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
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/
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
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 » ?
[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…
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
.jpg)
95 X 71, Toulouse, Musée des
Augustins
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
Saint Marc, évangéliste, protecteur de la
cité de Montluel
Marc appartenait par sa
famille à la communauté chrétienne de Jérusalem. Il suivit d'abord Paul dans
son apostolat, puis il s'attacha à Pierre, qui l'appelle « son
fils ». La tradition veut que Marc ait recueilli dans son Évangile la
prédication de Pierre aux chrétiens de Rome et qu'il ait fondé ensuite l'Église
d'Alexandrie.
A painted miniature in an Armenian Gospel manuscript from 1609,
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
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/
Andrea Mantegna. Saint Marc Évangéliste,
1450.
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). TheEvangelist'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 latertradition 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>.
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.
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
- 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 risenLord,
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 threemiracles: 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 theGospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52;
xi, 12-14) occur in the first eight chapters.
Only two of thesemiracles (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 theApostles 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 Evangelistmeant 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'soracles [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 andremembered 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 Peterdirected 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 interpreterMark 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 theGospel, 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 he Gospel with St.
Peter, there can be nodoubt 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, whileOrigen 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 anUrmarkus 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 withanger 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 andRufus (xv, 21); (3) how there was no room
even about the door of the house where Jesus was (ii, 2), howJesus 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 Peterand 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 thePetrine 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 solidreason to doubt the correctness of this view. We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.;
VI, 187 sqq.) andMartial (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 GreekSt.
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 SecondGospel 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 toSt. 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 thatMark 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, andVulg.), 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. whetherGerasenon 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 Gospelconcerns 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 knownall 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 cursiveManuscript 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 apologistmight 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 ofMark, 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 thegenuineness 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 Jeromemakes 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 theSyriac versions except
the Sinaitic (in the Pesh., Curet., Harcl., Palest.), in the Coptic, Gothic, and mostmanuscripts of the Armenian. It is cited or alluded to, in the
fourth century, by Aphraates, the Syriac Table ofCanons, 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 theLiturgy 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 Cyprianthere is room for some doubt, as they might naturally enough to be expected to have quoted
or alluded toMark
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 andAleph 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 othermanuscripts, for in B, contrary to his custom,
he leaves more than a column vacant after verse 8, and in Alephverse 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 theexistence of a conclusion following after verse
8, which they omit. Whether B and Aleph are two of the fiftymanuscripts 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 manuscriptsof 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 Tatianand 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
iscertainly 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, thatChrist was really risen from the dead, and that His Apostles, almost against their wills, were forced to believethe 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. Lukealso (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 Gospeloutside 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'sconcluding 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 ofChrist's followers. Nor could an Evangelist, especially a disciple of St.
Peter, willingly conclude his Gospelwithout
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 Egyptor 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 thetrue 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 apresbyter 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 SacredBooks 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 toEgypt 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 Evangelistmay 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 datesmay 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 HeresiesIII.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, forPeter 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 Irenæusand
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 toMark'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 firstApostolic journey
of St.
Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it
is seen from Acts 14:26 and 15:3, that only then had theconversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale. Of course it is possible that previous to this
the Apostleshad 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 inRoman 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 mediatingbetween 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 toRationalists to learn the purpose of the Gospel.
The Fathers witness that it was written to put into
permanentform 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 theRoman Christians, and still more perhaps
to those who might think of becoming Christians, that Jesus was theAlmighty
Son of God. To this end, instead of quoting prophecy,
as Matthew does to prove that Jesus was theMessias, 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 toprove 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 andcursed 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 traitorafter 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
modifiedform, 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 thenature 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 theGospels,
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
ofMatthew, 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'somissions.
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
aRoman 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 Englandas 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 twoSynoptics" ("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'sGospel 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" toMark 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 theirdesertion 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 touchingcomment 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 inchapters 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 ofMatthew. 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 AramaicGospel. 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 Petrinetradition 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 Apostlesseparated; that it
disappeared afterwards would not be wonderful, seeing that it was embodied in
theGospels. 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, 1910.25 Apr. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm>.
MacRory, Joseph. "Gospel of Saint Mark." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.25 Apr. 2015 <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.
Mark, Evangelist (RM)
Died c. 75; feast day in the East is September 23; feast of the translation of his relics to Venice is celebrated on January 31. Among the younger figures of the New Testament is John Mark (Acts 12:25), mentioned several times in the New Testament. Of the four Gospels his is the most vivid and informal because it was probably the first recorded (AD 60-70). In some ways it is the most descriptive Gospel, yet he writes as though it had to be done quickly. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, Asia Minor, called him the interpreter of Peter, c. 130, and said that he preached the gospel in Alexandria. An ancient tradition had the Gospel written down in Rome for Gentile Christians.
He recorded the story of Jesus as he heard it from the lips of Saint Peter. "For," according to Papias, "he had neither heard the Lord, nor ever been his disciple, but later had attended Peter, who composed his teachings to suit the needs of the moment, but did not profess to make a regular collection of the Lord's sayings. And so Mark made no mistakes; writing down the particulars just as he remembered them."
Mark's Gospel is written in awkward Greek, full of Semitic turns of phrases, cumbersome participles, and a lack of transitions. Yet Mark's simple language, stripped of rhetorical flourishes, without oratorical periods, without concern for syntax, is perhaps the clearest language through which to see best the flesh and blood of Jesus. The miracles of Jesus must have deeply affected Mark because his Gospel recounts many of them. In order to demonstrate Jesus's divinity to the Romans, Mark skillfully shows Jesus as a worker of miracles rather than Jesus fulfilling prophecies that would be unknown to his intended readers. Mark's Gospel starkly sets out the demands of Jesus on his followers.
Jesus had suffered, says Mark; His followers will suffer similarly. Indeed, Jesus had explicitly warned the disciples about this. But it is also clear that those who can endure such sufferings will be greatly rewarded, for what Mark claims to be bringing is 'good news,' 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,' as he states in the very first verse. Another early historian, Eusebius, reporting the words of Saint Clement of Alexandria says that Saint Mark, a follower of Saint Peter, was asked by Roman tradesmen to compose a permanent memorial of Saint Peter's sermons, and so came to write, from his memory of them, the Gospel which bears his name. Saint Ireneaus also tells us that Mark was Saint Peter's interpreter and mouthpiece.
Saint Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). His mother, Mary, was evidently a person of some wealth and position in Jerusalem, for her home was a center of hospitality to which the leaders of the early Church naturally gravitated. When Saint Peter escaped from prison, he came "to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying," and it was a maid of the house, called Rhoda, who answered the door.
Mark was probably a Levite, because we know that his kinsman Barnabas was one (Acts 4:36), and perhaps a minor minister in the synagogue. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch is AD 44 (Acts 12:25), then to Salamis in Cyprus, and with Barnabas was on Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), but left Paul at Perga in Pamphylia and returned alone to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). For some reason he evidently offended Paul, who did not take him on his second missionary journey to Cilicia and Asia Minor, which was the occasion of the disagreement and separation of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-40).
Mark accompanied Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts 15:39) and then, evidently back in Paul's good graces, was with him in Rome during his first imprisonment (Col. 4:10), where he was apparently a disciple of Peter, who affectionately called him "my son, Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). During Paul's second Roman captivity, shortly before his martyrdom, he writes to Timothy, who was at Ephesus, to "take Mark and bring him with you, for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Timothy 4:11).
An early uncertain tradition, recorded by Eusebius, renders Mark the first bishop of Alexandria, but neither Papias nor Clement of Alexandria mentions it. The tradition says that upon his arrival in Alexandria, like Paul arriving in Damascus, Mark found lodging with an inhabitant, in this case with a shoemaker. The shoemaker was also to become a saint, whose feast is celebrated today-- Anianus. Tradition continues that Mark was martyred during the reign of Emperor Trajan or the "eighth year of Nero," and the shoemaker Anianus succeeded him as bishop.
One Easter Sunday, the uncertain tradition continues, April 24, 68, Mark was arrested. The long path of Jesus, from Gethsemani up to the palace of Anna, which Mark had not had the courage to pursue in Jerusalem, had been reserved for him, with a rope around his neck, from Alexandria up to the little port of Bucoles.
He fell several times along the way. Finally, after having carried his rope all day and then for a night, and feeling it sink into his flesh, in the end he no longer desired that it be removed. He wanted to find this collar to his measure, this light yoke--and died strangled. In the East, John Mark is believed to be a separate person who became bishop of Biblios and whose feast is celebrated on September 27.
Regardless of Papias's remarks that Mark never knew our Lord, there is speculation that he would have been acquainted with Jesus. He may have been the unnamed youth (mentioned only in Saint Mark's Gospel 14:51-52) who appeared at the time of the Betrayal, wrapped in a sheet, as if he had come straight from his bed, and who, when caught, escaped into the night (this has always been curious to me). It is likely enough that Saint Mark, as a boy, had been drawn to the scene, but it is only a conjecture. Other Scripture scholars note that the Last Supper may have occurred in the room reserved in Mark's mother's house for pilgrims, and that the Garden of Gethsamane belonged to the family. It would have been common enough for one of the family members or servants to sleep in the garden as a protection against thieves, which would explain the boy sleeping in the open (Attwater, Benedictines, Bentley, Delaney, Encyclopedia, Farmer, Gill, Walsh, White).
In art, Saint Mark is an evangelist with a book or scroll and a winged lion. At times he may be shown (1) with palm and book (sometimes pax tibi Marce is written on his book); (2) as a bishop with his throne decorated with lions; (3) coming to the aid of Venetian sailors; or (4) rescuing Christian slaves from the Saracens (Roeder). The winged lion is used as Saint Mark's emblem. This is one of the four winged creatures of Ezekiel 1:10; 10:14 that were first applied by Jewish scholars to the four archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel) with reference to and later used in reference to the four major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel).
By the 2nd century after Christ, Christians transferred the emblem to the four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in written allusions. These became visual symbols in the 5th century. Traditionally, it is explained that the winged lion is chosen for Mark because his gospel speaks of the royal dignity of Christ, and because he begins his account of Saint John the Baptist with the "voice crying is the desert" (Appleton).
Saint Mark is the patron of Venice, to where his relics were reputedly brought in the 9th century from Alexandria. Although the original church of St. Mark in Venice was destroyed in 976, the rebuilt basilica contains both the relics and a magnificent series of mosaics on Mark's life, death, and translation. These date from the 12th-13th centuries and form a unique record (Farmer). He is also the patron of Egypt, glaziers, notaries, secretaries, and Spanish cattle breeders (for which there is no obvious explanation). He is invoked by captives (Roeder, White).
SOURCE : http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0425.shtml
St. Mark The Apostle, Evangelist
Died c. 75; feast day in the East is September 23; feast of the translation of his relics to Venice is celebrated on January 31. Among the younger figures of the New Testament is John Mark (Acts 12:25), mentioned several times in the New Testament. Of the four Gospels his is the most vivid and informal because it was probably the first recorded (AD 60-70). In some ways it is the most descriptive Gospel, yet he writes as though it had to be done quickly. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, Asia Minor, called him the interpreter of Peter, c. 130, and said that he preached the gospel in Alexandria. An ancient tradition had the Gospel written down in Rome for Gentile Christians.
He recorded the story of Jesus as he heard it from the lips of Saint Peter. "For," according to Papias, "he had neither heard the Lord, nor ever been his disciple, but later had attended Peter, who composed his teachings to suit the needs of the moment, but did not profess to make a regular collection of the Lord's sayings. And so Mark made no mistakes; writing down the particulars just as he remembered them."
Mark's Gospel is written in awkward Greek, full of Semitic turns of phrases, cumbersome participles, and a lack of transitions. Yet Mark's simple language, stripped of rhetorical flourishes, without oratorical periods, without concern for syntax, is perhaps the clearest language through which to see best the flesh and blood of Jesus. The miracles of Jesus must have deeply affected Mark because his Gospel recounts many of them. In order to demonstrate Jesus's divinity to the Romans, Mark skillfully shows Jesus as a worker of miracles rather than Jesus fulfilling prophecies that would be unknown to his intended readers. Mark's Gospel starkly sets out the demands of Jesus on his followers.
Jesus had suffered, says Mark; His followers will suffer similarly. Indeed, Jesus had explicitly warned the disciples about this. But it is also clear that those who can endure such sufferings will be greatly rewarded, for what Mark claims to be bringing is 'good news,' 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,' as he states in the very first verse. Another early historian, Eusebius, reporting the words of Saint Clement of Alexandria says that Saint Mark, a follower of Saint Peter, was asked by Roman tradesmen to compose a permanent memorial of Saint Peter's sermons, and so came to write, from his memory of them, the Gospel which bears his name. Saint Ireneaus also tells us that Mark was Saint Peter's interpreter and mouthpiece.
Saint Mark was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10). His mother, Mary, was evidently a person of some wealth and position in Jerusalem, for her home was a center of hospitality to which the leaders of the early Church naturally gravitated. When Saint Peter escaped from prison, he came "to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying," and it was a maid of the house, called Rhoda, who answered the door.
Mark was probably a Levite, because we know that his kinsman Barnabas was one (Acts 4:36), and perhaps a minor minister in the synagogue. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Antioch is AD 44 (Acts 12:25), then to Salamis in Cyprus, and with Barnabas was on Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), but left Paul at Perga in Pamphylia and returned alone to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). For some reason he evidently offended Paul, who did not take him on his second missionary journey to Cilicia and Asia Minor, which was the occasion of the disagreement and separation of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-40).
Mark accompanied Barnabas to Cyprus (Acts 15:39) and then, evidently back in Paul's good graces, was with him in Rome during his first imprisonment (Col. 4:10), where he was apparently a disciple of Peter, who affectionately called him "my son, Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). During Paul's second Roman captivity, shortly before his martyrdom, he writes to Timothy, who was at Ephesus, to "take Mark and bring him with you, for he is profitable to me for the ministry" (2 Timothy 4:11).
An early uncertain tradition, recorded by Eusebius, renders Mark the first bishop of Alexandria, but neither Papias nor Clement of Alexandria mentions it. The tradition says that upon his arrival in Alexandria, like Paul arriving in Damascus, Mark found lodging with an inhabitant, in this case with a shoemaker. The shoemaker was also to become a saint, whose feast is celebrated today-- Anianus. Tradition continues that Mark was martyred during the reign of Emperor Trajan or the "eighth year of Nero," and the shoemaker Anianus succeeded him as bishop.
One Easter Sunday, the uncertain tradition continues, April 24, 68, Mark was arrested. The long path of Jesus, from Gethsemani up to the palace of Anna, which Mark had not had the courage to pursue in Jerusalem, had been reserved for him, with a rope around his neck, from Alexandria up to the little port of Bucoles.
He fell several times along the way. Finally, after having carried his rope all day and then for a night, and feeling it sink into his flesh, in the end he no longer desired that it be removed. He wanted to find this collar to his measure, this light yoke--and died strangled. In the East, John Mark is believed to be a separate person who became bishop of Biblios and whose feast is celebrated on September 27.
Regardless of Papias's remarks that Mark never knew our Lord, there is speculation that he would have been acquainted with Jesus. He may have been the unnamed youth (mentioned only in Saint Mark's Gospel 14:51-52) who appeared at the time of the Betrayal, wrapped in a sheet, as if he had come straight from his bed, and who, when caught, escaped into the night (this has always been curious to me). It is likely enough that Saint Mark, as a boy, had been drawn to the scene, but it is only a conjecture. Other Scripture scholars note that the Last Supper may have occurred in the room reserved in Mark's mother's house for pilgrims, and that the Garden of Gethsamane belonged to the family. It would have been common enough for one of the family members or servants to sleep in the garden as a protection against thieves, which would explain the boy sleeping in the open (Attwater, Benedictines, Bentley, Delaney, Encyclopedia, Farmer, Gill, Walsh, White).
In art, Saint Mark is an evangelist with a book or scroll and a winged lion. At times he may be shown (1) with palm and book (sometimes pax tibi Marce is written on his book); (2) as a bishop with his throne decorated with lions; (3) coming to the aid of Venetian sailors; or (4) rescuing Christian slaves from the Saracens (Roeder). The winged lion is used as Saint Mark's emblem. This is one of the four winged creatures of Ezekiel 1:10; 10:14 that were first applied by Jewish scholars to the four archangels (Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel) with reference to and later used in reference to the four major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel).
By the 2nd century after Christ, Christians transferred the emblem to the four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in written allusions. These became visual symbols in the 5th century. Traditionally, it is explained that the winged lion is chosen for Mark because his gospel speaks of the royal dignity of Christ, and because he begins his account of Saint John the Baptist with the "voice crying is the desert" (Appleton).
Saint Mark is the patron of Venice, to where his relics were reputedly brought in the 9th century from Alexandria. Although the original church of St. Mark in Venice was destroyed in 976, the rebuilt basilica contains both the relics and a magnificent series of mosaics on Mark's life, death, and translation. These date from the 12th-13th centuries and form a unique record (Farmer). He is also the patron of Egypt, glaziers, notaries, secretaries, and Spanish cattle breeders (for which there is no obvious explanation). He is invoked by captives (Roeder, White).
SOURCE : http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0425.shtml
St. Mark The Apostle, Evangelist
Preacher of The Christian Faith in Africa
St. Mark was a native of the North Africa county of Libya. He was born in the city of Cyrene in Pentapolis, The western part of Libya, west of the border of Egypt. St. Mark was born of Jewish parents three years after the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. His original name was John and his surname was Mark : "And when he {peter} came to himself ....., he {Peter} came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark, where many gathered together praying" (acts 12:11-12); and " Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark" (acts 15:37); "And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark" (acts 12:25). St. marks parents, Aristopolos his father and Mary his mother, migrated to Palestine shortly after the birth of St. Mark because of the Berber attacks on their town and property. They settled in Cana of Galilee not far form Jerusalem A few years later St. Mark's father died and Peter Simon { St. Peter}, who was married to a relative of St. Mark's father took care of St. Mark and considered him a son: "The Church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you and so does Marcus {Mark} my son"; (1 Peter 5:13). Peter Simon saw to it that St. Mark got a good education. St. Mark studied law and the classics.
Church Traditions state that Mary, St. Mark's mother, was admirer of Jesus Christ and followed Him everywhere and that St. Mark was one of the attendants who served at the feast in Cana of Galilee at which Jesus Christ turned the waster into wine: "And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee ... and both Jesus and was called and his disciples, to the marriage .. when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, ... This was the first miracle Jesus did ..." (John 2:1-11)
________________________________________
Quick Facts
+ He was born in the Pentapolis or Qairawan (Now Tunisia or Libya according to other sources) approximately 15 years after our Lord was born.
+ He witnessed the preaching of our Lord in Palestine as well as his passion.
+ He is the author of the earliest Gospel to be written (it was written in Greek).
+ He was the founder of Christianity in Egypt or in Alexandria at least. He came to Alexandria approximately 48 AD. Foot Note: According to some sources, St. Peter preached in Babylon about the same time St. Mark was in Alexandria, however he focussed on the Jews of Babylon (A city near Memphis, Cairo now ).
+ He was martyred in 68 AD when pagans of Serapis (the Serapion-Abbis Greek Egyptian god ) tied him to a horse's tail and dragged him through the streets of Alexandria's district of Bokalia for two days until his body was torn to pieces.
+ The Church celebrates his martyrdom on the 8th of May each year.
+ His head is in a church named after him in Alexandria, and parts of his relics is in St. Mark's Cairo's Cathedral. The rest of his relics are in the San Marco Cathedral in Venice, Italy.
+ Of his titles are : The Evangelist, the Apostle, the Witness and the Martyr.
April 25.ST. MARK, Evangelist.
ST. MARK was converted to the Faith by the Prince of the Apostles, whom he afterwards accompanied to Rome, acting there as his secretary or interpreter. When St. Peter was writing his first epistle to the churches of Asia, he affectionately joins with his own salutation that of his faithful companion, whom he calls "my son Mark." The Roman people entreated St. Mark to put in writing for them the substanee of St. Peter's frequent discourses on Our Lord's life. This the Evangelist did under the eye and with the express sanction Of the apostle, and every page of his brief but graphic gospel so bore the impress of St. Peter's character, that the Fathers used to name it "Peter's Gospel." St. Mark was now sent to Egypt to found the Church of Alexandria. Here his disciples be came the wonder of the world for their piety and asceticism, so that St. Jerome speaks of St. Mark as the father of the anchorites, who at a later time thronged the Egyptian deserts. Here, too, he set up the first Christian school, the fruitful mother of many illustrious doctors and bishops. After governing his see for many years, St. Mark was one day seized by the heathen, dragged by ropes over stones, and thrown into prison. On the morrow the torture was repeated, and having been consoled by a vision of angels and the voice of Jesus, St. Mark went to his reward.
It is to St. Mark that we owe the many slight touches which often give such vivid coloring to the Gospel scenes, and help us to picture to ourselves the very gestures and looks of our blessed Lord. It is he alone who notes that in the temptation Jesus was "with the beasts;" that tie slept in the boat "on a pillow;" that He "embraced" the little. children. He alone preserves for us the commanding words "Peace, be still " by which the storm was quelled; or even the very sounds of His voice, the "Ephpheta" and "Talitha cumi," by which the dumb were made to speak and the dead to rise. So, too, the "looking round about with anger," and the "sighing deeply," long treasured in the memory of the penitent apostle, who was himself converted by his Saviour's look, are here recorded by his faithful interpreter.
Reflection.--Learn from St. Mark to keep the image of the Son of man ever before your mind, and to ponder every syllable which fell from His lips.
SOURCE : http://jesus-passion.com/stmark.htm
_-_BEIC_6359432.jpg)
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 : http://www.bartleby.com/210/4/251.html
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
Foto di Paolo
Monti, 1972.
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.
San Marco Evangelista
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. (Avvenire)
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
