صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Eufebe, about 315. may be fuppofed to agree in the main with Clement and Irenaeus, whofe paffages he has transcribed, and inferted in his Ecclefiaftical Historie. And in a long paffage of his Evangelical Demonftration, formerly (n) tranfcribed by us, he fays: "Peter out of abun"dance of modeftie thought not himself worthie to write a Gofpel. But "Mark, who was his friend and difciple, is faid to have recorded Peter's "relations of the acts of Jefus." At the end of which paffage he fays: "And (0) Peter teftifies these things of himself. For all things in Mark are faid to be memoirs of Peter's difcourfes." He likewife fays, " that "(p) Mark was not present to hear what Jefus faid." Nor (q) does it appear, that he thought the writer of the Gofpel to be John, furnamed Mark, nephew to Barnabas. But unquestionably he fuppofed him to be the fame that is mentioned 1 Pet. v. I 13.

[ocr errors]

Mark is mentioned among the other Evangelifts by (r) Athanafius, without other particularities. But in the Synopfis, afcribed to him, and by many supposed to be writ by another Athanafius, Bishop of Alexandria, near the end of the fifth centurie, it is faid, "That (s) the Gofpel ac"cording 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. fays, that (t) Mark was one of Chrift's seventy difciples.

Epiphanius, about 368. fays: " Matthew (u) wrote first, and Mark "foon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome." Afterwards he fays, "That (x) Mark was one of Chrift's seventy difciples, and like"wife one of those who were offended at the words of Chrift, recorded "John vi. 44. and then forfook him: but he was afterwards recovered "by Peter, and being filled with the Spirit wrote a Gospel."

Upon the laft paffage of Epiphanius Petavius fays: " Mark (y) might, "poffibly, have feen Chrift, and have been one of the feventy: but it is "faid by very few ancient writers of the Church."

In the Constitutions Mark (z) is reckoned with Luke a fellow-laborer of Paul. Which may induce us to think, that the author fuppofed Mark, the Evangelift, to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and fome of St. Paul's epiftles.

Gregorie Nazianzen says, "That (a) Mark wrote his Gospel for the "Italians," or in Italie.

[ocr errors]

Ebedjefu fays, "The (b) fecond Evangelift is Mark, who preached [or wrote] in Latin, in the famous city of Rome."

[blocks in formation]

(u) P. 305.

(y) Diffentit Papias apud Eufebium. . . Quod autem afferunt nonnulli, Marcum non vidiffe Dominum, viderit necn: non affirmo. Videre quidem potuiffe, temporum ipfa ratio perfuadet. Neque vero damnanda eft Epiphanii fententia, dum illum e LXX11 difcipulorum numero fuiffe tradat, etfi contrarium alii patres tradant. Petav. ad loc. Animadv. p. 88.

(z) Vol. viii. p. 393.

(a) Vol. ix. p. 133. VOL. II.

(b) P. 216.

E

Jerome's article of this Evangelift, in his book of illuftrious Men, is to this purpose: "Mark (c) the disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the "defire of the brethren at Rome, wrote a fhort Gofpel, according to "what he had heard related by Peter. Which when Peter knew, he ap"proved of it, and authorised it to be read in the churches: as Clement "writes in the fixth book of his Inftitutions, and alfo Papias, Bifhop of "Hierapolis. Peter alfo makes mention of this Mark in his epiftle writ "at Rome, which he figuratively calls Babylon... Taking the Gospel, "which himself had compofed, he went to Egypt, and at Alexandria "founded a church of great note. . . He died in the eighth year of Nero, "and was buried at Alexandria: where he was fucceeded, as Bishop, " by Anianus."

In the prologue to his Commentarie upon St. Matthew, Jerome fays: "The (c) fecond Evangelift is Mark, interpreter of the Apoftle Peter, " and the first Bishop of Alexandria: who never faw the Lord himself, "but related things as he had them from his mafter, very truly, but not "exactly in the order, in which they were done."

In his Commentarie upon Philem. ver. 24. he fays: "He (d) thinks, "that Mark there mentioned is the writer of the Gofpel." That Mark may be well supposed to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and in Col. iv. 10. where he is ftiled nephew to Barnabas. Whether that Mark was the Evangelift, was doubted of by fome. Nor was Jerome pofitive. But he was inclined to think him the fame.

Auguftin (e) calls Mark and Luke difciples of Apoftles: and fays, that (f) Mark follows Matthew, as his abridger. Upon which fome remarks were (g) made.

By Chryfoftom (b) Mark is faid to have writ his Gospel in Egypt, at the request of the believers there. However, at the end of that paffage he fays: "In (i) what place each one of the Evangelifts wrote, cannot "be faid with certainty." He likewife (4) calls Mark difciple of Peter, and Peter his master. He must have fuppofed him the fame, that is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13. But I do not recollect him to have any where faid, that he was the fame as John Mark.

Victor, writer of a Commentarie upon St. Mark's Gospel, about the year 401. fays: “He (1) was alfo called John: that he wrote a Gospel "after Matthew, and was the fon of Marie, mentioned Acts xii. For "a while he accompanied Paul, and his relation Barnabas. But when "he came to Rome, he joyned Peter, and accompanied him. For which "reafon he is mentioned i Pet. v. 13. Mark is alfo mentioned by Paul, "Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. 11. . . When he was obliged to go from "Rome, and was earnestly defired by the believers there to write a hifto"rie of the preaching of the heavenly doctrine, he readily complied. "This, as he adds, is faid to have been the occafion of writing the Gof"pel according to Mark."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Cofmas,

(d) P. 93.

(*) P. 318. 319. 322.

Cofmas, of Alexandria, about 535. fays: "Mark (m), the fecond "Evangelift, wrote a Gospel at Rome, by the direction of Peter."

By Ifidore, of Seville, about 596. Mark (n) is faid to have writ his Gofpel in Italie. Afterwards, he feems to fay, it (0) was writ at Alexandria. But perhaps no more is meant, than that Mark preached at Alexandria the Gospel, which he had writ.

Oecumenius, about 950. upon Acts xiii. 13. fays: "This (p) John, "who is alfo called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the Gofpel ac"cording to him, and was alfo difciple of Peter, of whom he fays in his "firft epiftle: Mark, my fon, faluteth you.

Theophylact flourished about 1070. His preface to St. Mark is to this purpose: "The (9) Gofpel according to Mark was writ at Rome ten years after Chrift's afcenfion, at the requeft of the believers there. "For this Mark was a difciple of Peter, whom he calls his fon spiritually. His name was John. He was nephew to Barnabas, and was "alfo a companion of Paul."

[ocr errors]

Euthymius, about 1110. fays: "The (r) Gospel of Mark was writ "about ten years after our Lord's afcenfion, at Rome, as fome fay, or in "Egypt, according to others. He fays, that at firft Mark was much "with his uncle Barnabas and Paul. Afterwards he was with Peter at "Rome, as the first epiftle of the Apostle fhews, whom he there calls his "fon. From whom also he received the whole hiftorie of the Gof"pel."

Nicephorus Callifti, about 1325. fays: "Two (s) 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 fomewhat lower: "Af"ter this Mark and Luke published their Gofpels 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 centurie: who fays, "that (t) in the time of the Emperour Nero, Peter "the prince of the Apoftles, making use of the pen of Mark, wrote a Gofpel at Rome, in the Roman language. And he published it under "Mark's name." By the Roman, probably, meaning the Greek language, which then very much prevailed in the Roman Empire, as (u) Selden has obferved.

V. Let us now briefly recollect what has paffed before us, Remarks in feveral articles.

upon them. 1. All the ancient writers in general suppose the Evangelift Mark to have been a companion of Peter in the later part of his life, and to have had great advantages from that Apoftle's preaching for compofing a Gospel,

(m) P. 267.

(P) P. 413.

(r) P. 436.

2. Though

[blocks in formation]

(s) P. 442.

(t) Et tempore Neronis Cæfaris fcripfit Petrus, Apoftolorum princeps, Evangelium Marci, dictante Marco, lingua Romana, in urbe Romæ. adtribuit illud Marco. Eutych. Ann. p. 335. Conf. ejufd. Origines. p. 35. (u) Vid. Selden in Eutych. Origin. not. 28. p. 152.

[ocr errors]

2. Though fome have doubted, who Mark was, many have been of opinion, that he was John Mark, fon of Marie, a pious Jewish woman, and an early believer, of Jerufalem, and nephew to Barnabas.

3. If Mark, the Evangelift, be John Mark, as feems to me very probable, he was well acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and other Apoftles, and difciples, eye-witneffes of Jefus, befide Peter.

4. Some of the ancient writers, quoted by us, thought Mark to have been one of Chrift's seventy difciples. 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 difciple and companion of Apoítles, and intimatly converfant with them. Whereby, and by hearing Peter preach in Judea, and other places, and laftly at Rome, he was well qualified to write a Gofpel.

S. Bafnage has fome obfervations upon this point, which deserve to be taken notice of. "Epiphanius (x) and the Author of the Dialogue "against the Marcionites, fuppofe, Mark to have been one of Chrift's feventy difciples. But that opinion, fays he, does not appear to me "well grounded. It feems incredible, that Peter fhould call Mark, his fon, if he was one of the feventy, who had a commiffion from Christ "himself, and were almoft equal to Apoftles. That ancient writer, "Papias, excludes him from that number, faying, 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 "feventy... Nor does Origen make him one of the seventy, whose au"thority must be of great weight... However, it seems to me very pro"bable, that Mark was one of the five hundred brethren, who faw "Chrift after his refurrection. And having been an eye-witneffe of "that, he was qualified to write a Gospel."

Upon which I obferve: The fuppofition, that Mark might be one of the five hundred, fpoken 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 ftrengthening the argument, that Mark was not one of the feventy difciples. Eufebe (y) in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie, has a chapter concerning the Difciples of our Saviour. But Mark is not there named, as one of them. Nor does Jerome fay any thing of it in his book of Illuftrious Men: nor elsewhere, that I remember. The filence of Origen, Eufebe, and Jerome, upon this head, muft

amount

(x) Marcum de LXX difcipulis unum fuiffe, credidit Epiphanius. . . Nobis tamen non arridet ca fententia cum incredibile fit, Petrum Marco filii nomen addidiffe, fi de feptuaginta difcipulis unus fuiffet, quos Chriftus ipfe legaverat, quique ab omni fere parte æquales erant Apoftolis. Papias quoque vetuftus ille autor LXX difcipulis Marcum eximit. . . Ex Tertulliano quoque fcimus, Marcum interpretis officio functum fuiffe, quod infra LXX dignitatem fuit... Neque LXX difcipulis eum appofuit Origines, cujus non minimi ponderis eft teftimonium... Nobis tamen eft admodum probabile, Marcum unum fuiffe quingentorum fratrum, qui Chriftum a morte revocatum contemplati funt. Cuique, ut tefli oculato, commiffa eft fcribendi Evaliinge provincia. Bafn. Ann. 66. num. xvii.

(9) H. E. 1. 1. cap, xii.

amount to an argument of no small weight, that there was not in their times any prevailing tradition, that Mark was one of the feventy. It may be alfo 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 com...., miffion given to them. Which is in St. Luke only. ch. x. I. . . 17. I therefore conclude with faying, that Mark was an early believer, and an early disciple and fellow-laborer of Apoftles. But that he ever faw, or heard the Lord Jefus, is not certain.

5. The general account of the above named writers is, that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome. In this there is a remarkable agreement, with a very few exceptions. Chryfoftom indeed fpeaks of it's being writ in Egypt. But he is almoft fingular. That it was writ at Rome, or in, Italie, is faid not only by Epiphanius, Jerome, Gregorie Nazianzen, Victor, and divers others: but the Egyptian writers likewife all along fay the fame thing that it was writ by Mark at Rome, in the companie of the Apostle Peter. So fay Clement, of Alexandria, Athanafius, the fuppofed author of the Synopfis of Scripture, Cofmas, and Eutychius, all of Alexandria. Ebedjefu likewife, in his catalogue of Syrian writings, fays, that Mark wrote at Rome. And the Latin author of the commentarie upon St. Mark's Gospel, quoted fome while ago, fays, that it was writ in Italie.

6. This leads us to think, that St. Mark's Gospel was not writ before the year 63. or 64. For we cannot perceive any good reafon to think, that St. Peter was at Rome, till about that time. And this date is fupported by the teftimonie of that ancient writer, Irenaeus, that Mark publifhed his Gospel after the deceafe of Peter and Paul.

VI. These are obfervations, which the above cited testiThe Time of monies feem naturally to afford. But before we proceed any farther, it will be fit for us to take notice of the fenti- this Gospel. ments of learned moderns concerning the time of St. Mark's writing his Gospel.

Cave fuppofes St. Mark to have published his Gospel at Rome, in the year of Chrift 65. His argument for it I place (z) below.

Mr. Jones's opinion was, that (a) this Gospel was published between the year 64. and 67. or 68. when, according to his computation, Peter and Paul fuffered martyrdom.

7. A.

(2) Rogatus Romæ a fratribus, fcripfit Evangelium, a Petro approbatum, idque Græco fermone Romanis fatis familiari. Factum id circa ann. 65, Petro et Paulo jam morte fublatis. Cum enim illum epiftola fecunda ad Timotheum non longe ante martyrium fcripta, Romam accerfiverat Paulus, probabile eft, Marcum vel eodem, vel faltem fequenti anno illuc veniffe, ibique Evangelium vel primum condidiffe, vel prius conditum in publicum edi diffe. Certe Irenæus, 1. 3. cap. i. et apud Eufebium, 1. 5. c. viii. S. Marcum μετὰ τὴν τέτων ἔξοδον Evangelium fuum confcripfiffe diferte tradit. . Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 24.

(a) Mr. Jones's words are these: "Thefe, with fome other reafons, make "it evident to me, that St. Peter was not at Rome, till the year of Chrift 63. "or 64. and consequently, that the Gospel of St. Mark was not written be"fore this time, but between that and the martyrdom of this Apoítle and "St. Paul, in the year of Chrift 67. or 68." New and full Method. Vol. 3. p. 88.

« السابقةمتابعة »