Cornelius a Lapide
MARK, says S. Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, "a disciple and interpreter of S. Peter, according to what he had heard Peter relate, at the request of the brethren at Rome, wrote a short Gospel. When Peter had heard it, he approved it and by his own authority gave it to the Church to be read." And shortly after: "Then taking the Gospel which he himself had composed, he went on to Egypt, and being the first to proclaim Christ at Alexandria, he founded a Church with such teaching and continence of life that he compelled all followers of Christ to imitate his example. Finally Philo, the most eloquent of the Jews, seeing the first Church at Alexandria still Judaizing, wrote a book concerning their manner of life, as if in praise of his own nation. And just as Luke relates that the believers at Jerusalem had all things in common, so he too handed down to memory what he saw being done at Alexandria under Mark as teacher. He died in the eighth year of Nero, and was buried at Alexandria, Anianus succeeding him."
The same is attested by Clement of Alexandria in Stromateis Book VI, and by Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, and from them by Eusebius, History Book II, chapter 15, who also adds that "S. Peter confirmed the Gospel of Mark and handed it down to be read forever in the churches." The same is taught by S. Athanasius in his Synopsis, near the end; by S. Epiphanius in Heresy 51; and by Euthymius here. Wherefore Tertullian, Against Marcion Book IV, attributes the Gospel of S. Mark to S. Peter, because, as S. Jerome says in Epistle 150 to Hedibia, Question 11: "It was composed with Peter narrating and Mark writing." The same S. Jerome, or whoever the author is, in the preface to the Commentary on S. Mark: "Mark," he says, "sows after Matthew, he who roars like a lion, who flies like an eagle, who learns like a man, who sacrifices like a priest, who waters like a river, who blooms like a field, who ferments like wine. For Christ, of whom he speaks, is man in being born, calf in dying, lion in rising, eagle in ascending."
For this reason, in Ezekiel 1 and Revelation, the Cherubim equipped with four faces signify the four Evangelists, in such a way that the face of a man signifies Matthew, who describes the works of Christ's humanity; the face of an eagle signifies John, who sings of the divinity of Christ, saying: "In the beginning was the Word," etc.; the face of an ox denotes Luke, who begins from the priesthood and sacrifices of Zechariah; and the face of the lion designates Mark, because he himself begins his Gospel from the terrible and mighty roar of John the Baptist, as of a lion — as S. Jerome teaches on Ezekiel chapter 1, and S. Gregory, and others everywhere. For these four have driven round the chariot of God's glory, namely the four-horsed chariot of the Gospel, throughout the whole world, and have subjected all nations to Him as to one triumphing.
To this symbol the name Mark fits exactly, according to both its Hebrew and its Latin etymology. For in Hebrew, Pagninus says in his Interpretation of Hebrew Names, Marcus is the same as polished, rubbed, burnished — that is, wiped clean of rust — from the root marac, meaning to wipe, to rub, to polish. Hence Jeremiah 46:4: "Stand forth," he says, "in your helmets, polish your lances, put on your coats of mail," as if to say: be prepared, O Egyptians, for the imminent battle against Nebuchadnezzar — where for "polish" the Hebrew is mircu. So S. Mark polished the lance of his Gospel and preaching, that by it, lion-like, he might subdue the Egyptians and other nations to Christ. S. Isidore, however, in Book VII, and Origen in chapter 9, say: "Mark is the same as 'exalted by mandate' (I know not from what root), doubtless because of the Gospel of the Most High which he preached." Again, in Hebrew Marcus is said as though mar cos, that is, Lord of the cup — namely, of the passion and of martyrdom — for he himself, having suffered dreadful things, triumphed by noble martyrdom over death as well as over unbelief.
In Latin, however, Carolus Sigonius, On Roman Names, citing Valerius, says: "Marcus is so called because he was born in the month of March." But Isidore in Book XIV, and Origen in chapter 7, say: "Marcus is called a hammer (mallens), and in Latin is named marcus because it is greater and stronger for pounding; marcellus is a middle-sized one; marculus a little hammer." Thus S. Mark was a great and mighty hammer crushing rocks — that is, pricking the stony hearts of the Gentiles and moving them to penitence and to the Christian life. Therefore Marcus and Marcellus are the same as martellus, that is, a hammer. Whence Charles, grandfather of Charlemagne, on account of his warlike strength, by which like a hammer three hundred thousand Saracens crushed, he was surnamed Martel. Or Marcus is as if Martius, a certain heavenly Mars. Hence the ancient patrician Roman family Marcia was named from Ancus Marcius, the fourth and strongest king of the Romans. "From Ancus Marcius are the Martian kings," says Caesar in his Oration at the funeral of his aunt Julia, as cited by Suetonius. And Ovid, Fasti Book VI, writes:
"Marcia, her name derived from priestly Ancus."
King Ancus is called "sacrificial" because, as Livy says in Book I, he restored religions that had been neglected or wrongly observed. For religion is the parent of strength. Hence the emblem of the Marcian gens was a Victory set upon a column, as Antonius Augustinus notes in his Roman Families. Further, the Marcii are so called from Marcus, or from Mamercus, as Plutarch says in his Life of Numa. For the Oscans called Mars "Mamercus," says Festus. Pythagoras was the first to name his son Mamercus, and Numa — the second king of the Romans — following him, named his own son Mamercus, as Plutarch testifies, and from him Sigonius. Therefore Marcus, by crasis, is the same as Mamercus or Mamers, that is, Mars, says Sigonius: "For what is stronger," asks the Scholiast on Mark cited by S. Jerome, "than to save souls that were perishing through the faults of errors?" — according to that word of Psalm 67:12: "The Lord will give the word to those evangelizing with great power."
How religious and strong S. Mark was is clear from the institution of the Essenes, who were the first religious and the prototype of all religious, of whose admirable holiness more will be said shortly. John Major and some others think this Mark was that maimed man who, out of religious humility, cut off his thumb so as not to become a priest. But that was Mark the Hermit, not Mark the Evangelist, as is plain from the Lives of the Fathers.
Lastly, the Romans used to give the praenomen Marcus to those who were first-born. Hence Marcus Tullius Cicero is so called, because he himself was the firstborn, as Aldus Manutius notes at the beginning of his Commentaries on Cicero's book to Herennius. So S. Mark was the firstborn and the uniquely beloved of S. Peter; whence Peter said of him alone: "The Church salutes you, etc., and Mark, my son" (1 Peter 5, at the end). And so, as a son, he drew so great a spirit, ardor, and zeal from S. Peter, and was the express image of the wisdom and sanctity of S. Peter; for S. Peter, as a father, had stamped this upon him.
You will ask first: of what country, who, and what sort was S. Mark? I answer first, that by nation he was a Hebrew of the tribe of Levi. Bede and the author of the Commentary on Mark attributed to S. Jerome add that he was a priest of Aaron's line.
Secondly, Theophylact, Victor of Antioch, and Euthymius here, and from them Sixtus of Siena in his Sacred Library under "Mark," think that this Mark is the same as John Mark, who was the cousin of Barnabas, and who together with Barnabas and Paul went out to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 12 and 13). It is this Mark whom Paul accordingly understands in the Epistle to Philemon, in Colossians 4, and in 2 Timothy 4. But I say that this Mark is another from John Mark: for at the same time that John Mark joined himself to Paul and Barnabas in Greece, our Mark here joined himself to S. Peter at Rome, and was sent by him to preach, first at Aquileia and then at Alexandria, as Baronius rightly shows from Eusebius and others.
Thirdly, Origen in his book On Right Faith in God, S. Epiphanius in Heresy 51, and Dorotheus in his Synopsis, think that Mark was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ. But the contrary is truer — namely, that after Christ's death he was converted and baptized by S. Peter; for Peter himself calls him his (spiritual) son in 1 Peter 5:13, saying: "The Church that is in Babylon (Rome), elected together with you, greets you, and Mark, my son." So S. Jerome; Eusebius, History Book VII, chapter 14; S. Epiphanius, Heresy 51; Theodoret, Preface to the History of the Holy Fathers; Irenaeus, Book III, chapter 1; Baronius and others everywhere, who hand down that S. Mark was the disciple and companion of S. Peter.
Fourthly, S. Augustine, in On the Harmony of the Evangelists Book I, chapter 2, calls Mark "the abbreviator of Matthew" — not, as some maintain, because he reduced Matthew to a compendium, but because, in accordance with what he had received from S. Peter, he narrates more briefly those things which Matthew more often sets forth at length. I said "more often"; for at times Mark narrates the story of a deed done by Christ more fully than Matthew, as is clear in the narrative of Peter's threefold denial of Christ. He also explains certain things more clearly than Matthew. So in narrating the acts of Christ, Mark is fuller than Matthew, but in teachings more sparing. Mark was therefore a true Evangelist, as well as a Patriarch and an Apostle. Hence the Arabic version prefixes this title to Mark's Gospel: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, of the one God: the Gospel of the Father, of the Patriarch, of the Apostle S. Mar (that is, Lord) Mark the Evangelist."
Fifthly, Mark, being asked at Rome by the Christians converted by S. Peter to write a summary of what they had heard from Peter preaching, wrote this Gospel in the year of Christ 45, the third year of the emperor Claudius, as Eusebius says in his Chronicle — shortly before he went on to Alexandria, where he founded the Christian Church and most holily governed it for nineteen years, and had in it such outstanding disciples that they were surnamed "Essenes," that is, "holy and pious." For these, as the first religious, lived in such purity, piety, and holiness, that they were an object of admiration to the whole world, and to the other Churches a pattern and mirror of perfection, so that Josephus and Philo in his book On the Therapeutae praise them marvellously. Whence S. Jerome and Cassian call Mark the founder and instituter of cenobites. See what I have said about the Essenes on Acts 5:2. And for this reason the Essenes spread from Alexandria throughout all Egypt and the Thebaid. Hence it came about that there were in those parts very many swarms of monks and anchorites, who led an angelic life on earth; and this lasted for several centuries, as is clear from S. Jerome, the Lives of the Fathers, Evagrius, Palladius, Cassian, and others.
Moreover, S. Mark founded at Alexandria the first school of Christians, from which so many holy doctors, bishops, and martyrs went forth. For the Alexandrian school flourished wonderfully under the emperor Commodus, in the year of the Lord 180, when Pantaenus presided over it. Clement of Alexandria succeeded him, and Origen succeeded Clement, whose disciples were S. Gregory the Wonderworker, Athenagoras, and afterwards S. Athanasius, S. Basil, Nazianzen, and so on. All of these, therefore, were followers and disciples of S. Mark.
Finally, S. Mark adorned the laurels of his apostolate, doctorate, and evangelist's office with the crown of martyrdom. Hence we read of him in the Roman Martyrology on April 25: "At Alexandria, the birthday of Blessed Mark the Evangelist, etc., who, for the faith of Christ, was seized and bound with ropes, and being dragged over stones was grievously afflicted. Then, being shut up in prison, he was first comforted by an angelic vision, and at last, the Lord Himself appearing to him, he was called to the heavenly kingdom in the eighth year of Nero." And Pope Gelasius, in the Roman Council On Authentic and Apocryphal Books, says: "Mark the Evangelist, sent by Blessed Peter into Egypt, preached the faith of the truth, and gloriously consummated his martyrdom." So also Nicephorus, Metaphrastes, Procopius, and others. The body of S. Mark was translated by merchants from Alexandria to Venice in the year of the Lord 827, where it is venerated with the highest devotion — so much so that the Senate adopts S. Mark's emblem, namely the lion, as its coat of arms, and whenever it commands or orders anything, it declares that S. Mark commands it.
You will ask secondly: in what language did Mark write his Gospel — Latin or Greek? Many think he wrote in Latin. And the reason seems clear: for Mark wrote at Rome for the Romans, from the mouth of S. Peter as he preached there; therefore he also wrote in the Roman language, namely Latin. For the Romans would not have understood Greek, as Baronius proves at length under the year of Christ 45. For although S. Chrysostom on Mark asserts that Mark the Evangelist wrote in Egypt, nevertheless S. Jerome, Eusebius, Clement, S. Epiphanius, and others everywhere assert that he wrote it at Rome; and he wrote this Gospel for Romans — not for the common people, but for patricians and nobles, such as S. Clement, S. Pudens, and S. Torpes. Hear Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius, Book II, chapter 15. (The Chrysostom Commentary on Mark, however, is not by S. Chrysostom, as I will show below.) So likewise the Syriac, which at the end of S. Mark's Gospel expressly adds: "Here ends the holy Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, which he spoke and evangelized at Rome in Roman." The same is taught by Pope S. Damasus (or whoever the author is) at the beginning of his book On the Roman Pontiffs, in the Life of S. Peter, which is placed at the beginning of the first volume of the Councils. S. Gregory Nazianzen also sufficiently implies the same in the Carmen in which he reviews the catalogue of Scripture, when he thus distributes the Evangelists by languages and nations:
"Matthew wrote Christ's miracles for the Hebrews,
Mark for the Italians, learned Luke for the Greeks,
John for all, penetrating the heavens with his mind."
On the other hand, S. Jerome in his Preface to the Gospels expressly asserts that Mark wrote in Greek: "I am speaking," he says, "of the New Testament, which is doubtless Greek, except for the Apostle Matthew, who was the first to publish the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea." And he adds that for this reason, at the command of Damasus, he had corrected the old Latin Vulgate version of the New Testament — and consequently also of the Gospel of S. Mark — according to the Greek original. S. Augustine expressly teaches the same in On the Harmony of the Evangelists Book I, chapter 2: "Matthew," he says, "is said to have written in Hebrew speech, the others in Greek." The same was the common view of both ancients and moderns, such as Christian of Druthmar, who flourished in the year of Christ 800; Jacob of Chrysopolis; Maldonatus in his Preface to Matthew; Francis Lucas here; and Genebrardus in his Chronology under the year of Christ 44, whom hear: "Mark the Evangelist wrote his Gospel at Aquileia (which was once called the second Rome) at the request of the Romans, in Greek — or also in Latin, as Rodulphus and the Armachanus [Richard FitzRalph] maintain."
Reason also urges the same: for S. Mark wrote his Gospel when he was about to go to Alexandria, that he might preach it there; and the Alexandrians at that time spoke Greek. For Alexandria was founded and named by Alexander the Great, who was a Macedonian and a Greek. Wherefore S. Athanasius, S. Cyril, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, and the other Alexandrians wrote their works in Greek: therefore Mark wrote in the Greek language. Again, Mark was more skilled in Greek than in Latin. Hence the Greek text of his Gospel is more polished and elegant than the Latin: for the Jews, being neighbors of Greece and subjects of Alexander the Great and the Greeks, learned Greek thoroughly, but not so Latin, since they were far removed from Rome and the Latins. Add to this that the Greek language was then very widely used, as Cicero says; so much so that the Romans, especially the patricians and the more respectable, were fluent in Greek, and even sent their sons to Athens to learn Greek wisdom and eloquence thoroughly. Mark, however, [hear] Clement of Alexandria in his first letter on St. Peter (found in volume VI of the Library of the Holy Fathers, Paris edition): "Mark, he says, a follower of Peter, when Peter was preaching the Gospel openly at Rome in the presence of certain equestrians of Caesar's household, and was bringing forward many testimonies of Christ, was asked by them, so that they might be able to commit to memory the things that were being spoken, to write them down; and so from those things which had been spoken by Peter, he wrote the Gospel which is called 'according to Mark,'" etc. In the same way St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in Greek, as I have shown in the prologue to that letter.
Finally, St. Mark lived with St. Peter at Antioch, where the disciples of Christ were first called Christians; and at Antioch they spoke Greek. Hence St. Chrysostom, who was an Antiochene, preached and wrote in Greek. Therefore the Greek language was more familiar to St. Mark than Latin, and perhaps Greek was his native tongue. For although the Apostles and the first faithful received the gift of tongues poured in by the Holy Spirit, nevertheless they received it for sufficiency, not for elegance; and therefore they spoke their own native language more beautifully and elegantly — for example, Hebrew or Greek — than a foreign or alien tongue, such as Latin, Illyrian, or German.
You will reconcile both opinions if you say that St. Mark wrote the Gospel in both languages, namely Greek and Latin, as Genebrardus holds for the year of our Lord 44, and our own Barradius (tome I, book I, chapter XIX), and Possevinus in the Library, under Mark. Listen to Peter de Natalibus, bishop of Aquileia, in his Catalogue of the Saints, book IV, chapter LXXXVI: "Peter, he says, appointed Mark the first bishop of Aquileia; there he once again set forth in Greek speech his Gospel, which he had earlier composed at Rome in Latin characters; and it is still shown to this day in the church of Aquileia, together with the ivory chair on which he sat while writing it." Hadrianus Finus holds the same view in book VI of the Scourge of the Jews, chapter LXXX; and Bellarmine, in the book On the Word of God, chapter VII.
Moreover, some hold that the Latin autograph of Mark perished through the injuries of time, just as the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew perished. But this is hard to believe. For how could the Roman Church — that most faithful guardian of the faith and of the sacred codices, and in those first times of Mark down to Constantine most ardent and most constant in zeal for religion — have permitted so great a treasure, dedicated to herself, to be lost? Surely, she who so carefully preserved what belonged to others did not lose or betray what was her own. Is it really the case that so many copies of the Gospel of St. Mark — which the noble Romans and other Italians, converted to Christ by Peter and Paul, were eagerly having transcribed for themselves — have all perished to the last one, so that not even a single one survives? For this reason we shall more plausibly say that Mark first wrote in Greek, for the reasons already given, but that immediately, either by himself or through some interpreter of his own, he translated the Greek into Latin, and handed both over to the Romans, just as St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in Greek, and sent it to the Romans after it had been turned into Latin by a third person, his scribe and interpreter, as I said in the prologue to that letter. The reasoning is this: First, because St. Jerome and St. Augustine affirm that Mark wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Hence St. Jerome, by command of Damasus, corrected the Latin version against the Greek. Secondly, because, as Bellarmine rightly observes (in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Mark), by comparing the Greek and Latin texts it is clear that the old Latin and Vulgate edition of both Matthew and Mark was translated from the Greek edition. Franciscus Lucas proves the same thing here by many examples; to which you may add that Mark's Latin interpreter grecizes — as when at chapter II, verse 2, he says: "And many came together, so that there was no room, not even at the door"; which is obscurely rendered in Latin from the Greek, which has it clearly and elegantly: ὥστε μηκέτι χωρεῖν μηδὲ τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν, that is, so that the places which were at the door could not hold (the crowds flowing in). And at chapter IV, verse 10: "And when He was singularis (singular)," in Greek καταμόνας, that is, alone. And at chapter VII, 17, 18, 20: "The things which come out of a man, these communicate the man (make him common)," in Greek clearly κοινοῖ, that is, they make common, meaning they render the man unclean; for the Hebrews call unclean things "common," because they are those which all people, including the unclean, use in common and promiscuously. Thus at chapter I, 45, διαφημίζειν is rendered word-for-word as "to defame" (diffamare), for "to spread abroad." And at chapter XV, 42, προσάββατον is translated word-for-word as "before the sabbath" (ante sabbatum), that is, the eve of the sabbath or its vigil — namely, the Parasceve, or the day before the sabbath.
At Venice there is religiously preserved the autograph of the Gospel of St. Mark, but on account of its great age the letters in it are so corroded and worn away that they cannot be read. And when I was inquiring about it at Rome, several weighty men at Venice wrote back to me, men who had studiously investigated the matter, and they asserted that such was the tradition among the Venetians. They say that this Gospel was written by St. Mark at Aquileia and left there, and from there transferred to Venice; for when Attila, king of the Huns, captured Aquileia after a three-year siege and laid it waste, then many of the people of Aquileia, fleeing from Attila, withdrew to the nearby marshes of the Adriatic Sea, and there by a wonderful work founded Venice, about the year of our Lord 452, as Baronius says. Moreover, a weighty man, a canon of St. Mark's at Venice, who holds its relics in his own hand and is therefore an eyewitness, at my request diligently inquired into this matter, and in these recent days wrote back that this autograph of St. Mark was written in the Greek language, and had been brought from Aquileia to Venice in the year of Christ 1472. For which reason it seems to have been originally issued by St. Mark in Greek.
Paganinus Gaudentius, professor at Pisa, wrote a dissertation on this subject addressed to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which he contends that St. Mark first wrote the Gospel in Latin at Rome, then in Greek at Aquileia, but that the Latin has vanished: for the Latin Gospel of St. Mark that now exists is translated from the Greek. He adds that at Rome there was once a great use of the Greek language, both because many senators and others were learning it, and because many Greeks were flocking to Rome. This is clear from the very grave complaint in Juvenal's third Satire, where on that account he says that he hates Rome because it had become a Greek city:
"I cannot bear, he says, O Quirites,
A Greek city — though what a small portion is she of the dregs of Achaia?
Long since has the Syrian Orontes flowed into the Tiber."
That is to say: many Syrians were flocking to Rome. He cites Damasus, in the book On the Lives of the Popes, in the Life of St. Peter; where he says that the Evangelists wrote in Latin (noting Mark), Greek, and Hebrew. But it is well known that this book is not by Damasus, but by Anastasius the Librarian, as Bellarmine says in On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Damasus. As for Paganinus's further claim, that St. Peter preached to the Romans in Greek, and that St. Mark, as his interpreter, translated these things into Latin, this seems a paradox and to exceed credibility, as Baronius has noted. Moreover, the duties of an interpreter were quite different, as I said on I Corinthians XII, 10.
Furthermore the Syrians, as Guido Fabricius testifies in the preface to the Syriac New Testament, assert that Mark wrote in Latin, and they say that the Latin Gospel is preserved at Venice; moreover, that this same Mark translated into his native tongue — that is, Galilean or Syriac — not only his own Gospel, but also all the other books of the New Testament. But this is hard to believe; for of this edition there is no mention in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, St. Jerome, or other Fathers who either were Syrians themselves or lived in Syria and Egypt, and who discussed the various editions of Holy Scripture precisely, or treated them accurately. This Syriac edition of the New Testament seems to be later than St. Mark. So says Bellarmine, book II On the Word of God, chapter IV.
Finally, the Gospel of St. Mark was always held to be Canonical Scripture, except for the last chapter, about which some once had doubts, as St. Jerome witnesses in letter 150 to Hedibia, question III, because there had been inserted into it certain things smacking of Manichaeism, which St. Jerome recites in book II Against Pelagius, before the middle. They were these: "And they answered, saying: This present age is of the substance of iniquity and unbelief, which does not allow the true power of God to be grasped through unclean spirits; therefore now call back Thy justice." But these things have now been removed. Hence, from the Council of Trent, session 4, one may not doubt its authenticity. See Bellarmine, book I On the Word of God, chapter XVI.
Note: Mark is wholly intent on narrating the matter itself; and therefore he does not care about the order of the events, but sometimes recounts later what happened earlier, and vice versa. Listen to St. Jerome in his Preface to Matthew: "The second, he says, is Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter and first bishop of the Church of Alexandria, who indeed did not himself see our Lord and Saviour, but rather, as to those things which he had heard his master preach, he narrated them according to the faith of the events rather than their order."
In volume II of St. Chrysostom's works there is a Commentary on St. Mark, which, although it does not lack intellect, learning, and piety, nevertheless seems to lack the genius, style, subtlety, and judgment of St. Chrysostom. Hence Bellarmine, in On Ecclesiastical Writers, under Chrysostom: The commentaries on Mark, he says, are without doubt not those of Chrysostom, but of some simple monk who was explaining the Gospel to his brethren, as is evident from homilies 34, 89, and others.
Victor of Antioch, an ancient author, wrote a commentary on St. Mark especially, drawn from the commentaries of the ancients; our own Theodorus Peltanus translated him from Greek into Latin.
The author of the Commentary, or Scholiast, on St. Mark that is found among the works of St. Jerome arranges many things elegantly and piously, but he is not St. Jerome; for he does not reach or match his style, doctrine, or gravity. Indeed, he shows himself to have been unskilled in both Greek and Hebrew, and in his exposition of chapters XIV and XV he writes many things that are inept and false, as Bellarmine has observed.
Few things need to be noted here, because most have already been said in Matthew; there the reader will find them, everywhere noted in the margin at the appropriate places. Here, therefore, I shall be brief.