Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

Of the family and birth of this eminent apostolic associate, it is recorded in the New Testament, that his mother was named Mary, and had a house in Jerusalem, which was a regular place of religious assembly, for the Christians in that city; for Peter on his deliverance from prison, went directly thither, as though sure of finding there some of the brethren; and he actually did find a number of them assembled for prayer. Of the other connections of Mark, the interesting fact is recorded, that Mary, his mother, was the sister of Barnabas; and he was therefore by the maternal line, at least, of Levite descent. From the mode in which Mary is mentioned, it would seem that her husband was dead at that time; but nothing else can be inferred about the father of Mark. The first event in which he is distinctly mentioned as concerned, is the return of Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch, after Peter’s escape. These two apostles, on this occasion, are said to have “taken with them, John whose surname was Mark;” and he is afterwards mentioned under either of these names, or both together. The former was his original appellation; but being exceedingly common among the Jews, and being, moreover, borne by one of the apostles, it required another distinctive word to be joined with it. It is remarkable that a Roman, heathen appellation, was chosen for this purpose;——Marcus, which is the true form in the original, being a name of purely Latin origin, and one of the commonest praenomens among the Romans. It might have been the name of some person connected with the Roman government in Jerusalem, who had distinguished himself as a friend or patron of the family: but the conjecture is hardly worth offering.

After returning with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, he was next called to accompany them as an assistant in their apostolic voyage through Cyprus and Asia Minor; but on their coming to Perga, in Pamphylia, he suddenly left them and returned to Jerusalem;——a change of purpose which was considered, by Paul at least, as resulting from a want of resolution, steadiness, or courage, and was the occasion of a very serious difficulty; for Mark having returned to Antioch afterwards, was taken by Barnabas, as a proper associate on the proposed mission over the former fields of labor; but Paul utterly rejected him, because he had already, on the same route, once deserted them, when they needed his services, and he therefore refused to go in his company again. This difference was the occasion of that unhappy contention, the incidents of which have already been particularly detailed in the Life of Paul. Mark however, being resolutely supported by his uncle, accompanied him to Cyprus; but of his next movement, as little is known as in respect to Barnabas. The next occasion on which his name is mentioned, is by Paul, in his epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, as being then with him in Rome; from which it appears, the great apostle had now for a long time been reconciled to him, and esteemed him as a valuable associate in the ministry. He is not mentioned in the epistle to the Philippians, which therefore makes it probable that he had then gone to the east. In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul requests that Mark may be sent to him, because he is profitable to him for the ministry; which is a most abundant testimony to his merits, and to the re-establishment of Paul’s confidence in his zeal, resolution, and ability. Whether he was actually sent to Rome as requested, does not appear;——but he is afterwards distinctly mentioned by Peter, in that epistle which he wrote from Babylon, as being then with him. The title of “son,” which Peter gives him, seems to imply a very near and familiar intimacy between them; and is probably connected with the circumstance of his being made the subject of the chief apostle’s particular religious instructions in his youth, in consequence of the frequent meetings of the brethren at the house of his mother, Mary. This passage is sufficient evidence that after Mark had finally left Rome, he journeyed eastward and joined Peter, his venerable first instructor, who, as has already been abundantly shown in his Life, was at this time in Babylon, whence, in the year 65, he wrote his first epistle.

“It is thought by Benson that Mark departed because his presence was required by the apostles for converting the Jews of Palestine. But why then should Paul have expressed indignation at his departure? The same objection will apply to the conjecture of others, that he departed on account of ill-health. The most probable opinion is that of Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, Heumann, and others, that Mark was, at that time, somewhat averse to labors and dangers; this, indeed, is clear from the words, καὶ μὴ συνελθόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τό ἔργον. Thus ἀφίστημι is used of defection in Luke viii. 13. 1 Timothy iv. 1. It should seem that Mark had now repented of his inconstancy; (and, as Bengel thinks, new ardor had been infused into him by the decree of the Synod at Jerusalem, and the free admission of the Gentiles;) and hence his kind-hearted and obliging relation Barnabas wished to take him as a companion of their present journey. But Paul, who had ‘no respect of persons,’ Galatians ii. 11, and thought that disposition rather than relationship should be consulted, distrusted the constancy of Mark, and was therefore unwilling to take him. This severity of Paul, however, rendered much service both to Mark and to the cause of Christianity. For Mark profited by the well-meant admonition, and was, for the future, more zealous and courageous; and the gospel, being preached in different places at the same time, was the more widely propagated. Nor were the bands of amity between Paul and Barnabas permanently separated by this disagreement. See 1 Corinthians ix. 6. Nay, Paul afterwards received Mark into his friendship. See Colossians iv. 10. 2 Timothy iv. 11. Philemon 23.” Kuinoel. (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. p. 504, 505.)

HIS GOSPEL.

The circumstance which makes this apostle more especially eminent, and makes him an object of interest to the Christian reader, is, that he is the author of an important portion of the historical sacred canon. Respecting the gospel of Mark, the testimony of some very early and valuable accounts given by the Fathers, is, that he wrote under the general direction and superintendence of his spiritual father, Peter; and from this early and uniform tradition, he accordingly bears the name of “Peter’s interpreter.” The very common story is also, that it was written in Rome, but this is not asserted on any early or trustworthy authority, and must be condemned, along with all those statements which pretend that the chief apostle ever was in Italy. Others affirm also, that it was published by him in Alexandria; but this story comes on too late authority to be highly esteemed. Taking as true, the very reasonable statement of the early Fathers, that when he wrote, he had the advantage of the personal assistance or superintendence of Peter, it is very fair to conclude, that Babylon was the place in which it was written, and that its date was about the same with that of the epistle of Peter, in which Mark is mentioned as being with him. Peter was then old; and Mark himself, doubtless too young to have been an intelligent hearer of Jesus, would feel the great importance of having a correct and well-authorized record prepared, to which the second generation of Christians might look for the sure testimonies of those divine words, whose spoken accounts were then floating in the parting breath of the few and venerable apostles, and in the memories of their favored hearers. As long as the apostles lived and preached, there was little or no need of a written gospel. All believers in Christ had been led to that faith by the living words of his inspired hearers and personal disciples. But when these were gone, other means would be wanted for the perpetuation of the authenticated truth; and to afford these means to the greatest possible number, and to those most especially in want of such a record, from the fact that they had never seen nor heard either Jesus or his personal disciples,——Mark chose the Greek as the proper language in which to make this communication to the world.

His gospel is so much like that of Matthew, containing hardly a single passage which is not given by that writer, that it has been very confidently believed by many theologians who suppose an early date to Matthew’s gospel, that Mark had that gospel before him when he wrote, and merely epitomized it. The verbal coincidences between the two gospels, in their present state, are so numerous and striking, that it has been considered impossible to account for them on any other supposition than this. But these and other questions have filled volumes, and have exercised the skill of critics for ages; nor can any justice be done them by a hasty abstract. It seems sufficient, however, to answer all queries about these verbal coincidences, without meddling with the question of prior date, by a reference to the fact that, during the whole period, intervening between the death of Christ, and the writing of the gospels, the apostles and first preachers had been proclaiming, week after week, and day after day, an oral or spoken gospel, in which they were constantly repeating before each other, and before different hearers, the narrative of the words and actions of Jesus. These accounts by this constant routine of repetition, would unavoidably assume a regular established form, which would at last be the standard account of the acts and words of the Savior. These, Mark, of course, adopted when he wrote, and the other evangelists doing the same, the coincidences mentioned would naturally result; and as different apostles, though speaking under the influence of inspiration, would yet make numerous slight variations in words, and in the minor circumstances expressed or suppressed, the different writers following one account or the other, would make the trifling variations also noticeable. The only peculiarity that can be noticed in Mark, is, that he very uniformly suppresses all those splendid testimonies to the merits and honors of Peter, with which the others abound,——a circumstance at once easily traceable to the fact that Peter himself was the immediate director of the work, and with that noble modesty, which always distinguished the great apostolic chief, would naturally avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits. Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts rather than his sermons,——of his doings rather than his sayings, is what he designed to give.

“Among all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of the most ancient Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark’s having published his gospel at Alexandria. This report, however, prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what is related by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. ii. cap. 16. It appears from the word φασιν, that Eusebius mentions this only as a report; and what is immediately added in the same place, that the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described by Philo, were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is evidently false. Epiphanius, in his fifty-first Heresy, ch. vi. gives some account of it. According to his statement, Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian religion in that city; and after he had written it, he was sent by Peter into Egypt. A similar account is given by Jerome in his ‘Treatise on Illustrious Men,’ ch. viii. Lastly, the Coptic Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and first bishop of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself, ‘Unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, called by the grace of God, and by his gracious will appointed to his service, and to the see of the holy evangelist Mark.’ The Copts pretend likewise, that Mark was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake Menzale; but if this account be true, he was hardly buried at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the forgeries of early superstition.” (Michaelis, Vol. III. pp. 207–209.)

That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among the apostles, is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, “that in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark, the apostle and [♦]evangelist, took upon him the care of that church.” Πρωτος μετα Μαρκον τον αποστολον και ευαγγελιστην, της εν Αλεξανδρειᾳ παροίκιας, Ανιανος την λειτουργιαν διαδεχεται. Church History, I. 2. cap. 24. (Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel History, Vol. III. p. 176.)

[♦] “avangelist” replaced with “evangelist”

Of the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty. Being evidently younger than most of the original apostles, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he long survived them; but his field of labor is unknown. The common tradition among the Fathers, after the third century, is, that he went to Alexandria, and there founding a church, became bishop of it till his death;——but the statement is mixed up with so much that is palpably false, that it is not entitled to any credit.