Saint MARC, ÉVANGÉLISTE, disciple et évêque

San Marco evangelista

Donatello, Saint Mark, 1411–1413, Orsanmichele, Florence

Donatello, San Marco, 1411-1413, Chiesa di Orsanmichele, Firenze

Saint Marc

Un des quatre évangélistes (Ier siècle)

Second dans l'ordre des évangiles synoptiques, serait-il l'inventeur du genre évangélique ? C'est possible puisque son livre, en mauvais grec, semé de sémitismes, fut composé très tôt à Rome, selon les données orales de Saint Pierre. Sans doute au plus tard en 70. L'auteur en serait le jeune Jean, surnommé Marc, fils de Marie chez qui la première communauté chrétienne de Jérusalem se réunissait pour prier (Actes 12. 12). Il accompagne Paul et Barnabé dans leur mission à Chypre. Peu après, il refuse de suivre Paul, en partance pour l'Asie Mineure. Il préfère rentrer à Jérusalem. Saint Paul lui en voudra, un moment, de ce lâchage : il préféra se séparer de Barnabé plutôt que de reprendre Marc (Acte 15. 39) Mais Marc se racheta et deviendra le visiteur du vieux prisonnier à Rome. Dans le même temps, saint Pierre le traite comme un fils (1ère lettre de Pierre 5. 13). Certains considèrent que saint Marc aurait été l'évangélisateur de l'Egypte. Ce n'est pas invraisemblable. D'autres affirment que son corps serait désormais à Venise. Après tout, pourquoi pas ? En tous cas, il fut un fidèle secrétaire pour saint Pierre dont il rédigea les "Mémoires", qui sont l'évangile selon saint Marc, à l'intention des Romains.

De Jérusalem, il suivit d'abord saint Paul dans ses voyages missionnaires, puis s'attacha aux pas de saint Pierre, qui l'appelait son fils et dont, selon la tradition, il recueillit dans son Évangile la catéchèse aux Romains. Il aurait enfin fondé l'Église d'Alexandrie.

Martyrologe romain

SOURCE : https://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1033/Saint-Marc.html

SAINT MARC

Évangéliste, Évêque d'Alexandrie

(mort vers l'an 75)

Saint Marc était probablement de la race d'Aaron; il était né en Galilée. Il semble avoir fait partie du groupe des soixante-douze disciples du Sauveur; mais il nous apparaît surtout dans l'histoire comme le compagnon fidèle de l'apostolat de saint Pierre.

C'est sous l'inspiration du chef des Apôtres et à la demande des chrétiens de Rome qu'il écrivit l'Évangile qui porte son nom. Marc cependant ne suivit pas saint Pierre jusqu'à son glorieux martyre; mais il reçut de lui la mission spéciale d'évangéliser Alexandrie, l'Égypte et d'autres provinces africaines.

Le disciple ne faillit pas à sa tâche et porta aussi loin qu'il put, dans ces contrées, le flambeau de l'Évangile. Alexandrie en particulier devint un foyer si lumineux, la perfection chrétienne y arriva à un si haut point, que cette Église, comme celle de Jérusalem, ne formait qu'un coeur et qu'une âme dans le service de Jésus-Christ. La rage du démon ne pouvait manquer d'éclater.

Les païens endurcis résolurent la mort du saint évangéliste et cherchèrent tous les moyens de s'emparer de lui. Marc, pour assurer l'affermissement de son oeuvre, forma un clergé sûr et vraiment apostolique, puis échappa aux pièges de ses ennemis en allant porter ailleurs la Croix de Jésus-Christ. Quelques années plus tard, il eut la consolation de retrouver l'Église d'Alexandrie de plus en plus florissante.

La nouvelle extension que prit la foi par sa présence, les conversions nombreuses provoquées par ses miracles, renouvelèrent la rage des païens. Il fut saisi et traîné, une corde au cou, dans un lieu plein de rochers et de précipices. Après ce long et douloureux supplice, on le jeta en prison, où il fut consolé, la nuit suivante, par l'apparition d'un ange qui le fortifia pour le combat décisif, et par l'apparition du Sauveur Lui-même.

Le lendemain matin, Marc fut donc tiré de prison; on lui mit une seconde fois la corde au cou, on le renversa et on le traîna en poussant des hurlements furieux. La victime, pendant cette épreuve douloureuse, remerciait Dieu et implorait Sa miséricorde. Enfin broyé par les rochers où se heurtaient ses membres sanglants, il expira en disant: "Seigneur, je remets mon âme entre Vos mains."

Abbé L. Jaud, Vie des Saints pour tous les jours de l'année, Tours, Mame, 1950.

SOURCE : http://magnificat.ca/cal/fr/saints/saint_marc.html

A painted miniature in an Armenian Gospel manuscript from 1609,

Bodleian Library

Qui est saint Marc l’évangéliste ?

Jacques Gauthier | 25 avril 2017

Si l’évangile selon saint Marc ne donne aucune information sur son auteur, on en apprend plus sur lui dans les Actes des Apôtres ou les épîtres de Paul et de Pierre.

L’évangile selon saint Marc ne dit rien rien de son auteur. Nous le connaissons par les Actes des Apôtres, les épîtres de Paul et de Pierre. On parle d’un certain « Jean », surnommé « Marc », en grec Markos, qui est en relation avec Pierre à Jérusalem. Pierre mentionne son nom quand il s’évade de la prison d’Hérode Agrippa 1er : « Il se rendit à la maison de Marie, la mère de Jean surnommé Marc, où se trouvaient rassemblées un certain nombre de personnes qui priaient » (Ac 12, 12).

Collaborateur de Pierre et Paul

Marc accompagne Paul et Barnabé dans une première mission d’évangélisation en Asie Mineure. « Ils avaient Jean-Marc comme auxiliaire » (Ac 13, 5). Âgé autour de la vingtaine, il leur sert d’adjoint dans plusieurs voyages. Paul décide  de quitter Chypre pour la ville de Pergé. Sur la route, Marc s’oppose à Paul et repart pour Jérusalem, le laissant avec Barnabé en direction de la Pisidie. Au début des années 50, Marc et Barnabé repartent évangéliser l’île de Chypre, sans l’approbation de Paul :

Paul dit à Barnabé : « Retournons donc visiter les frères en chacune des villes où nous avons annoncé la parole du Seigneur, pour voir où ils en sont. » Barnabé voulait emmener aussi Jean appelé Marc. Mais Paul n’était pas d’avis d’emmener cet homme, qui les avait quittés à partir de la Pamphylie et ne les avait plus accompagnés dans leur tâche. L’exaspération devint telle qu’ils se séparèrent l’un de l’autre. Barnabé emmena Marc et s’embarqua pour Chypre (Ac 15, 36-39).

Paul se réconcilie avec Marc vers l’an 62 quand celui-ci le retrouve à Rome alors qu’il est prisonnier. « Vous avez les salutations d’Aristarque, mon compagnon de captivité, et celles de Marc, le cousin de Barnabé – vous avez reçu des instructions à son sujet : s’il vient chez vous, accueillez-le » (Col 4, 10).

Marc devient l’interprète et le secrétaire de Pierre, qui séjourne alors à Rome ; il participe aux travaux apostoliques de celui-ci. Il l’apprécie tellement qu’il l’appelle « mon fils » : « La communauté qui est à Babylone, choisie comme vous par Dieu, vous salue, ainsi que Marc, mon fils » (1 P 5, 13). Il excelle dans ce rôle de second. C’est de cette époque que date son Évangile, composé de plusieurs documents antérieurs, dans lesquels il met sa touche personnelle. Le style est vivant et direct. Pierre lui a donné des informations précises sur Jésus, lui partageant ses souvenirs : la guérison de sa belle-mère, l’appel de Lévi, la résurrection de la fille de Jaïre, la transfiguration de Jésus, l’expulsion des vendeurs du temple, l’onction à Béthanie, l’arrestation de Jésus, son reniement. Marc s’en est souvenu au moment d’écrire son Évangile vers 65, le premier en date. Il sera une source précieuse pour les évangiles de Matthieu et de Luc, écrits entre dix et quinze ans plus tard. Lire la suite sur le blogue de Jacques Gauthier

Extrait de la nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, à paraître fin 2017 : Les saints, ces fous admirables.

SOURCE : https://fr.aleteia.org/2017/04/25/qui-est-saint-marc-levangeliste/

San Marco evangelista

Saint Mark, illumination on parchment, 1524, Library of Congress

L'auteur du deuxième évangile ne se nomme pas, mais certains ont cru pouvoir l'identifier au jeune homme qui s'enfuit lors de l'arrestation du Seigneur : Et un jeune homme le suivait, un drap jeté sur son corps nu. Et on l'arrête, mais lui, lâchant le drap s'enfuit tout nu (évangile selon saint Marc XIV 51-52).

D'après Jean le Presbytre dont le témoignage rapporté par Papias (évêque d'Hiérapolis en Phrygie vers le premier quart du II° siècle) est cité par Eusèbe de Césarée dans un passage de son Histoire ecclésiastique (Livre III, chapitre XXXIX, 15) :

Voici ce que le presbytre disait : Marc, qui avait été l'interprète de Pierre, écrivit exactement tout ce dont il se souvint, mais non dans l'ordre de ce que le Seigneur avait dit ou fait, car il n'avait pas entendu le Seigneur et n'avait pas été son disciple, mais bien plus tard, comme je disais, celui de Pierre. Celui-ci donnait son enseignement selon les besoins, sans se proposer de mettre en ordre les discours du Seigneur. De sorte que Marc ne fut pas en faute, ayant écrit certaines choses selon qu'il se les rappelait. Il ne se souciait que d'une chose : ne rien omettre de ce qu'il avait entendu, et ne rien rapporter que de véritable.

Saint Justin (vers 150) cite comme appartenant aux Mémoires de Pierre un trait qui ne se trouve que dans l'évangile selon saint Marc (Dialogue avec Tryphon, n°106) : surnom de Boarnergès (fils du tonnerre) donné à Jacques et Jean, fils de Zébédée (Saint Marc III 16-17).

Saint Irénée (vers 180) dit qu'après la mort de Pierre et de Paul, Marc, disciple et interprète de Pierre, nous transmit lui aussi par écrit ce qui avait été prêché par Pierre(Contra haereses, Livre III, chapitre I, 1).

Tertullien attribue à Pierre ce que Marc a écrit (Adversus Marcionem, Livre IV, chapitre V).

La tradition le désigne donc comme un disciple de Pierre et son interprète authentique (Saint Clément d'Alexandrie, Origène - selon ce que Pierre lui avait enseigné- et saint Jérôme - Marc, interprète de l'apôtre Pierre et premier évêque d'Alexandrie).

Les anciens l'ont identifié avec le Marc ou le Jean-Marc des Actes des Apôtres et des épîtres pauliniennes : son nom hébreux aurait été Jean et son surnom romain aurait été Marc (Marcus qui a donné le grec Marcos), usage que l'on rencontre pour Joseph, surnommé Justus (Actes des Apôtres I 23), ou pour Simon, surnommé Niger (Actes des Apôtres XIII 1) ; il serait le fils d'une Marie, probablement veuve, chez qui se réunissait la première communauté chrétienne de Jérusalem et chez qui saint Pierre se réfugia après sa délivrance de la prison (Actes des Apôtres XII 12) ; celui-ci accompagna Paul et Barnabé, son propre cousin (Colossiens IV 10) dans un premier voyage (Actes des Apôtres XII 25), puis se sépara deux à Pergé en Pamphylie (Actes des Apôtres XIII 13) avant de repartir pour Chypre avec Barnabé (Actes des Apôtres XV 39) ; on le retrouve à Rome près de saint Paul prisonnier (Billet à Philémon 24) qui le charge d'une mission en Asie Mineure (Colossiens IV 10) et finalement l'appelle auprès de lui (II Timothée IV 11) ; la mention à Rome de Marc comme le fils très cher de l'apôtre Pierre (I Pierre V 13) fait penser que Marc a été baptisé par Pierre et qu'il se mit à son service après la mort de Paul.

Eusèbe de Césarée rapporte que Marc aurait été le fondateur de l'Eglise d'Alexandrie : Pierre établit aussi les églises d'Egypte, avec celle d'Alexandrie, non pas en personne, mais par Marc, son disciple. Car lui-même pendant ce temps s'occupait de l'Italie et des nations environnantes ; il envoya don Marc, son disciple, destiné à devenir le docteur et le conquérant de l'Egypte (Histoire ecclésiastique Livre II, chapitre XVI), ce qu'un texte arménien fixe à la première année du règne de Claude (41) et saint Jérôme la troisième (43) ; Eusèbe dit qu'il établit son successeur, Anien, la huitième année du règne de Néron (62).

L'attribut de saint Marc est le lion parce que son évangile commence par la prédication de saint Jean-Baptiste dans le désert et que le lion est l'animal du désert (Evangile selon saint Marc I 12-13).

SOURCE : http://missel.free.fr/Sanctoral/04/25.php

Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, cod. 1857, Stundenbuch der Maria von Burgund. In: Franz Unterkirchner (Hrsg.): Das Stundenbuch der Maria von Burgund. Codex Vindobonensis 1857 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Glanzlichter der Buchkunst), Darmstadt 1993.

MARC, disciple et interprète de Pierre, écrivit, à la demande de ses frères de Rome, un évangile résumé d'après ce qu'il avait recueil. li de la bouche de Pierre lui-même. Cet apôtre l'ayant lu, l'approuva, le fit publier, et ordon na qu'il fût lu dans les églises. Ces faits son attestés par Clément dans le sixième livre de ses Hypotyposes. Pappias, évêque d'Hiéropolis, a fait mention de Marc, et Pierre, dans première épître, s'exprime ainsi : « Vos confrères de Babylone et Marc, mon fils chéri vous saluent. » Par le mot de Babylone il désigne figurément l'Eglise de Rome. Marc alla ensuite en Egypte, emportant avec lui l'évangile qu'il avait rédigé. Il commença par prêcher la religion chrétienne à Alexandrie, y fonda une Eglise, et obtint tant d'influence par sa science et par la pureté de ses moeurs que les sectateurs de Jésus-Christ le prirent pour modèle. Comme les membres de cette première Eglise suivaient encore quelques pratiques judaïques, Philon, le plus grand des écrivains juifs, composa un traité sur le genre de vie des néophytes d'Alexandrie, croyant faire le panégyrique de sa nation. Les chrétiens de Jérusalem mettaient, au rapport de Luc, tous leurs biens en commun: Philon prétend qu'il en était de même à Alexandrie sous les enseignements de Marc. Cet évangéliste mourut la huitième année du règne de Néron, et fut enterré dans cette ville. Il eut, pour successeur Anianus.

Saint Jérôme. Tableau des écrivains ecclésiastiques, ou Livre des hommes illustres.

SOURCE : http://livres-mystiques.com/partieTEXTES/jerome/002.htm

Saint Marc, le premier à avoir raconté la vie de Jésus

Agnès Pinard Legry | 24 avril 2018

À l’occasion de la Saint-Marc ce 25 avril, la rédaction d’Aleteia s’est intéressée à cet homme dont l’Évangile est le plus court et le plus ancien.

« Commencement de l’Évangile de Jésus, Christ, Fils de Dieu ». Dès le premier verset, Marc donne des éléments sur celui dont son Évangile n’aura de cesse de s’interroger : qui est cet homme, Jésus ? Second dans l’ordre des évangiles synoptiques, saint Marc pourrait bien être l’inventeur du genre évangélique. Pourtant, il a longtemps été « délaissé » en raison de son style. « L’Évangile de Marc est le plus ancien, il donne la trame de celui de Matthieu et de Luc. Pourtant, il a longtemps été considéré comme un texte frustre, maladroit. Il a fallu attendre la réforme liturgique pour le remettre à l’honneur », détaille à Aleteia Éric Julien, accompagnateur de confirmands et de catéchumènes et auteur du livre Plongez dans l’Évangile avec Marc.

D’une lecture simple et descriptive, l’Évangile de Marc peut parfois paraître naïf. Pour Jean-Pierre Rosa, philosophe et éditeur, saint Marc est pourtant celui qui a eu « le premier, le courage et l’humilité de prendre sa plume pour “raconter Jésus”, le faire résonner pour les hommes et les femmes de son temps ». Il est celui « qui a ouvert la voie ». « L’Évangile de Marc est celui avec lequel il faut se laisser guider. Ce texte est déroutant par l’authenticité avec laquelle Marc décrit la foi, ou plutôt le manque de foi des disciples. Il ne fait aucune concession devant leur fragilité. On a toujours l’impression que la foi ne supporte pas le doute. Mais avec Marc on comprend que c’est tout l’inverse. Ces hommes qui ont connu Jésus ont eu du mal à reconnaître en lui quelqu’un de pleinement homme et de pleinement Dieu », explique Éric Julien.

Jésus, en toute humanité

« Oser prendre le temps de lire en entier cet Évangile, c’est prendre le risque de la rencontre de Jésus qui sait s’intéresser aux personnes, à leur vie, à leurs souffrances, à leurs attentes », a récemment écrit le père Pierre-Yves Pecqueux, secrétaire général adjoint de la Conférence des évêques de France. Lire cet Évangile, c’est aussi « laisser percer la foi qui habite le cœur de ceux qui s’adressent à Jésus et que Jésus reconnaît : “Ta foi est grande”. La rencontre de la souffrance des hommes marque profondément son témoignage qui trouvera son sommet à la crucifixion ».

Partir à la rencontre de Jésus avec saint Marc revient à cheminer aux côtés de Jésus dans son environnement, en toute humanité. Cet Évangile pousse le lecteur, le croyant et le curieux à répondre à une question, tout à la fois brûlante d’actualité et éternelle : pour nous, qui est ce « Jésus, Christ, Fils de Dieu » ?

SOURCE : https://fr.aleteia.org/2018/04/24/saint-marc-le-premier-a-avoir-raconte-la-vie-de-jesus/?utm_campaign=NL_fr&utm_source=daily_newsletter&utm_medium=mail&utm_content=NL_fr

[VIDÉO] Marc, un saint reconnaissable entre tous !

Mélina de Courcy - Anthony Cormy - publié le 24/04/24

En la fête de saint Marc, découvrez la richesse des représentations artistiques de l'évangéliste à partir d'une fresque réalisée par Friedrich Stummels.

Il est le saint patron des écrivains ! Le peintre allemand Friedrich Stummels a réalisé cette fresque de saint Marc l’évangéliste pour la coupole de la basilique du Rosaire à Berlin.

Sur l’azur parsemé de nuages rose, Saint Marc l’évangéliste est représenté assis, un calame dans la main, l’autre posé sur une reliure à côté d’un encrier et d’un coffret de parchemin roulé. Il est escorté du lion ailé. Pourquoi une telle iconographie ?

Voyez ces quelques détails pour la comprendre. Premièrement, l’emblème de Marc est le lion,
car l’un des premiers versets de son évangile évoque le désert où l’on entend le rugissement du lion. Deuxièmement, l’Évangile qu’il est en train d’écrire est le premier et le plus court des quatre évangiles.

Troisièmement, il évangélise avec Pierre à Rome, puis il fonde l’église d’Alexandrie en Égypte, où il meurt martyr un 25 avril vers l’an 75. C’est pourquoi il regarde en arrière, ses écrits font mémoire. Lors de son passage à Venise, un ange lui aurait dit la phrase qui deviendra la devise de la ville : “Que la paix soit avec toi, Marc, mon évangéliste.”

Eh bien, aujourd’hui, en la fête de saint Marc, que la paix soit avec vous !

Lire aussi :[VIDEO] L’Annonciation dans le jardin de Maurice Denis

Lire aussi :[VIDÉO] La décollation de Jean-Baptiste, ce tableau que Caravage n’a pas signé

Lire aussi :Saint Pierre et saint Marc aussi n’avaient pas tenu leurs bonnes résolutions…

SOURCE : https://fr.aleteia.org/2024/04/24/video-marc-un-saint-reconnaissable-entre-tous/?utm_campaign=Web_Notifications&utm_medium=notifications&utm_source=onesignal

Vladimir Borovikovsky  (1757–1825). Saint Marc Évangéliste, 1804, Kazan Cathedral, Saint Petersburg

Parmi les 4 Évangiles, Marc est l’auteur du second, lequel est en fait le premier du point de vue de sa rédaction. Marc avait un nom double : Jean-Marc. Il naquit à Jérusalem et la première communauté chrétienne se rassemblait parfois dans la maison de sa mère (Actes 12, v. 12). Jean Marc ne fait pas partie des douze Apôtres de Jésus, mais peut-être est-il présent au jardin des Oliviers lors de l’agonie du Seigneur. On a vu souvent comme la signature discrète de son Evangile le trait suivant :

"Tous abandonnèrent Jésus en prenant la fuite. Un jeune homme le suivait, n'ayant qu'un drap sur le corps. On l'arrête : mais lui, lâchant le drap, s'enfuit tout nu" (Mc. 14. 50-52).

Après la Pentecôte, encore très jeune, Marc est l'un de ces hommes prêts à partir vers les Nations païennes pour leur porter l'Évangile. Il participe au premier grand départ, vers l'année 45, avec Paul et Barnabé son parent. Tout alla bien au début, mais quand il s'agit d'affronter l'entrée en Asie mineure par les monts du Taurus, Marc panique et retourne chez sa mère à Jérusalem. Plus tard, pour le second voyage missionnaire, Barnabé insiste auprès de Paul pour que Marc parte avec eux. "Mais Paul ne fut pas d'accord de reprendre comme compagnon celui qui les avait abandonnés en Pamphylie. Leur désaccord s'aggrava tellement que chacun partit de son côté: Barnabé avec Marc s'embarqua pour Chypre, tandis que Paul s'adjoignait Silas" (Actes 15. 37-40). A la fin à Rome, au moment de la captivité et du martyre de Pierre et de Paul, Marc se retrouve intime de l'un et l'autre. On ne sait pas comment se termina la vie de Jean-Marc, rédacteur de l'Évangile, où il se montre très influencé par le témoignage de Pierre qui l'appelait son fils. Saint Marc est spécialement vénéré en Egypte à Alexandrie. Il est aussi le saint patron de Venise. Une douzaine d'autres Marc ont également illustré ce beau prénom.

Rédacteur : Frère Bernard Pineau, OP

SOURCE : http://www.lejourduseigneur.com/Web-TV/Saints/Marc-Evangeliste

Saint Marc, Évangéliste

Le Lion évangélique qui assiste devant le trône de Dieu, avec l’Homme, le Taureau et l’Aigle, se montre aujourd’hui sur le Cycle. Ce jour a vu Marc s’élancer de la terre au ciel, le front ceint de la triple auréole de l’Évangéliste, de l’Apôtre et du Martyr.

De même que les quatre grands Prophètes, Isaïe. Jérémie, Ézéchiel et Daniel, résument en eux la prédiction en Israël ; ainsi Dieu voulait que la nouvelle Alliance reposât sur quatre textes augustes, destinés à révéler au monde la vie et la doctrine de son Fils incarné. Les quatre Évangiles, nous disent les anciens Pères, sont les quatre fleuves qui arrosaient le jardin des délices, et ce jardin était la figure de l’Église à venir. Le premier des quatre oracles de la nouvelle Alliance est Matthieu, qui avant tout autre initia les hommes a la vie et à la doctrine de Jésus : nous verrons poindre son astre en septembre ; le second est Marc, qui nous illumine aujourd’hui ; le troisième est Luc, dont nous attendrons le lever jusqu’en octobre ; le quatrième est Jean, que nous avons connu près de la crèche de l’Emmanuel en Bethléhem. Arrêtons-nous à contempler les grandeurs du second.

Marc est le disciple chéri de Pierre, le brillant satellite du Soleil de l’Église. Son Évangile a été écrit à Rome, sous les yeux du Prince des Apôtres. Le récit de Matthieu avait déjà cours dans l’Église ; mais les fidèles de Rome désiraient y joindre la narration personnelle de leur Apôtre. Pierre ne consent pas à écrire lui-même ; il engage son disciple à prendre la plume, et l’Esprit-Saint conduit la main du nouvel Évangéliste. Marc s’attache à la narration de Matthieu ; il l’abrège, mais en même temps il la complète. Un mot, un trait de développement, viennent attester à chaque page que Pierre, témoin et auditeur de tout, a suivi de près le travail de son disciple. Mais le nouvel Évangéliste passera-t-il sous silence ou cherchera-t-il à atténuer la faute de son maître ? Loin de là ; l’Évangile de Marc sera plus dur que celui de Matthieu dans le récit du reniement de Pierre. On sent que les larmes amères provoquées par le regard de Jésus dans la maison de Caïphe, n’ont pas encore cessé de couler. Le travail de Marc étant terminé, Pierre le reconnut et l’approuva, les Églises accueillirent avec transportée second récit des mystères du salut du monde, et le nom de Marc devint célèbre par toute la terre.

Matthieu, qui ouvre son Évangile par la généalogie humaine du Fils de Dieu, avait réalise le type céleste de l’Homme ; Marc remplit celui du Lion ; car il débute par le récit de la prédication de Jean-Baptiste, rappelant que le rôle de ce Précurseur du Messie avait été annoncé par Isaïe, quand il avait parlé de la Voix de celui qui crie dans le désert ; voix du lion qui ébranle les solitudes par ses rugissements.

La carrière d’Apôtre s’ouvrit devant Marc lorsqu’il eut écrit son Évangile. Pierre le dirigea d’abord sur Aquilée, où il fonda une insigne Église ; mais c’était trop peu pour un Évangéliste. Le moment était venu où l’Égypte, la mère de toutes les erreurs, devait recevoir la vérité, où la superbe et tumultueuse Alexandrie allait voir s’élever dans ses murs la seconde Église de la chrétienté, le second siège de Pierre. Marc fut destiné par son maître à ce grand œuvre. Par sa prédication, la doctrine du salut germa, fleurit et produisit le bon grain sur cette terre la plus infidèle de toutes ; et l’autorité de Pierre se dessina dès lors, quoique à des degrés différents, dans les trois grandes cités de l’Empire : Rome, Alexandrie et Antioche.

Sous l’inspiration de Marc, la vie monastique préluda à ses saintes destinées, dans Alexandrie même, par l’institution chrétienne des Thérapeutes. L’intelligence de la vérité révélée prépara de bonne heure, dans ce grand centre des études humaines, les éléments de la brillante école chrétienne qui commença d’y fleurir dès le second siècle. Tels furent les effets de l’influence du disciple de Pierre dans la seconde Église du monde.

Mais la gloire de Marc fût restée incomplète, si l’auréole du martyre ne fût pas venue la couronner. Les succès de la prédication du saint Évangéliste ameutèrent contre lui les fureurs de l’antique superstition égyptienne. Dans une fête de Sérapis, Marc fut maltraité par les idolâtres, et on le jeta dans un cachot. Ce fut là que le Seigneur ressuscité, dont il avait raconté la vie et les œuvres divines, lui apparut la nuit, et lui dit ces paroles célèbres qui sont la devise de l’antique république de Venise : « Paix soit avec toi, Marc, mon Évangéliste ! » A quoi le disciple ému répondit : « Seigneur ! » Sa joie et son amour ne trouvèrent pas d’autres paroles. Ainsi Madeleine, au matin de Pâques, avait gardé le silence après ce cri du cœur : « Cher Maître ! » Le lendemain, Marc fut immolé par les païens ; mais il avait rempli sa mission sur la terre, et le ciel s’ouvrait au Lion, qui allait occuper au pied du trône de l’Ancien des jours la place d’honneur où le Prophète de Pathmos le contempla dans sublime vision.

Au IXe siècle, l’Église d’Occident s’enrichit de la dépouille mortelle de Marc. Ses restes sacrés fuient transportés à Venise, et sous les auspices du Lion évangélique commencèrent pour cette ville les glorieuses destinées qui ont duré mille ans. La foi en un si grand patron opéra des merveilles dans ces îlots et ces lagunes d’où s’éleva bientôt une cite aussi puissante que magnifique. L’art byzantin construisit l’imposante et somptueuse Église qui fut le palladium de la reine des mers, et la nouvelle république frappa ses monnaies à l’effigie du Lion de saint Marc : heureuse si, plus filiale envers Rome et plus sévère dans ses mœurs, elle n’eût jamais néré de sa gravité antique, ni de la foi de ses plus beaux siècles !

Réunissons à la gloire de Saint Marc les éloges de l’Orient et de l’Occident. Nous commencerons par cette Hymne que lui consacra au IXe siècle saint Paulin, l’un de ses successeurs sur le siège d’Aquilée.

HYMNE.

Déjà par le monde entier elle répand son éclat, cette Lumière céleste qui la splendeur du Père, et de laquelle procède la lumière créée qui nous réjouit de son éclat ; ce flambeau qui dans sa splendeur n’éprouve jamais de défaillance et éclaire notre ciel, en dissipant les ombres qui couvraient le monde.

Le bienheureux Marc, docteur évangélique, avait reçu dans son cœur un rayon de cette lumière sacrée ; reflet ardent et lumineux, il chassa devant lui les ténèbres dont le monde était enveloppé.

Il fut une des sept blanches colonnes qui soutiennent l’édifice, l’un des sept chandeliers d’or, un astre dont l’éclat parcourt l’univers entier ; placé à la base. il soutient, comme un de leurs quatre fondements, les Églises qui sont sous le ciel.

Ézéchiel, l’antique et saint prophète, Jean qui reposa sur le sein du Christ, l’ont vu l’un et l’autre la forme d’un animal mystique, sous le symbole du Lion qui fait retentir le désert de ses rugissements.

Le bienheureux Pierre l’envoya vers la ville d’Aquilée, cité fameuse en ces temps ; Marc y sema la parole sainte, et sa moisson s’élevait au centuple, lorsqu’il la transporta dans les greniers célestes.

Ce fut lui qui établit dans cette ville l’Église du Christ, la posant survie solide fondement de la loi, sur cette pierre sans tache, que ni les débordements du fleuve, ni la fureur des vents, ni les torrents, ni les pluies, ne sauraient ébranler.

Il en revint le front ceint, d’une couronne qui mêlait à ses palmes et à ses lauriers l’éclat des roses et des lis ; athlète combattant du Christ, il portait ce diadème glorieux, lorsqu’il rentra dans Rome, conduit parce Maître divin.

Ce fut alors que, rempli de l’Esprit-Saint, il se dirigea vers Alexandrie, et on l’entendit dans toute l’étendue de l’Égypte annoncer aux hommes que le Fils unique du l’ère adorable était venu sur la terre pour le salut du monde.

Mais ce peuple endurci et cruel préparait des tourments au soldat du Christ. Un jour il le chargea déchaînes, le blessa avec la pointe de ses javelots, déchira sa chair à coups de fouets, et l’enferma dans une noire prison.

Marc fut donc le premier qui porta le nom du Dieu suprême dans Alexandrie ; il dédia au Christ une basilique qui fut consacrée par l’effusion de son sang, et à laquelle il donna la sainte foi pour rempart.

Gloire et empire soit au Père ! à vous aussi, Fils de Dieu, plus haut des cieux ! à l’Esprit-Saint honneur et puissance ! à l’indivisible Trinité, nos hommages dans les siècles éternels ! Amen.

L’Église grecque, dans ses Ménées, célèbre à son tour le saint Évangéliste par de nombreuses strophes, entre lesquelles nous choisissons les suivantes.

(DIE XXV APRILIS.)

Célébrons, ô fidèles, par de dignes louanges l’écrivain sacré, le grand patron de l’Égypte, et disons : O Marc rempli de sagesse, par ton enseignement et tes prières conduis-nous tous, comme un Apôtre, à cette vie tranquille qui ne connaît plus les tempêtes.

Tu fus d’abord le compagnon des voyages de celui qui est le Vase d’élection, et avec lui tu parcourus toute la Macédoine ; venu ensuite à Rome, tu apparus en cette ville comme l’interprète de Pierre, et après de dignes combats soutenus pour Dieu, l’Égypte fut le lieu de ton repos.

Tu rendis la vie aux âmes brûlées de soif, en faisant tomber sur elles la blanche neige de ton Évangile ; c’est pour cela, divin Marc, que Alexandrie célèbre aujourd’hui ta fête avec nous par des chants magnifiques, et s’incline avec respect devant tes reliques.

Heureux Marc, tu t’es désaltéré au torrent des délices célestes, et tu as jailli du Paradis comme un fleuve de paix dont les eaux sont éclatantes de lumière, arrosant la face de la terre par les ruisseaux de ta prédication évangélique, versant les flots de ta doctrine divine sur les plantations de l’Église.

Si Moïse autrefois engloutit les Égyptiens dans es abîmes de la mer, c’est toi, ô Marc digne de toute louange, qui par la sagesse de tes enseignements les as retirés du gouffre de l’erreur, étant assisté du divin pouvoir de celui qui a daigné être pèlerin dans ce pays, et a détruit dans la Force de son bras les idoles que la main de l’homme avait faites.

O divin Marc, tu as été la plume de l’écrivain sage et rapide, en racontant d’une façon merveilleuse l’incarnation du Christ, et annonçant dans un splendide langage les paroles de l’éternelle vie qui sont rapportées dans ton livre ; adresse au Seigneur tes prières en faveur de ceux qui célèbrent et honorent ta glorieuse mémoire.

O Marc digne de louange, par ton Évangile tu as parcouru la terre entière ; elle était couverte des ténèbres de l’idolâtrie ; tu l’as éclairée comme un soleil des rayons de la foi : prie Dieu maintenant qu’il daigne octroyer à nos âmes la paix et sa grande miséricorde.

Apôtre Marc, tu as accompli ta prédication dans la région où régna tout d’abord la folie de l’impiété ; messager de Dieu, l’éclat de tes paroles dissipa les ombres de l’Égypte ; demande aujourd’hui à Dieu qu’il nous donne la paix et sa grande miséricorde.

Disciple de Pierre, qui fut maître de la sagesse, honoré de son adoption, Marc, digne de toute louange, tu es devenu l’interprète des mystères du Christ et le cohéritier de sa gloire.

Ta voix a retenti par toute la terre ; la vertu de tes paroles, comme la trompette de David, a résonné jusqu’aux confins du monde, nous annonçant le salut et une nouvelle naissance.

Tes paroles ont été comme de doux ruisseaux de piété, et toi tu as été comme la montagne divine d’où ils émanent, toute rayonnante des feux du Soleil spirituel de la grâce, ô Marc très heureux !

Tu as jailli de la maison du Seigneur comme une source, et tu as arrosé les âmes altérées des eaux abondantes de l’Esprit-Saint, faisant produire à leur stérilité des fruits abondants, ô bienheureux Apôtre !

Pierre, le prince des Apôtres, t’a initié à sa merveilleuse doctrine ; il t’a chaîné d’écrire l’Évangile sacré, et t’a désigné comme le ministre de la grâce ; alors tu as fait briller à nos yeux la lumière qui fait connaître Dieu.

La grâce de l’Esprit-Saint étant descendue sur toi. Apôtre, tu as anéanti les subtilités de l’éloquence humaine, et semblable à un pécheur, tu as entraîné an Seigneur dans ton filet toutes les nations, ô Marc digne de tout éloge, prédicateur du divin Évangile.

Tu as été le digne disciple du Prince des Apôtres ; comme lui tu as proclame-le Christ Fils de Dieu ; tu as établi sur la Pierre de vérité ceux qui flottaient au vent de l’erreur. Établis-moi aussi sur cette Pierre, ô Marc plein de sagesse ; dirige les pas de mon âme, afin que j’échappe aux pièges de l’ennemi, et que je puisse te glorifier sans obstacles, o toi qui as répandu la lumière sur tous les hommes en leur adressant l’Évangile divin.

Vous êtes, ô Marc, le Lion mystérieux attelé avec l’Homme, le Taureau et l’Aigle, au char sur lequel le Roi des rois s’avance à la conquête du monde. Dès l’ancienne Alliance, Ézéchiel vous vit dans le ciel, et Jean, le Prophète de la Loi nouvelle, vous a reconnu près du trône de Jéhovah. Quelle gloire est la vôtre ! Historien du Verbe fait chair, vous racontez à toutes les générations ses titres à l’amour et à l’adoration des hommes ; l’Église s’incline devant vos récits, et les proclame inspirés par l’Esprit-Saint.

Nous vous avons entendu au jour même de la Pâque nous raconter la résurrection de notre Sauveur ; faites, ô saint Évangéliste, que ce divin mystère produise en nous tous ses fruits ; que notre cœur, comme le vôtre, s’attache au divin Ressuscité, afin que nous le suivions partout dans cette vie nouvelle qu’il nous a ouverte en ressuscitant le premier. Demandez-lui qu’il daigne nous donner sa paix, comme il l’a donnée à ses Apôtres en leur apparaissant dans le Cénacle, comme il vous la donna à vous-même dans la prison.

Glorieux Marc, vous fûtes le disciple chéri de Pierre ; Rome s’honore de vous avoir possédé dans ses murs ; priez aujourd’hui pour le successeur de Pierre votre maître, pour l’Église Romaine battue par la tempête Lion évangélique, implorez le Lion de la tribu de Juda en faveur de son peuple ; réveillez-le de son sommeil ; priez-le de se lever dans sa force : par son seul aspect, il dissipera tous les ennemis.

Apôtre de l’Égypte, qu’est devenue votre florissante Église d’Alexandrie, le second siège de Pierre, empourpré de votre sang ? Les ruines mêmes ont péri. Le vent brûlant de l’hérésie avait désolé l’Égypte, et Dieu dans sa colère déchaîna sur elle, il y a douze siècles, le torrent de l’islamisme. Ces contrées doivent-elles renoncer pour jamais à voir briller de nouveau le flambeau de la foi, jusqu’à l’arrivée du Juge des vivants et des morts ? Nous l’ignorons : mais au milieu des événements qui se succèdent, nous osons vous prier, ô Marc, d’intercéder pour ces régions que vous avez évangélisées, et où les âmes sont aussi dévastées que le sol.

Vous vous souviendrez aussi de Venise, ô Marc ! Sa couronne est tombée, peut-être sans retour ; mais là vit encore ce peuple dont les ancêtres se donnèrent à vous. Conservez la foi dans son sein ; faites qu’il prospère, qu’il se relevé de ses épreuves, qu’il rende gloire à Dieu qui l’a châtié dans sa justice. Toute nation qui s’unit à l’Église sera bénie : que Venise revienne aux traditions de son antique fidélité à Rome ; et qui sait si le Seigneur, fléchi par vos instances, ô céleste protecteur, ne rouvrira pas pour elle le cours de ces nobles destinées qui ne s’arrêtèrent qu’au jour où, devenue infidèle à tout son passé, elle s’éleva contre sa mère, et oublia les palmes glorieuses de Lépante ?

Il Pordenone (c. 1484 – 1539). Saint Marc Évangéliste, vers 1535, 72 x 74,5, Budapest

Dom Guéranger, l’Année Liturgique

Aujourd’hui se célébraient à Rome les Robigalia, remplacés plus tard par la procession chrétienne qui se déroulait le long de la voie Flaminienne jusqu’au pont Milvius et rejoignait ensuite Saint-Pierre. La fête de l’évangéliste Marc dut donc attendre presque jusqu’au XIIe siècle avant d’être inscrite régulièrement dans le Calendrier romain. Ce retard est d’autant plus surprenant que saint Marc fut parmi les premiers hérauts qui, avec saint Pierre, annoncèrent à Rome la bonne nouvelle ; en outre, il écrivit son Évangile dans la Ville éternelle, à la demande des Romains eux-mêmes, et quand, un peu plus tard, Paul y subit son premier emprisonnement, Marc lui prêta avec Luc une affectueuse assistance, comme il l’avait déjà fait en faveur du Prince des Apôtres.

Cependant cet oubli, que l’on pourrait taxer d’ingratitude, n’est pas isolé. Jean lui aussi a prêché à Rome et y a trouvé le martyre dans la chaudière d’huile bouillante. Et pourtant, on dirait presque que sa présence dans la Ville éternelle n’a laissé aucune trace, comme cela arriva également pour Luc et pour d’autres insignes personnages de l’âge apostolique. Cette anomalie s’explique pourtant aisément. A l’origine, les commémorations liturgiques des saints avaient un caractère local et funéraire, étant exclusivement célébrées près de leurs tombeaux respectifs. Comme ni Jean, ni Luc, ni Marc, ni, à notre connaissance, d’autres premiers compagnons des Apôtres ne finirent leurs jours à Rome, les diptyques romains n’enregistrèrent pas leur déposition ou natalis. Les calendriers du moyen âge à Rome dépendent principalement de ces listes, aussi s’explique-t-on leur silence. Près du portique in Pallacinis, dans la première moitié du IVe siècle, le pape Marc érigea une basilique qui, avec le temps, prit le nom de l’évangéliste homonyme. D’autres églises également, au moyen âge, furent dédiées à saint Marc, comme celles de calcarario, in macello, etc. Mais la splendide basilique du pape Marc les surpassa toutes en célébrité tant par sa beauté que par l’importance exceptionnelle qu’elle acquit dans l’histoire.

Aujourd’hui les Litanies majeures se terminent par la messe stationnale à Saint-Pierre. La procession litanique n’est donc aucunement en relation avec la fête de saint Marc, si bien que, quand celle-ci est remise à un autre jour, on ne transfère point pour cela les Litanies majeures. Il n’est fait d’exception que pour la fête de Pâques, car si celle-ci tombait le 25 avril, la procession se célébrerait alors le mardi suivant. Dans le bas moyen âge disparut de Rome tout souvenir des Robigalia avec le parcours traditionnel du classique cortège de la jeunesse romaine le long de la voie Flaminienne. La procession avait accoutumé de se rendre du Latran à la basilique de Saint-Marc, et, de là, se dirigeait vers Saint-Pierre ; ce rite demeura en vigueur jusqu’à la seconde moitié du XIXe siècle.

Les antiennes et les répons de la messe de saint Marc sont empruntés à la messe Protexisti, qui est celle des Martyrs durant le temps pascal.

Néanmoins les collectes et les lectures sont propres.

« O Dieu, qui avez élevé le bienheureux Marc, votre évangéliste, à la grâce d’annoncer la Bonne Nouvelle, faites que nous puissions profiter toujours de sa doctrine afin d’être protégés par sa prière. Par notre Seigneur, etc. » : Souvent, dans la sainte Écriture, la parole de Dieu est comparée à une source d’eau, qui apaise les ardeurs de la soif, rafraîchit la terre aride, la féconde et fait reverdir les plantes.

Dans le haut moyen âge, les fontaines publiques revêtaient pour cette raison un certain caractère religieux, en tant qu’elles symbolisaient le Verbe et la grâce divine. Nous en avons pour preuve, entre autres témoignages, un puteal qui existe encore sous le portique de la basilique de Saint-Marc de Pallacine, avec cette légende :

DE • BONIS • DEI • ET • SANCTI • MARCI • IOHANNES • PRESBITER • FIERI • ROGABIT

OMNES • SITIENTES • VENITE • AD • AQVAS • ET • SI • QVIS • DE • ISTA • AQVA • PRETIO

TVLERIT • ANATHEMA • SIT.

Qu’il est beau, dans l’esprit du moyen âge, cet anathème lancé contre celui qui aurait trafiqué de ce puteal par cela seul qu’il symbolisait l’eau de la grâce, qu’on n’eût pu vendre pour de l’argent sans se rendre coupable de simonie.

Le texte d’Ézéchiel, lu en ce jour (I, 10-14), décrit les symboles des quatre saints Évangiles qui, dictés par un même Esprit, reflètent en un quadruple rayon la lumière et la sagesse du Verbe éternel de Dieu. Quand l’œil humain, obscurci par le voile de l’infidélité et des passions, veut lire la sainte Écriture, il l’estime sans doute le livre le plus simple et le plus puéril qui se puisse imaginer. Au contraire, quand avec une humble foi, l’œil pur et fort du croyant se fixe sur ces pages sacrées, la vue demeure comme éblouie par cette lumière divine, et l’intellect créé, pénétrant les secrets de la Sagesse incréée, sent la vanité de tous les raisonnements humains. C’est à cet état de sublime ignorance que fut élevé saint Paul—et, après lui, beaucoup d’autres saints — et dont il déclare ne trouver dans le langage terrestre ni paroles ni concepts aptes à exprimer ce qu’il y a vu.

L’Évangile est le récit de la vocation et de la mission des soixante-douze disciples du Sauveur. Selon toute probabilité, Marc ne fut pas de ce nombre ; mais appelé plus tard à la suite du Seigneur, il accomplit lui aussi parfaitement les œuvres de l’apostolat.

Des historiens récents ont voulu voir dans les documents scripturaires quelque allusion au caractère un peu timide de saint Marc. Quand, au soir de l’arrestation de Jésus, le jeune Marc, éveillé en sursaut de son sommeil, sortit sur la route enveloppé simplement dans son ample drap de toile, on l’arrêta, et lui, tout effrayé, se débarrassa adroitement du drap et s’échappa nu des mains des soldats. Cet incident dut toutefois l’impressionner et influer sur son caractère craintif ; il était fait plutôt pour travailler docilement dans une position subordonnée que pour assumer la responsabilité des initiatives hardies. Élevé au sein d’une famille distinguée de Jérusalem, et ayant grandi au milieu des Apôtres, le jeune Marc accompagna son cousin Barnabé et saint Paul dans leur première mission apostolique en Pamphylie et finit par perdre courage à cause de la hardiesse audacieuse des deux missionnaires juifs qui, en terre païenne, traitaient librement avec les Gentils exécrés de la Thora, et leur donnaient part à l’héritage des fils d’Abraham. En cette circonstance, Marc sentit que son heure n’avait pas encore sonné pour ce service d’avant-garde, et, prenant congé des deux missionnaires, il retourna au port tranquille de Jérusalem. Cependant il portait le germe de la vocation à l’apostolat, et c’est pourquoi il ne se sentit point en repos dans la paisible demeure du Cénacle. Quelque temps après il voulut faire comme amende honorable de ce qu’il considérait comme une faiblesse et il proposa aux deux apôtres de les accompagner dans leur seconde mission. Mais cette fois, Paul, qui connaissait le caractère encore insuffisamment mûri de Marc, craignit que sa présence fût plutôt un obstacle qu’une aide pour la conversion des Grecs, et refusa de l’accepter ; c’est pourquoi il partit avec son cousin dans la direction de Salamine.

Quand enfin, en 61-62, Paul est prisonnier à Rome, nous retrouvons à ses côtés l’évangéliste Luc et Marc, qui, après une courte absence en Asie Mineure et à Colosses, grâce à la deuxième lettre adressée à Timothée, a été de nouveau appelé auprès de Paul, comme une personne mihi utilis in ministerium [2]. On voit que le désaccord momentané entre l’Apôtre, Barnabé et son cousin, n’avait laissé aucune trace dans ces âmes grandes et généreuses. Durant le voyage de Paul en Espagne, Marc demeura à Rome et servit d’interprète à Pierre, dont, à la demande des fidèles, il mit ensuite par écrit les catéchèses.

Après le martyre des deux Apôtres, une antique tradition rapporte que Marc alla à Alexandrie, où, au commencement du IVe siècle, on voyait son sépulcre.

La préface est celle qui est commune aux apôtres. Les manuscrits nous donnent toutefois le texte suivant : ... per Christum Dominum nostrun. Cuius gratia beatum Marcum in sacerdotium elegit, doctrina ad praedicandum erudit, potentia ad perseverandum confirmavit, ut per sacerdotalem infulam pervenerit ad martyrii paltnam ; docensque subditos, instruens vivendi exemplo, confirmans patiendo, ad Te coronandus perveniret, qui persecutorum minas intrepidus superasset. Cuius interventus, nos quaesumus, a nostris mundet delictis, qui tibi placuit tot donorum praerogativis. Per quem, etc.

Quand Dieu appelle, il ne faut pas reculer par crainte du péril et de la propre faiblesse. En ce cas, la grâce recouvre les défauts de la nature, comme il advint pour saint Marc. Son caractère était naturellement timide, et il eut un premier moment de défiance, mais la grâce finit par prendre sur lui l’avantage, si bien qu’il devint l’« interprète » de Pierre, l’Évangéliste glorieux, l’apôtre de l’Égypte et le fondateur du trône des patriarches d’Alexandrie, héritiers chrétiens de la puissance des anciens Pharaons.

Les vers du pape Grégoire IV, sous la mosaïque absidale du titulus Marci in Pallacine ne sont pas sans intérêt :

VASTA • THOLI • PRIMO • SISTVNT • FVNDAMINE • FVLCRA

QVAE • SALOMONIACO • FVLGENT • SVB • SIDERA • RITV

HAEC • TIBI • PROQVE • TVO • PERFECIT • PRAESVL • HONORE

GREGORII • MARGE • EXIMIO • CVM • NOMINE • QVARTVS

TV • QVOQVE • POSCE • DEVM • VIVENDI - TEMPORA • LONGA

DONET • ET • AD • CAELI • POST • FVNVS • SYDERA • DVCAT

La voûte de l’abside s’élève sur un solide fondement ;

Comme le temple de Salomon, elle resplendit, irradiée par le soleil.

En ton honneur, ô évêque Marc, il éleva cette voûte

Celui qui, le quatrième, porte l’illustre nom de Grégoire.

A ton tour, demande pour lui à Dieu une longue vie

Et, après sa mort, le royaume céleste.

Donc au IXe siècle, ce temple continuait à être dédié, non à l’Évangéliste d’Alexandrie, mais au MARCVS PRAESVL, c’est-à-dire au Pape qui avait fondé le Titre de Pallacines et qui y était enseveli.

[2] II Timot., IV, 11.

SOURCE : http://www.introibo.fr/25-04-St-Marc-evangeliste

Apostel Markus, Abbildung 21 aus dem Lorscher Evangeliar, auch als Codex Aureus Laureshamensis bekannt, vermutlich in der Hofschule Karls des Großen entstanden.

Mark the Evangelist, image 21 of the Codex Aureus of Lorsch or Lorsch Gospels, presumably written in the scriptorium of the Lorsch Abbey (Hofschule Karls des Großen), Germany.

Bhx Cardinal Schuster, Liber Sacramentorum

L’Église a donné un rang élevé à la fête de ce saint parce qu’il est l’auteur du second évangile. Saint Marc nous a fait un présent dont nous devons lui être toujours reconnaissants. — Jean Marc, appelé plus tard simplement Marc, l’auteur du second évangile, était Juif de naissance. Sa mère s’appelait Marie (Act. Ap., XII, 12). Marie était la propriétaire du Cénacle, la salle de la Cène, qui fut le lieu de réunion de l’Église naissante de Jérusalem. Au moment de la mort du Seigneur, Marc n’était encore qu’un jeune homme. Il semble que le jeune homme qui assistait à l’arrestation de Jésus et qui échappa aux gardes en laissant son manteau entre leurs mains (Marc XIV, 31) n’était autre que Marc. « Le peintre a placé son monogramme dans un coin sombre du tableau ». Dans les années suivantes, le jeune homme, qui devenait un homme, aura suivi, dans la maison de sa mère ; la croissance de la jeune Église, il aura recueilli toutes les traditions qu’il sut utiliser dans la rédaction de son évangile. Plus tard, nous voyons Marc accompagner Barnabé qui était son cousin, ainsi que Paul, à Antioche et, peu de temps après, dans le premier voyage de mission (Act. Ap., XI, 3 ; XII, 25 ; XII, 5). Mais il n’était pas de taille à supporter les fatigues d’un tel voyage ; à Pergé, en Pamphilie, il quitta ses compagnons et s’en revint. Quand les deux Apôtres entreprirent leur second voyage, Barnabé voulut emmener son cousin. Paul s’y refusa et renonça à la compagnie de Barnabé. Barnabé s’en alla avec Marc évangéliser Chypre. Plus tard, les relations entre Paul et Marc devinrent plus intimes. Dans sa première captivité romaine (61-63), Marc lui rendit de grands services (Col. IV, 10 ; Philem. 24), et l’Apôtre se mit à l’apprécier. Dans sa seconde captivité, il le réclama (II Tim., IV, II). Marc eut des relations particulièrement amicales avec saint Pierre ; il fut son disciple, son compagnon, son interprète. D’après la tradition unanime des Pères, il était présent à Rome pendant la prédication de Pierre, et c’est sous l’influence du prince des Apôtres qu’il composa son évangile. Aussi les passages où il est question de Pierre sont très développés (par ex. le grand jour de Capharnaüm I, 14 sq.). Sur ce qui concerne la fin de la vie de Marc, on a peu de renseignements. Il est certain qu’il fut évêque d’Alexandrie, en Égypte, et y subit le martyre. Ses reliques furent transportées d’Alexandrie à Venise où elles ont trouvé, dans la cathédrale de Saint-Marc, un magnifique tombeau.

L’évangile de saint Marc est, il est vrai, le plus court des quatre et est assez peu utilisé dans la liturgie. Cependant il a aussi ses avantages. C’est avant tout l’évangile romain. Il a été composé à Rome et est adressé à la chrétienté romaine ou, pour mieux dire, à la chrétienté occidentale. Un autre avantage, c’est qu’il expose la vie du Seigneur dans l’ordre chronologique et il est bien certain que nous tenons à connaître les événements de la vie du Seigneur dans leur succession historique. En outre, Marc est un miniaturiste. Souvent, d’un mot, d’une addition, il donne à une scène déjà connue une nouvelle lumière. Cet évangile est l’évangile de Pierre. Il est certain qu’il a été rédigé avec la collaboration et sous la surveillance du prince des Apôtres. « L’évangéliste Marc a comme symbole le lion parce qu’il commence par le désert : Voix de celui qui crie dans le désert : Préparez les voies du Seigneur ; ou bien parce que le Seigneur règne comme un Roi invincible » (c’est ce que l’évêque explique aux catéchumènes le mercredi après le quatrième dimanche de Carême).

La messe (Protexisti.) — La messe est composée de parties du commun des martyrs au temps pascal et de parties du commun des évangélistes. A l’Introït, nous entendons le saint martyr chanter son cantique d’action de grâces : « Dieu m’a protégé dans le martyre ». Le psaume 63 chante sa victoire sur ses ennemis. La leçon et l’Évangile sont choisis en considération de l’évangéliste et du disciple. Ézéchiel voit les quatre Chérubins sous quatre aspects différents. Cette quadruple forme est interprétée par les saints Pères comme le symbole des quatre évangélistes ; Marc a le symbole du lion. L’Évangile raconte l’envoi des 72 disciples. Le Seigneur recommande à tous ses disciples — et nous le sommes, nous aussi — de restreindre leurs besoins et d’avoir le zèle des âmes.

SOURCE : http://www.introibo.fr/25-04-St-Marc-evangeliste

Dom Pius Parsch, le Guide dans l’année liturgique

[1] Suite de l’Homélie : A chacun d’eux appartiennent donc les quatre faces. Voulez-vous, en effet, savoir ce que pense saint Matthieu du mystère de l’Incarnation du Verbe ? Il a sur ce point la même doctrine que saint Marc, saint Luc et saint Jean. Voulez-vous savoir ce qu’en pense saint Jean ? Il n’a pas d’autre sentiment à cet égard que saint Luc, saint Marc et saint Matthieu. Cherchez-vous ce qu’en pense saint Marc ? C’est aussi ce qu’en pensent saint Matthieu, saint Jean et saint Luc. Voulez-vous enfin connaître sur cette question le sentiment de saint Luc ? C’est le même encore que celui de saint Jean, de saint Matthieu et de saint Marc. Les quatre faces appartiennent donc bien réellement a chacun d’eux, car la notion de la foi par laquelle Dieu les connaît est, dans chacun pris isolément, la même que dans les quatre réunis. Ce que vous trouvez dans l’un d’eux, vous le voyez également dans tous les quatre. « Et chacun d’eux avait quatre ailes. » Tous, d’un commun accord, annoncent le Fils de Dieu tout-puissant, Jésus-Christ notre Seigneur, et tenant les yeux de l’âme levés vers sa divinité, ils volent sur les ailes de la contemplation. Les faces des quatre Évangélistes ont donc rapport à la sainte humanité du Sauveur, et leurs ailes à sa divinité. Quand ils le considèrent revêtu d’un corps, ils tournent en quelque sorte leurs faces vers lui, et quand ils proclament qu’il est, en tant que Dieu, l’Être infini et incorporel, ils s’élèvent, pour ainsi dire dans les airs, sur les ailes de la contemplation. Comme ils ont tous une même foi en son Incarnation, et que les uns et les autres ont aussi le privilège de contempler sa divinité, il est juste de dire : « Chacun d’eux avait quatre faces, et chacun d’eux quatre ailes. »

SOURCE : http://www.introibo.fr/25-04-St-Marc-evangeliste

Vrcholek střechy baziliky svatého Marka v Benátkách. Patron Benátek svatý Marek je zde obklopen anděly a níže je okřídlený drak, maskot Benátek

Detail of the rooftop of San Marco cathedral in Venice, Italy. Venice patron Saint, St. Mark with angels. Underneath is winged lion, mascot of Venice.

Détail du toit de la basilique Saint-Marc à Venise en Italie. On peut voir sur cette photo Saint Marc, patron de Venise, et un lion ailé, emblème de la ville.

Detajl sa krova crkve Svetog Marka u Veneciji, Italija. Sv. Marko je zavetnik Venecije, a krilati lav maskota grada.

SAINT MARC, ÉVANGÉLISTE*

Marc veut dire sublime en commandement, certain, abaissé et amer. Il fut sublime en commandement par la perfection de sa vie, car non seulement, il observa les commandements qui sont communs à tous, mais encore ceux qui sont sublimes, tels que les conseils. Il fut certain en raison de la certitude de la doctrine dans son évangile, parce que cette certitude a pour garant saint Pierre, son maître, de qui il l’avait appris. Il fut abaissé, en raison de sa profonde humilité, qui lui fit, dit-on, se couper le pouce, afin de ne pas être trouvé capable d'être prêtre. Il fut amer en raison de l’amertume du tourment qu'il endura lorsqu'il fut traîné par la ville, et, qu'il rendit l’esprit au milieu des supplices. Ou bien Marc vient de Marco, qui est une masse, dont le même coup aplatit le fer, produit la mélodie, et affermit l’enclume. De même saint Marc, par l’unique doctrine de son évangile, dompte la perfidie des hérétiques, dilate la louange divine et affermit l’Eglise.

Marc, évangéliste, prêtre de la tribu de Lévi, fut, par le baptême, le fils de saint Pierre, apôtre, dont, il était le disciple en la parole divine. Il alla à Rome avec ce saint. Comme celui-ci v prêchait la bonne nouvelle, les fidèles de Rome prièrent saint Marc de vouloir écrire l’Evangile, pour l’avoir toujours présent à la mémoire. Il le leur écrivit loyalement, tel qu'il l’avait appris de la bouché de son maître saint Pierre, qui l’examina avec soin, et après avoir vu qu'il était plein de vérité, il l’approuva et le jugea digne d'être reçu par tous les fidèles (Saint Jérôme, Vir. illustr., c. VIII; — Clément d'Alexandrie, dans Eusèbe, l. II, c. XV). Saint Pierre, considérant que Marc était constant dans la foi, le destina pour Aquilée, où après avoir prêché la parole de Dieu, il convertit des multitudes innombrables de gentils à J.-C. On dit que là aussi, il écrivit son évangile que l’on montre encore à présent dans l’église d'Aquilée, où on le garde avec grand respect. Enfin saint Marc conduisit à Rome, auprès de saint Pierre, nu citoyen d'Aquilée, nommé Ermagoras, qu'il avait converti à la foi afin que l’apôtre le consacrât évêque d'Aquilée. Ermagoras, après avoir reçu la charge du pontificat, gouverna avec zèle cette église : il fut pris ensuite par les infidèles et reçut la couronne du martyre. Pour saint Marc, il fut envoyé par saint Pierre à Alexandrie, où il prêcha le premier la parole de Dieu (Eusèbe, c. XVI ; Epiphan., LI, c. VI; saint Jér., ibid.). A son entrée dans cette ville, au rapport de Philon, juif très disert, il se forma une assemblée immense qui reçut la foi et pratiqua la dévotion et la continence. Papias, évêque de Jérusalem, fait de lui le plus grand éloge en très beau langage ; et voici ce que Pierre Damien dit à son sujet : « Il jouit d'une si grande influence à Alexandrie, que tous ceux qui venaient en foule pour être instruits dans la foi, atteignirent bientôt au sommet de la perfection, par la pratique de la continence; et de toutes sortes de bonnes oeuvres, en sorte que l’on eût dit une communauté de moines. On devait ce résultat moins aux miracles extraordinaires de saint Marc et à l’éloquence de ses prédications, qu'à ses exemples éminents. » Le même Pierre Damien ajoute qu'après sa mort, son corps fut ramené en Italie, afin que la terre où il lui avait été donné d'écrire son Evangile, eût l’honneur de posséder ses dépouilles sacrées. « Tu es heureuse, ô Alexandrie, d'avoir été arrosée de son sang glorieux, comme toi, en Italie, tu ne l’es pas moins de posséder un si rare trésor. »

On rapporte que saint Marc fut doué d'une si grande Humilité qu'il se coupa le pouce afin que l’on ne songeât pas à l’ordonner prêtre (Isidore de Sév., Vies et morts illustres, ch. LIV). Mais par une disposition de Dieu et par l’autorité de saint Pierre, il fut choisi pour évêque d'Alexandrie: A son entrée dans cette ville, sa chaussure se rompit et se déchira subitement; il comprit intérieurement ce que cela signifiait, et dit : « Vraiment, le Seigneur a raccourci mon chemin, et Satan ne sera pas un obstacle pour moi, puisque le Seigneur m’a absous des oeuvres de mort. » Or, Marc voyant un savetier qui cousait de vieilles chaussures, lui donna la sienne à raccommoder : mais en le faisant, l’ouvrier se blessa grièvement à la main gauche, et se mit à crier : « Unique Dieu. » En l’entendant, l’homme de Dieu dit : « Vraiment le Seigneur a rendu mon voyage heureux. » Alors il fit de la boue avec sa salive et de la terre, l’appliqua sur la main du savetier qui fut incontinent guéri. Cet homme, voyant le pouvoir extraordinaire de Marc, le fit entrer chez lui et lui demanda qui il était, et d'où il venait. Marc lui avoua être le serviteur du Seigneur Jésus.

L'autre lui dit : « Je voudrais bien le voir. » Je te le montrerai, lui répondit saint Marc. » Il se mit alors à lui annoncer l’Evangile de J.-C. et le baptisa avec tous ceux de sa maison. Les habitants de la ville ayant appris l’arrivée d'un Galiléen, qui méprisait les sacrifices de leurs dieux, lui tendirent des pièges. Saint Marc, en ayant été instruit, ordonna évêque Anianus, cet homme-là même qu'il avait guéri (Actes de saint Marc), et partit pour la Pentapole, où il resta deux ans, après lesquels il revint à Alexandrie. Il y avait fait élever une église sur les rochers qui bordent la mer, dans un lieu appelé Bucculi (Probablement: l’abattoir) ; il y trouva le nombre des chrétiens augmenté. Or, les prêtres des temples cherchèrent à le prendre; et le jour de Pâques, comme saint Marc célébrait la- messe, ils s'assemblèrent tous au lieu où était le saint, lui attachèrent une corde au cou et le traînèrent par toute la ville en disant : « Traînons le buffle au Bucculi (A l’abattoir). » Sa chair et son sang étaient épars sur la terre et couvraient les pierres, ensuite il fut, enfermé dans une prison où un ange le fortifia. Le Seigneur J.-C. lui-même daigna le visiter et lui dit pour, le conforter : « La paix soit avec toi, Marc, mon évangéliste; ne crains rien car je suis avec toi pour te délivrer. » Le matin arrivé, ils lui jettent encore une fois une corde au cou, et le traînent çà et là en criant : « Traînez le buffle au Bucculi. » Au milieu de ce supplice, Marc rendait grâces à Dieu en disant : « Je remets mon esprit entre vos mains. » Et en prononçant ces mots, il expira. C'était sous Néron, vers l’an 57. Comme les païens le voulaient brûler, soudain, l’air se trouble, une grêle s'annonce, les tonnerres grondent, les éclairs brillent, tout le monde s'empressa de fuir, et le corps du saint reste intact. Les chrétiens le prirent et l’ensevelirent dans l’église en toute révérence. Voici le portrait de saint Marc (Un ms. de la Bibliothèque de Saint-Victor, coté 28 et cité par Ducange donne en ces termes le portrait du saint : « La forme de saint Marc fu tele, lonc nés, sourciz yautis, biaus par iex, les cheveux cercelés, longe barbe, de très bele composition de cors, de moien eaige » Gloss. ° Eagium) : Il avait le nez long, les sourcils abaissés, les yeux beaux, le front un, peu chauve, la barbe épaisse. Il était de belles manières, d'un âge moyen ; ses cheveux commençaient à blanchir, il était affectueux, plein de mesure et rempli de la grâce de Dieu. Saint Ambroise dit de lui : « Comme le bienheureux Marc brillait par des miracles sans nombre, il arriva qu'un cordonnier auquel il avait donné sa chaussure à raccommoder, se perça la main gauche dans son travail, et en se faisant la blessure, il cria: « Un Dieu! » Le serviteur de Dieu fut tout joyeux de l’entendre : il prit de la boue qu'il fit avec sa salive, en oignit la main de l’ouvrier qu'il guérit à l’instant et avec laquelle cet homme put continuer son travail. Comme le Sauveur il guérit aussi un aveugle-né. »

L'an de l’Incarnation du Seigneur 468, du temps de l’empereur Léon, des Vénitiens transportèrent le corps de saint Marc, d'Alexandrie à Venise, où fut élevée, en l’honneur du saint, une église d'une merveilleuse beauté. Des marchands vénitiens, étant allés à Alexandrie; firent tant par dons et par promesses auprès de deux prêtres, gardiens du corps de saint Marc, que ceux-ci le laissèrent enlever en cachette et emporter à Venise. Mais comme on levait le corps du tombeau, une odeur si pénétrante se répandit dans Alexandrie que tout le,monde s'émerveillait d'où pouvait venir une pareille suavité. Or; comme les marchands étaient en pleine mer, ils découvrirent aux navires qui allaient de conserve avec eux qu'ils portaient le corps de saint Marc; un des gens dit : « C'est probablement le corps de quelque Egyptien que l’on vous a donné, et vous pensez emporter le corps de saint Marc. » Aussitôt le navire qui portait le corps de saint Marc vira de bord avec une merveilleuse célérité et se heurtant contre le navire où se trouvait celui qui venait de parler, il en brisa un côté. Il ne s'éloigna point avant que tous ceux qui le montaient n'eussent acclamé qu'ils croyaient que le corps de saint Marc s'y trouvât.

Une nuit, les navires étaient emportés par un courant très rapide, et les nautoniers; ballottés par la tempête et enveloppés de ténèbres, ne savaient où ils allaient; saint Marc apparut au moine gardien de son corps, et lui dit : « Dis à tout ce monde de carguer vite les voiles, car ils ne sont pas loin de la terre. » Et on les cargua. Quand le matin fut venu, on se trouvait vis-à-vis une île. Or, comme on longeait divers rivages, et qu'on cachait à tous le saint trésor, des habitants vinrent et crièrent : « Oh! que vous êtes heureux, vous qui portez le corps de saint Marc ! Permettez que nous lui rendions nos profonds hommages.» Un matelot encore tout à fait incrédule est saisi par le démon et vexé jusqu'au moment où, amené auprès du corps, il avoua qu'il croyait que c'était celui de saint Marc. Après avoir été délivré, il rendit gloire à Dieu et eut par la suite une grande dévotion au saint. Il arriva que, pour conserver avec plus de précaution le corps de saint Marc, on le déposa au bas d'une colonne de marbre, en présence d'un petit nombre de personnes; mais par le cours du temps, les témoins étant morts, personne ne pouvait savoir, ni reconnaître, à aucun indice, l’endroit où était le saint trésor. Il y eut des pleurs dans le clergé, une grande désolation chez les laïcs, et un chagrin profond dans tous. La peur de ce peuple dévot était en effet qu'un patron si recommandable n'eût été enlevé furtivement. Alors on indique un jeûne solennel, on ordonne une procession plus solennelle. encore ; mais voici que, sous les veux et à la surprise de tout le monde, les pierres se détachent de la colonne et laissent voir à découvert la châsse où le corps était caché. A l’instant on rend des actions de grâces au Créateur quia daigné révéler le saint patron ; et ce jour, illustré par la gloire d'un si grand prodige, fut fêté dans la suite des temps (Au 23 juin).

Un jeune homme, tourmenté par un cancer dont les vers lui rongeaient la poitrine, se mit à implorer d'un coeur dévoué les suffrages de saint Marc; et voici que, dans son sommeil, un homme en habit de pèlerin lui apparut se hâtant dans sa marche. Interrogé par lui qui il était et où il allait en marchant si vite, il lui répondit qu'il était saint Marc, qu'il courait porter secours à un navire en péril qui l’invoquait. Alors il étendit la main, en toucha le malade qui, à son réveille matin, se sentit complètement guéri. Un instant après le navire entra dans le port de Venise et ceux qui le montaient racontèrent le péril dans lequel ils s'étaient trouvés et comme saint Marc leur était venu en aide. On rendit grâces pour ces deux miracles et Dieu fut proclamé admirable dans Marc, son saint.

Des marchands de Venise qui allaient à Alexandrie sur un vaisseau sarrasin, se voyant dans un péril imminent, se jettent dans une chaloupe, coupent la corde, et aussitôt le navire est englouti dans les flots qui enveloppent tous les Sarrasins. L'un d'eux invoqua saint Marc et fit comme il put, voeu de recevoir le baptême et de visiter son église, s'il lui prêtait secours. A l’instant, un personnage éclatant lui apparut, l’arracha des flots et le mit avec les autres ans la chaloupe. Arrivé à Alexandrie, il fut ingrat envers son libérateur et ne se pressa ni d'aller à l’église de saint Marc, ni de recevoir les sacrements de notre foi. De rechef saint Marc lui apparut et lui reprocha son ingratitude. Il rentra donc en lui-même, vint à Venise, et régénéré dans les fonts sacrés du baptême, il reçut le nom de Marc. Sa foi en J.-C. fut parfaite et il finit sa vie dans les bonnes oeuvres. — Un homme qui travaillait au haut du campanile de saint Marc de Venise, tombe tout à coup à l’improviste; ses membres sont déchirés par lambeaux; mais, dans sa chute, il se rappelle saint Marc, et implore son patronage alors il rencontre une poutre qui le retient. On lui donne une corde et il s'en relève sans blessure; il remonte ensuite à son travail avec dévotion pour le terminer. — Un esclave au service d'un noble habitant de la Provence, avait fait voeu de visiter le corps de saint Marc; mais il n'en pouvait obtenir la permission : enfin il tint moins de compte de la peur, de son maître temporel que de son maître céleste. Sans prendre congé, il partit avec dévotion pour accomplir son voeu. A son retour, le maître, qui était fâché, ordonna de lui arracher les yeux. Cet homme cruel fut favorisé dans son dessein par des hommes plus cruels encore qui jettent, par terre, le serviteur de Dieu, lequel invoquait saint Marc, et s'approchent avec des poinçons pour lui crever les yeux : les efforts qu'ils tentent sont inutiles, car le fer se rebroussait et se cassait tout d'un coup. Il ordonne donc que ses jambes soient rompues et ses pieds coupés à coups de haches, mais le fer qui est dur de sa nature s'amollit comme le plomb. Il ordonne qu'on lui brise la figuré et les dents avec des maillets de fer; le fer perd sa force et s'émousse par la puissance de Dieu. A cette vue son maître stupéfait demanda pardon et alla avec son esclave visiter en grande dévotion le tombeau de saint Marc. — Un soldat reçut au bras dans une bataille une blessure telle que sa main restait pendante. Les médecins et ses amis lui conseillaient de la faire amputer; mais ce soldat qui était preux, honteux d'être manchot, se fit remettre la main à sa place et l’assujettit avec des bandeaux sans aucun médicament. Il invoqua les suffrages de saint Marc et sa main fut guérie aussitôt : il n'y resta qu'une cicatrice qui fut un témoignage d'un si grand miracle et un monument d'un pareil bienfait. — Un homme de la ville de Mantoue, faussement accusé par des envieux, fut mis en une prison, où, après être resté 40 jours dans le plus grand ennui, il se mortifia par un jeûne de trois jours en invoquant le patronage de saint Marc. Ce saint lui apparaît et lui commande de sortir avec confiance de sa prison. Cet homme, que l’ennui avait endormi, ne se mit pas en peine d'obéir aux ordres du saint, tout en se croyant le jouet d'une illusion. Il eut une seconde et une troisième apparition du saint qui lui renouvela les mêmes ordres. Revenu à soi, et voyant la porte ouverte, il sortit avec confiance de la prison et brisa ses entraves comme si c'eût été des liens d'étoupes. Il marchait donc en plein jour au milieu des gardes et des autres personnes présentes, sans être vu, tandis que lui voyait tout le monde. Il vint au tombeau de saint Marc pour s'acquitter dévotement de sa dette de remerciements.

L'Apulie entière était en proie à la stérilité, et pas une goutte de pluie n'arrosait cette terre. Alors il fut révélé que c'était un châtiment de ce qu'on ne célébrait pas la fête de saint Marc. Donc on invoqua ce saint et on promit de fêter avec solennité le jour de sa fête. Le saint fit cesser la stérilité et renaître l’abondance en donnant un air pur et une pluie convenable. — Environ l’an 1212, il y avait à Pavie, dans le, couvent des Frères Prêcheurs, un frère de sainte et religieuse vie, nommé Julien, originaire de Faënza, jeune de corps, mais vieux d'esprit; dans sa dernière maladie il s'inquiéta de sa position auprès du prieur, qui lui répondit que sa mort était prochaine. Aussitôt la figure du malade devint resplendissante de, joie et il se mit à crier en applaudissant des mains et de tousses membres : « Faites place, mes frères, car ce sera dans un excès d'allégresse que mon âme va sortir de mon corps, depuis que j'ai entendu d'agréables nouvelles. » Et en élevant les mains- au ciel, il se mit à dire : « Educ de custodia animam meam, etc. Seigneur, tirez mon âme de sa prison. Malheureux homme que je suis! qui me délivrera de ce corps de mort? » Il s'endormit alors d'un léger sommeil, et vit venir à lui saint Marc qui se plaça à côté de son lit : et une voix qui s'adressait au saint, lui dit : « Que faites-vous, ici, ô Marc? » Celui-ci répondit : « Je suis venu trouver ce mourant, parce que son ministère a été agréable à Dieu. » La voix se fit encore entendre : « Comment se fait-il que de tous les saints, ce soit vous de préférence qui soyez venu à lui? » «C'est, répondit-il, parce qu'il a eu pour moi une dévotion spéciale et qu'il a visité avec une dévotion toute particulière le lieu où repose mon corps. C'est donc pour cela que je suis venu le visiter à l’heure de sa mort. » Et voici que des hommes couverts d'aubes blanches remplirent toute la maison. Saint Marc leur dit : « Que venez-vous faire ici ? » « Nous venons, répondirent-ils, pour présenter l’âme de ce religieux devant le Seigneur. » A son réveil, ce frère envoya chercher aussitôt le prieur qui m’a lui-même raconté ces faits, et lui rendant compte de tout ce qu'il avait vu, il s'endormit heureusement et en grande joie dans le Seigneur **.

* Ordéric Vital raconte (Hist. Eccl., part. I, liv. II, c. XX) chacun des faits consignés dans la légende de saint Marc.

** La traduction française de M. Jehan Batallier intercale ici un miracle que le texte latin ne fournit pas, et que nous copions :

« Si côe ung autre chevalier chevauchoist tout arme dessus un pont, le cheval cheut sur le pont, et le chevalier cheut, ou parfont de leaue en bas. Et si côme il vit qu'il nistroit iamais de la par force ppre, il reclama le benoit Marc : et le sainct luy tendit une lance et le mist hors de leaue et doncqs il vît a Venise et racôta le miracle et acôplit son voeu devotemêt. »

La Légende dorée de Jacques de Voragine nouvellement traduite en français avec introduction, notices, notes et recherches sur les sources par l'abbé J.-B. M. Roze, chanoine honoraire de la Cathédrale d'Amiens, Édouard Rouveyre, éditeur, 76, rue de Seine, 76, Paris mdcccci

SOURCE : http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/voragine/tome01/061.htm

Gioacchino Assereto  (1600–1649). Saint Marc Évangéliste, vers 1640,

95 x 71, Toulouse, Musée des Augustins

Qui était Marc ?

L’Évangile ne fournit aucune indication directe sur son identité. C’est pourquoi certains spécialistes renoncent à toute tentative d’identification. Selon la tradition, il s’agit de « Jean surnommé Marc » connu par les Actes des Apôtres. Marc n’a pas connu Jésus mais fait partie des premiers convertis au christianisme. Il est emmené par Paul et Barnabé lors du premier voyage missionnaire. Plus tard, Marc fut auprès de l’Apôtre Paul. On sait, selon la tradition, qu’il a également été l’interprète de Pierre. « Il a dû rejoindre Pierre à Rome », raconte Frère Claude Coulot, exégète et professeur émérite à la faculté de théologie catholique de l’université de Strasbourg.

Le franciscain s’appuie sur le livre L’Explication des paroles du Seigneur de Papias d’Hiérapolis : « Marc qui était l’interprète de Pierre a écrit avec exactitude tout ce dont il se souvenait de ce qui avait été dit ou fait par le Seigneur. Car il n’avait pas entendu, ni accompagné le Seigneur mais plus tard, il a accompagné Pierre. Celui-ci donnait ses informations sans faire une synthèse des paroles du Seigneur. De la sorte, Marc n’a pas commis d’erreur en écrivant comme il se souvenait. Mais il n’a eu en effet qu’un seul dessein, celui de ne rien laisser de côté de ce qu’il avait entendu et de ne tromper en rien en ce qu’il rapportait. » Selon la tradition, Marc serait mort martyr en 68 mais on ne connaît pas sa date de naissance. L’animal qui le symbolise est le lion ailé qui représente le courage et l’élévation.

Quand a-t-il écrit l’Évangile ?

L’Évangile selon Saint Marc est, de l’avis des experts, le premier en date. Il aurait été écrit vers 65. Claude Coulot soutient la théorie des deux sources « qui veut que Marc soit une des sources des évangiles de Matthieu et de Luc écrites entre dix et quinze ans plus tard ». La tradition donne Rome comme lieu de composition de l’écriture. Marc y aurait séjourné auprès de Paul et de Pierre. « L’étude du texte qui mentionne des circonstances de la vie, traduction de paroles araméennes, emploi de mots latins, usage de monnaies romaines, explication de coutumes juives, permet de justifier une telle hypothèse », indique Claude Coulot.

Comment se démarque-t-il des autres Évangiles ?

La place accordée aux disciples est l’une des particularités de l’Évangile selon saint Marc. « Marc est l’évangéliste qui présente le plus souvent dans ses récits les disciples aux côtés de Jésus, confirme Frère Claude Coulot. Il y a toute une réflexion sur la condition de disciple dans l’Évangile de Marc, le fait de s’engager à la suite de Jésus. » Mais il soulève un paradoxe : « Les disciples manifestent toutefois vis-à-vis du maître une profonde incompréhension. Ainsi Jésus s’étonne de ce qu’ils ne comprennent pas la parabole du semeur (Mc 4, 13). Il est surpris de leur manque de foi (Mc 4, 40). Ils ne reconnaissent pas Jésus qui marche sur les eaux et le prennent pour un fantôme (Mc 6, 45-52). Jésus leur reproche de nouveau leur incompréhension après la seconde multiplication des pains (Mc 8, 14-21). Les disciples sont des personnes qui ont du mal à comprendre ce que dit Jésus ! Il doit tout expliquer… Il est alors aisé de percevoir que derrière les figures des disciples se profilent celles des chrétiens. »

Dans la première partie de l’Évangile, on voit Jésus avec la foule faire des miracles, puis enseigner ses paraboles dont l’explication est donnée uniquement aux disciples. Dans la seconde partie, les disciples n’arrivent pas à comprendre le chemin que Jésus doit prendre, et qu’ils devront prendre à sa suite. Pour Marc, tout n’est pas achevé avec la résurrection de Jésus, tout commence.

Autre élément distinctif dans l’Évangile selon saint Marc, le thème de la Passion. Il occupe 50 % du texte de Marc et seulement 20 % du texte de Luc. Marc se concentre sur la narration : à la vie du Christ, à sa personne. Ce sont les deux autres synoptiques, Matthieu et Luc, qui nous transmettent la majeure partie des enseignements du Christ. Marc, lui, veut surtout montrer comment Jésus, le Ressuscité, a dû lors de son ministère faire face à une opposition grandissante des autorités juives qui l’ont fait arrêter et condamner à mort par les autorités romaines.

En quoi est-il encore moderne aujourd’hui ?

Marc a reçu davantage de crédit à partir du XXe siècle. L’écriture est simple, les récits sont généralement brefs et en même temps imagés. De ce fait, il est sans doute plus accessible. L’écrivain roumain Petru Dumitriu, auteur du livre Comment ne pas l’aimer ! Une lecture de l’Évangile selon saint Marc (Cerf, 1997), le désigne comme étant le plus grand reporter depuis l’antiquité.

Marc est l’évangéliste de l’homme moderne : « À travers son texte, d’une brièveté, d’une simplicité extrême, mais génial d’expressivité, nous percevons le Christ, nous vivons auprès de lui. C’est pourquoi j’ose affirmer que, dans le monde moderne, désemparé, déchristianisé, irréligieux, Marc est la porte d’accès aux Évangiles. Il est le modeste introducteur à la personne et au message du Christ. » Et d’ajouter : « Marc n’est pas poète comme Jean, n’écrit pas en grec élégant comme Matthieu. Il commet des fautes de grec, des sémitismes et, curieusement, des latinismes (…). Il a le côté terre à terre, pourrait-on dire, qui est comme fait exprès pour faciliter à l’homme d’aujourd’hui l’accès à l’ensemble des Évangiles. »

De son côté, le franciscain Claude Coulot souligne l’importance du travail théologique chez Marc : « Il ne fait pas une biographie systématique de Jésus, mais développe une thèse de théologie. » Marc essaye de faire comprendre à des chrétiens comment celui qui se disait le fils de Dieu a pu être crucifié. La croix étant le supplice le plus honteux qui existait dans l’Antiquité, prêcher cela n’était pas évident. « C’est en cela que je dis que Marc est un théologien, indique-t-il. Marc n’entend pas relater les événements de la vie de Jésus tels qu’ils se sont passés et dans l’ordre selon lesquels ils se seraient passés. En revanche, il reprend les faits et gestes de la vie de Jésus puis les regroupe en parabole afin de faire réfléchir les chrétiens sur l’identité de Jésus. »

Conseil de lecture :

L’Évangile selon Marc de Camille Focant, Éd. du Cerf, coll. Commentaire biblique, Nouveau testament (n°2), 672 p., 56 €

Camille Focant, professeur émérite de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain, est l’auteur d’un ouvrage de référence concernant l’Évangile selon Marc. Pour l’auteur, Marc symbolise « le point d’interrogation » quand Matthieu est davantage dans l’affirmation. « Marc interroge régulièrement son lecteur, souligne Camille Focant. Cela peut expliquer son succès dans notre époque moderne où les gens se posent beaucoup de questions. Entrer dans le monde nouveau ne peut se faire sans être bousculé ! » Jésus est déroutant pour les autorités religieuses qui s’opposent à lui, mais aussi pour ses disciples qui glissent de l’étonnement à l’opposition, tout en restant à sa suite.

Cet Évangile recourt fréquemment aux paradoxes ou aux contradictions apparentes : par exemple, entre le Jésus de la transfiguration « Celui-ci est mon fils bien aimé, écoutez-le ! » et le Jésus de la Croix qui dit « Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi tu m’as abandonné ». Les disciples sont séduits par le personnage de Jésus mais vont manifester sans cesse de l’incompréhension, notamment « lorsqu’il leur annonce que le fils de l’homme devra souffrir ». Pierre s’indigne en lui disant que cela ne peut pas lui arriver. « Pour Pierre, celui qui a reçu l’onction de Dieu ne peut être crucifié, indique Camille Focant. Quelqu’un qui vient de Dieu n’a pas un destin de ce type ! Jésus réagit en disant : “Arrière Satan, tes pensées ne sont pas celles de Dieu.” »

HUGUES-OLIVIER DUMEZ

SOURCE : http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Spiritualite/Saint-Marc-l-evangeliste-reporter-_NP_-2012-04-20-797058

Pasquale Ottino San Marcos escribe sus Evangelios al dictado de San Pedro Musée des Beaux-Arts, Bordeaux

Attributed to Pasquale Ottini  (1578–1630), St. Mark writes his Gospel at the dictation of St. Peter, 243 x 169, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Bordeaux

Saint Mark the Evangelist

Also known as

John Mark

Memorial

25 April

Profile

Believed to be the young man who ran away when Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:51-52), and the “John whose other name was Mark” (Acts 12:25). Disciple of Saint Peter the Apostle who travelled with him to Rome, and was referred to as “my son Mark” by the first Pope. Travelled with his cousin Saint Barnabas, and with Saint Paul through Cyprus. Evangelized in Alexandria, Egypt, established the Church there, served as its first bishop, and founded the first famous Christian school. Author of the earliest canonical Gospel.

Died

martyred 25 April 68 at Alexandria, Egypt

relics at Venice, Italy

Canonized

Pre-Congregation

Name Meaning

God is gracious; gift of God (John)

Patronage

against impenitence

against insect bites

against scrofulous diseases

against struma

struma patients

attorneys

barristers

captives

cobblers, shoemakers

imprisoned people

glaziers

lawyers

lions

notaries

pharmacists

prisoners

secretaries

stained glass workers

tanners

Egypt

Arezzo-Cortona-Sansepolcro, Italy, diocese of

Cortona, Italy, diocese of

Foggia-Bovino, Italy, archdiocese of

Infanta, Philippines, prelature of

San Marcos de Arica, Chile, diocese of

Venice, Florida, diocese of

Ionian Islands

locations in Italy

Baucina

Boretto

Buttigliera Alta

Caerano di San Marco

Campochiaro

Camporotondo di Fiastrone

Casirate d’Adda

Cassola

Castelbellino

Cavernago

Cellino San Marco

Ciserano

Civezza

Conco

Cortona

Creazzo

Crespano del Grappa

Fagarè della Battaglia

Foresto Sparso

Futani

Gambellara

Gardone Val Trompia

Latina

Licusati

Manocalzati

Mantello

Miragolo San Marco

Monticelli, Esperia

Pallare

Petriolo

Pieve a Nievole

Ponzano di Fermo

Pordenone

Portobuffolè

Pramaggiore

Rionero in Vulture

Rovereto

San Marco dei Cavoti

San Marco Argentano

San Marco, Castellabate

San Marco d’Alunzio

San Marco Evangelista

San Marco in Lamis

Servigliano

Sonnino

Taleggio

Tidolo

Transacqua

Valsecca

Veneto

Venice

Vertova

Representation

lion

lion in the desert

bishop on a throne decorated with lions

man helping Venetian sailors

man holding a book with pax tibi Marce written on it

man holding a palm and book

man with a book or scroll accompanied by a winged lion

man with a halter around his neck

man writing or holding his gospel

rescuing Christian slaves from Saracens

winged lion

Storefront

hard painted medals – medal 1, medal 2

Additional Information

A Garner of Saints, by Allen Banks Hinds, M.A.

Book of Saints, by the Monks of Ramsgate

Book of Saints, by the Monks of Ramsgate

Catholic Encyclopedia: Mark the Evangelist

Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of Mark

Encyclopedia Britannica

Golden Legend

Lives of Illustrious Men, by Saint Jerome

Lives of the Saints, by Father Alban Butler

Meditations on the Gospels for Every Day in the Year, by Father Médaille

New Catholic Dictionary

Pictorial Lives of the Saints

Roman Martyrology, 1914 edition

Saints and Saintly Dominicans

Saints of the Day, by Katherine Rabenstein

Sermon Notes on Saint Matthew, by Father Basil William Maturin

Short Lives of the Saints, by Eleanor Cecilia Donnelly

The Pilgrim of Our Lady of Martyrs

books

Our Sunday Visitor’s Encyclopedia of Saints

Oxford Dictionary of Saints, by David Hugh Farmer

Sacred and Legendary Art, by Anna Jameson

Saints and Their Attributes, by Helen Roeder

other sites in english

1001 Patron Saints and Their Feast Days, Australian Catholic Truth Society

Aleteia: How the remains of Saint Mark came to be in Venice

America Needs Fatima

Catholic Culture

Catholic Herald

Catholic Ireland

Catholic News Agency

Catholic Online

Christian Iconography

Cradio

Dominicana

Encyclopedia Britannica

Franciscan Media

Gospel of Mark – New American Bible

Independent Catholic News

Jean Lee

Jimmy Akin: 8 things about Saint Mark and his gospel

Jimmy Akin: Did Mark Base His Gospel on Matthew and Luke?

John Dillon

New Theological Movement

Saint Peter’s Basilica Info

Saints for Sinners

Saints Stories for All Ages

Soul Candy

uCatholic

Wikipedia

images

Medieval Religion Listserv

Santi e Beati

Wikimedia Commons

video

YouTube PlayList

sitios en español

Martirologio Romano, 2001 edición

sites en français

Abbé Christian-Philippe Chanut

Fête des prénoms

fonti in italiano

Cathopedia

Santi e Beati

Wikipedia: Marco evangelista

Wikipedia: Santi patroni della città di Venezia

nettsteder i norsk

Den katolske kirke

MLA Citation

“Saint Mark the Evangelist“. CatholicSaints.Info. 3 April 2024. Web. 25 April 2024. <https://catholicsaints.info/saint-mark-the-evangelist/>

SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-mark-the-evangelist/

St. Mark

Most of what we know about Mark comes directly from the New Testament. He is usually identified with the Mark of Acts 12:12. (When Peter escaped from prison, he went to the home of Mark’s mother.)

Paul and Barnabas took him along on the first missionary journey, but for some reason Mark returned alone to Jerusalem. It is evident, from Paul’s refusal to let Mark accompany him on the second journey despite Barnabas’s insistence, that Mark had displeased Paul. Later, Paul asks Mark to visit him in prison so we may assume the trouble did not last long.

The oldest and the shortest of the four Gospels, the Gospel of Mark emphasizes Jesus’ rejection by humanity while being God’s triumphant envoy. Probably written for Gentile converts in Rome—after the death of Peter and Paul sometime between A.D. 60 and 70—Mark’s Gospel is the gradual manifestation of a “scandal”: a crucified Messiah.

Evidently a friend of Mark (Peter called him “my son”), Peter is only one of the Gospel sources, others being the Church in Jerusalem (Jewish roots) and the Church at Antioch (largely Gentile).

Like one other Gospel writer, Luke, Mark was not one of the 12 apostles. We cannot be certain whether he knew Jesus personally. Some scholars feel that the evangelist is speaking of himself when describing the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane: “Now a young man followed him wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. They seized him, but he left the cloth behind and ran off naked” (Mark 14:51-52).

Others hold Mark to be the first bishop of Alexandria, Egypt. Venice, famous for the Piazza San Marco, claims Mark as its patron saint; the large basilica there is believed to contain his remains.A winged lion is Mark’s symbol. The lion derives from Mark’s description of John the Baptist as a “voice of one crying out in the desert” (Mark 1:3), which artists compared to a roaring lion. The wings come from the application of Ezekiel’s vision of four winged creatures (Ezekiel, chapter one) to the evangelists.

SOURCE : http://www.ucatholic.com/saints/saint-mark/

Bronzino  (1503–1572), Evangelisten-Tondi, Hl. Markus, circa 1525, Capponi Chapel, church of Santa Felicita, Florence

St. Mark

(Greek Markos, Latin Marcus).

It is assumed in this article that the individual referred to in Acts as John Mark (12:12, 25; 15:37), John (xiii, 5, 13), Mark (15:39), is identical with the Mark mentioned by St. Paul (Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11;Philemon 24) and by St. Peter (1 Peter 5:13). Their identity is not questioned by any ancient writer of note, while it is strongly suggested, on the one hand by the fact that Mark of the Pauline Epistles was the cousin (ho anepsios) of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), to whom Mark of Acts seems to have been bound by some special tie (Acts 15:37, 39); on the other by the probability that the Mark, whom St. Peter calls his son (1 Peter 5:13), is no other than the son of Mary, the Apostle's old friend in Jerusalem (Acts 21:12). To the Jewishname John was added the Roman pronomen Marcus, and by the latter he was commonly known to the readers of Acts (15:37, ton kaloumenon Markon) and of the Epistles. Mark's mother was a prominent member of the infant Church at Jerusalem; it was to her house that Peter turned on his release from prison; the house was approached by a porch (pulon), there was a slave girl (paidiske), probably the portress, to open the door, and the house was a meeting-place for the brethren, "many" of whom were praying there the night St. Peterarrived from prison (Acts 12:12-13).

When, on the occasion of the famine of A.D. 45-46, Barnabas and Saul had completed their ministration inJerusalem, they took Mark with them on their return to Antioch (Acts 12:25). Not long after, when they started on St. Paul's first Apostolic journey, they had Mark with them as some sort of assistant (hupereten, Acts 13:5); but the vagueness and variety of meaning of the Greek term makes it uncertain in what precise capacity he acted. Neither selected by the Holy Spirit, nor delegated by the Church of Antioch, as wereBarnabas and Saul (Acts 13:2-4), he was probably taken by the Apostles as one who could be of general help. The context of Acts 13:5, suggests that he helped even in preaching the Word. When Paul and Barnabasresolved to push on from Perga into central Asia Minor, Mark, departed from them, if indeed he had not already done so at Paphos, and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). What his reasons were for turning back, we cannot say with certainty; Acts 15:38, seems to suggest that he feared the toil. At any rate, the incident was not forgotten by St. Paul, who refused on account of it to take Mark with him on the second Apostolic journey. This refusal led to the separation of Paul and Barnabas, and the latter, taking Mark with him, sailed to Cyprus(Acts 15:37-40). At this point (A.D. 49-50) we lose sight of Mark in Acts, and we meet him no more in the New Testament, till he appears some ten years afterwards as the fellow-worker of St. Paul, and in the company ofSt. Peter, at Rome.

St. Paul, writing to the Colossians during his first Roman imprisonment (A.D. 59-61), says: "Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, touching whom you have receivedcommandments; if he come unto you, receive him" (Colossians 4:10). At the time this was written, Mark was evidently in Rome, but had some intention of visiting Asia Minor. About the same time St. Paul sends greetings to Philemon from Mark, whom he names among his fellow-workers (sunergoi, Philem., 24). The Evangelist's intention of visiting Asia Minor was probably carried out, for St. Paul, writing shortly before his death to Timothy at Ephesus, bids him pick up Mark and bring him with him to Rome, adding "for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Timothy 4:11). If Mark came to Rome at this time, he was probably there when St. Paul was martyred. Turning to 1 Peter 5:13, we read: "The Church that is in Babylon, electedtogether with you, saluteth you, and (so doth) Mark my son" (Markos, o huios aou). This letter was addressed to various Churches of Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1), and we may conclude that Mark was known to them. Hence, though he had refused to penetrate into Asia Minor with Paul and Barnabas, St. Paul makes it probable, andSt. Peter certain, that he went afterwards, and the fact that St. Peter sends Mark's greeting to a number ofChurches implies that he must have been widely known there. In calling Mark his "son", Peter may possibly imply that he had baptized him, though in that case teknon might be expected rather than huios (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Timothy 1:2, 18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2:1; Titus 1:4; Philemon 10). The term need not be taken to imply more than affectionate regard for a younger man, who had long ago sat at Peter's feet in Jerusalem, and whose mother had been the Apostle's friend (Acts 12:12). As to the Babylon from which Peter writers, and in which Mark is present with him, there can be no reasonable doubt that it is Rome. The view of St. Jerome: "St. Peter also mentions this Mark in his First Epistle, while referring figuratively to Rome under the title of Babylon" (Illustrious Men 8), is supported by all the early Father who refer to the subject. It may be said to have been questioned for the first time by Erasmus, whom a number of Protestant writers then followed, that they might the more readily deny the Roman connection of St. Peter. Thus, we find Mark in Rome with St. Peter at a time when he was widely known to the Churches of Asia Minor. If we suppose him, as we may, to have gone to Asia Minor after the date of the Epistle to the Colossians, remained there for some time, and returned to Rome before I Peter was written, the Petrine and Pauline references to the Evangelist are quite intelligible and consistent.

When we turn to tradition, Papias (Eusebius, Church History III.39) asserts not later than A.D. 130, on the authority of an "elder", that Mark had been the interpreter (hermeneutes) of Peter, and wrote down accurately, though not in order, the teaching of Peter (see below, GOSPEL OF SAINT MARK). A widespread, if somewhat late, tradition represents St. Mark as the founder of the Church of Alexandria. Though strangely enoughClement and Origen make no reference to the saint's connection with their city, it is attested by Eusebius (op. cit., II, xvi, xxiv), by St. Jerome ("De Vir. Illust.", viii), by the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, xlvi), by Epiphanius("Hær;.", li, 6) and by many later authorities. The "Martyrologium Romanum" (25 April) records: "At Alexandriathe anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist . . . at Alexandria of St. Anianus, Bishop, the disciple ofBlessed Mark and his successor in the episcopate, who fell asleep in the Lord." The date at which Mark came to Alexandria is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius assigns it to the first years of Claudius (A.D. 41-4), and later on states that St. Mark's first successor, Anianus, succeeded to the See of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero (61-2). This would make Mark Bishop of Alexandria for a period of about twenty years. This is not impossible, if we might suppose in accordance with some early evidence that St. Peter came to Rome in A.D. 42, Mark perhaps accompanying him. But Acts raise considerable difficulties. On the assumption that the founder of the Church of Alexandria was identical with the companion of Paul and Barnabas, we find him atJerusalem and Antioch about A.D. 46 (Acts 12:25), in Salamis about 47 (Acts 13:5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts 15:37-9), and when he quitted Antioch, on the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it was not toAlexandria but to Cyprus that he turned (Acts 15:39). There is nothing indeed to prove absolutely that all this is inconsistent with his being Bishop of Alexandria at the time, but seeing that the chronology of the Apostolicage is admittedly uncertain, and that we have no earlier authority than Eusebius for the date of the foundation of the Alexandrian Church, we may perhaps conclude with more probability that it was founded somewhat later. There is abundance of time between A.D. 50 and 60, a period during which the New Testament is silent in regard to St. Mark, for his activity in Egypt.

In the preface to his Gospel in manuscripts of the Vulgate, Mark is represented as having been a Jewishpriest: "Mark the Evangelist, who exercised the priestly office in Israel, a Levite by race". Early authorities, however, are silent upon the point, and it is perhaps only an inference from his relation to Barnabas the Levite(Acts 4:36). Papias (in Eusebius, Church History III.39) says, on the authority of "the elder", that Mark neither heard the Lord nor followed Him (oute gar ekouse tou kurion oute parekoluthesen auto), and the same statement is made in the Dialogue of Adamantius (fourth century, Leipzig, 1901, p. 8), by Eusebius ("Demonst. Evang.", III, v), by St. Jerome ("In Matth."), by St. Augustine ("De Consens. Evang."), and is suggested by the Muratorian Fragment. Later tradition, however, makes Mark one of the seventy-two disciples, and St. Epiphanius ("Hær", li, 6) says he was one of those who withdrew from Christ (John 6:67). The later tradition can have no weight against the earlier evidence, but the statement that Mark neither heard the Lordnor followed Him need not be pressed too strictly, nor force us to believe that he never saw Christ. Many indeed are of opinion that the young man who fled naked from Gethsemane (Mark 14:51) was Mark himself. Early in the third century Hippolytus ("Philosophumena", VII, xxx) refers to Mark as ho kolobodaktulos, i.e. "stump-fingered" or "mutilated in the finger(s)", and later authorities allude to the same defect. Various explanations of the epithet have been suggested: that Mark, after he embraced Christianity, cut off his thumb to unfit himself for the Jewish priesthood; that his fingers were naturally stumpy; that some defect in his toes is alluded to; that the epithet is to be regarded as metaphorical, and means "deserted" (cf. Acts 13:13).

The date of Mark's death is uncertain. St. Jerome ("De Vir. Illustr.", viii) assigns it to the eighth year of Nero(62-63) (Mortuus est octavo Neronis anno et sepultus Alexandriæ), but this is probably only an inference from the statement of Eusebius (Church History II.24), that in that year Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the See of Alexandria. Certainly, if St. Mark was alive when II Timothy was written (2 Timothy 4:11), he cannot have died in 61-62. Nor does Eusebius say he did; the historian may merely mean that St. Mark then resigned his see, and left Alexandria to join Peter and Paul at Rome. As to the manner of his death, the "Acts" of Mark give thesaint the glory of martyrdom, and say that he died while being dragged through the streets of Alexandria; so too the Paschal Chronicle. But we have no evidence earlier than the fourth century that the saint wasmartyred. This earlier silence, however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the later traditions. For thesaint's alleged connection with Aquileia, see "Acta SS.", XI, pp. 346-7, and for the removal of his body fromAlexandria to Venice and his cultus there, ibid., pp. 352-8. In Christian literature and art St. Mark issymbolically represented by a lion. The Latin and Greek Churches celebrate his feast on 25 April, but the Greek Church keeps also the feast of John Mark on 27 September.

MacRory, Joseph. "St. Mark." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 25 Apr. 2015<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Ernie Stefanik.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Copyright © 2023 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

SOURCE : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm

Saint Mark, Glazed terracotta relief by the Della Robbia workshop-Andrea della Robbia with Giovanni della Robbia

Gospel of Saint Mark

The subject will be treated under the following heads:

Contents, selection and arrangement of matter

Authorship

Original language, vocabulary, and style

State of text and integrity

Place and date of Composition

Destination and purpose

Relation to Matthew and Luke

Contents, selection and arrangement of matter

The Second Gospel, like the other two Synoptics, deals chiefly with the Galilean ministry of Christ, and the events of the last week at Jerusalem. In a brief introduction, the ministry of the Precursor and the immediate preparation of Christ for His official work by His Baptism and temptation are touched upon (i, 1-13); then follows the body of the Gospel, dealing with the public ministry, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus (i, 14-xvi, 8); and lastly the work in its present form gives a summary account of some appearances of the risen Lord, and ends with a reference to the Ascension and the universal preaching of the Gospel (xvi, 9-20). The body of the Gospel falls naturally into three divisions: the ministry in Galilee and adjoining districts: Phoenicia, Decapolis, and the country north towards Cæarea Philippi (i, 14-ix, 49); the ministry in Judea and (kai peran, with B, Aleph, C*, L, Psi, in x, 1) Peræa, and the journey to Jerusalem (x, 1-xi, 10); the events of the last week at Jerusalem (xi, 11-xvi, 8).

Beginning with the public ministry (cf. Acts 1:22; 10:37), St. Mark passes in silence over the preliminary events recorded by the other Synoptists: the conception and birth of the Baptist, the genealogy, conception, and birth of Jesus, the coming of the Magi, etc. He is much more concerned with Christ's acts than with His discourses, only two of these being given at any considerable length (iv, 3-32; xiii, 5-37). The miracles are narrated most graphically and thrown into great prominence, almost a fourth of the entire Gospel (in the Vulg., 164 verses out of 677) being devoted to them, and there seems to be a desire to impress the readers from the outset with Christ's almighty power and dominion over all nature. The very first chapter records three miracles: the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, and the healing of a leper, besides alluding summarily to many others (i, 32-34); and, of the eighteen miracles recorded altogether in the Gospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52; xi, 12-14) occur in the first eight chapters. Only two of these miracles (vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar to Mark, but, in regard to nearly all, there are graphic touches and minute details not found in the other Synoptics. Of the parables proper Mark has only four: the sower (iv, 3-9), the seed growing secretly (iv, 26-29), the mustard seed (iv, 30-32), and the wicked husbandman (xii, 1-9); the second of these is wanting in the other Gospels. Special attention is paid throughout to the human feelings and emotions of Christ, and to the effect produced by His miracles upon the crowd. The weaknesses of the Apostles are far more apparent than in the parallel narratives of Matt. and Luke, this being, probably due to the graphic and candid discourses of Peter, upon which tradition represents Mark as relying.

The repeated notes of time and place (e.g., i, 14, 19, 20, 21, 29, 32, 35) seem to show that the Evangelist meant to arrange in chronological order at least a number of the events which he records. Occasionally the note of time is wanting (e.g. i, 40; iii, 1; iv, 1; x, 1, 2, 13) or vague (e.g. ii, 1, 23; iv, 35), and in such cases he may of course depart from the order of events. But the very fact that in some instances he speaks thus vaguely and indefinitely makes it all the more necessary to take his definite notes of time and sequence in other cases as indicating chronological order. We are here confronted, however, with the testimony of Papias, who quotes an elder (presbyter), with whom he apparently agrees, as saying that Mark did not write in order: "And the elder said this also: Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, (he attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [v. l. "words"]. So then Mark made no mistake [Schmiedel, "committed no fault"], while he thus wrote down some things (enia as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he had heard, or set down any false statement therein" (Eusebius, Church History III.39). Some indeed have understood this famous passage to mean merely that Mark did not write a literary work, but simply a string of notes connected in the simplest fashion (cf. Swete, "The Gospel according to Mark", pp. lx-lxi). The present writer, however, is convinced that what Papias and the elder deny to our Gospel is chronological order, since for no other order would it have been necessary that Mark should have heard or followed Christ. But the passage need not be understood to mean more than that Mark occasionally departs from chronological order, a thing we are quite prepared to admit. What Papias and the elder considered to be the true order we cannot say; they can hardly have fancied it to be represented in the First Gospel, which so evidently groups (e.g. viii-ix), nor, it would seem, in the Third, since Luke, like Mark, had not been a disciple of Christ. It may well be that, belonging as they did to Asia Minor, they had the Gospel of St. John and its chronology in mind. At any rate, their judgment upon the Second Gospel, even if be just, does not prevent us from holding that Mark, to some extent, arranges the events of Christ's like in chronological order.

Authorship

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time. So Irenæus says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" (Against Heresies III.1 and III.10.6). St. Clement of Alexandria, relying on the authority of "the elder presbyters", tells us that, when Peter had publicly preached in Rome, many of those who heard him exhorted Mark, as one who had long followed Peter and remembered what he had said, to write it down, and that Mark "composed the Gospel and gave it to those who had asked for it" (Eusebius, Church History VI.14). Origen says (ibid., VI, xxv) that Mark wrote as Peter directed him (os Petros huphegesato auto), and Eusebius himself reports the tradition that Peter approved or authorized Mark's work (Church History II.15). To these early Eastern witnesses may be added, from the West, the author of the Muratorian Fragment, which in its first line almost certainly refers to Mark's presence at Peter's discourses and his composition of the Gospel accordingly (Quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit); Tertullian, who states: "The Gospel which Mark published (edidit is affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was" ("Contra Marc.", IV, v); St. Jerome, who in one place says that Mark wrote a short Gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome, and that Peter authorized it to be read in the Churches ("De Vir. Ill.", viii), and in another that Mark's Gospel was composed, Peter narrating and Mark writing (Petro narrante et illo scribente--"Ad Hedib.", ep. cxx). In every one of these ancient authorities Mark is regarded as the writer of the Gospel, which is looked upon at the same time as having Apostolic authority, because substantially at least it had come from St. Peter. In the light of this traditional connexion of the Gospel with St. Peter, there can be no doubt that it is to it St. Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, refers (Dialogue with Trypho 106), when he says that Christ gave the title of "Boanerges" to the sons of Zebedee (a fact mentioned in the New Testament only in Mark 3:17), and that this is written in the "memoirs" of Peter (en tois apopnemaneumasin autou--after he had just named Peter). Though St. Justin does not name Mark as the writer of the memoirs, the fact that his disciple Tatian used our present Mark, including even the last twelve verses, in the composition of the "Diatessaron", makes it practically certain that St. Justin knew our present Second Gospel, and like the other Fathers connected it with St. Peter.

If, then, a consistent and widespread early tradition is to count for anything, St. Mark wrote a work based upon St. Peter's preaching. It is absurd to seek to destroy the force of this tradition by suggesting that all the subsequent authorities relied upon Papias, who may have been deceived. Apart from the utter improbability that Papias, who had spoken with many disciples of the Apostles, could have been deceived on such a question, the fact that Irenæus seems to place the composition of Mark's work after Peter's death, while Origen and other represent the Apostle as approving of it (see below, V), shows that all do not draw from the same source. Moreover, Clement of Alexandria mentions as his source, not any single authority, but "the elders from the beginning" (ton anekathen presbuteron--Eusebius, Church History VI.14). The only question, then, that can be raised with any shadow of reason, is whether St. Mark's work was identical with our present Second Gospel, and on this there is no room for doubt. Early Christian literature knows no trace of an Urmarkus different from our present Gospel, and it is impossible that a work giving the Prince of the Apostles' account of Christ's words and deeds could have disappeared utterly, without leaving any trace behind. Nor can it be said that the original Mark has been worked up into our present Second Gospel, for then, St. Mark not being the actual writer of the present work and its substance being due to St. Peter, there would have been no reason to attribute it to Mark, and it would undoubtedly have been known in the Church, not by the title it bears, but as the "Gospel according to Peter".

Internal evidence strongly confirms the view that our present Second Gospel is the work referred to by Papias. That work, as has been seen, was based on Peter's discourses. Now we learn from Acts (1:21-22; 10:37-41) that Peter's preaching dealt chiefly with the public life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. So our present Mark, confining itself to the same limits, omitting all reference to Christ's birth and private life, such as is found in the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, and commencing with the preaching of the Baptist, ends with Christ's Resurrection and Ascension. Again (1) the graphic and vivid touches peculiar to our present Second Gospel, its minute notes in regard to (2) persons, (3) places, (4) times, and (5) numbers, point to an eyewitness like Peter as the source of the writer's information.

Thus we are told (1) how Jesus took Peter's mother-in-law by the hand and raised her up (i, 31), how with anger He looked round about on His critics (iii, 5), how He took little children into His arms and blessed them and laid His hands upon them (ix, 35; x, 16), how those who carried the paralytic uncovered the roof (ii, 3, 4), how Christ commanded that the multitude should sit down upon the green grass, and how they sat down in companies, in hundred and in fifties (vi, 39-40); (2) how James and John left their father in the boat with the hired servants (i, 20), how they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John (i, 29), how the blind man at Jericho was the son of Timeus (x, 46), how Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21); (3) how there was no room even about the door of the house where Jesus was (ii, 2), how Jesus sat in the sea and all the multitude was by the sea on the land (iv, 1), how Jesus was in the stern of the boat asleep on the pillow (iv, 38); (4) how on the evening of the Sabbath, when the sun had set, the sick were brought to be cured (i, 32), how in the morning, long before day, Christ rose up (i, 35), how He was crucified at the third hour (xv, 25), how the women came to the tomb very early, when the sun had risen (xvi, 2); (5) how the paralytic was carried by four (ii, 3), how the swine were about two thousand in number (v. 13), how Christ began to send forth the Apostles, two and two (vi, 7). This mass of information which is wanting in the other Synoptics, and of which the above instances are only a sample, proved beyond doubt that the writer of the Second Gospel must have drawn from some independent source, and that this source must have been an eyewitness. And when we reflect that incidents connected with Peter, such as the cure of his mother-in-law and his three denials, are told with special details in this Gospel; that the accounts of the raising to life of the daughter of Jaïrus, of the Transfiguration, and of the Agony in the Garden, three occasions on which only Peter and James and John were present, show special signs of first-hand knowledge (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xliv) such as might be expected in the work of a disciple of Peter (Matthew and Luke may also have relied upon the Petrine tradition for their accounts of these events, but naturally Peter's disciple would be more intimately acquainted with the tradition); finally, when we remember that, though the Second Gospel records with special fullness Peter's three denials, it alone among the Gospels omit all reference to the promise or bestowal upon him of the primacy (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17), we are led to conclude that the eyewitness to whom St. Mark was indebted for his special information was St. Peter himself, and that our present Second Gospel, like Mark's work referred to by Papias, is based upon Peter's discourse. This internal evidence, if it does not actually prove the traditional view regarding the Petrine origin of the Second Gospel, is altogether consistent with it and tends strongly to confirm it.

Original language, vocabulary, and style

It has always been the common opinion that the Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no solid reason to doubt the correctness of this view. We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very widely spoken at Rome in the first century. Various influences were at work to spread the language in the capital of the Empire. "Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and the trading classes there were swarms of Greek and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek; children were taught it by Greek nurses; and in after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation" (Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", p. lii). We know, too, that it was in Greek St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and from Rome St. Clement wrote to the Church of Corinth in the same language. It is true that some cursive Greek manuscripts of the tenth century or later speak of the Second Gospel as written in Latin (egrathe Romaisti en Rome, but scant and late evidence like this, which is probably only a deduction from the fact that the Gospel was written at Rome, can be allowed on weight. Equally improbable seems the view of Blass (Philol. of the Gosp., 196 sqq.) that the Gospel was originally written in Aramaic. The arguments advanced by Blass (cf. also Allen in "Expositor", 6th series, I, 436 sqq.) merely show at most that Mark may have thought in Aramaic; and naturally his simple, colloquial Greek discloses much of the native Aramaic tinge. Blass indeed urges that the various readings in the manuscripts of Mark, and the variations in Patristic quotations from the Gospel, are relics of different translations of an Aramaic original, but the instances he adduces in support of this are quite inconclusive. An Aramaic original is absolutely incompatible with the testimony of Papias, who evidently contrasts the work of Peter's interpreter with the Aramaic work of Matthew. It is incompatible, too, with the testimony of all the other Fathers, who represent the Gospel as written by Peter's interpreter for the Christians of Rome.

The vocabulary of the Second Gospel embraces 1330 distinct words, of which 60 are proper names. Eighty words, exclusive of proper names, are not found elsewhere in the New Testament; this, however, is a small number in comparison with more than 250 peculiar words found in the Gospel of St. Luke. Of St. Mark's words, 150 are shared only by the other two Synoptists; 15 are shared only by St. John (Gospel); and 12 others by one or other of the Synoptists and St. John. Though the words found but once in the New Testament (apax legomena) are not relatively numerous in the Second Gospel, they are often remarkable; we meet with words rare in later Greek such as (eiten, paidiothen, with colloquialisms like (kenturion, xestes, spekoulator), and with transliterations such as korban, taleitha koum, ephphatha, rabbounei (cf. Swete, op. cit., p. xlvii). Of the words peculiar to St. Mark about one-fourth are non-classical, while among those peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke the proportion of non-classical words is only about one-seventh (cf. Hawkins, "Hor. Synopt.", 171). On the whole, the vocabulary of the Second Gospel points to the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the literary use of the language.

St. Mark's style is clear, direct, terse, and picturesque, if at times a little harsh. He makes very frequent use of participles, is fond of the historical present, of direct narration, of double negatives, of the copious use of adverbs to define and emphasize his expressions. He varies his tenses very freely, sometimes to bring out different shades of meaning (vii, 35; xv, 44), sometimes apparently to give life to a dialogue (ix, 34; xi, 27). The style is often most compressed, a great deal being conveyed in very few words (i, 13, 27; xii, 38-40), yet at other times adverbs and synonyms and even repetitions are used to heighten the impression and lend colour to the picture. Clauses are generally strung together in the simplest way by kai; de is not used half as frequently as in Matthew or Luke; while oun occurs only five times in the entire Gospel. Latinisms are met with more frequently than in the other Gospels, but this does not prove that Mark wrote in Latin or even understood the language. It proves merely that he was familiar with the common Greek of the Roman Empire, which freely adopted Latin words and, to some extent, Latin phraseology (cf. Blass, "Philol. of the Gosp.", 211 sq.), Indeed such familiarity with what we may call Roman Greek strongly confirms the traditional view that Mark was an "interpreter" who spent some time at Rome.

State of text and integrity

The text of the Second Gospel, as indeed of all the Gospels, is excellently attested. It is contained in all the primary unical manuscripts, C, however, not having the text complete, in all the more important later unicals, in the great mass of cursives; in all the ancient versions: Latin (both Vet. It., in its best manuscripts, and Vulg.), Syriac (Pesh., Curet., Sin., Harcl., Palest.), Coptic (Memph. and Theb.), Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic; and it is largely attested by Patristic quotations. Some textual problems, however, still remain, e.g. whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20. But the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation." Now this third form may be dismissed at once. Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion. Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form. Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.

We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. In favour of the short ending Eusebius ("Quaest. ad Marin.") is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matthew 28:1 with Mark 16:9, in regard to the hour of Christ's Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel. The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing". But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339). St. Jerome also says in one place ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin. Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20, we have mentioned all the evidence that can be adduced in favour of the short conclusion. The external evidence in favour of the long, or ordinary, conclusion is exceedingly strong. The passage stands in all the great unicals except B and Aleph--in A, C, (D), E, F, G, H, K, M, (N), S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, (Pi, Sigma), Omega, Beth--in all the cursives, in all the Latin manuscripts (O.L. and Vulg.) except k, in all the Syriac versions except the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and most manuscripts of the Armenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table of Canons, Macarius Magnes, Didymus, the Syriac Acts of the Apostles, Leontius, Pseudo-Ephraem, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom; in the third century, by Hippolytus, Vincentius, the "Acts of Pilate", the "Apostolic Constitutions", and probably by Celsus; in the second, by Irenæus most explicitly as the end of Mark's Gospel ("In fine autem evangelii ait Marcus et quidem dominus Jesus", etc.--Mark xvi, 19), by Tatian in the "Diatessaron", and most probably by Justin ("Apol. I", 45) and Hermas (Pastor, IX, xxv, 2). Moreover, in the fourth century certainly, and probably in the third, the passage was used in the Liturgy of the Greek Church, sufficient evidence that no doubt whatever was entertained as to its genuineness. Thus, if the authenticity of the passage were to be judged by external evidence alone, there could hardly be any doubt about it.

Much has been made of the silence of some third and fourth century Father, their silence being interpreted to mean that they either did not know the passage or rejected it. Thus Tertullian, SS. Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria are appealed to. In the case of Tertullian and Cyprian there is room for some doubt, as they might naturally enough to be expected to have quoted or alluded to Mark 16:16, if they received it; but the passage can hardly have been unknown to Athanasius (298-373), since it was received by Didymus (309-394), his contemporary in Alexandria (P.G., XXXIX, 687), nor to Basil, seeing it was received by his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (P.G., XLVI, 652), nor to Gregory of Nazianzus, since it was known to his younger brother Cæsarius (P.G., XXXVIII, 1178); and as to Cyril of Alexandria, he actually quotes it from Nestorius (P.G., LXXVI, 85). The only serious difficulties are created by its omission in B and Aleph and by the statements of Eusebius and Jerome. But Tischendorf proved to demonstration (Proleg., p. xx, 1 sqq.) that the two famous manuscripts are not here two independent witnesses, because the scribe of B copies the leaf in Aleph on which our passage stands. Moreover, in both manuscripts, the scribe, though concluding with verse 8, betrays knowledge that something more followed either in his archetype or in other manuscripts, for in B, contrary to his custom, he leaves more than a column vacant after verse 8, and in Aleph verse 8 is followed by an elaborate arabesque, such as is met with nowhere else in the whole manuscript, showing that the scribe was aware of the existence of some conclusion which he meant deliberately to exclude (cf. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 96-99; Salmon, "Introd.", 144-48). Thus both manuscripts bear witness to the existence of a conclusion following after verse 8, which they omit. Whether B and Aleph are two of the fifty manuscripts which Constantine commissioned Eusebius to have copies for his new capital we cannot be sure; but at all events they were written at a time when the authority of Eusebius was paramount in Biblical criticism, and probably their authority is but the authority of Eusebius. The real difficulty, therefore, against the passage, from external evidence, is reduced to what Eusebius and St. Jerome say about its omission in so many Greek manuscripts, and these, as Eusebius says, the accurate ones. But whatever be the explanation of this omission, it must be remembered that, as we have seen above, the disputed verses were widely known and received long before the time of Eusebius. Dean Burgon, while contending for the genuineness of the verses, suggested that the omission might have come about as follows. One of the ancient church lessons ended with Mark 16:8, and Burgon suggested that the telos, which would stand at the end of such lesson, may have misled some scribe who had before him a copy of the Four Gospels in which Mark stood last, and from which the last leaf, containing the disputed verses, was missing. Given one such defective copy, and supposing it fell into the hands of ignorant scribes, the error might easily be spread. Others have suggested that the omission is probably to be traced to Alexandria. That Church ended the Lenten fast and commenced the celebration of Easter at midnight, contrary to the custom of most Churches, which waited for cock-crow (cf. Dionysius of Alexandria in P.G., X, 1272 sq.). Now Mark 16:9: "But he rising early", etc., might easily be taken to favour the practice of the other Churches, and it is suggested that the Alexandrians may have omitted verse 9 and what follows from their lectionaries, and from these the omission might pass on into manuscripts of the Gospel. Whether there be any force in these suggestions, they point at any rate to ways in which it was possible that the passage, though genuine, should have been absent from a number of manuscripts in the time of Eusebius; while, on the other and, if the verses were not written by St. Mark, it is extremely hard to understand how they could have been so widely received in the second century as to be accepted by Tatian and Irenæus, and probably by Justin and Hermas, and find a place in the Old Latin and Syriac Versions.

When we turn to the internal evidence, the number, and still more the character, of the peculiarities is certainly striking. The following words or phrases occur nowhere else in the Gospel: prote sabbaton (v. 9), not found again in the New Testament, instead of te[s] mia[s] [ton] sabbaton (v. 2), ekeinos used absolutely (10, 11, 20), poreuomai (10, 12, 15), theaomai (11, 14), apisteo (11, 16), meta tauta and eteros (12), parakoloutheo and en to onomati (17), ho kurios (19, 20), pantachou, sunergeo, bebaioo, epakoloutheo (20). Instead of the usual connexion by kai and an occasional de, we have meta de tauta (12), husteron [de] (14), ho men oun (19), ekeinoi de (20). Then it is urged that the subject of verse 9 has not been mentioned immediately before; that Mary Magdalen seems now to be introduced for the first time, though in fact she has been mentioned three times in the preceding sixteen verses; that no reference is made to an appearance of the Lord in Galilee, though this was to be expected in view of the message of verse 7. Comparatively little importance attached to the last three points, for the subject of verse 9 is sufficiently obvious from the context; the reference to Magdalen as the woman out of whom Christ had cast seven devils is explicable here, as showing the loving mercy of the Lord to one who before had been so wretched; and the mention of an appearance in Galilee was hardly necessary. the important thing being to prove, as this passage does, that Christ was really risen from the dead, and that His Apostles, almost against their wills, were forced to believe the fact. But, even when this is said, the cumulative force of the evidence against the Marcan origin of the passage is considerable. Some explanation indeed can be offered of nearly every point (cf. Knabenbauer, "Comm. in Marc.", 445-47), but it is the fact that in the short space of twelve verse so many points require explanation that constitutes the strength of the evidence. There is nothing strange about the use, in a passage like this, of many words rare with he author. Only in the last character is apisteo used by St. Luke also (Luke 24:11, 41), eteros is used only once in St. John's Gospel (xix, 37), and parakoloutheo is used only once by St. Luke (i, 3). Besides, in other passages St. Mark uses many words that are not found in the Gospel outside the particular passage. In the ten verses, Mark 4:20-29, the writer has found fourteen words (fifteen, if phanerousthai of xvi, 12, be not Marcan) which occur nowhere else in the Gospel. But, as was said, it is the combination of so many peculiar features, not only of vocabulary, but of matter and construction, that leaves room for doubt as to the Marcan authorship of the verses.

In weighing the internal evidence, however, account must be take of the improbability of the Evangelist's concluding with verse 8. Apart from the unlikelihood of his ending with the participle gar, he could never deliberately close his account of the "good news" (i, 1) with the note of terror ascribed in xvi, 8, to some of Christ's followers. Nor could an Evangelist, especially a disciple of St. Peter, willingly conclude his Gospel without mentioning some appearance of the risen Lord (Acts 1:22; 10:37-41). If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more. But tradition points to his living on after the Gospel was completed, since it represents him as bringing the work with him to Egypt or as handing it over to the Roman Christians who had asked for it. Nor is it easy to understand how, if he lived on, he could have been so interrupted as to be effectually prevented from adding, sooner or later, even a short conclusion. Not many minutes would have been needed to write such a passage as xvi, 9-20, and even if it was his desire, as Zahn without reason suggests (Introd., II, 479), to add some considerable portions to the work, it is still inconceivable how he could have either circulated it himself or allowed his friends to circulate it without providing it with at least a temporary and provisional conclusion. In every hypothesis, then, xvi, 8, seems an impossible ending, and we are forced to conclude either that the true ending is lost or that we have it in the disputed verses. Now, it is not easy to see how it could have been lost. Zahn affirms that it has never been established nor made probable that even a single complete sentence of the New Testament has disappeared altogether from the text transmitted by the Church (Introd., II, 477). In the present case, if the true ending were lost during Mark's lifetime, the question at once occurs: Why did he not replace it? And it is difficult to understand how it could have been lost after his death, for before then, unless he died within a few days from the completion of the Gospel, it must have been copied, and it is most unlikely that the same verses could have disappeared from several copies.

It will be seen from this survey of the question that there is no justification for the confident statement of Zahn that "It may be regarded as one of the most certain of critical conclusions, that the words ephobounto gar, xvi, 8, are the last words in the book which were written by the author himself" (Introd., II, 467). Whatever be the fact, it is not at all certain that Mark did not write the disputed verses. It may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer, and were appended to the Gospel in the first century or the beginning of the second. An Armenian manuscript, written in A.D. 986, ascribes them to a presbyter named Ariston, who may be the same with the presbyter Aristion, mentioned by Papias as a contemporary of St. John in Asia. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical Scripture, for the Council of Trent (Sess. IV), in defining that all the parts of the Sacred Books are to be received as sacred and canonical, had especially in view the disputed parts of the Gospels, of which this conclusion of Mark is one (cf. Theiner, "Acta gen. Conc. Trid.", I, 71 sq.). Hence, whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.

Place and date of composition

It is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome. St. Chrysostom indeed speaks of Egypt as the place of composition ("Hom. I. on Matt.", 3), but he probably misunderstood Eusebius, who says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the Gospel which he had written (Church History II.16). Some few modern scholars have adopted the suggestion of Richard Simon ("Hist. crit. du Texte du N.T.", 1689, 107) that the Evangelist may have published both a Roman and an Egyptian edition of the Gospel. But this view is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers. Other opinions, such as that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor or at Syrian Antioch, are not deserving of any consideration.

The date of the Gospel is uncertain. The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much. St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter's death. The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (A.D. 38-40). The "Paschal Chronicle" assigns it to A.D. 40, and the "Chronicle" of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 42 (cf. Eusebius, Church History II.14; Jerome, "De Vir. Ill.", i). St. Irenæus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon--Against Heresies III.1). Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter's discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead. This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome. Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Church History VI.14) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work. There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenæus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenæus and accept the later date for Mark's Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint's testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew's Gospel to Mark's. Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenæus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, e.g. Cornely, "Introd.", iii, 76-78; Patrizi, "De Evang.", I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct. It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenæus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter's death (A.D. 64 or 67).

From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place. On the other hand, if xvi, 20: "But they going forth preached everywhere", be from St. Mark's pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts 14:26 and 15:3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul's arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51). Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.

Destination and purpose

Tradition represents the Gospel as written primarily for Roman Christians (see above, II), and internal evidence, if it does not quite prove the truth of this view, is altogether in accord with it. The language and customs of the Jews are supposed to be unknown to at least some of the readers. Hence terms like Boanerges (iii, 17), korban (vii, 11), ephphatha (vii, 34) are interpreted; Jewish customs are explained to illustrate the narrative (vii, 3-4; xiv, 12); the situation of the Mount of Olives in relation to the Temple is pointed out (xiii, 3); the genealogy of Christ is omitted; and the Old Testament is quoted only once (i, 2-3; xv, 28, is omitted by B, Aleph, A, C, D, X). Moreover, the evidence, as far as it goes, points to Roman readers. Pilate and his office are supposed to be known (15:1--cf. Matthew 27:2; Luke 3:1); other coins are reduced to their value in Roman money (xii, 42); Simon of Cyrene is said to be the father of Alexander and Rufus (xv, 21), a fact of no importance in itself, but mentioned probably because Rufus was known to the Roman Christians (Romans 16:13); finally, Latinisms, or uses of vulgar Greek, such as must have been particularly common in a cosmopolitan city like Rome, occur more frequently than in the other Gospels (v, 9, 15; vi, 37; xv, 39, 44; etc.).

The Second Gospel has no such statement of its purpose as is found in the Third and Fourth (Luke 1:1-3; John 20:31). The Tübingen critics long regarded it as a "Tendency" writing, composed for the purpose of mediating between and reconciling the Petrine and Pauline parties in the early Church. Other Rationalists have seen in it an attempt to allay the disappointment of Christians at the delay of Christ's Coming, and have held that its object was to set forth the Lord's earthly life in such a manner as to show that apart from His glorious return He had sufficiently attested the Messianic character of His mission. But there is no need to have recourse to Rationalists to learn the purpose of the Gospel. The Fathers witness that it was written to put into permanent form for the Roman Church the discourses of St. Peter, nor is there reason to doubt this. And the Gospel itself shows clearly enough that Mark meant, by the selection he made from Peter's discourses, to prove to the Roman Christians, and still more perhaps to those who might think of becoming Christians, that Jesus was the Almighty Son of God. To this end, instead of quoting prophecy, as Matthew does to prove that Jesus was the Messias, he sets forth in graphic language Christ's power over all nature, as evidenced by His miracles. The dominant note of the whole Gospel is sounded in the very first verse: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God" (the words "Son of God" are removed from the text by Westcott and Hort, but quite improperly--cf. Knabenb., "Comm. in Marc.", 23), and the Evangelist's main purpose throughout seems to be to prove the truth of this title and of the centurion's verdict: "Indeed this man was (the) son of God" (xv, 39).

Relation to Matthew and Luke

The three Synoptic Gospels cover to a large extent the same ground. Mark, however, has nothing corresponding to the first two chapters of Matthew or the first two of Luke, very little to represent most of the long discourses of Christ in Matthew, and perhaps nothing quite parallel to the long section in Luke 9:51-18:14. On the other hand, he has very little that is not found in either or both of the other two Synoptists, the amount of matter that is peculiar to the Second Gospel, if it were all put together, amounting only to less than sixty verses. In the arrangement of the common matter the three Gospels differ very considerably up to the point where Herod Antipas is said to have heard of the fame of Jesus (Matthew 13:58; Mark 4:13; Luke 9:6). From this point onward the order of events is practically the same in all three, except that Matthew (xxvi, 10) seems to say that Jesus cleansed the Temple the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and cursed the fig tree only on the following day, while Mark assigns both events to the following day, and places the cursing of the fig tree before the cleansing of the Temple; and while Matthew seems to say that the effect of the curse and the astonishment of the disciples thereat followed immediately. Mark says that it was only on the following day the disciples saw that the tree was withered from the roots (Matthew 21:12-20; Mark 11:11-21). It is often said, too, that Luke departs from Mark's arrangement in placing the disclosure of the traitor after the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, but it, as seems certain, the traitor was referred to many times during the Supper, this difference may be more apparent than real (Mark 14:18-24; Luke 22:19-23). And not only is there this considerable agreement as to subject-matter and arrangement, but in many passages, some of considerable length, there is such coincidence of words and phrases that it is impossible to believe the accounts to be wholly independent. On the other hand, side by side with this coincidence, there is strange and frequently recurring divergence. "Let any passage common to the three Synoptists be put to the test. The phenomena presented will be much as follows: first, perhaps, we shall have three, five, or more words identical; then as many wholly distinct; then two clauses or more expressed in the same words, but differing in order; then a clause contained in one or two, and not in the third; then several words identical; then a clause or two not only wholly distinct, but apparently inconsistent; and so forth; with recurrences of the same arbitrary and anomalous alterations, coincidences, and transpositions.

The question then arises, how are we to explain this very remarkable relation of the three Gospels to each other, and, in particular, for our present purpose, how are we to explain the relation of Mark of the other two? For a full discussion of this most important literary problem see SYNOPTICS. It can barely be touched here, but cannot be wholly passed over in silence. At the outset may be put aside, in the writer's opinion, the theory of the common dependence of the three Gospels upon oral tradition, for, except in a very modified form, it is incapable by itself alone of explaining all the phenomena to be accounted for. It seems impossible that an oral tradition could account for the extraordinary similarity between, e.g. Mark 2:10-11, and its parallels. Literary dependence or connexion of some kind must be admitted, and the questions is, what is the nature of that dependence or connexion? Does Mark depend upon Matthew, or upon both Matthew and Luke, or was it prior to and utilized in both, or are all three, perhaps, connected through their common dependence upon earlier documents or through a combination of some of these causes? In reply, it is to be noted, in the first place, that all early tradition represents St. Matthew's Gospel as the first written; and this must be understood of our present Matthew, for Eusebius, with the work of Papias before him, had no doubt whatever that it was our present Matthew which Papias held to have been written in Hebrew (Aramaic). The order of the Gospels, according to the Fathers and early writers who refer to the subject, was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Clement of Alexandria is alone in signifying that Luke wrote before Mark (Eusebius, Church History VI.14), and not a single ancient writer held that Mark wrote before Matthew. St. Augustine, assuming the priority of Matthew, attempted to account for the relations of the first two Gospels by holding that the second is a compendium of the first (Matthæum secutus tanquam pedisequus et breviator--"De Consens. Evang.", I, ii). But, as soon as the serious study of the Synoptic Problem began, it was seen that this view could not explain the facts, and it was abandoned. The dependence of Mark's Gospel upon Matthew's however, though not after the manner of a compendium, is still strenuously advocated. Zahn holds that the Second Gospel is dependent on the Aramaic Matthew as well as upon Peter's discourses for its matter, and, to some extent, for its order; and that the Greek Matthew is in turn dependent upon Mark for its phraseology. So, too, Besler ("Einleitung in das N.T.", 1889) and Bonaccorsi ("I tre primi Vangeli", 1904). It will be seen at once that this view is in accordance with tradition in regard to the priority of Matthew, and it also explains the similarities in the first two Gospels. Its chief weakness seems to the present writer to lie in its inability to explain some of Mark's omissions. It is very hard to see, for instance, why, if St. Mark had the First Gospel before him, he omitted all reference to the cure of the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13). This miracle, by reason of its relation to a Roman officer, ought to have had very special interest for Roman readers, and it is extremely difficult to account for its omission by St. Mark, if he had St. Matthew's Gospel before him. Again, St. Matthew relates that when, after the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus had come to the disciples, walking on water, those who were in the boat "came and adored him, saying: Indeed Thou art [the] Son of God" (Matthew 14:33). Now, Mark's report of the incident is: "And he went up to them into the ship, and the wind ceased; and they were exceedingly amazed within themselves: for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was blinded" (Mark 6:51-52). Thus Mark makes no reference to the adoration, nor to the striking confession of the disciples that Jesus was [the] Son of God. How can we account for this, if he had Matthew's report before him? Once more, Matthew relates that, on the occasion of Peter's confession of Christ near Cæsarea Philippi, Peter said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). But Mark's report of this magnificent confession is merely: "Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ" (Mark 8:29). It appears impossible to account for the omission here of the words: "the Son of the living God", words which make the special glory of this confession, if Mark made use of the First Gospel. It would seem, therefore, that the view which makes the Second Gospel dependent upon the First is not satisfactory.

The prevailing view at the present among Protestant scholars and not a few Catholics, in America and England as well as in Germany, is that St. Mark's Gospel is prior to St. Matthew's, and used in it as well as in St. Luke's. Thus Gigot writes: "The Gospel according to Mark was written first and utilized by the other two Synoptics" ("The New York Review", Sept.-Dec., 1907). So too Bacon, Yale Divinity School: "It appears that the narrative material of Matthew is simply that of Mark transferred to form a framework for the masses of discourse" . . . "We find here positive proof of dependence by our Matthew on our Mark" (Introd. to the N.T., 1905, 186-89). Allen, art. "Matthew" in "The International Critical Commentary", speaks of the priority of the Second to the other two Synoptic Gospels as "the one solid result of literary criticism"; and Burkitt in "The Gospel History" (1907), 37, writes: "We are bound to conclude that Mark contains the whole of a document which Matthew and Luke have independently used, and, further, that Mark contains very little else beside. This conclusion is extremely important; it is the one solid contribution made by the scholarship of the nineteenth century towards the solution of the Synoptic Problem". See also Hawkins, "Horæ Synopt." (1899), 122; Salmond in Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", III, 261; Plummer, "Gospel of Matthew" (1909), p. xi; Stanton, "The Gospels as Historical Documents" (1909), 30-37; Jackson, "Cambridge Biblical Essays" (1909), 455.

Yet, notwithstanding the wide acceptance this theory has gained, it may be doubted whether it can enable us to explain all the phenomena of the first two, Gospels; Orr, "The Resurrection of Jesus" (1908), 61-72, does not think it can, nor does Zahn (Introd., II, 601-17), some of whose arguments against it have not yet been grappled with. It offers indeed a ready explanation of the similarities in language between the two Gospels, but so does Zahn's theory of the dependence of the Greek Matthew upon Mark. It helps also to explain the order of the two Gospels, and to account for certain omissions in Matthew (cf. especially Allen, op. cit., pp. xxxi-xxxiv). But it leaves many differences unexplained. Why, for instance, should Matthew, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, omit reference to the singular fact recorded by Mark that Christ in the desert was with the wild beasts (Mark 1:13)? Why should he omit (Matthew 4:17) from Mark's summary of Christ's first preaching, "Repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mark 1:15), the very important words "Believe in the Gospel", which were so appropriate to the occasion? Why should he (iv, 21) omit oligon and tautologically add "two brothers" to Mark 1:19, or fail (4:22) to mention "the hired servants" with whom the sons of Zebedee left their father in the boat (Mark 1:20), especially since, as Zahn remarks, the mention would have helped to save their desertion of their father from the appearance of being unfilial. Why, again, should he omit viii, 28-34, the curious fact that though the Gadarene demoniac after his cure wished to follow in the company of Jesus, he was not permitted, but told to go home and announce to his friends what great things the Lord had done for him (Mark 5:18-19). How is it that Matthew has no reference to the widow's mite and Christ's touching comment thereon (Mark 12:41-44) nor to the number of the swine (Matthew 8:3-34; Mark 5:13), nor to the disagreement of the witnesses who appeared against Christ? (Matthew 26:60; Mark 14:56, 59).

It is surely strange too, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, that he should seem to represent so differently the time of the women's visit to the tomb, the situation of the angel that appeared to them and the purpose for which they came (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-6). Again, even when we admit that Matthew is grouping in chapters viii-ix, it is hard to see any satisfactory reason why, if he had Mark's Gospel before him, he should so deal with the Marcan account of Christ's earliest recorded miracles as not only to omit the first altogether, but to make the third and second with Mark respectively the first and third with himself (Matthew 8:1-15; Mark 1:23-31; 40-45). Allen indeed. (op. cit., p. xv-xvi) attempts an explanation of this strange omission and inversion in the eighth chapter of Matthew, but it is not convincing. For other difficulties see Zahn, "Introd.", II, 616-617. On the whole, then, it appears premature to regard this theory of the priority of Mark as finally established, especially when we bear in mind that it is opposed to all the early evidence of the priority of Matthew. The question is still sub judice, and notwithstanding the immense labour bestowed upon it, further patient inquiry is needed.

It may possibly be that the solution of the peculiar relations between Matthew and Mark is to be found neither in the dependence of both upon oral tradition nor in the dependence of either upon the other, but in the use by one or both of previous documents. If we may suppose, and Luke 1:1, gives ground for the supposition, that Matthew had access to a document written probably in Aramaic, embodying the Petrine tradition, he may have combined with it one or more other documents, containing chiefly Christ's discourses, to form his Aramaic Gospel. But the same Petrine tradition, perhaps in a Greek form, might have been known to Mark also; for the early authorities hardly oblige us to hold that he made no use of pre-existing documents. Papias (apud Eus., Church History III.39) speaks of him as writing down some things as he remembered them, and if Clement of Alexandria (ap. Eus., Church History VI.14) represents the Romans as thinking that he could write everything from memory, it does not at all follow that he did. Let us suppose, then, that Matthew embodied the Petrine tradition in his Aramaic Gospel, and that Mark afterwards used it or rather a Greek form of it somewhat different, combining with it reminiscences of Peter's discourses. If, in addition to this, we suppose the Greek translator of Matthew to have made use of our present Mark for his phraseology, we have quite a possible means of accounting for the similarities and dissimilarities of our first two Gospels, and we are free at the same time to accept the traditional view in regard to the priority of Matthew. Luke might then be held to have used our present Mark or perhaps an earlier form of the Petrine tradition, combining with it a source or sources which it does not belong to the present article to consider.

Of course the existence of early documents, such as are here supposed, cannot be directly proved, unless the spade should chance to disclose them; but it is not at all improbable. It is reasonable to think that not many years elapsed after Christ's death before attempts were made to put into written form some account of His words and works. Luke tells us that many such attempts had been made before he wrote; and it needs no effort to believe that the Petrine form of the Gospel had been committed to writing before the Apostles separated; that it disappeared afterwards would not be wonderful, seeing that it was embodied in the Gospels. It is hardly necessary to add that the use of earlier documents by an inspired writer is quite intelligible. Grace does not dispense with nature nor, as a rule, inspiration with ordinary, natural means. The writer of the Second Book of Machabees states distinctly that his book is an abridgment of an earlier work (2 Maccabees 2:24, 27), and St. Luke tells us that before undertaking to write his Gospel he had inquired diligently into all things from the beginning (Luke 1:1).

There is no reason, therefore, why Catholics should be timid about admitting, if necessary, the dependence of the inspired evangelists upon earlier documents, and, in view of the difficulties against the other theories, it is well to bear this possibility in mind in attempting to account for the puzzling relations of Mark to the other two synoptists.

Sources

See the article GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE for the decision of the Biblical Commission (26 January, 1913).

MacRory, Joseph. "Gospel of Saint Mark." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Ernie Stefanik.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Copyright © 2023 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

SOURCE : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

Valentin de Boulogne  (1591–1632), L’évangéliste saint Marc, 1620, Réunion des musées nationaux – Grand Palais

Lives of Illustrious Men – Mark, the Evangelist

Article

Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon “She who is in Babylon elect together with you saluteth you and so doth Mark my son.” So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example. Philo most learned of the Jews seeing the first church at Alexandria still Jewish in a degree, wrote a book on their manner of life as something creditable to his nation telling how, as Luke says, the believers had all things in common at Jerusalem, so he recorded that he saw was done at Alexandria, under the learned Mark. He died in the eighth year of Nero and was buried at Alexandria, Annianus succeeding him.

MLA Citation

Saint Jerome. “Mark, the Evangelist”. Lives of Illustrious Men, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. CatholicSaints.Info. 29 July 2012. Web. 26 April 2024. <http://catholicsaints.info/lives-of-illustrious-men-mark-the-evangelist/>

SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/lives-of-illustrious-men-mark-the-evangelist/

Guido Reni  (1575–1642), San Marco evangelista, 1621

St. Mark

Feastday: April 25

Patron: of notaries, Venice, Barristers

Birth: 1st Century

Death: April 25, 68 AD

Much of what we know about St. Mark, the author of the Second Gospel, comes largely from the New Testament and early Christian traditions. Mark the Evangelist is believed to be the 'John Mark' referred to in the Acts of the Apostles, the history of the early Church found in the Canon of the New Testament.

He was the son of Mary of Jerusalem (Acts 12:12) whose home became a meeting place for the apostles. He is also the cousin of St. Barnabas (Colossians 4:10), a Levite and a Cypriot.

Mark joined St. Paul and St. Barnabas on their first missionary journey to Antioch in 44 A.D. When the group reached Cyprus, Christian tradition holds that Mark left them and returned to Jerusalem, possibly because he was missing his home (Acts 13:13). This incident may have caused Paul to question whether Mark could be a reliable missionary. This created a disagreement between Paul and Barnabas and led Paul to refuse Mark's accompaniment on their second journey to the churches of Cilicia and the rest of Asia Minor.

However, it can be assumed the troubles between Paul and Mark did not last long, because when Paul was first imprisoned, Mark, who was at the time in Rome with plans of visiting Asia Minor, visited him as one of his trusted companions (Col 4:10).

Mark's hopes to visit Asia Minor were most likely carried out, because during Paul's second captivity and just before his martyrdom, Paul wrote to Timothy at Ephesus advising him to "take Mark and bring him with you [to Rome], for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Timothy 4:11). If Mark returned to Rome at this time, he was probably there when Paul was martyred.

According to Christian tradition, Mark also held a close relationship with St. Peter, who referred to Mark has 'his son' in his letter addressed to a number of churches in Asia Minor (1 Peter 5:13). Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Papias all indicate that Mark was an interpreter for Peter.

Although Papias states Mark had not personally heard the Lord speak firsthand and, like Luke, Mark was not one of the twelve apostles, some believe Mark was likely speaking of himself when he wrote the description of Jesus' arrest in Gethsemani. "Now a young man followed him wearing nothing but a linen cloth about his body. They seized him, but he left the cloth behind and ran off naked" (Mark 14:51-52).

St. Mark lived for years in Alexandria, where he died as a martyr while being dragged through the streets.

Mark's Gospel was probably written between 60 and 70 A.D., and was based upon the teachings of St. Peter. It is believed Mark provided both Luke and Matthew with basic sources for their Gospel's.

He was probably the first bishop of Alexandria, Egypt and the founder of the Church of Alexandria, although he is not mentioned in connection to the city by either Clement of Alexandria nor by Origen.

In 828, relics of St. Mark were stolen from Alexandria and taken to Venice, Italy. There they are enshrined in a beautiful cathedral dedicated to the saint.

St. Mark's symbol is a winged lion. This is believed to be derived from his description of St. John the Baptist, as "a voice of one crying out in the desert" (Mark 1:3). The wings come from Ezekiel's vision of four winged creatures as the evangelists.

He is often depicted as writing or holding his Gospel. He is sometimes shown as a bishop on a throne or as a man helping Venetian sailors.

St. Mark is the patron saint of Venice. His feast day is celebrated on April 25.

SOURCE : https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=305

Jusepe Leonardo  (1601–), San Marcos, circa 1630, 94.6 x 65, Bowes Museum

Golden Legend – Life of Saint Mark the Evangelist

Here followeth of Saint Mark the Evangelist, and first the interpretation of his name.

Mark is as much to say as high to commandment, certain, declined, and bitter. He was high of commandment by reason of perfection in his life, for he kept not only the commandments common, but also the high as be counsels. He was certain in the doctrine of the gospel, like as he had received of Saint Peter his master, he was declined by reason of perfect and great humility, for because of great meekness he cut off his thumb, to the end that he should not be chosen to be a priest. He was bitter by reason of right sharp and bitter pain, for he was drawn through the city, and among those torments he gave up his spirit. Or Mark is said of a great mallet or beetle, which with one stroke maketh plain iron and engendereth melody, and confirmeth it. For Saint Mark by his only doctrine quencheth the unsteadfastness of the heretics, he engendered the great melody of the praising of God, and confirmed the church.

Of Saint Mark the Evangelist.

Mark the Evangelist was of the kindred of the Levites, and was a priest. And when he was christened he was godson of Saint Peter the apostle, and therefore he went with him to Rome. When Saint Peter preached there the gospel, the good people of Rome prayed Saint Mark that he would put the gospel in writing, like as Saint Peter had preached. Then he at their request wrote and showed it to his master Saint Peter to examine; and when Saint Peter had examined it, and saw that it contained the very truth, he approved it and commanded that it should be read at Rome. And then Saint Peter seeing Saint Mark constant in the faith, he sent him into Aquilegia for to preach the faith of Jesu Christ, where he preached the word of God, and did many miracles, and converted innumerable multitudes of people to the faith of Christ. And wrote also to them the gospel, like as he did to them of Rome, which is in to this day kept in the church of Aquilegia, and with great devotion kept.

After this it happed that Saint Mark led with him to Rome a burgess of that same city whom he had converted to the faith, named Ermagoras, brought him to Saint Peter, and prayed him that he would sacre him bishop of Aquilegia, and so he did. Then this Ermagoras, when he was bishop, he governed much holily the church, and at the last the paynims martyred him. Then Saint Peter sent Saint Mark into Alexandria, whereas he preached first the word of God, and as soon as he was entered a great multitude of people assembled for to come against him. There was he of so great perfection that by his predication and by his good example, the people mounted in so holy conversation and in so great devotion that, at his instance they led their life like monks.

He was of so great humility that he did cut off his thumb because he would be no priest, for he judged himself not worthy thereto; but the ordinance of God and of Saint Peter came against his will, for Saint Peter made and sacred him bishop of Alexandria. And anon, as he came into Alexandria, his shoes were broken and torn; when he saw that he said: Verily I see that my journey is sped, ne the devil may not let me sith that God hath assoiled me of my sins. Then went Saint Mark to a shoemaker for to amend his shoes, and as he would work he pricked and sore hurted his left hand with his awl, and when he felt him hurt he cried on high: One God! when Saint Mark heard that he said to him: Now know I well that God hath made my journey prosperous. Then he took a little clay and spittle and meddled them together and laid it on the wound, and anon he was whole. When the shoemaker saw this miracle he brought him into his house and demanded him what he was, and from whence he came. Then said Saint Mark that he was the servant of Jesu Christ, and he said: I would fain see him. Then said Saint Mark. I shall show him to thee. Then he began to preach to him the faith of Jesu Christ, and after baptized him and all his meiny. When the men of the town heard say that there was a man come from Galilee, that despised and defended the sacrifices of idols, they began await how they might deliver him to death. When Saint Mark espied that, he made his shoemaker, which was named Anian, bishop of Alexandria, and he himself went to Pentapolin whereas he was two years, and after, came again to Alexandria and found then there the town full of christian men, and the bishops of the idols awaited for to take him.

Now it happened on Easter day, when Saint Mark sang mass, they assembled all and put a cord about his neck, and after, drew him throughout the city, and said: Let us draw the bubale to the place of bucale. And the blood ran upon the stones, and his flesh was torn piecemeal that it lay upon the pavement all bebled. After this they put him in prison, where an angel came and comforted him, and after came our Lord for to visit and comfort him, saying: Pax tibi Marce evangelista meus. Peace be to thee Mark, mine Evangelist! be not in doubt, for I am with thee and shall deliver thee. And on the morn they put the cord about his neck and drew him like as they had done tofore and cried: Draw the bubale, and when they had drawn he thanked God and said: Into thy hands Lord, I commend my spirit, and he thus saying died. Then the paynims would have burnt his body, but the air began suddenly to change and to hail, lighten and thunder, in such wise that every man enforced him to flee, and left there the holy body alone. Then came the christian men and bare it away, and buried it in the church, with great joy, honour, and reverence. This was in the year of our Lord fifty-seven, in the time that Nero was emperor.

And it happed in the year of grace four hundred and sixty-six in the time of Leo the emperor, that the Venetians translated the body of Saint Mark from Alexandria to Venice in this manner. There were two merchants of Venice did so much, what by prayer and by their gifts, to two priests that kept the body of Saint Mark, that they suffered it to be borne secretly and privily unto their ship. And as they took it out of the tomb, there was so sweet an odour throughout all the city of Alexandria that all the people marvelled, ne knew not from whence it came. Then the merchants brought it to the ship, and after, hasted the mariners and let the other ships have knowledge thereof. Then there was one man in another ship that japed, and said: Ween ye to carry away the body of Saint Mark? Nay, ye lead with you an Egyptian. Then anon, after this word, the ship wherein the holy body was, turned lightly after him, and so rudely boarded the ship of him that had said that word, that he brake one of the sides of the ship, and would never leave it in peace till they had confessed that the body of Saint Mark was in the ship, that done, she held her still.

Thus as they sailed fast they took none heed, and the air began to wax dark and thick, that they wist not where they were. Then appeared Saint Mark unto a monk, to whom the body of Saint Mark was delivered to keep, and bade him anon to strike their sails for they were nigh land, and he did so, and anon they found land in an isle. And by all the rivages whereas they passed, it was said to them that they were well happy that they led so noble a treasure as the body of Saint Mark, and prayed them that they would let them worship it. Yet there was a mariner that might not believe that it was the body of Saint Mark, but the devil entered into him, and tormented him so long that he could not be delivered till he was brought to the holy body; and as soon as he confessed that it was the body of Saint Mark, he was delivered of the wicked spirit, and ever after he had great devotion to Saint Mark.

It happed after, that the body of Saint Mark was closed in a pillar of marble, and right few people knew thereof because it should be secretly kept. Then it happed that they that knew thereof died, and there was none that knew where this great treasure might be, wherefore the clerks and the lay people were greatly discomforted and wept for sorrow, and doubted much that it had been stolen away. Then made they solemn processions and litanies, and the people began to fast and be in prayers, and all suddenly the stones opened and showed to all the people the place and stead where the holy body rested. Then rendered they thankings to God of this, that he had relieved them of their sorrow and anguish, and ordained that on that day they shall hold feast alway for this devout revelation.

A young man on a time had a cancer in his breast, and worms ate it which were come of rotting, and as he was thus tormented he prayed with good heart to Saint Mark, and required him of help and aid, and after, he slept. And that same time appeared to him Saint Mark in form of a pilgrim, tucked and made ready for to go hastily over sea; and when he demanded him what he was, he answered that he was Saint Mark, which went hastily for to succour a ship which is in peril; then he stretched and laid his hand on him, and anon as he awoke he found himself all whole. Anon after, this ship came unto the port of Venice, and the mariners told the peril where they had been in, and how Saint Mark had holpen them, then for that one miracle and for that other the people rendered thankings to our Lord.

The merchants of Venice went on a time by the sea in a ship of Saracens towards Alexandria; and when they saw them in peril, they hewed the cords of the ship, and anon the ship began to break by the force of the sea. And all the Saracens that were therein fell in the sea, and died that one after the other. Then one of the Saracens made his avow to Saint Mark and promised him that if he delivered him from this peril he would be baptized. Anon a man all shining appeared to him, which took him out of the water and remitted him again into the ship, and anon the tempest ceased. When he was come into Alexandria he remembered no thing Saint Mark, which had delivered him from peril, he went not to visit him, ne he did him not do be baptized. Then appeared to him Saint Mark, and said to him that he remembered evil the bounty that he did to him when he delivered him from the peril of the sea, and anon the Saracen came again to his conscience, and he went to Venice, and was there baptized and named Mark, and believed perfectly in God, and ended his life in good works.

There was a man gone up in the steeple of Saint Mark at Venice; and as he intended for to do a work, he was troubled in such wise that he fell, and was like to have been all to-broken in his members, nevertheless in his falling he cried: Saint Mark! and anon he rested upon a branch that sprang out, whereof he took none heed, and after, one raught and let him down a cord, by which he avaled down and was saved.

There was a gentleman of Provence which had a servant that would fain go on pilgrimage to Saint Mark, but he could get no licence of his lord. At last he doubted not to anger his lord, but went thither much devoutly. And when his lord knew it he bare it much grievously, and as soon as he was come again his lord commanded that his eyes should be put out; and the other servants that were ready to do the lord’s will made ready sharp brochets of iron, and enforced them with all their power and might not do it. Then commanded the lord to hew off his thighs with axes, but anon the iron was as soft as molten lead. Then commanded he to break his teeth with iron hammers, but the iron thereof was so soft that they could do him no harm. Then when the lord saw the virtue of God so openly by the miracles of Saint Mark, he demanded pardon and went to Venice, to Saint Mark, with his servant.

There was a knight on a time so hurt in battle that his hand hung on the arm in such wise that his friends and surgeons counselled him to cut it off, but he, that was accustomed to be whole, was ashamed to be maimed, and made it to be bound in his place, and after he called much devoutly to Saint Mark, and anon his hand was as whole as it had been tofore, and in the witness of this miracle a sign of the cutting abode still.

Another time there was a knight armed which ran upon a bridge, and his horse and he fell in a deep water, and when he saw he might not escape he cried on Saint Mark, and anon he raught him a spear by which he was saved, and for this cause he came anon in pilgrimage to Venice and told this miracle.

There was a man taken, by envy of them that hated him, and was put in prison, and when he had been there forty days, and was much grieved, he cried on Saint Mark. And when Saint Mark had appeared thrice he supposed that it had been a fantasy. At the last he felt his irons broken, as it had been a rotten thread, and passed by the keepers of the prison openly by day, he seeing them all, but none of them saw him, and after, came to the church of Saint Mark and thanked God devoutly.

It happed in Apulia was great famine, and the land was barren that nothing might grow thereon. Then was it showed by revelation to a holy man that it was because that they hallowed not the feast of Saint Mark; and when they knew this, anon they hallowed the feast of Saint Mark, and anon began to grow great plenty of goods throughout all the country.

It happed at Papia, in the convent of the friars preachers, in the year of our Lord one thousand two hundred and forty-one, that a friar, a much religious man, was sick unto the death, named Julianus, which sent for his prior for to demand him in what state he was in, and he told him that he was in peril of death, and that it approached fast, and anon his face was all bright and joyful, and with gladness be began to say: fair brethren, my soul shall depart anon, make room and place, for my soul joyeth in my body for the good tidings that I have heard. And lift up his eyes unto heaven and said: Lord God, take away my soul out of this prison; and after he said: Alas! who shall deliver me from this corrupt and mortal body? Among these words he fell in a light sleep, and saw Saint Mark come to him and standing by his bedside, and he heard a voice saying to him: O Mark, what makest thou here? He answered that he was come to visit this friar because he should die. Then he demanded him wherefore he came more than another saint; he answered because he had a special devotion to me, and because he hath oft devoutly visited my church, and therefore am I come to visit him in the hour of his death. Then entered into that place great plenty of people all white, to whom Saint Mark demanded wherefore they were come. And they said and answered that they were come for to present the soul of this brother tofore God. And when the friar was waked he sent for the prior and told to him advisedly all this vision, and after, anon, in the presence of the prior, he died with great joy. And all this the prior recounted to him that wrote this book named Legenda aurea.

SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/golden-legend-life-of-saint-mark-the-evangelist/

San Marco evangelista

Andrea Mantegna. Mark the Evangelist, circa 1448, tempera on canvas, 82 x 63.5, Städel Museum

April 25

St. Mark, Evangelist

From Eusebius, St. Jerom, &c., collected by Tillemont, t. 2, p. 89. Calmet, t. 7, &c.

ST. MARK was of Jewish extraction. The style of his gospel abounding with Hebraisms, shows that he was by birth a Jew, and that the Hebrew language was more natural to him than the Greek. His acts say he was of Cyrenaica, and Bede from them adds, of the race of Aaron. Papias, quoted by Eusebius, 1 St. Austin, 2 Theodoret, and Bede say, he was converted by the apostles after Christ’s resurrection. 3 St. Irenæus 4 calls him the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and, according to Origen and St. Jerom, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. 5 By his office of interpreter to St. Peter, some understood that St. Mark was the author of the style of his epistles; others that he was employed as a translator into Greek or Latin, of what the apostle had written in his own tongue, as occasion might require it. St. Jerom and some others take him to be the same with that John, surnamed Mark, son to the sister of St. Barnabas: but it is generally believed that they were different persons: and that the latter was with St. Paul in the East, at the same time that the Evangelist was at Rome, or at Alexandria. According to Papias, and St. Clement of Alexandria, he wrote his gospel at the request of the Romans; who, as they relate, 6 desired to have that committed to writing which St. Peter had taught them by word of mouth. Mark, to whom this request was made, did accordingly set himself to recollect what he had by long conversation learned from St. Peter; for it is affirmed by some, that he had never seen our Saviour in the flesh. St. Peter rejoiced at the affection of the faithful; and having revised the work, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful. Hence it might be that, as we learn from Tertullian, 7 some attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. 8 Many judge, by comparing the two gospels, that St. Mark abridged that of St. Matthew; for he relates the same things, and often uses the same words; but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He relates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew, namely, that of the widow giving two mites, 9 and that of Christ’s appearing to the two disciples going to Emmaus. St. Austin 10 calls him the abridger of St. Matthew. But Ceillier and some others think nothing clearly proves that he made use of St. Matthew’s gospel. This evangelist is concise in his narrations, and writes with a most pleasing simplicity and elegance. St. Chrysostom 11 admires the humility of St. Peter, (we may add also of his disciple St. Mark,) when he observes, that his evangelist makes no mention of the high commendations which Christ gave that apostle on his making that explicit confession of his being the Son of God; neither does he mention his walking on the water; but gives at full length the history of St. Peter’s denying his Master, with all its circumstances. He wrote his gospel in Italy; and, in all appearance, before the year of Christ, 49

St. Peter sent his disciples from Rome to found other churches. Some moderns say St. Mark founded that of Aquileia. It is certain at least that he was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world,) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerom, and others assure us. Pope Gelasius, in his Roman council, Palladius, and the Greeks, universally add, that he finished his course at Alexandria, by a glorious martyrdom. St. Peter left Rome, and returned into the East in the ninth year of Claudius, and forty-ninth of Christ. About that time St. Mark went first into Egypt, according to the Greeks. The Oriental Chronicle, published by Abraham Eckellensis, places his arrival at Alexandria only in the seventh year of Nero, and sixtieth of Christ. Both which accounts agree with the relation of his martyrdom, contained in the ancient acts published by the Bollandists, which were made use of by Bede and the Oriental Chronicle, and seem to have been extant in Egypt in the fourth and fifth centuries. By them we are told that St. Mark landed at Cyrene, in Pentapolis, a part of Lybia bordering on Egypt, and, by innumerable miracles, brought many over to the faith, and demolished several temples of the idols. He likewise carried the gospel into other provinces of Lybia, into Thebais, and other parts of Egypt. This country was heretofore of all others the most superstitious: but the benediction of God, promised to it by the prophets, was plentifully showered down upon it during the ministry of this apostle. He employed twelve years in preaching in these parts, before he, by a particular call of God, entered Alexandria, where he soon assembled a very numerous church, 12 of which it is thought says Fleury, that the Jewish converts then made up the greater part. And it is the opinion of St. Jerom and Eusebius, that these were the Therapeutes described by Philo, 13 and the first founders of the ascetic life in Egypt. 14

The prodigious progress of the faith in Alexandria stirred up the heathens against this Galilæan. The apostle therefore left the city, having ordained St. Anianus bishop, in the eighth year of Nero, of Christ the sixty-second, and returned to Pentapolis, where he preached two years, and then visited his church of Alexandria, which he found increased in faith and grace, as well as in numbers. He encouraged the faithful and again withdrew: the Oriental Chronicle says to Rome. On his return to Alexandria, the heathens called him a magician, on account of his miracles, and resolved upon his death. God, however, concealed him long from them. At last, on the pagan feast of the idol Serapis, some who were employed to discover the holy man, found him uttering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass. Overjoyed to find him in their power, they seized him, tied his feet with cords, and dragged him about the streets, crying out, that the ox must be led to Bucoles, a place near the sea, full of rocks and precipices, where probably oxen were fed. This happened on Sunday, the 24th of April, in the year of Christ 68, of Nero the fourteenth, about three years after the death of SS. Peter and Paul. The saint was thus dragged the whole day, staining the stones with his blood, and leaving the ground strewed with pieces of his flesh; all the while he ceased not to praise and thank God for his sufferings. At night he was thrown into prison, in which God comforted him by two visions, which Bede has also mentioned in his true martyrology. The next day the infidels dragged him, as before, till he happily expired on the 25th of April, on which day the Oriental and Western churches keep his festival. The Christians gathered up the remains of his mangled body, and buried them at Bucoles, where they afterwards usually assembled for prayer. His body was honourably kept there, in a church built on the spot, in 310; and towards the end of the fourth age, the holy priest Philoromus made a pilgrimage thither from Galatia to visit this saint’s tomb, as Palladius recounts. His body was still honoured at Alexandria, under the Mahometans, in the eighth age, in a marble tomb. 15 It is said to have been conveyed by stealth to Venice, in 815. Bernard, a French monk, who travelled over the East in 870, writes, that the body of St. Mark was not then at Alexandria, because the Venetians had carried it to their isles. 16 It is said to be deposited in the Doge’s stately rich chapel of St. Mark, in a secret place, that it may not be stolen, under one of the great pillars. This saint is honoured by that republic with extraordinary devotion as principal patron.

The great litany is sung on this day to beg that God would be pleased to avert from us the scourges which our sins deserve. The origin of this custom is usually ascribed to St. Gregory the Great, who, by a public supplication, or litany with a procession of the whole city of Rome, divided into seven bands, or companies, obtained of God the extinction of a dreadful pestilence. 17 This St. Gregory of Tours learned from a deacon, who had assisted at this ceremony at Rome. 18 The station was at St. Mary Major’s, and this procession and litany were made in the year 590. St. Gregory the Great speaks of a like procession and litany which he made thirteen years after, on the 29th of August, in the year 603, in which the station was at St. Sabina’s. 19 Whence it is inferred that St. Gregory performed this ceremony every year, though not on the 25th of April, on which day we find it settled, in the close of the seventh century, long before the same was appointed for the feast of St. Mark. 20 The great litany was received in France, and commanded in the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 836, and in the Capitulars of Charles the Bald. 21 St. Gregory the Great observed the great litany with a strict fast. On account of the Paschal time, on the 25th of April, it is kept in several diocesses only with abstinence; in some with a fast of the Stations, or till None. 22

Nothing is more tender and more moving than the instructions which several councils, fathers, and holy pastors, have given on the manner of performing public supplications and processions. The first council of Orleans orders masters to excuse their servants from work and attendance, that all the faithful may be assembled together to unite their prayers and sighs. A council of Mentz 23 commanded that all should assist barefoot, and covered with sackcloth: which was for some time observed in that church. St. Charles Borromæo endeavoured, by pathetic instructions and pastoral letters, to revive the ancient piety of the faithful, on the great litany and the rogation days. According to the regulations which he made, the supplications and processions began before break of day, and continued till three or four o’clock in the afternoon. On them he fasted himself on bread and water, and preached several times, exhorting the people to sincere penance. A neglect to assist at the public supplications of the church, is a grievous disorder, and perhaps one of the principal causes of the little piety and sanctity which are left, and of the scandals which reign amongst Christians. They cannot seek the kingdom of God as they ought, who deprive themselves of so powerful a means of drawing down his graces upon their souls. We must join this profession with hearts penetrated with humility, and spend some time in prayer, pious reading, and the exercises of compunction. What we are chiefly to ask of God on these days is the remission of our sins, which are the only true evil, and the cause of all the chastisements which we suffer, or have reason to fear. We must secondly beg that God avert from us all scourges and calamities which our crimes deserve, and that he bestow his blessing on the fruits of the earth.

Note 1. Hist. b. 3, c. 89. [back]

Note 2. L. 1, de cons. evang. c. 1, and in Faust. l. 17, c. 3. [back]

Note 3. Tillemont and others, upon the authority of these fathers, say he never was a disciple of Christ, but only of the apostles. Yet St. Epiphanius tells us, he was one of the seventy-two disciples, and forsook Christ, after hearing his discourse on the eucharist, John vi. but was converted by St. Peter after the resurrection. (Hær. 51, c. 5, p. 528.) Tillemont (Note 2, sur. S. Jean Marc. t. 2, p. 556,) maintains, that the evangelist was not John Mark, (who seems to have been the cousin of St. Barnabas,) because the latter desired to follow SS. Paul and Barnabas, as an attendant, in 51; whereas the Evangelist seems to have arrived in Egypt in 49, and to have written his gospel at Rome before that time. On the contrary, F. Combefis thinks that the Evangelist and John Mark are the same person. And Stilting, the Bollandist, in the life of St. John Mark, shows this to be the most probable opinion, as nothing occurs in the sacred writings which proves them to have been different persons. See Stilting, t. 7, Sept. ad diem 27, p. 387. [back]

Note 4. B. 3, c. 1. [back]

Note 5. 1 Pet. v. 13. [back]

Note 6. Eus. Hist. b. 2, c. 16. [back]

Note 7. Tert. cont. Marcion. b. 4, c. 5. [back]

Note 8. St. Epiphanius, (Hær. 51,) St. Gregory Nazianzen, (Or. 25, and carm. 34,) St. Jerom, (Cat.) &c., affirm the same. Baronius (ad an. 45,) and Selden think his gospel was first written in Latin, because it was compiled for the benefit of the Romans; but the Greek language was commonly understood among them. St. Austin, St. Jerom, and most of the ancients, suppose the Greek certainly to be the original; indeed the style itself shows it, and the learned are now commonly agreed in this point. An old manuscript of this gospel is kept in St. Mark’s treasury in Venice, and is there said to be the original copy, written by the evangelist himself. It is written not on Egyptian papyrus, as Mabillon and Montfaucon too lightly imagined; but on a paper made of cotton, as Scipio Maffei, a complete judge, who narrowly examined it, assures us. (See his Istoria Diplomatica, printed at Mantua, in 4to. in 1727.) Misson thought it written in Greek, and that he read the word [Greek]. But Montfaucon shows that he mistook Bata in Ibat autem for [Greek]; and that MS. is in Latin, as Ciaconi had well informed us. It was conveyed from Aquileia to Venice in the fifteenth century. The Emperor Charles IV. in 1355, obtained, from Aquileia, the last eight leaves, which are kept at Prague. The twenty leaves at Venice, with the last eight leaves at Prague, make the whole gospel of St. Mark, which belongs to the other three gospels in the Forojulian MS. This MS. was written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy of St. Jerom’s version of the gospels. See Montfaucon, Diar. Italic. Calmet, Diss. sur l’Evang. de St. Marc, and principally Laur. a Turre’s excellent letter to Bianchini, in this latter’s Evangel. Quadrup. t. 4, p. 543. [back]

Note 9. Mark xii. [back]

Note 10. L. 1, de consens evang. c. 2. [back]

Note 11. Hom. 58 and 85, in Mat. [back]

Note 12. B. 2, c. 16. [back]

Note 13. De vita contempl. [back]

Note 14. This opinion, Helyot, Montfaucon, and many others, have defended in ample dissertations; though others think these Therapeutes were originally a rigid sect of the Essenes among the Jews. Philo says, they were spread over all Egypt, that they lived retired from the world, disposed of their fortunes among their relations, read holy hooks, were much given to pious meditation, neither eat nor drank before sunset, and practised other austerities; and that some of their women observed perpetual virginity out of motives of religion. But whether they were the disciples of St. Mark or not, it is however certain, that from his time there were several Christians whom a desire of living after a more perfect manner than ordinary induced to withdraw into the country about Alexandria, and to live retired, praying and meditating on the holy scriptures, working with their hands, and taking no sustenance before sunset, &c. [back]

Note 15. See Bolland, p. 352. [back]

Note 16. See Mabillon, Act. Bened. p. 502. [back]

Note 17. The Greek word litany, which signifies supplication, is mentioned by St. Basil, (ep. 63, p. 97, t. 3,) as used in his time for a public supplication to implore the divine mercy. The Greeks repeated the form Kyrie eleison: the Latins retained the very words. St. Gregory the Great added Christe eleison to answer the former. The invocation of the saints was added soon after St. Gregory’s time, as appears from some martyrologies of that age, which falsely bear the name of St. Jerom. See Florentin, Admonit. 8 præv. p. 39, 40. Thomassin, Hist. des Fêtes Mob. part 2, p. 173, &c. [back]

Note 18. St. Greg. Turon. l. 10, Hist. Franc. c. 1. See also John the Deacon. Vitâ S. Greg. l. 1. n. 42. [back]

Note 19. St. Greg. M. l. 11, ep. 2, Indict. 6. [back]

Note 20. Beleth. c. 122; Fronto in Calend. p. 71, &c. [back]

Note 21. Capitular. l. 5, c. 158, and l. 6, c. 74. [back]

Note 22. See Thomassin du Jeune, part 2, c. 21; Henschen. Apr. t. 3. p. 345. [back]

Note 23. Can. 33. [back]

Rev. Alban Butler (1711–73). Volume IV: April. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.

SOURCE : https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/lives-of-the-saints/volume-iv-april/st-mark-evangelist

San Marco evangelista

San Marco (dettaglio), mosaico nella Basilica di San Vitale, Ravenna. Foto di Paolo Monti, 1972

Sermon Notes on Saint Matthew, by Father Basil William Maturin

One great advantage of the study of Holy Scripture is that it leads us through all secondary courses directly to God. The tone of thought and study of our day tends to lead the mind to rest with such interest in the workings of the machinery of nature that we need to be brought back again to first principles, and to be reminded that because we have discovered some of the great ways in which nature works out her ends, we are in no sense any nearer to a final explanation. In Holy Scripture we see God.

It is the same in individual life. The Gospel shows us the presence of Christ, and it draws for us the picture of different men and women living more or less careless or sinful lives, and then we see a change; the demoniac becomes clothed and in his right mind, the poor woman that was a sinner becomes the type of modesty and retirement, the persecutor becomes a disciple, the dying thief begins to pray. These are the sort of things we see in life today and the Gospel gives us the meaning. It is Christ entering into these lives. The influence of a person acting upon one here, one there. And this is what the Gospel describes as Christianity. This is at once its weakness and its strength. This it is which makes the kind of proofs men ask for impossible, and this it is which makes the proofs which individuals have the strongest in the world. Prove for me the truth of Christianity as you can prove any other scientific fact and I will believe. And to that I answer: thank God I can’t, for if I could two things would follow. Every man with a clear head would have no loophole for escape – to be a believer would be a mere matter of cleverness, and besides, it would rob Christianity of its life. You can’t scientifically prove the love of a person.

In the Gospels we find ourselves in a world of deeper interest the moral world of human life, and behind and acting upon it we find a person who claims to be the God of the Old Testament clad in the form of man, and we see lives acted upon and changed by contact with Him. In proportion as He enters into their lives He changes them. He makes the fisherman the great mystic, the fallen woman a model of chastity, &c. This is Christianity, not a mere organisation; the Church is spread throughout the world. There are good and bad Christians; they are good in proportion as Christ enters their life, and as He does men find an objective representation of conscience. I open the Gospel and there I find conscience speaking.

Thus the weakness and strength of the Gospel, the power of a holy life acting upon men, the most convincing proof to those who know Him. No one can shake your faith in your friend.

So when Christ drew men to Him He didn’t merely present them with a creed and say: believe that and you re saved, refuse and you re lost. He drew them to Himself, and as they believed in Him He taught them. They received truth from the lips of one they loved and were led on.

That coming of Christ was different to different people and for different ends.

The great event by the gate of Damascus in the life of Saul of Tarsus was a crash, a lightning flash, a stunning blow, three days of fearful anguish, then a life wholly overturned. Saul professed that he saw Christ on the Throne of God – that was the other side.

We see Saul in his Jewish narrow zeal against Christians, then we see all this changed, the whole character of the man subdued, softened. He is lost sight of for a year or two, when we see him again we scarcely recognise him. What does it mean? He tells us. How could that influence enter and possess such a life? Not by a gradual process of conviction, but like a flash with a crash, a stunning blow.

Different from this was the coming of Christ into the life of Saint John the Evangelist. With him there was no such crisis; he passed under an influence that led him on strongly and gently to the highest. He drank from His lips words of power and wisdom that satisfied his soul. How he recalls it all sixty or seventy years after! The day, the very hour.

Then take the change in the life of the Magdalene. She knew not who He was, she only felt that He was the type of what was purest and kindest in man, and as she poured out her soul at His feet peace wrapped her round as the morning light encircles the cold bleak mountain, and she was led on to that of which she never dreamed. In all these cases, so different one from another, there was opened a door to another life.

But amidst all these, none more beautiful and instructive than the saint of your Festival. Who could raise up a sordid money seeker? There are passions that degrade and weaken while they still leave much that is noble; a drunkard may have a tender heart, or a sensualist has moments of agonising remorse, but the love of money hardens and narrows the whole nature and saps the springs of all natural affection. How can a man who has brought upon himself the scorn of his fellow-countrymen and the contempt of his own people and hired himself into the service of their enemies for the sake of money – how can such a man be touched or reached? Doubt less there were in that life times of longing after better things and bitter revolt against his fate, but habit is strong and under its grasp the will becomes less and less capable of asserting its freedom. How could he be raised? Beneath all the ruins there lay a dormant power of faith, devotion, sacrifice. But who could see, who could tell of its existence?

It was not any conscious influence of religion that raised and rescued him. There was another man in that town who was the very antithesis of himself, One who, instead of using others as a hunting ground for His own greed, was pouring out His very life, taxing nerve and heart beyond the power of human endurance to give. Was there ever greater contrast? And these two met, Jesus of Nazareth and Matthew, and He said to him: get up and leave that sordid life and I will make a man of you. You see the appeal is not to his religious faith He doesn’t touch upon religion, He will not condescend to enter upon the question of His claims or who He was, that would be but waste of time, the appeal is directly to conscience: give up your dishonest money-ruled life and follow Me who am at least unselfish. He threw open the door – nay, He was Himself the door into regions of holiness, etc., but all began here at one great moral act.

It was the same with Pilate. ‘Art thou King of the Jews?’ ‘What is truth?’ To all this Christ does not answer. He says to Pilate: You are a Judge, you know what justice is. Be just and if I am innocent don t condemn me. Through that door Christ would lead Pilate on to all the lights and graces of the Christian life.

Brethren, it is so almost always. Behind some strong call to do the right thing or give up something wrong stands Christ, religion, Christian hope, infinite progress. That is the door, pass through and fair visions of green pastures and cool streams open, but you see nothing till you have passed through.

He opens the door to that worldly person amusing herself with questions of controversy and thinking she can take no step till on some subtle question of faith her mind is cleared. He will not clear it; that is not the side upon which He comes to you. He comes to you and says: give up that lazy idle life, step out into a life of active purpose and then I will clear up all these things.

See Matthew; he arises, leaves all. Where is he going? Who has he surrendered to? Here was a man whose work in life was based on selfishness, yet he had talent, the power of an absolute consecration to God and to men. How was he to be drawn upwards, what could break the spell and chain of the present? It was not primarily through religious belief, nor through a gaining of the knowledge of theological truth. No, it was primarily through a moral act, a breaking with what was wrong, a following One who said no word to him about religion but who appealed to him through His own goodness. It seemed to say to him: get up and leave all this sordid money grabbing, break away from that and I will make a man of you. He followed. Brethren, you see a man who led him to do one act, but behind that act lay all possibilities of infinite progress. He followed and he was taught to be a Christian, an Apostle, an Evangelist, but it needed a blind act of surrender. Some scribe or pharisee meets him and says: do you know what you are doing? Do you know who this Jesus is? Do you know that there are various opinions as to His Person and claims? And Matthew answers: no, I only know He has bid me leave what all that’s best in me says I ought to leave, I shall follow Him this step and see. And he does and he is led on more and more of wonder and delight up into the clear air of the highlands, where all is bracing and pure. He speaks with Him, prays with Him, lives with Him, till he finds at last that this stranger who led him from his money table passes up into the very heavens and sits on the right hand of God and lifts him to sit with Him in heavenly places.

Every age has its difficulties, its tone of thought, its spirit; there have been times of midnight darkness, this is a time of light, so brilliant that it seems as if we need none other. How is the soul to keep hold and to be firm amidst all change? By turning to revelation – there it sees two things: life as it’s lived, and behind all God.

SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/sermon-notes-on-saint-matthew-by-father-basil-william-maturin/

San Marco evangelista

Martyre de Saint Marc. Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Musée Condé, Chantilly, 1412-1416

Saint Mark the Evangelist

Jul 18, 2020 / Written by: America Needs Fatima

FEAST APRIL 25

We learn from the Epistle to the Colossians that Mark was a kinsman of Barnabas, who was a Levite, which presupposes that Mark was also of a Levitical family.

We read of Mark accompanying Paul and Barnabas on their apostolic missions, assisting them in Cyprus (Acts 13:5) and journeying with them to Perga in Pamphylia, from whence he returned on his own to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13).

The Apostle to the Gentiles seems to have construed this last action on Mark's part as displaying a certain disloyalty.

Later, when preparing to visit Cilicia and Asia Minor, a heated argument ensued with Paul refusing to include Mark, while Barnabas defended his cousin, "so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed" (Acts 15, 37-40).

It is this same Mark who is later imprisoned with Paul in Rome. As proof of how much his personal opinion concerning Mark had changed during their joint captivity, the Apostle to the Gentiles afterwards writes to Timothy in Ephesus, “…take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me in the ministry.”

Tradition strongly affirms that Mark, the author of the second gospel, was more closely associated with St. Peter. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Papias speak of Mark as being Peter's interpreter. Writing from Rome, Peter refers to “my son, Mark” (1 Peter 5, 13) who apparently was there with him.

This is undoubtedly Mark the Evangelist.

Ancient tradition relates that Mark lived for some years in Alexandria as bishop of that city, and there suffered martyrdom.

The city of Venice claims to possess the remains of St. Mark the Evangelist, brought there from Alexandria in the ninth century.

Preserved by the Venetians for centuries, their authenticity has not gone unchallenged. From time immemorial, however, St. Mark – Apostle and Evangelist – symbolized by the lion, has always been honored as patron of this "Queen of the Adriatic."

SOURCE : https://americaneedsfatima.org/articles/saint-mark-the-evangelist

Gentile Bellini, Dettaglio dalla Predica di san Marco ad Alessandria d'Egitto,1507,

alla Pinacoteca di Brera a Milano

San Marco Evangelista

25 aprile

sec. I

Ebreo di origine, nacque probabilmente fuori della Palestina, da famiglia benestante. San Pietro, che lo chiama «figlio mio», lo ebbe certamente con sè nei viaggi missionari in Oriente e a Roma, dove avrebbe scritto il Vangelo. Oltre alla familiarità con san Pietro, Marco può vantare una lunga comunità di vita con l'apostolo Paolo, che incontrò nel 44, quando Paolo e Barnaba portarono a Gerusalemme la colletta della comunità di Antiochia. Al ritorno, Barnaba portò con sè il giovane nipote Marco, che più tardi si troverà al fianco di san Paolo a Roma. Nel 66 san Paolo ci dà l'ultima informazione su Marco, scrivendo dalla prigione romana a Timoteo: «Porta con te Marco. Posso bene aver bisogno dei suoi servizi». L'evangelista probabilmente morì nel 68, di morte naturale, secondo una relazione, o secondo un'altra come martire, ad Alessandria d'Egitto. Gli Atti di Marco (IV secolo) riferiscono che il 24 aprile venne trascinato dai pagani per le vie di Alessandria legato con funi al collo. Gettato in carcere, il giorno dopo subì lo stesso atroce tormento e soccombette. Il suo corpo, dato alle fiamme, venne sottratto alla distruzione dai fedeli. Secondo una leggenda due mercanti veneziani avrebbero portato il corpo nell'828 nella città della Venezia.

Patronato: Segretarie

Etimologia: Marco = nato in marzo, sacro a Marte, dal latino

Emblema: Leone

Martirologio Romano: Festa di san Marco, Evangelista, che a Gerusalemme dapprima accompagnò san Paolo nel suo apostolato, poi seguì i passi di san Pietro, che lo chiamò figlio; si tramanda che a Roma abbia raccolto nel Vangelo da lui scritto le catechesi dell’Apostolo e che abbia fondato la Chiesa di Alessandria.

La figura dell’evangelista Marco, è conosciuta soltanto da quanto riferiscono gli Atti degli Apostoli e alcune lettere di s. Pietro e s. Paolo; non fu certamente un discepolo del Signore e probabilmente non lo conobbe neppure, anche se qualche studioso lo identifica con il ragazzo, che secondo il Vangelo di Marco, seguì Gesù dopo l’arresto nell’orto del Getsemani, avvolto in un lenzuolo; i soldati cercarono di afferrarlo ed egli sfuggì nudo, lasciando il lenzuolo nelle loro mani.

Quel ragazzo era Marco, figlio della vedova benestante Maria, che metteva a disposizione del Maestro la sua casa in Gerusalemme e l’annesso orto degli ulivi.

Nella grande sala della loro casa, fu consumata l’Ultima Cena e lì si radunavano gli apostoli dopo la Passione e fino alla Pentecoste. Quello che è certo è che fu uno dei primi battezzati da Pietro, che frequentava assiduamente la sua casa e infatti Pietro lo chiamava in senso spirituale “mio figlio”.

Discepolo degli Apostoli e martirio

Nel 44 quando Paolo e Barnaba, parente del giovane, ritornarono a Gerusalemme da Antiochia, dove erano stati mandati dagli Apostoli, furono ospiti in quella casa; Marco il cui vero nome era Giovanni usato per i suoi connazionali ebrei, mentre il nome Marco lo era per presentarsi nel mondo greco-romano, ascoltava i racconti di Paolo e Barnaba sulla diffusione del Vangelo ad Antiochia e quando questi vollero ritornarci, li accompagnò.

Fu con loro nel primo viaggio apostolico fino a Cipro, ma quando questi decisero di raggiungere Antiochia, attraverso una regione inospitale e paludosa sulle montagnae del Tauro, Giovanni Marco rinunciò spaventato dalle difficoltà e se ne tornò a Gerusalemme.

Cinque anni dopo, nel 49, Paolo e Barnaba ritornarono a Gerusalemme per difendere i Gentili convertiti, ai quali i giudei cristiani volevano imporre la legge mosaica, per poter ricevere il battesimo.

Ancora ospitati dalla vedova Maria, rividero Marco, che desideroso di rifarsi della figuraccia, volle seguirli di nuovo ad Antiochia; quando i due prepararono un nuovo viaggio apostolico, Paolo non fidandosi, non lo volle con sé e scelse un altro discepolo, Sila e si recò in Asia Minore, mentre Barnaba si spostò a Cipro con Marco.

In seguito il giovane deve aver conquistato la fiducia degli apostoli, perché nel 60, nella sua prima lettera da Roma, Pietro salutando i cristiani dell’Asia Minore, invia anche i saluti di Marco; egli divenne anche fedele collaboratore di Paolo e non esitò di seguirlo a Roma, dove nel 61 risulta che Paolo era prigioniero in attesa di giudizio, l’apostolo parlò di lui, inviando i suoi saluti e quelli di “Marco, il nipote di Barnaba” ai Colossesi; e a Timoteo chiese nella sua seconda lettera da Roma, di raggiungerlo portando con sé Marco “perché mi sarà utile per il ministero”.

Forse Marco giunse in tempo per assistere al martirio di Paolo, ma certamente rimase nella capitale dei Cesari, al servizio di Pietro, anch’egli presente a Roma. Durante gli anni trascorsi accanto al Principe degli Apostoli, Marco trascrisse, secondo la tradizione, la narrazione evangelica di Pietro, senza elaborarla o adattarla a uno schema personale, cosicché il suo Vangelo ha la scioltezza, la vivacità e anche la rudezza di un racconto popolare.

Affermatosi solidamente la comunità cristiana di Roma, Pietro inviò in un primo momento il suo discepolo e segretario, ad evangelizzare l’Italia settentrionale; ad Aquileia Marco convertì Ermagora, diventato poi primo vescovo della città e dopo averlo lasciato, s’imbarcò e fu sorpreso da una tempesta, approdando sulle isole Rialtine (primo nucleo della futura Venezia), dove si addormentò e sognò un angelo che lo salutò: “Pax tibi Marce evangelista meus” e gli promise che in quelle isole avrebbe dormito in attesa dell’ultimo giorno.

Secondo un’antichissima tradizione, Pietro lo mandò poi ad evangelizzare Alessandria d’Egitto, qui Marco fondò la Chiesa locale diventandone il primo vescovo.

Nella zona di Alessandria subì il martirio: fu torturato, legato con funi e trascinato per le vie del villaggio di Bucoli, luogo pieno di rocce e asperità; lacerato dalle pietre, il suo corpo era tutta una ferita sanguinante.

Dopo una notte in carcere, dove venne confortato da un angelo, Marco fu trascinato di nuovo per le strade, finché morì un 25 aprile verso l’anno 72, secondo gli “Atti di Marco” all’età di 57 anni; ebrei e pagani volevano bruciarne il corpo, ma un violento uragano li fece disperdere, permettendo così ad alcuni cristiani, di recuperare il corpo e seppellirlo a Bucoli in una grotta; da lì nel V secolo fu traslato nella zona del Canopo.

Il Vangelo

Il Vangelo scritto da Marco, considerato dalla maggioranza degli studiosi come “lo stenografo” di Pietro, va posto cronologicamente tra quello di s. Matteo (scritto verso il 40) e quello di s. Luca (scritto verso il 62); esso fu scritto tra il 50 e il 60, nel periodo in cui Marco si trovava a Roma accanto a Pietro.
È stato così descritto: “Marco come fu collaboratore di Pietro nella predicazione del Vangelo, così ne fu pure l’interprete e il portavoce autorizzato nella stesura del medesimo e ci ha per mezzo di esso, trasmesso la catechesi del Principe degli Apostoli, tale quale egli la predicava ai primi cristiani, specialmente nella Chiesa di Roma”.

Il racconto evangelico di Marco, scritto con vivacità e scioltezza in ognuno dei sedici capitoli che lo compongono, seguono uno schema altrettanto semplice; la predicazione del Battista, il ministero di Gesù in Galilea, il cammino verso Gerusalemme e l’ingresso solenne nella città, la Passione, Morte e Resurrezione.

Tema del suo annunzio è la proclamazione di Gesù come Figlio di Dio, rivelato dal Padre, riconosciuto perfino dai demoni, rifiutato e contraddetto dalle folle, dai capi, dai discepoli. Momento culminante del suo Vangelo, è la professione del centurione romano pagano ai piedi di Gesù crocifisso: “Veramente quest’uomo era Figlio di Dio”, è la piena definizione della realtà di Gesù e la meta cui deve giungere anche il discepolo.

Le vicende delle sue reliquie - Patrono di Venezia

La chiesa costruita al Canopo di Alessandria, che custodiva le sue reliquie, fu incendiata nel 644 dagli arabi e ricostruita in seguito dai patriarchi di Alessandria, Agatone (662-680), e Giovanni di Samanhud (680-689).

E in questo luogo nell’828, approdarono i due mercanti veneziani Buono da Malamocco e Rustico da Torcello, che s’impadronirono delle reliquie dell’Evangelista minacciate dagli arabi, trasferendole a Venezia, dove giunsero il 31 gennaio 828, superando il controllo degli arabi, una tempesta e l’arenarsi su una secca.

Le reliquie furono accolte con grande onore dal doge Giustiniano Partecipazio, figlio e successore del primo doge delle Isole di Rialto, Agnello; e riposte provvisoriamente in una piccola cappella, luogo oggi identificato dove si trova il tesoro di San Marco.

Iniziò la costruzione di una basilica, che fu portata a termine nell’832 dal fratello Giovanni suo successore; Dante nel suo memorabile poema scrisse. “Cielo e mare vi posero mano”, ed effettivamente la Basilica di San Marco è un prodigio di marmi e d’oro al confine dell’arte.

Ma la splendida Basilica ebbe pure i suoi guai, essa andò distrutta una prima volta da un incendio nel 976, provocato dal popolo in rivolta contro il doge Candiano IV (959-976) che lì si era rifugiato insieme al figlio; in quell’occasione fu distrutto anche il vicino Palazzo Ducale.

Nel 976-978, il doge Pietro Orseolo I il Santo, ristrutturò a sue spese sia il Palazzo che la Basilica; l’attuale ‘Terza San Marco’ fu iniziata invece nel 1063, per volontà del doge Domenico I Contarini e completata nei mosaici e marmi dal doge suo successore, Domenico Selvo (1071-1084).

La Basilica fu consacrata nel 1094, quando era doge Vitale Falier; ma già nel 1071 s. Marco fu scelto come titolare della Basilica e Patrono principale della Serenissima, al posto di s. Teodoro, che fino all’XI secolo era il patrono e l’unico santo militare venerato dappertutto.

Le due colonne monolitiche poste tra il molo e la piazzetta, portano sulla sommità rispettivamente l’alato Leone di S. Marco e il santo guerriero Teodoro, che uccide un drago simile ad un coccodrillo.

La cerimonia della dedicazione e consacrazione della Basilica, avvenuta il 25 aprile 1094, fu preceduta da un triduo di penitenza, digiuno e preghiere, per ottenere il ritrovamento delle reliquie dell’Evangelista, delle quali non si conosceva più l’ubicazione.

Dopo la Messa celebrata dal vescovo, si spezzò il marmo di rivestimento di un pilastro della navata destra, a lato dell’ambone e comparve la cassetta contenente le reliquie, mentre un profumo dolcissimo si spargeva per la Basilica.

Venezia restò indissolubilmente legata al suo Santo patrono, il cui simbolo di evangelista, il leone alato che artiglia un libro con la già citata scritta: “Pax tibi Marce evangelista meus”, divenne lo stemma della Serenissima, che per secoli fu posto in ogni angolo della città ed elevato in ogni luogo dove portò il suo dominio.

San Marco è patrono dei notai, degli scrivani, dei vetrai, dei pittori su vetro, degli ottici; la sua festa è il 25 aprile, data che ha fatto fiorire una quantità di detti e proverbi.

Autore: Antonio Borrelli

Lorenzo di Bicci (1350–1427), San Marco evangelista, Indianapolis Museum of Art

Santo patrono di Venezia, Marco scrive uno dei quattro Vangeli. Nasce probabilmente a Cirene (Libia) intorno all’anno 20 dopo Cristo. Di famiglia benestante, studia il greco, il latino, l’ebraico e i testi degli antichi profeti. Per sfuggire all’invasione dei Barbari, Marco e la sua famiglia si rifugiano a Gerusalemme. La madre Maria, rimasta vedova, offre ospitalità nella sua casa a Gesù e ai suoi discepoli. Nel 44 d.C. un parente di Marco, San Barnaba, si ferma nella casa di Maria assieme a San Paolo. I racconti dei loro viaggi, soprattutto della visita alla terza città più importante dell’epoca dopo Roma ed Alessandria d’Egitto, Antiochia, infiammano il cuore di Marco che decide di partire con loro per diffondere il messaggio di Gesù.

L’opera di Marco diventa fondamentale per i cristiani. Scrive uno dei quattro Vangeli seguendo i racconti di San Pietro (di cui ne diviene segretario e interprete) e viene mandato nel Nord Italia per far conoscere il Cristianesimo. Secondo la tradizione un giorno Marco si perde e, durante un violento nubifragio, si ritrova su di un isolotto dove ha una visione: un angelo, sotto forma di leone alato, gli profetizza che in quel luogo una città meravigliosa avrebbe accolto le sue spoglie. Quell’isolotto è la futura Venezia.

Dopo la morte dei Santi Pietro e Paolo, Gesù appare a Marco e lo invita a trasferirsi in Egitto. L’evangelista si reca a Gerusalemme per assistere la madre che sta per morire, poi si dirige ad Alessandria d’Egitto dove predica, compie miracoli e viene proclamato vescovo. La sua missione per convertire il popolo al Cristianesimo viene osteggiata dalle locali istituzioni religiose. Tentano di ucciderlo ma, grazie all’intervento di Dio, Marco si salva e per riconoscenza fa costruire una chiesa in onore dell’Immacolata Vergine Maria.

Marco muore ad Alessandria d’Egitto intorno al 72 d.C.; secondo alcuni racconti leggendari, le spoglie di Marco vengono raccolte da due commercianti veneziani e trasferite, nell’829, nella Basilica di Venezia, intitolata al santo. Il suo simbolo è un leone alato che caratterizza la città lagunare e il Veneto. San Marco è protettore di farmacisti, notai, segretari, dattilografi, interpreti, artisti, pittori, ottici, fabbricanti e commercianti di occhiali. E poi ancora di allevatori, calzolai, cestai, vetrai, muratori. Protegge i quadri, le mani e contro la scabbia.

Autore: Mariella Lentini

SOURCE : https://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/20850

Bernardino Cametti  (1669–1736), San Marco evangelista, Sanctuary of the Madonna di San Luca

Den hellige evangelisten Markus (d. ~68?)

Minnedag: 25. april

Skytshelgen for Venezia, Egypt og øya Reichenau; for murere, bygningsarbeidere, glassmestere, glassmalere, kurvmakere, notarer og skrivere, for fanger; for spanske kvegoppdrettere (1951); for markens grøde, mot lyn, uvær og hagl; mot en plutselig død; for en god fødsel

Den hellige Markus (lat: Marcus; gr. Markos) skrev Markus-evangeliet. Han betraktes i vest som identisk med den Markus (Barnabas' nevø) som nevnes av den hellige apostelen Paulus i brevet til kolosserne: «Aristark, min medfange, hilser dere, og det samme gjør Markus, fetter til Barnabas. Dere har fått beskjed om ham; ta godt imot ham hvis han kommer» (Kol 4,10). Han betraktes også som identisk med den Johannes Markus fra Apostlenes gjerninger som omtales flere ganger i Det nye Testamente: «Barnabas og Saulus utførte sitt oppdrag i Jerusalem og tok med seg Johannes med tilnavnet Markus da de drog derfra» (Apg 12,25).

Det blir også ofte sagt at Markus er identisk med den unge mannen som løp naken bort da Kristus ble arrestert i Getsemane (Mark 14,51-52). Men Markus var et vanlig navn på den tiden både i dets greske og latinske form, så noen forskere mener at alle disse kan være forskjellige personer.

Den østlige tradisjonen har alltid hevdet at disse tre mennene (evangelisten Markus, Johannes Markus og Markus, Barnabas' fetter) var tre forskjellige personer og at alle tre var blant Jesu sytti disipler. Evangelisten Markus står som nr. 2 på biskop Dorotheus av Tyrus' liste over «Jesu Sytti disipler» i henhold til Den ortodokse kirkes tradisjon (Johannes Markus er nr 61 og Markus av Apollonia nr 66).

Dersom den vestlige identifikasjonen er riktig, kom Markus fra en velstående jødisk familie. Han var sønn av en kvinne ved navn Maria som hadde eget hus i Jerusalem, hvor apostlene pleide å møtes (Apg 12, 12). Hans barndomshjem var nøyaktig der Dormitio-kirken nå står, for legenden forteller at Maria døde i dette huset. Han var trolig levitt og kanskje en lavere prest i synagogen da han møtte Jesus. Han skal ha hørt den hellige apostelen Peters preken pinsedag og blitt omvendt. Senere tradisjoner kaller hans far for Johannes og hans mor Hanna, den sier at faren var prest og gir Markus tilnavnet Kolobodaktylos («stumpfingret»), fordi han hadde skåret av seg tommelfingrene for å unngå forpliktelsen til å bli prest.

Han ble i år 44 med Paulus og Barnabas (Markus' fetter) til Antiokia (i dag Antakya i Sørøst-Tyrkia), deretter til Salamis på Kypros, og han fulgte dem på deres første misjonsreise, men vendte alene tilbake til Jerusalem da de var i Perga i Pamfylia (Apg 12,25 og 13,13). Vi vet ikke grunnen til dette, men Paulus ble så skuffet over ham at han senere avslo å ta ham med på den andre misjonsreisen. Dette førte til brudd mellom Paulus og Barnabas, som tok fetterens parti. Paulus tok med seg Silas i stedet, mens Markus dro sammen med Barnabas for å fortsette evangeliseringen av Kypros (Apg 15,27-39).

Men Markus ser ut til å ha blitt forsonet med Paulus, for han kom til Roma rundt 61/63 og var hos Paulus der (Kol 4,10). I Roma skrev han sannsynligvis sitt evangelium mellom 65 og 70 (mellom 55 og 59?). Den hellige Klemens av Alexandria og biskop Papias av Hierapolis, som skrev omkring år 140, sa at Markus var Peters tolk, siden den første pave ikke snakket gresk. Peter refererer hengivent til ham som «min sønn» (1.Pet 5,13), noe som stemmer bra med at Markusevangeliet tradisjonelt sies å uttrykke Peters lære og øyenvitneskildring.

Markusevangeliet var det første av evangeliene, og nesten sikkert brukt av både Matteus og Lukas som kilde. Hans stil er levende og observant, og han understreker sterkt Jesu krav til dem som vil følge ham. Han sier at de som følger Jesus må lide som Ham, slik Han uttrykkelig fortalte disiplene. Men det er også klart at de som kan holde ut disse lidelsene, vil bli rikt belønnet. For Markus ville virkelig forkynne Det glade Budskap, som ordet Evangelium betyr.

Legenden forteller at da Neros forfølgelser startet, flyktet apostelfyrstene Peter og Paulus til Umbria. Da ba de romerske kristne Markus om å skrive ned Peters forkynnelse, slik at den kunne bevares for kommende slekter. Markus hadde da tjent Peter så lenge at han kunne hans prekener utenat. Dermed oppsto det eldste evangeliet. I følge Papias leste Peter boken da han kom tilbake, godkjente den og beordret at den skulle leses under gudstjenesten.

At Markus etter at Peter led martyrdøden i 64, dro til Alexandria og forkynte evangeliet der, er mulig, men den tradisjon at han skulle være den første biskop i kirken der og grunnlegger av den koptiske kirken, er mer usikkert. Dette hevdes av den berømte kirkehistorikeren Eusebius av Caesarea (ca 260-340), men verken Klemens av Alexandria eller Origenes nevner det. Tradisjonen hevder at da Markus kom til Alexandria, tok han inn hos en skomaker, den hellige Anianus, og han skal ha etterfulgt Markus og blitt byens andre biskop.

Markus skal til slutt ha lidd martyrdøden i år 68 under keiser Nero (54-68). Detaljene om hans martyrium, som også tidfestes til «Neros åttende år», er upålitelige. I følge legenden skal innbyggere som var fiendtlige overfor de kristne ha overfalt ham foran alteret og slept ham med et tau om halsen til han døde. Men da de ville brenne martyrens kropp, kom det et voldsomt uvær som slokte flammene og drev bort menneskemengden. Deretter kunne de kristne gi ham en passende begravelse. Skomakeren Anianus etterfulgte ham som biskop. Etter ham kalles den egyptiske liturgien for Markusliturgien.

Enda mindre å stole på er fortellingene om at han misjonerte i Aquileia, Lorch ved Linz i Østerrike og Venezia.

Utenfor Alexandria var det en helligdom hvor han skal ha vært gravlagt, og dette hadde blitt et valfartssted på 400-tallet. Kirken ble satt i brann av araberne i 644, men senere gjenoppbygd av patriarkene Agatho (Agathon) (662-80) og Johannes av Samanhud (680-89). Markus' navn forbindes ofte med Venezia, fordi de to kjøpmennene Buono da Malamocco og Rustico da Torcello i år 828 røvet hans relikvier fra Alexandria for at de ikke skulle skjendes av de fremstormende muslimene. Legenden forteller at de gjemte den helliges skjelett i en kurv under noe svinekjøtt, som muslimene ikke rørte. De kom til Venezia med sin dyrebare last den 31. januar 828. Relikviene ble skrinlagt i den opprinnelige San Marco-kirken, som dogen Giustiniano Partecipazio straks lot bygge. Den ble vigslet allerede i 832, men ble brent i 976. Den var forløperen for dagens katedral, som ble bygd mellom 1063 og 1073. Markus ble dermed byens skytshelgen, noe han fortsatt er.

Da 1900-årsjublieet for grunnleggelsen av den koptiske kirke ble feiret i 1968, ga pave Paul VI (1963-78) deler av Markus' relikvier tilbake til Egypt og patriarken av Alexandria, og det ble bygd en katedral i Kairo for å huse dem. Hans hode er i en kirke i Alexandria som bærer hans navn, mens resten av relikviene fortsatt er i Markuskatedralen i Venezia.

Den hellige teologen Ireneus sammenlignet hver av de Esekiels fire bevingede vesener (Esek 1,5f og 10,14; jf Åp 4,7-8) med de fire evangelistene: Menneske (Matteus, for hans evangelium begynner med det menneskelige: Jesu stamtre). Løve (Markus, for hans evangelium begynner med Johannes Døperen, som levde i ørkenen: Løvens røst). Okse (Lukas, for hans evangelium begynner med Sakarias' offer i tempelet; oksen som offerdyr). Ørn (Johannes, for hans evangelium begynner «ovenfra»).

Evangelisten Markus' symbol, en løve med vinger, har også blitt Venezias symbol. Han blir også fremstilt med tau rundt halsen eller med oppslått bok og fjær. I boken eller bokrullen står enten begynnelsen på Markusevangeliet: Initium evangelii Jesu Christi filii Dei («Dette er begynnelsen til evangeliet om Jesus Kristus, Guds Sønn») (Mark 1,1), eller det kan stå: Evangelista Beatus Marcus: sicut scripsit Isaia propheta: Ecce ego mitto angelum meum («Den salige evangelisten Markus: Hos profeten Jesaja står det skrevet: Se, jeg sender min budbærer foran deg») (Mark 1,2). Det kan også stå PTMM, som betyr Pax Tibi Marce (Evangelista) Meus («Fred være med deg, Markus, min evangelist»).

I San Marco-katedralen finnes også en praktfull serie mosaikker om Markus' liv, død og translasjon fra 1100/1200-tallet. Relikvier av Markus kom også til Egypt, Albania, Korfu og Valencia. I 830 mottok abbed Erlebald av klosteret på øya Reichenau i Bodensjøen en Markusrelikvie av biskopen av Verona. Murerne har valgt Markus som sin skytshelgen fordi legenden forteller at under byggingen av Markuskatedralen falt en murer ned fra stillaset, men etter en bønn til den hellige Markus kom han fra det uten en skramme. I 1951 erklærte pave Pius XII (1939-58) formelt Markus som skytshelgen for spanske kvegoppdrettere, fordi det lenge hadde vært en stor hengivenhet for ham blant dem.

Markus' minnedag er 25. april. I den katolske verden kalles dagen «Store bønnedag», selv om bønneprosesjonene (Litaniae maiores) opprinnelig ikke var til ære for Markus. Det er nok et eksempel på en hedensk fest som er overtatt og gitt kristent innhold, i dette tilfelle festen Robigalia til ære for den romerske guden Robigus som beskytter av den voksende grøden. Det skal være den hellige pave Gregor I den Store (590-604) som innførte Litaniae maiores på Markus' festdag. Dagen er også avmerket på den norske primstaven. I vesten er hans fest feiret siden 800-tallet. I øst ble han tidligere feiret den 23. september, mens nå feirer både kopterne, syrerne og bysantinerne ham den 25. april. Translasjonsfesten til Venezia er 31. januar. Andre Markusfester feires 25. juni (Venezia), 11. januar (grekerne) og 26. mars (kopterne).

I Venezia velsignes på Markus' festdag de så kalte Markus-brød (Marci panis), som er opphavet til ordet Marsipan.

Noen av de mange bildene av Markus på nettet:

Anonym gresk illuminasjon fra 900-tallet

Mester I.K: Fire evangelister i et scriptorium

Kilder: Attwater (dk), Attwater/John, Attwater/Cumming, Farmer, Jones, Bentley, Hallam, Lodi, Butler, Butler (IV), Benedictines, Delaney, Bunson, Engelhart, Schnitzler, Schauber/Schindler, Melchers, Gorys, Dammer/Adam, KIR, CE, CSO, Patron Saints SQPN, Infocatho, Bautz, Heiligenlexikon, santiebeati.it, Copt-Net, Ecole, Kiefer, viq/tlieu - Kompilasjon og oversettelse: p. Per Einar Odden - Opprettet: 2001-10-13 14:41 - Sist oppdatert: 2006-08-10 18:32

SOURCE : http://www.katolsk.no/biografier/historisk/markus

Voir aussi : https://aleteia.org/2019/07/10/grave-robbers-in-gondolas-how-the-remains-of-saint-mark-came-to-be-in-venice/

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/0

https://www.christianiconography.info/mark.html