Mark, also called JOHN (Acts, xiii. 5, 13), or, more fully, 'John, whose surname was Mark' (Acts, xii. 12, 25), is named by unvarying tradition from the close of the 2d century as the author of the second canonical gospel. Of Mary, his mother, nothing is known except that her house in Jerusalem was visited by Peter and the other disciples. Barnabas the Levite was his cousin (Col. iv. 10, R. V.). By some Mark has been supposed to be the young man mentioned in Mark, xiv. 51, 52, and it has also been conjectured that Mary's house may have been the place where the Lord's Supper was instituted. Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey from Antioch in Syria as far as to Perga in Pamphylia (Acts, xii. 25; xiii. 13); here he quitted them on grounds which, whatever they may have been, did not approve themselves to Paul, who at a later date peremptorily declined to have him as a companion on his second journey, even though this involved his parting company with Barnabas also. That a reconciliation afterwards took place appears from Col. iv. 10; Phil. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11, where Mark is referred to by the apostle as a useful fellow-worker. Another chapter in Mark's life is indicated in 1 Peter, v. 13, where he is mentioned as a companion of the apostle Peter in Babylon, unless indeed, as has been done by some interpreters, we take 'Marcus my son' in a literal sense, in which case, of course, a different person is referred to. We should not naturally think of interpreting Babylon here as meaning Rome, were it not for subsequent ecclesiastical tradition which usually speaks of Mark as the 'disciple and interpreter' of Peter, and mentions Rome as the scene of their labours till the martyrdom of the latter about 64 A.D. This tradition, in turn, is not easily brought into agreement with the very generally accepted statement of Eusebius, that Mark from Rome went to Alexandria, where, after proclaiming the gospel he had written, he was succeeded in the pastoral office by Ammianus in the eighth year of Nero (62 A.D.). This last date is given as his death year in the Roman breviary. A further tradition speaks of Mark as having preached in other parts of Italy besides Rome, and especially at Aquileia. On the strength of this tradition the Emperor Heraclius in 629 A.D. sent the patriarchal chair from Alexandria to Grado, whither the Aquileian patriarchate had previously been removed. The Venetian legend of the translation of the relics of St Mark from Alexandria to Venice (q.v.) in the 9th century is denied by Tillemont, and rests on very inadequate evidence. He is sometimes spoken of as having suffered martyrdom, but by none of the older authorities nor by the Roman breviary. His feast day is April 25. In medieval art Mark is symbolised by the lion. Various New Testament books have been attributed to him by individual modern critics (Epistle to Hebrews, Epistle of Jude, and, more recently, the Apocalypse, in whole or in part). For the traditions, both earlier and later, regarding Mark, see Molinus, De Vita et Lipsanis S. Marci Evangelistæ (Rome, 1864).
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK.—Two distinct accounts of the origin of this gospel, both of them developments from earlier tradition, were formulated respectively by Augustine and by Jerome; both gained general currency throughout the Western Church, and no difficulty with regard to either of them was expressed for many centuries. Augustine's view (see GOSPELS) was that Mark merely followed and abridged Matthew, Jerome's that he wrote at the direct dictation of Peter. Modern criticism accepts neither. (1) The germs of Augustine's account are found in Irenæus (end of 2d century), who says that Matthew had already written his gospel before Mark began his, and in Clement of Alexandria (circa 210 A.D.), who has it that the two gospels containing the genealogies were composed first, and implies that Mark had seen them both. Mark's dependence on Matthew was first controverted towards the end of the 18th century (Koppe, Storr), and his priority to both Matthew and Luke was argued for and illustrated with much cogent detail by Wilke and Weisse in two independent works in 1838. Baur and his school continued to defend the traditional view so far at least as to maintain that the second gospel was a late conciliatory combination of Matthew and Luke, with the Ebionitism of the one and the Paulinism of the other left out. But Ewald again claimed priority for Mark, and his view, supported at the time by Ritschl and by many others since, may now be regarded as, subject to certain qualifications, generally accepted on all hands. Among the considerations that have led to this conclusion are certain peculiarities of language and phraseology in which Mark is confessedly less refined and classical than Luke or even Matthew. It is held to be unlikely that in course of borrowing the more vulgar style of expression should be substituted for the more polite. Again, the graphic, vivid, and abrupt style of Mark (characterised by use of the historical present and by other features) is not that of a mere abbreviator or copyist. Further, the progress of the narrative, which materially differs from that in Matthew and in Luke, is now held to represent, probably, the actual order of the facts more nearly. The natural course of a gradual development in the life and work of Jesus, in his own self-consciousness, and in the estimation of others, can be traced more clearly in Mark than in any of the other gospels. The manner and degree in which the supernatural element is presented are also held to betoken the earlier narrative. Certain expressions too, which might be supposed stumbling to faith, are present in Mark, but absent from the others, having either been struck out altogether or modified so as to bring them more into accordance with accepted views. (Compare, e.g., Mark, vi. 5 with Matt. xiii. 58; also Mark, i. 32-34 with Matt. viii. 16 and Luke, iv. 40, 41.) In short, its naïveté, directness, and simplicity prove the comparative originality of Mark. (2) Jerome's account can be traced back in its beginnings to Papias (circa 140 A.D.), who we learn from Eusebius was once told by John 'the presbyter' (not the apostle John), perhaps about 90 A.D., that 'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ, not, however, in order. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, [followed] Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of giving a connected account of the oracles of the Lord.' 'So then,' adds Papias, 'Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything he had heard, or to set down any false statement therein.' It is here clearly implied that Mark had only his memory to rely on at the time of his writing, Peter being no longer within reach. Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius) is the first who knows that Mark wrote before Peter's death, but also informs us that he wrote without Peter's knowledge. Eusebius in another place, probably by a lapse of memory, seems to make Clement say that Peter afterwards gave the work his sanction. Origen states that Mark wrote, 'Peter showing him the way,' but the phrase does not necessarily imply dictation.
Modern critics readily recognise a certain basis of truth in the ecclesiastical tradition as to Peter's connection with Mark's gospel. Clearly all that makes for its first-hand character makes also for its Petrine origin. Much of what it contains, both in substance and in manner, betokens the eye-witness, and such an eye-witness as Peter, or at least one of the three most intimate disciples. The earlier part of the narrative centres mainly round Capernaum and Peter's house there. Among the most important turning-points in it are Peter's call and Peter's confession. But the gospel is not all equally primary. A large portion of what seems in it to be secondary might indeed be explained in some degree were it permissible to hold that Peter's own recollections had been modified in the course of thirty years' brooding reflection on the real significance of the great personality he had followed during those brief months of earthly discipleship, and (as he would in later years feel) had at first so imperfectly understood. The history when looked back upon might well assume to him a different aspect in memory and imagination from that which it had worn while he was actually passing through the scenes with mind and heart only half-opened to its ideal and figurative elements and its deepest religious meanings. That such was the case with his early companion John at least is a theory that has found considerable acceptance with Christian apologists (see JOHN, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO). But even so, there are passages in Mark in which the narrative is so brief and vague as to make it difficult to believe that they rest on the authority of an eye-witness only once removed. This is confessedly the case with Mark, xvi. 9-20, and partly also with the history of the closing days in Jerusalem, though even this abounds with many picturesque touches, such as that in xi. 4. Instances are frequent in which the exegete feels constrained to suppose some dislocation or derangement of a context, or misunderstanding, perhaps mistranslation, of a saying. See, in particular, chap. xiii.
The general conclusion of the critical discussion is that in the second gospel on the whole we hear the language of a reporter who had often listened to one who claimed to have been present at the scenes he described. The weight of traditional as well as of internal evidence goes to show that it was produced in Rome about 70 A.D., perhaps rather after than before that date. Apart from what he had heard in Petrine circles, the author doubtless felt himself at liberty to make use of whatever he may have gleaned elsewhere from what he deemed trustworthy sources for the Galilean and Jerusalem tradition. It is even a question whether he may not actually have seen or heard read, in whole or in part, the 'logia' of Matthew. That the second gospel was used by the authors both of the first and of the third may be regarded as now made out. On the assumption that the 'logia' of Matthew contained absolutely no narrative material, it used to be argued that the second gospel must originally have been somewhat fuller than it now is ('original' Mark, 'Ur-Marcus'). But this theory is now very generally given up. A more likely supposition is that the original form was shorter than the present. Mark, xvi. 9-20, is confessedly late. It is not improbable that the preface, i. 1-3, was at one time absent. Some have thought that vii. 24-viii. 26 did not occur in the copy of Mark used by Luke. Reuss has long held that the original Mark consisted only of i. 21-vi. 48 and viii. 27-xiii. 37. It is not unlikely that editorial insertions and alterations have been made throughout. Critical investigation into the genesis of the synoptical gospels, though far advanced, cannot be said to have reached completion, and there is good reason to hope that scholarship may yet succeed in reaching still more definite results.
See the works enumerated under GOSPELS, especially the introductions of Holtzmann and Weiss, and also the commentaries by these authors (Weiss, 7th ed. of Meyer, 1885; Holtzmann, 1889). Compare also P. Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage (1890). The English text of Mark is printed, and its relations to Matthew and Luke graphically exhibited, in Abbott and Rushbrooke's Common Tradition of the Synoptic Gospels (1884). A suggestive reconstruction of the supposed first redaction of Mark is given in Solger's Urevangelium (1890).