The Gospel of Mark.
The Gospel of Mark.
§ 244. Irenaeus calls Mark “the interpreter and follower of Peter” (bk. 3, c. 1, p. 183). Nicephorus writes this about him: “Peter dictated the Gospel to him and sanctioned that it then be read in the churches” (bk. 2, c. 45). Epiphanius states: “Peter ordered Mark to publish the Gospel in Rome” (Haeres. 51, p. 192). In Hist., bk. 6, c. 11, Eusebius also cites these things from Clement of Alexandria. Jerome, Catal. illustr.: “Mark was the disciple and interpreter of Peter. When the brethren at Rome asked him, he wrote in brief form the Gospel according to what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter heard it, he approved of it and stated under his authority that it should be read in the Church.” (Cf. Eusebius, Hist., bk. 1, c. 15, and Nicephorus, bk. 2, c. 15.)
Others relate concerning him that he was Peter’s nephew from his sister; that he was one of the seventy disciples of Christ; and that he preached the Gospel in the Egyptian city of Alexandria. Baronius claims: “Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin, not in Greek. The first copy of it is preserved in Venice among the treasures of San Marco” (vol. 1, Annal., ann. 45). In his preface to Gramm. Arab., p. 36, Kirstenius agrees with Baronius in part. However: (1) He does not prove this by any suitable and old witness. Damasus, whom he is quoting, has many fables. (2) The same reasons that prove that Matthew did not write his Gospel in Hebrew demonstrate that Mark did not write in Latin. (3) The copy preserved at Venice is not of sufficiently proved trustworthiness. (4) In De verbo Dei, bk. 2, c. 7 and 15, Bellarmine frankly admits that “the entire Greek edition of the New Testament has the apostles and the evangelists as their authors.” Therefore let us hold on to what is certain; let us abandon what is uncertain, that is, let us accept the Greek texts of Matthew and Mark as authentic.
We gather that the last chapter of Mark was not accepted by all as canonical at the time of Jerome from his Epistle ad Hebidiam 150, q. 3, where he says, “Almost all the books in Greek do not have this brief chapter at the end.” There appears to be a twofold reason for doubt: (1) It seems to conflict with the description of the Lord’s resurrection among the rest of the evangelists. We have shown the contrary, however, in our Harmonia evangelica, “On the Resurrection.” (2) According to the statement of Jerome in Dial. 2 adv. Pelag., heretics inserted in it some apocryphal sentences that have the smell of Manichaeanism: “And they were apologizing, saying, ‘This is the age of iniquity and the substance of unbelief. It did not permit the true power of God to be grasped through the unclean spirits. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’ “Let the apocryphal and foreign parts be removed, however, and let the remaining canonical portions be kept. Irenaeus (bk. 3, c. 11), Athanasius (Synopsis), Augustine (De cons. evang., bk. 3, c. 24), Bede (commentary [on Mark]), and others of the ancients acknowledge that this chapter is genuine.
The Gospel account of Mark has sixteen chapters in which is also explained the threefold office of Christ: prophetic, priestly, and royal.