modo a turbis quoque cum ingrederetur urbem. At nihilominus Messiam non iri agnitum a natione iudaica et Christus ostendit symbolo ficus non habentis nisi folia et manifestatur in templi profanatione et in perversitate primorum; quare Iesus sortem et ruinam nationis parabola de pessimis vinitoribus explicat et praedicit. Principes vero ut eum perdendi haberent causam vario modo eum capere in verbotentabant quaestione proposita de censu, de lege leviratus, de maximo mandato. Quibus refutatis docet turbam cavendum esse a scribis et laudat viduam offerentem duo minuta (10,456-12,54). Relicto templo discipulis praedicit ruinam templi, monet de persecutionibus et tribulationibus, de signis secundi sui adventus et omnes iubet vigilare et esse paratos ad reddendam rationem (13,1-37). Iam subditur narratio de coena in Bethania, in qua Iesus iterum süam praedicit mortem. Celebratur coena paschalis et instituitur s. Eucharistia. Enarratur passio Christi, quom odo occiderint eum suspendentes in ligno (15,1-15,57). Iesum autem , cuius mors et sepultura iam praesagium gloriae est, Deus suscitavit tertia die et dedit eum manifestum fieri et praecepit Iesus praedicare populo (Act. 10,40. &1) et assumptus est in coelum, cuius tamen potentia in signis et praedicatione apostolorum orbi terrarum innotescit (16,1-20).
III. — De conscriptione evangelii secundum Marcum.
Si quis res et narrationes huius evangelii comparaverit cum evangelüs Matthaei et Lucae, statim deprehendet pleraque etiam reperiri apud Matthaeum, aliqua etiam apud Lucam et pauca apud Marcum solum. Quae enim soli Marco sunt propria haec fere sunt : 1,13 eratque cum bestiis; 3,9. 17.91; 4,26-29; 7,31-37; 8,22-26, 11,16; 14,51. 52; 16,16-20. Praeterea adverti potest eum cum narrationibus Lucae solum tum convenire, si eadem res etiam apud' Matthaeum reperitur. Lucas sat multa habet propria quae apud Matthaeum non leguntur; ex iis paucissima apud Marcum deprehenduntur, cf. 1,22; 9,37; 12,11; 16,12. 13. 19. Porro cum ab initio ordinem rerum habeat peculiarem, mox tamen a 6,14 et deinceps eum sequi videtur ordinem quem apud Matthaeum ἃ cap. 1& seq. expressum cernimus. Quamvis itaque in argumento scriptionis et plerumque in ipso rerum ordine Matthaei vestigiis insistere videatur, tamen in singularum fere rerum enarratione habet peculiaria quaedam, addit multas conditiones rerum, temporum , personarum, habet locutiones sibi proprias, alio modo aliove colore plurima effert. Exempla dedi supra p. 7 seq. sat multa.
Porro si unus ab altero in modo narrandi vel in dictione quadam differt, inquirunt quid in fonte apostolico scriptum fuerit et quare ab uno id sit DE CONSCRIPTIONE EVANGELII SECUNDUM MARCUM. 4"
Postquam solidis argumentis probatum est et certo constat Matthaeum non scripsisse solum quaedam Domini effata, sed illud evangelium quod eius nomine circumfertur et Marcum quoque evangelium quod secundum eum nominatur composuisse , iam multa quae ab illis criticis quaeruntur et coniectantur, tamquam inania et futilia nobis plane relinquenda sunt. Id unum superest discutiendum sitne Marcus usus evangelio Matthaei; nam evangelium Lucae ei non esse cognitum plerumque facile concedunt quia ex multis illis quae Lucae propria sunt nihil in suum usum convertisse deprehenditur.
Si consideratur summa rerum a Marco conscripta quae maxime cum evangelio Matthaei coincidit, si in maiore libri parte idem rerum ordo atque eadem narrationum series ac consecutio deprehenditur, utique facile quis eam poterit amplecti sententiam qua statuatur Marcum ob oculos habuisse evangelium Matthaei et id aliqua imitatione expressisse. ld ex recentioribus praesertim Schanz in commentario Marci explicuit simul sedulo inquirens in rationes cur varia apud Marcum aliter dicta sint. Verum simul talia statuit comparatione inter utrumque instituta,
Matthaei in suum usum adhibuisset. Nam haud raro Marcus dicitur ea quae apud Matthaeum clare, perspicue, ordinate conscripta sunt expo-
intellectu facilem, dilucide recteque dispositum detorsisse eumque effecisse obscurum, impeditum, intellectu difficilem, hiulcum? Neque alia sat commode explicari possunt. Si Marcus legit apud Matthaeum : nolite possidere... neque virgam (10,10), quomodo ipsi in mentem venire potuit scribere : nisi virgam tantum (6,8)? si vidit apud Matthaeum Christum praedicere suam crucifixionem (σταυρῶσαι, 20,19; 26,9), cur Iesum solum loquentem facit de occisione (ἀποκτενοῦσιν, 9,30; 10,34)? si vidit apud Matthaeum scribi matrem filiorum Zebedaei accessisse ad Iesum et rogasse : dic ut hi duo filii mei sedeant, unus ad dexteram tuam etc. (20,91), quomodo non dubitavit narrare alio modo, ut ipsi filii petierint : da nobis, ut unus ad dexteram tuam et alius ad sinistram sedeamus in gloria tua (10,37)? cur verba Domini aliter affert atque apud Matthaeum consignata sunt? vide v. g. 2,25. 96; 4.77, 8; 7,10; 10,19; cur aliqua Iesu effata omnino non affert quae tamen maxime apta fuissent ad id quod alias eum prosequi videmus? ita omnes dicunt eum tarditatem discipulorum consulto efferre (idque merito, quia eorum de Iesu testimonium eo gravius evadit quo difficilius ipsi ac: lentius crediderunt); tamen 9,98 praeclaram occasionem omittit, quamvis Matth. 17,90 ei esset oblata. Et quam rationem reddemus de multis illis quae apud Matthaeum leguntur et ad id quod Marcus intendit plane apta sunt et nihilominus a Marco plane praetereuntur?
Hisce aliisque perpensis praeferenda est illorum sententia qui insistentes testimoniis de Marco praedicationem Petri litteris consignante evangelium ex traditione orali ortum esse existimant (cf. Cornely, Introd. ΠῚ p. 184 seq.) et catechesin apostolicam fontem praecipuum assignant (cf. Kaulen , Einleitung n. 451); etiam Schanz in commentario evangelii Lucae iam maiores partes traditioni orali attribuit. Id vero concedi debet seriem ordinemque quo variae narrationes dispositae sunt et inter se connexae facilius explicari si assumitur Marcum ea in re librum Matthaei ob oculos habuisse , quamvis nequeat affirmari traditionem oralem ad id declarandum esse omnino insufficientem. Neque negligendum est quod testimoniis de origine evangelii traditur, in quibus nihil reperitur indicii Marcum hausisse ex Matthaei libro; solum traditur Ioannem dum ad scribendum evangelium se accingeret rationem habuisse reliquorum quae iam exstabant evangeliorum (cf. Clemens alex. apud Euseb. h. e. 6,14), id quod ex ipso quoque libro constare agnoscunt omnes; vide v. δ. loan. 1,55; 2,11; 3,24; 5,55; 11.1 (cf. Cornely l. c. p. 246). Et si Marcus v. g. a ὃ. Augustino vocatur pedisequus et breviator Matthaei, Schanz quoque fatetur eiusmodi testimonia quibus unus evangelista rationum similitudine et conformitate constitutis (Commentar über d. Ev. Luc. p. 12); ceterum vide Stimmen aus Maria-Laach XXI p. 297 seq.; XXVI p. 199.
Ex antiquioribus pauci in Marcum scripserunt. Cum enim fere totius evangelii huius argumentum iam apud Matthaeum legeretur, censuisse videntur explicato Matthaeo etiam Marci libellum esse satis explicatum. Exstat catena graeca in Marcum quam e codd. bodl. et par. edidit J. A. Cramer, Oxonii 1844 : Catena graecorum Patrum in novum test. I p. 263-4547. Catena haec in Marcum vulgo adscribitur Victori antiocheno, quare eius nomine Vict. in hoc quoque commentario laudatur. Prooemium quidem huius catenae quod in codice bodleiano legitur opus hoc S. Cyrillo alexandrino assignat, cui opinioni Cramer potius se assentiri fatetur |. c. p. XXVIII; verum de auctore non plane constare ipse quoque admittit. E graecis nominandi sunt Theophylactus(TAeopA.) M. 123,492-681, qui breviter textum enarrat et haud raro allegorias quoque sectatur, et Euthymius (Euth.) M. 199,769-852, qui tamen in plurimis locis ad suum in Matthaeum commentarium remittit. Ceterum utrumque haud pauca afferre in usum interpre!ationis utilia, sive illa hausta sunt ex Origene, Gregorio naz., Chrysostomo, sive ex proprio utriusque penu deprompta, ex commentario hoc videre poteris; saepe enim eos laudatos reperies.
Apud Latinos feruntur inter opera S. Hieronymi supposititia duo in Marcum commentarii; prior in expositione quatuor evangeliorum de brevi proverbio edita, M. 30,560-567 ; alter 591-644; ille totus in allegoriis ludit, neque hic commendatione dignus est, a modo et arte S. Hieronymi maxime alienus; a nonnullis tamen sub nomine Hier. est allegatus; eum Ps.- Hier. rectius dices. Sed laude digna est in Marci evangelium expositio, quam Beda venerabilis hortatu Accae antistitis aliorumque fratrum conscripsit (M. 92,133-302). Quem secutus sit modum ipse explicat in epistola ad Accam : « maxime quae in Patruin venerabilium exemplis invenimus hinc inde collecta ponere curabimus; sed et nonnulla propria ad imitationem sensus eorum, ubi opportunum videbitur, interponemus lectoremque supplex obsecro , ut si haec nostra opuscula transscriptione digna duxerit, annotationem nominum eorum quae supra apposita sunt, diligens scriptura conservet », quod utique factum non est. Sat multa refert Beda ex S. Ambrosio et Hieronymo deprompta , aliqua etiam ex S. Augustino. Expositionem in Marcum conscripsit diu post expositionem evangelii Lucae. uli ipse dicit in epistola ad Accam. Commemoranda est catena aurea S. Thomae in Marci evangelium; quae ex catena Victoris antiocheni desumpta sunt, sub nomine Chrysostomi adducuntur, sub nomine Hieronymi ea quae ex illo in Marcum commentario (de quo modo cgi) deprompta sunt; alia ex Augustino, Beda, Theophylacto etc. allegantur. Neque praetereunda est beati Alberti magni « luculenta expositio » in evangelium Marci (A/5.); habetur in operum eius tomo nono, Lugduni 1651. Quae de eius commentandi modo dixi in Commentario in Matth. [ p. 17, etiam valent de eius in Marcum expositione (quae tamen generatim brevior est); pariter quae eodem loco de aliis interpretibus adnotavi, uti sunt Faber stapulensis (Faó.), Dionysius carthusianus (Dion.), Thomas de Vio Caietanus (Cai.), Cornelius lansenius (/ans.), Maldonatus (Ma/d.), Cornelius ἃ Lapide (Lap.), Sylveira (Sytv.), Lamy, Calmet (Calm.), hic repetere non erit necesse. Ceterum ex ipsis eorum sententiis quas in commentario passim recitavi vel probans vel impugnans facile de eorum explicandi ratione iudicabis.
Ex recentioribus interpretibus laudandi sunt Patritius (Patr.), qui praeter opus magnum et eruditum de evangeliis (libri tres, Friburgi Brisg. 1853) etiam edidit in Marcum commentarium , Romae 1862, brevem quidem, sed non inutilem; Reischl, qui versioni germanicae novi testamenti adnotationes subiunxit minime negligendas, Bisping (Bizsp.), Münster 1868, Schegg, München 1870, Schanz, Freiburg i. Bv. 1881, Fillion (Fz..), quos pariter in Commentario in Matth. nominavi frequentissime. — Ex protestantibus sufficiat nominare Keil, Leipzig 1879, Weiss qui commentarios a Meyer adornatos editione septima retractavit Goettingen 1885, Cook qui in opere quod communiter vocant Speaker's Bible commentarium in Marcum scripsit London 1878.
Praeter hos ad explicationem consulendi sunt : Lightfoot, Horae hebr. et talmudicae, Schoettgen , Horae hebr. et talm., Wünsche, Neue Beitraege, Alfred Edersheim ( Ed.), The life and times of Jesus the Messiah , Grimm Joseph etc. quos pariter laudavi in Commentario in Matth. I p. 18. Alii in hoc ipso commentario occasione data nominantur.
Nomina SS. Patrum quae primis indicantur litteris facillime cognoscuntur : Or