Abbildungen der Seite

disapprove of it; but the difference is not great. Clement says, that Mark's gospel was written at Rome at the request

of the Christians there, who were hearers of Peter. If so, it could not be composed long before Peter's death. For I take it to be certain, that Peter did not come to Rome, until the reign of Nero was far advanced, nor very long before his own death. So that it may be reckoned not improbable, that Mark's gospel was not published, or did not become generally known, till after the death of Peter and Paul, as Irenæus says.

Tertullian, about the year 200, speaks of Mark as“ an apostolical man, or companion of apostles : and

says, • Tható the gospel, published by Mark, may be reckoned Peter's, whose interpreter he was.

Says Origen, about 230. • The second gospel is that according to Mark, who wrote it as • Peter dictated it to him : who therefore calls hiin his son in his catholic epistle.' See 1 Peter V. 13.

Eusebius, about 315, may be supposed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenæus, whose passages he has transcribed, and inserted in his Ecclesiastical History. And in a long passage of his evangelical demonstration, formerly transcribed by us, he says: Peter out of * abundance of modesty thought not himself worthy to write a gospel. But Mark, who was his • friend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's relations of the acts of Jesus.' At the end of which passage he says: “And Peter testifies these things of himself: for all things in Mark

are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses. He likewise says, 'that' Mark was not present 'to hear what Jesus said.' Nor & does it appear, that he thought the writer of the gospel to be John, surnamed Mark, nephew to Barnabas. But unquestionably he supposed him to be the same that is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13.

Mark is mentioned among the other evangelists by Athanasius, without other particularities. But in the Synopsis, ascribed to him, and by many supposed to be written by another Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, near the end of the fifth century, it is said, " That 'the gospel according to • Mark was dictated by Peter at Rome, and published by Mark, and preached by him in • Alexandria, and Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia.'

The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, about 330, says, that k Mark was one of Christ's seventy disciples.

Epiphanius, about 368, says: • Matthew ' wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome. Afterwards he says, • That " Mark was one of Christ's seventy disciples, and likewise one of those who were offended at the words of Christ, recorded John 'vi. 44, and then forsook him: but he was afterwards recovered by Peter, and being filled with

the spirit wrote a gospel.' * Upon the last passage of Epiphanius, Petavius says: · Mark“ might, possibly, have seen

Christ, and have been one of the seventy: but it is said by very few ancient writers of the ( church.'

In the Constitutions, Mark ois reckoned with Luke a fellow-labourer with Paul: which may induce us to think, that the author supposed Mark the evangelist to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and some of St. Paul's epistles.

Gregory Nazianzen says, “ that " Mark wrote his gospel for the Italians,' or in Italy.

Ebedjesu says, ' the 9 second evangelist is Mark, who preached (or wrote] in Latin, in the famous city of Rome.'

Jerom's article of this evangelist, in his book of illustrious men, is to this purpose: · Mark, • disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the desire of the brethren, at Rome, wrote a short gospel, • according to what he had heard related by Peter: which when Peter knew, he approved of it, " and authorized it to be read in the churches: as Clement writes in the sixth book of his Insti* tutions, and also Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.. Peter also makes mention of this Mark in his • epistle written at Rome, which he figuratively calls Babylon....Taking the gospel which himself had composed, he went to Egypt, and at Alexandria founded a church of great note....He

* Vol. i. p. 419-421.

b P. 420. < P. 532.

d Vol. ii. p. 367, 368. e P. 368.

FP. 367. & P. 380.

h P. 400. P. 405.

* P. 406. I P. 418.

nonnulli, Marcum non vidisse Dominum, viderit necne, non
affirmo. Videre quidem potuisse, temporum ipsa ratio per-
suadet. Neque vero damnanda est Epiphanii sententia, dum
illum e lxxii discipulorum numero fuisse tradit, etsi con
trarium alii patres tradant. Petav. ad loc. Animadv. p. 88.
• Vol. ii. p. 438.

m Ibid. "Dissentit Papias apud Eusebium... Quod autem asserunt

P P. 470. 4 P. 488.

P. 551, 552.


* died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria; where he was succeeded as • bishop by Anianus.'

In the prologue to his commentary upon St. Matthew, Jerom says: · The second evangelist • is Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter, and the first bishop of Alexandria: who never saw • the Lord himself, but related things as he had them from his master very truly, but not exactly • in the order in which they were done.'

In his commentary upon Philem. ver. 24, he says, · He thinks that Mark there mentioned • is the writer of the gospel.' That Mark may be well supposed to be John Mork, mentioned in the Acts, and in Col. iv. 10, where he is styled nephew to Barnabas. Whether that Mark was the evangelist was doubted of by some;. nor was Jerom positive: but he was inclined to think him the same.

Augustine e calls Mark and Luke disciples of apostles; and says, that " Mark follows Matthew as his abridger: upon which some remarks were made.

By Chrysostom' Mark is said to have written his gospel in Egypt, at the request of the believers there. However, at the end of that passage he says: In what place each one of the evangelists wrote, cannot be said with certainty.' He likewise calls Mark disciple of Peter, and Peter his master. He must have supposed him the same that is mentioned 1 Peter v. 13. But I do not recollect him to have any where said that he was the same as John Mark.

Victor, writer of a commentary upon St. Mark's gospel, about the year 401, says: "He' * was also called John: that he wrote a gospel after Matthew, and was the son of Mary, men. • tioned Acts xii. For a while he accompanied Paul, and his relation Barnabas: but when he • came to Rome, he joined Peter, and accompanied him. For which reason he is mentioned

1 Pet. v. 13. Mark is also mentioned by Paul, Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. 11.... When he was obliged * to go from Rome, and was earnestly desired by the believers there to write a history of the • preaching of the heavenly doctrine, he readily complied. This, as he adds, is said to have been the occasion of writing the gospel according to Mark.'

Cosmas of Alexandria, about 535, says: Mark, k the second evangelist, wrote a gospel at • Rome, by the direction of Peter.'

By Isidore of Seville, about 596, Mark ' is said to have written his gospel in Italy. After. wards he seems to say, it " was written at Alexandria: but perhaps no more is meant than that Mark preached at Alexandria the gospel which he had written.

Ecumenius, about 950, upon Acts xiii. 13, says: • This." John who is also called Mark, . nephew to Barnabas, wrote the gospel according to him, and was also disciple of Peter, of ( whom he says in his first epistle, Mark, my son, saluteth you.'

Theophylact flourished about 1070. His preface to St. Mark is to this purpose: The * gospel according to Mark was written at Rome ten years after Christ's ascension, at the

request of the believers there. For this Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom he calls his son spiritually. His name was John. He was nephew to Barnabas, and was also a companion of Paul.'

Euthymius, about 1110, says: • The P gospel of Mark was written about ten years after our • Lord's ascension, at Rome, as some say, or in Egypt, according to others.' He says, that at * first Mark was much with his uncle Barnabas, and Paul. Afterwards he was with Peter at • Rome, as the first epistle of the apostle shows, whom he there calls his son: from whom alsó * he received the whole history of the gospel.'

Nicephorus Callisti, about 1325, says: • Two 9 only of the twelve, Matthew and John, have • left memoirs of our Lord's life on earth: and two of the seventy, Mark and Luke.' And somewhat lower : After this Mark and Luke, published their gospels by the direction of Peter • and Paul.'

I add here one author more, not particularly mentioned in the preceding part of this work, Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, in the tenth century: who says, that in the time of the

[ocr errors]

4 P. 91.

• Vol. ii. p. 550.

► P. 552.

· P. 583. d Ibid. e P. 584.

P. 602. & Ibid. h P. 603.

i P. 626. * This Vol. p. 51. P. 76.

1 P. 84. o P. 86.

P P. 89.

1 P. 74.

"Et tempore Neronis Cæsaris scripsit Petrus, Apostolorum princeps, Evangelium Marci, dictante Marco, lingua Romana, in urbe Romæ ; sed attribuit illud Marco. Eutych. Ann. p. 335. Conf. ejusd. Origines. p. 35.

By the

[ocr errors]

emperor Nero, Peter, the prince of the apostles, making use of the pen of Mark, wrote a * gospel at Rome, in the Roman language; and he published it under Mark's name.' Roman, probably, meaning the Greek language, which then very much prevailed in the Roman empire, as - Selden bas observed.

v. Let us now briefly recollect what has passed before us, in several articles.

1. All the ancient writers in general suppose, the evangelist Mark to have been a companion of Peter in the latter part of his life, and to have had great advantages from that apostle's preaching, for composing a gospel.

2. Though some have doubted, who Mark was, many have been of opinion, that he was John Mark, son of Mary, a pious Jewish woman, and an early believer, of Jerusalem, and nephew to Barnabas.

3. If Mark the evangelist be John Mark, as seems to me very probable, he was well acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and other apostles, and disciples, eye-witnesses of Jesus, beside Peter.

4. Some of the ancient writers, quoted by us, thought Mark to have been one of Christ's seventy disciples: which, I apprehend, cannot be either affirmed, or denied with certainty. But, if he was not one of them, he was an early believer, and an early disciple and companion of apostles, and intimately conversant with them: whereby, and by hearing Peter preach in Judea, and other places, and lastly at Rome, he was well qualified to write a gospel.

$. Basnage has some observations upon this point, which deserve to be taken notice of. Epiphanius and the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, suppose Mark to have • been one of Christ's seventy disciples. But that opinion, says he, does not appear to me well * grounded. It seems incredible, that Peter should call Mark his son, if he was one of the seventy, • who had a commission from Christ himself, and were almost equal to apostles. That ancient • writer, Papias, excludes him from that number, saying, that Mark was not a hearer or follower

of the Lord......And Tertullian calls Mark Peter's interpreter, which office would be below • the character of one of the seventy......Nor does Origen make him one of the seventy, whose * authority must be of great weight...... However, it seems to me very probable, that Mark was

one of the five hundred brethren, who saw Christ after his resurrection: and having been an • eye-witness of that, he was qualified to write a gospel.'

Upon which I observe: the supposition, that Mark might be one of the five hundred, spoken of by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 6, is a mere conjecture, without any authority, either in scripture, or antiquity. But I would add a thought or two for strengthening the argument, that Mark was not one of the seventy disciples. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, has a chapter con. cerning the disciples of our Saviour; but Mark is not there named as one of them: nor does Jerom say any thing of it in his book of Illustrious Men; nor elsewhere, that I remember. The silence of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerom, upon this head, must amount to an argument of no small weight, that there was not in their times any prevailing tradition, that Mark was one of the seventy. It may be also reckoned an argument, that he was not of that number, in that he has not in his gospel taken any notice of them, or of the commission given to them: which is in St. Luke only, ch. x. 1–17.

I therefore conclude with saying, that Mark was an early believer, and an early disciple and fellow-labourer of apostles. But that he ever saw, or heard the Lord Jesus is not certain.

5. The general account of the above-named writer is, that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome. ! In this there is a remarkable agreement, with a very few exceptions. Chrysostom indeed speaks of its being written in Egypt; but he is almost singular. That it was written at Rome, or in Italy, is said not only by Epiphanius, Jerom, Gregory Nazianzen, Victor, and divers others; but the Egyptian writers likewise all along say the same thing: that it was written by Mark at Rome, in the company of the apostle Peter. So say Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, the supposed

• Vid. Selden in Eutych. Origin. not. 28. p. 152.

functum fuisse, quod infra LXX dignitatem fuit. ... Neque Marcum de LXX discipulis unum fuisse, credidit Epi- LXX discipulis eum apposuit Origenes, cujus non minimi phanius.... Nobis tamen non arridet ea sententia; cum in- ponderis est testimonium. ... Nobis tamen est admodum procredibile sit, Petrum ?Marco filii nomen addidisse, si de sep. babile, Marcum unum fuisse quingentorum fratrum, qui tuaginta discipulis unus fuisset, quos Christus ipse legaverat, Christum a morte revocatum contemplati sunt; cuique, ut quique ab omni fere parte æquales erant Apostolis. Papias testi oculato, commissa est scribendi evangelii provincia. quoque, vetustus ille auctor, LXX discipulis Marcum eximit Basn. on. 66. num. xvii. ... Ex Tertulliano quoque scimus, Marcum interpretis officio < H. E. I. .



author of the Synopsis of scripture, Cosmas, and Eutychius, all of Alexandria. Ebedjesu likewise, in his catalogue of Syrian writings, says, that Mark wrote at Rome. And the Latin author of the commentary upon St. Mark's gospel, quoted some while ago, says, that it was written in Italy,

6. This leads us to think, that St. Mark's gospel was not written before the year 63, or 64. For we cannot perceive any good reason to think, that St. Peter was at Rome, till about that time. And this date is supported by the testimony of that ancient writer Irenæus, that Mark published his gospel after the decease of Peter and Paul.

VI. These are observations which the above cited testimonies seem naturally to afford. But before we proceed any farther, it will be fit for us to take notice of the sentiments of learned moderns concerning the time of St. Mark's writing his gospel.

Cave supposes St. Mark to have published his gospel at Rome, in the year of Christ 65. His argument for it I place · below.

Mr. Jones's opinion was, that this gospel was published between the year 64 and 67, or 68: 7 when, according to his computation, Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom.

J. A. Fabricius was for the year of Christ 63, the ninth of Nero.

Mill says, that St. Mark published his gospel at Rome, in the year of Christ 63, after that the apostles Peter and Paul had been gone from thence, as Irenæus says. ! . But here I beg leave to observe, that, probably, Irenæus does not speak of these two apostles removal from Rome, but of their decease. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reason to suppose that Peter was at Rome during the time of Paul's two years' imprisonment there, especially at the period of it; but there is a great deal of reason to think otherwise: for we have several epistles of St. Paul, written near the end of that confinement, in which no notice is taken of Peter.

Basnage closely following Irenæus, says, Mark's gospel was published in the year 66, after the decease of Peter and Paul: whose martyrdoms, according to him, happened in the


65. So that it has been of late the opinion of many learned men of the best judgment in these. matters, that St. Mark's gospel was not published till after the year of Christ 60. I readily assent to them so far. And as I am disposed to place the martyrdoms of these two great apostles at Rome, in the latter part of the year 64, or in 65, it seems to me probable, that St. Mark's gospel was composed in the year 61, or 65, and made public by him the first fair opportunity, soon afterwards, before the end of the year 65. That I mention as the latest date. I do not presume to say the time exactly; for it might be finished and published in the year 64.

I hoped to have had assistance from Mr. Wetstein in this disquisition, but have been somewhat disappointed. In his preface to St. Mark's gospel he concludes from Col. iv. 10, and Philem. ver. 24, that : St. Mark had been with the apostle Paul at Rome, in the time of his confinement there: that from thence he went to Colosse, and afterwards returned to Rome, where he is said to have written his gospel. Accordingly, as one would think, St. Mark's gospel could not be published before the year 64, or 65. But in his preface to St. Luke's gospel the same learned writer expresseth himself to this purpose : According to some ecclesiastical writers • Luke published his gospel fifteen, according to others two and twenty years after Christ's

* Rogatus Romæ a fratribus, scripsit evangelium, a Petro d Post Pauli ac Petri e fogov, seu discessum ab urbe Romà approbatum, idque Græco sermone Romanis satis familiari. Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, et ipse quæ a Factum id circa ann. 65, Petro et Paulo jam morte sublatis. Petro annuntiata erant, perscripta nobis tradidit.' Inquit Cum enim illum epistolâ secundâ ad Timotheum, non longe Irenæus. . . Scripsit igitur Marcus Evangelium, juxta Irenæum, anie martyriuin scriptâ, Romam accersiverat Paulus probabile paullo post horum duorum Apostolorum discessum a Roma, est, Marcum vel eodem, vel saltem sequenti anno illuc venisse, qui accidisse videtur amo æræ vulgaris lxiii. Mill. Proleg. ibique evangelium vel primum condidisse, vel prius conditum num, 101. in publicum edidisse. Certe Irenæus, l. 3. cap. i. et apud e De Marci Evangelio legimus apud Trenæum.... Post Eusebium, I. 5. c. viii. S. Marcum uela gyv TOTWY Egodov vero horum excessuni'.... Quæ traditio magis apud nos valet, evangelium suum conscripsisse diserte tradit. Cav. H. L. quam alia quælibet de tempore editi a Marco Evangelii T. i. p. 24.

chronologia. Basn. ann. 66. n. xii. 6 Mr. Jones's words are these: 'These with some other Vid. ann. 65. num. ix. reasons, make it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at & Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum invisit. Col. • Rome, till the year of Christ 63 or 64, and consequently, iv. 10. Philem. 24. Inde ad Colossenses, abiit, a quibus • that the gospel of St. Mark was not written before this rogatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2 Tim. iv. 11. ubi evangelium

time, but between that and the martyrdom of this apostle conscripsisse. . .. dicitur. Wetsten. N. T. tom. i. p. 551.

and St. Paul, in the year of Christ 67 or 68. New and full " Evangelium autem edidit xv, aut secundum alios xxii. Method, vol. iii. p. 88.

post Christi adscensionem annis. . . Lucam multa ex Matthæo, © Bib. Gr, 1. 4. cap. v. tom, iïi. p. 124 et 131.

ex Marco plura descripsisse, ex collatione patet. Ib. p. 643.

• ascension...... That he transcribed many things from Matthew, and yet more from Mark, is i manifest.'

But if St. Luke wrote within two and twenty years after Christ's ascension, and transcribed a great deal from St. Mark; St. Mark's gospel must have been first published, and very early. If St. Mark's gospel was not published till the year 64, and St. Luke transcribed from him; St. Luke could not write till a good while after two and twenty years from Christ's ascension. I do not perceive therefore that Mr. Wetstein had any determined opinion concerning the date of these two gospels. Nor can I, as yet, persuade myself, that any of the evangelists transcribed each other.

VII. I will now observe some characters of time in the gospel itself, like those before taken notice of in St. Matthew.

1. From chap. vii. 14—23, it appears, that St. Mark fully understood the spirituality of the doctrine of Christ, recommending righteousness and true holiness, without an obligation to Jewish ritual ordinances and appointments.

2. His history of the Greek or Gentile woman, in the same chap. vii. 24-30, who besought Jesus to heal her daughter, and obtained her request, deserves notice here.

3. The call of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, as a people, are intimated in ch. xii. 1-12, in the parable there recorded of the householder, who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen: to whom after a while he sent servants, and then his son, to receive from them the fruit of the vineyard. But they abused the servants, and killed the son. It is added, “ What therefore will the Lord of the vineyard do? He will destroy the husbandmen, and will let out the vineyard unto others.” And what follows.

4. In ch. xiii, are predictions concerning the destruction of the temple, and the desolations of the Jewish people." And, particularly, at ver. 14-16, are remarkable expressions, intimating the near approach of those calamities, and suited to excite the attention of such as were in danger of being involved in them.

5. In his account of the institution of the eucharist, our Lord says, ch. xiv. 24, “ This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many:" that is, for all men, not for Jews only, but for Gentiles also..

6. In ch. iv. 30–32, is the parable of the “grain of mustard seed, the least of all seeds, which becometh greater than all herbs:” representing the swift and wonderful progress of the gospel in the world: of which, it is very likely, St. Mark, at the time of writing, had some knowledge.

7. It is manifest, that he well understood the extent of our Saviour's commission to the twelve apostles: for he has recorded it in these words, ch. xvi. 15. “Go ye therefore into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature:” or the whole creation, that is, Jews and Gentiles, all mankind of every denomination.

8. Yea, it appears from the conclusion of his history, that before he wrote, the apostles (at least divers of them) had left Judea, and had preached in many places. Ver. 20, “ And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

9. Ch. xvi. 18, “ They shall take up serpents.” Some may think, that here is a reference to the history, which we have in Acts xxviii. 3—6. I do not say there is. But allowing it, I should not reckon it an objection to the genuineness of this part of that chapter: it would only be an argument for the late date of this gospel; and it has been so understood by some.

For my own part, I cannot say, that St. Mark has referred to it. But I make no question, that he was acquainted with the event there related, when he wrote his gospel.

VIII. I shall conclude this chapter with some observations upon St. Mark's gospel.

1. It confirms the accounts given by the ancients, that it is the substance of Peter's preaching. This was taken notice of just now in our recollection; but I choose to enlarge upon it here, and show, that the gospel itself affords evidences of its being written according to that apostle's discourses, or according to informations and directions given by him to this evangelist.

a Postremo, in ipsis evangeliis quædam exstare videntur cap. xvi. 18, de serpentibus a Christi discipulis sine damno. criteria, es quibus ea sero esse conscripta colligi potest. tollendis habet, ad Paulum, Romam tendentein, et quod ei in Phrasis usypi tns oyu.epov, usque ad hunc diem,' Matt. itinere in insulá Miletu contigit, respicere videntur. Herman. xxviii. 15, justum spatium inter Christi resurrectionem et Venema Diss. secund. de titulo'ep. ad Ephes. cap. v. num. iv. evangelium exaratum postulare videtur. Ita quæ Marcus,

« ZurückWeiter »