Mark.
As to where the Gospel of Mark was written, whether in Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, is unknown. Some believe that it was written at Antioch; Chrysostom states that it was written at Alexandria; Irenaeus says that it was written at Rome. If it was written at Rome it was probably written in Latin instead of Greek. Smith’s “Bible Dictionary” concedes that “it abounds in Latin words.” The following is an example:
“And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many” (v. 9).
Commenting on this passage, the Rev. Dr. Giles says: “The Four Gospels are written in Greek, and the word ‘legion’ is Latin; but in Galilee and Perea the people spoke neither Latin nor Greek, but Hebrew, or a dialect of it. The word ‘legion’ would be perfectly unintelligible to the disciples of Christ, and to almost everybody in the country” (Christian Records, p. 197).
If it was written in Latin, then our Greek Mark, like Matthew, instead of being an original Gospel, is simply an unauthenticated translation.
Mark has generally been considered a Petrine Gospel; orthodox Christians claiming that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark. Discussing this claim, the author of “Supernatural Religion” says: “Throughout the Gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of Petrine influence and teaching” (Vol. I., p. 362). Volkmar and others declare it to be Pauline. One thing can be affirmed with certainty; it was not written by John Mark, neither was it dictated by Peter.
The last twelve verses of Mark, it is claimed, are an interpolation, because they are not to be found in the older manuscripts of the book. The Revision Committee which prepared the New Version of the New Testament pronounced them spurious. If these verses are not genuine, then it must be admitted that the second Gospel is either an unfinished or a mutilated work; for with these verses omitted, it ends abruptly with the visit of the women to the tomb, leaving the most important events at the close of Christ’s career, his appearance and ascension—the proofs of his resurrection—unrecorded.
The greater portion of Mark is to be found in Matthew and Luke, and much of it in the same or similar language. Judge Waite, in his review of the Gospel, says: “Mark has almost a complete parallel in Luke and Matthew taken together. There are but 24 verses which have no parallel in either of the other synoptics” (History of Christianity, p. 350).
Regarding the origin of Mark, Strauss says: “Our second Gospel cannot have originated from recollections of Peter’s instructions, i. e., from a source peculiar to itself, since it is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels” (Life of Jesus, Vol. I., p. 51).
That neither Peter nor Mark had anything to do with the composition of this book is admitted by Davidson. Referring to it he says: “It has therefore no relation to the Apostle, and derives no sanction from his name. The author is unknown” (Introduction to New Testament, Vol. II, p. 84).