- ble modesty, which always distinguished the great apostolic chief,
would naturally avoid any allusion to matters which so highly exalted his own merits. Otherwise, the narrative of Mark can be characterized only as a plain statement of the incidents in the public life of Jesus, with very few of his discourses, and none of his words at so great length as in the other gospels; from which it is evident, that an account of his acts rather than his sermons,—of his doings rather than his sayings, is what he designed to give.
"Among all the quotations hitherto made from the writings of the most ancient
Fathers, we find no mention made of Mark's having published his gospel at Alexandria.
This report, however, prevailed in the fourth century, as appears from what
is related by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It is first mentioned by Eusebius
in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. ii. cap. 16. It appears from the word [Greek: phasin], that Eusebius
mentions this only as a report; and what is immediately added in the same
place, that the persons, whose severity of life and manners is described by Philo,
were the converts which Mark made at Alexandria, is evidently false. Epiphanius,
in his fifty-first Heresy, ch. vi. gives some account of it. According to his statement,
Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, while Peter was teaching the Christian religion in
that city; and after he had written it, he was sent by Peter into Egypt. A similar
account is given by Jerome in his 'Treatise on Illustrious Men,' ch. viii. Lastly,
the Coptic Christians of the present age consider Mark as the founder and first bishop
of their church; and their Patriarch styles himself, 'Unworthy servant of Jesus
Christ, called by the grace of God, and by his gracious will appointed to his service,
and to the see of the holy evangelist Mark.' The Copts pretend likewise, that Mark
was murdered by a band of robbers, near the lake Menzale; but if this account be
true, he was hardly buried at Alexandria, and his tomb in that city must be one of the
forgeries of early superstition." (Michaelis, Vol. III. pp. 207-209.)
That it is not wholly new to rank Mark among the apostles, is shown by the usages of the Fathers, who, in the application of terms, are authority, as far as they show the opinions prevalent in their times. Eusebius says, "that in the eighth year of Nero, Anianus, the first bishop of Alexandria after Mark, the apostle and avangelist, took upon him the care of that church." [Greek: Prôtos meta Markon ton aposolon kai evangelisên, tês en Alexandreia paroikias, Anianos tên leitourgian diadechetai.] H. E. I. 2. cap. 24. (Lardner's Cred. Vol. III. p. 176.)
Of the later movements of Mark, nothing is known with certainty.
Being evidently younger than most of the original apostles,
it is not unreasonable to suppose that he long survived them;
but his field of labor is unknown. The common tradition among
the Fathers, after the third century, is, that he went to Alexandria,
and there founding a church, became bishop of it till his death;—but
the statement is mixed up with so much that is palpably false,
that it is not entitled to any credit.
