Jerome's article of this Evangelift, in his book of illuftrious Men, is to this purpose: "Mark (c) the difciple 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, Bishop 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 Apostle Peter, "and the firft 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 says: "He (d) thinks, "that Mark there mentioned is the writer of the Gospel." That Mark may be well supposed to be John Mark, mentioned in the Acts, and in Col. iv. 10. where he is filed 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 gofpel-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 mafter. He must have fuppofed him the fame, that is mentioned 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 (/) 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 1 Pet. v. 13. Mark is alfo mentioned by Paul, "Col. iv. 10. 2 Tim. iv. II 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."

(c) Vol. x. p. 92. 93

(c) P. 83.

(f) P. 229.

(e) P. 228.

(3) P.233...236. (1) P. 316....318. (1) Vol. xi. p. 30. 31.

(b) P. 315.
(k) P. 318. 319. 322.

Cofmary

(d) P.93.

Cofmas, of Alexandria, about_535. fays: "Mark (m), the second Evangelift, wrote a Gofpel at Rome, by the direction of Peter."

By Ifidore, of Seville, about 596. Mark (n) is faid to have writ his Golpel 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.

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

66

Theophylact flourished about 1070. His preface to St. Mark is to this purpose: "The (7) Gofpel according to Mark was writ at Rome ten years after Chrift's afcenfion, at the request of the believers there. "For this Mark was a difciple of Peter, whom he calls his fon fpiritu"ally. His name was John. John. He was nephew to Barnabas, and was

"alfo a companion of Paul."

Euthymius, about 1110. fays: "The (r) Gofpel 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 first Mark was much " with his uncle Barnabas and Paul. Afterwards he was with Peter at "Rome, as the first epistle of the Apoftle fhews, whom he there calls his "fon. From whom also he received the whole historie 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 feventy, 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 Emperor Nero, Peter the prince of the Apoftles, making use of the pen of Mark, wrote a Gospel 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.

1

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

Remarks

upon them.

1. All the ancient writers in general suppose the Evangelist 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.

2. Though

(m) P. 267.

(P) P.413.

(r) P. 436.

(g) P. 421...
() P.442.

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

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 pro bable, he was well acquainted with Barnabas and Paul, and other Apoftles, and disciples, eye-witnesses of Jefus, beside 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 Apostles, and intimately 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 deferve 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 should call Mark, his "fon, if he was one of the feventy, who had a commiffion from Chrift "himfelf, 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 feventy, whofe au"thority must be of great weight... However, it feems 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 Hiftoric, 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, must

amount

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

) 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 commiffion given to them. Which is in St. Luke only. ch. x. 1. . . 17.

I therefore conclude with faying, that Mark was an early believer, and an early difciple 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 Gofpel, quoted fome while ago, fays, that it was writ in Italie.

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

VI. These are observations, which the above cited tefti- The Time of monies feem naturally to afford. But before we proceed this Gofpel any farther, it will be fit for us to take notice of the fenti

ments of learned moderns concerning the time of St. Mark's writing his Gospel.

Cave fuppofes St. Mark to have published his Gofpel at Rome, in the year of Christ 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.

J. A.

(z) 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 edidiffe. Certe Irenæus, 1. 3. cap. i. et apud Eufebium, 1. 5. c. viii. S. Marcum μετὰ τὴν τύτων ἔξοδον Evangelium fuum confcripfiffe diferte tradit. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 24.

66

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

J. A. Fabricius (b) was for the year of Christ 63. the ninth of Nero.

Mill fays, that (c) St. Mark published his Gospel at Rome in the year of Chrift 63. after that the Apostles Peter and Paul had been gone from thence, as Irenaeus fays.

But here I beg leave to obferve, that, probably, Irenaeus does not speak of these two Apostles removal from Rome, but of their decease. Secondly, Dr. Mill has no reason to suppose, that Peter was at Rome, during the time of Paul's two years imprisonment there, especially at the period of it. But there is a great deal of reason to think otherwife. For we have feveral epiftles of St. Paul, writ near the end of that confinement, in which no notice is taken of Peter.

Bafnage (d) clofely following Irenaeus, fays, Mark's Gospel was publifhed in the year 66. after the decease of Peter and Paul: whose mar tyrdoms, according to him, happened in (e) the year 65.

So that it has been of late the opinion of many learned men, of the beft judgement in these matters, that St. Mark's Gospel was not publifhed, till after the year of Chrift 60. I readily aflent to them fo far, And as I am difpofed to place the martyrdoms of these two great Apoftles at Rome, in the later part of the year 64. or in 65. it feems to me probable, that St. Mark's Gefpel was compofed in the year 64. or 65. and made public by him the firft fair opportunity, foon afterwards, before the end of the year 65. That I mention as the latest date. I do not prefume to fay the time exactly. For it might be finished, and publifhed in the year 64.

I hoped to have had affiftance from Mr. Wetstein in this difquifition, But have been fomewhat difappointed. In his preface to St. Mark's Gofpel he concludes from Col. iv. 10. and Philem. ver. 23. that (ƒ) St. Mark had been with the Apoftle Paul at Rome, in the time of his confinement there: that from thence he went to Coloffe, and afterwards returned to Rome, where he is faid to have writ his Gofpel. Accordingly, as one would think, St. Mark's Gospel could not be published before the year 64. or 65. But in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel the same learned writer expreffeth himself to this purpofe. According (g) to "fome

(b) Bib. Gr. l. 4. cap. v. Tom. 3. p. 124. et 131.

(c) Poft Pauli ac Petri odo, feu difceffum ab urbe Roma.... Marcus difcipulus et interpres Petri, et ipfe que a Petro annuntiata erant, perfcripta nobis tradidit. Inquit Irenæus Scripfit igitur Marcus Evangelium, juxta Ire næum, paullo poft horum duorum Apoftolorum difceffum a Roma, qui accidiffe videtur anno æræ vulgaris LXIII. Mill. Proleg. num. 101.

(d) De Marci Evangelio legimus apud Ireneum... Poft vero horum exccffum.... Quæ traditio magis apud nos valet, quam alia quælibet de tem. pore editi a Marco Evangelii chronologia, Bafn. ann. 66. n. xii.

23.

(r) Vid. ann, 65, num. ix.

(f) Inde Romam venit, Paulumque captivum invifit. Col. iv. 10. Philem. Inde ad Coloffenfes abiit, a quibus rogatu Pauli Romam rediit. 2 Tim. v. 11. ubi Evangelium confcripfiffe... dicitur. Wetstein. N. T. Tom. i. P. 551.

(g) Evangelium autem edidit xv. aut fecundum alics xxii. poft Chrifti adfcenfionem annis. ... ... Lucam multa ex Matthæo ex Marco plura defe ripAle, ex collatione patet. 15. p. 643.

6