2nd Century Mentions of Mark

[MrMacSon]

Flicking though [the books and chapters of] Adversus Haereses, there aren't many highlighted passages from Mark.

Note I said "Flicking though [the books and chapters of] Adversus Haereses, there aren't many highlighted passages from Mark".

eta: the only mention of Mark by Irenaeus (other than Adv Haers 3.1.1 and 3.11.8) might be Adv Haers. 3.10.5 -

By the times of Irenaeus, gMark was the least important gospels out of the four, and not even considered as the first one written. So relatively few mentions and quotes of/from gMark (as compared with the others) should not be surprising.

No abundance of evidence on a particular point is not a reason to doubt the available relevant evidence and/or worse, to declare that non-abundant evidence as useless for justifying the point (because non-abundant evidence is quasi-considered as absence of evidence).

The only mention of Mark by Irenaeus seem to be Adv Haers 3.1.1, 3.10.5, and 3.11.7-8 -

Adv Haers 3.1.1
"... Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Adv Haers 3.10.5
Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, "in the spirit and power of Elias", [Luke 1:17] "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God"; [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm

Adv Haers 3.11.7 & 8
7/ ... Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

8/ ... Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

---

Papias is said by Eusebius to have identified a presbyter John or ‘elder’ who is said to have said "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ" -

14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.

For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14-16

---

Justin Martyr's “Dialogue with Trypho” included this passage (Chapter 106) :

“It is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and ... it is written in his memoirs ... he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Because only the gospel attributed to Mark describes John and James that way, it has been assumed that the memoir that Justin was referring to was the gospel of Mark.

However, the full passage [paragraphed by me] is -

The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' [Numbers 24:17] and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

So, this passage is about framing the wider narrative.

---

Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History II, Chap 15, says Clement of Alexandria wrote in 'Hypotyposeis' reference to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginning”: -

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.”

Eusebius also wrote, in Ecclesiastical History VI Chap 14, -

5. Again, in the same books [Hypotyposes, +/- others(?)], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xi.xiv.html

This has been said to demonstrate that Clement is not simply repeating information first established by Papias, but that Clement seems to have an additional source that provided him with something more, and something slightly different than Papias.

But then it seems Eusebius is often trying to pad-out ie. embellish early church 'history'.
.

[Ben C. Smith]

Some argue that the Latin prologues date to late century II. This is the Marcan one:

Marcus adseruit, qui et colobodactylus est nominatus, ideo quod ad ceteram corporis proceritatem digitos minores habuisset. hic discipulus et¹ interpres fuit Petri, ^2aquem secutus est sicut ipsum audierat referentem. rogatus Romae a fratribus hoc breve evangelium in Italiae partibus scripsit. quod cum Petrus audisset, probavit ecclesiaeque legendum sua auctoritate firmavit. verum post discessum Petri assumpto hoc evangelio quod ipse confecerat, perrexit Aegyptum et primus Alexandriae episcopus ordinatus, Christum annuntians, constituit illic ecclessiam. tantae doctrinae et vitae continentiae fuit ut omnes sectatores Christi ad suum cogeret imitari exemplum.^2b

1 discipulus et / —.
2 quem secutus... imitari exemplum / post excessionem ipsius Petri descripsit idem hoc in Italiae partibus evangelium.

Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there. It was of such teaching and continence of life that it compels all followers of Christ to imitate its example.

The Muratorian Canon is thought by most to date to late century II or early century III. It once attested to four gospels (refer to line 9), of which only Luke and John are extant in full. But right before Luke we get this line:

...quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit.

...among which however he was and so he put them down.

This is almost certainly the tail end of a paragraph about Mark.

Hippolytus probably dates either to late century II or to early century III. He writes in Refutation of All Heresies 7.30.1:

When, therefore, Marcion or any one of his dogs barks against the demiurge, bearing forth reasons from a comparison of good and bad, we must say to them that neither the apostle Paul nor stubby-fingered Mark announced these things. For none of these is written in the gospel {according} to Mark. But rather it is Empedocles [son] of Meto, of Agrigentum, whom [Marcion] captured and imagined that even until now his reappropriation, [still] bearing the same words, of the entire heresy according to him from Sicily into the evangelical volumes would escape notice.

You may also add to Clement the Latin translation by Cassiodorus, Adumbrationes on 1 Peter 5.13:

Marcus, Petri sectator, praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his quae a Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur, sicut Lucas quoque actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur* et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam.

* An emendation; the original reading is agnosceret, which does not seem to be correct, and must be a corruption.

Mark, follower of Peter, while Peter was preaching the gospel openly at Rome before certain Caesarean knights and proferring many testimonies of Christ, was petitioned by them that they might be able to commit what things were being said to memory, and wrote from these things that were said by Peter the gospel which is called according to Mark, just as Luke is recognized by the style both to have written the acts of the apostles and to have translated the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.

(Not all of these references are beyond dispute, nor are all of them securely dated to century II, but they ought to be included for the sake of completeness.)

[John2]

Wow! I didn't know Mark had stubby fingers!

[John2]

It gives new meaning to the Short Ending.

[Ben C. Smith]

Wow! I didn't know Mark had stubby fingers!

Yes, it is a good question what exactly is meant here. Some people think that Hippolytus and the Latin prologue intend the image literally, with Mark being imagined as literally having short fingers for some reason. Others go further and suggest that Mark, as a defector from Paul (Acts 13.13; 15.37-38), is being compared to a member of the priestly tribe who mutilates himself (by cutting off his fingers) in order to escape the priesthood. Still others suggest that the original reference was to the gospel of Mark, mutilated at the end and possibly even at the beginning, and somebody misunderstood the reference as applying to the evangelist instead of to his text. I think there are other notions floating about, as well, but those seem to be the main three.

[Ben C. Smith]

It gives new meaning to the Short Ending.

Indeed. See option 3 in my previous post.

[MrMacSon]

Wow! I didn't know Mark had stubby fingers!

Yes, it is a good question what exactly is meant here.

It's clearly a reference to the poor job he did in writing and transmitting his gospel via smartphone

[hakeem]

The gospel called according to Mark is considered to be a forgery or falsely attributed to Mark, no contemporary historical source mentioned or identified any actual person named Mark plus there is no corroborative evidence that any version of gMark represents an historical account of the character called Jesus.

The stories of Jesus in gMark are non-historical and implausible from the baptism to the resurrection.

Now, if gMark was a forgery or falsely attributed to Mark then the claim that he wrote such a Gospel in writings attributed to Irenaeus becomes
extremely questionable when it is realized that claims about the authorship and date of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by the supposed Irenaeus have been rejected.

It would appear that Gospels called according to Mark, Matthew, luke and John were invented no earlier than the late 2nd century.

Justin Martyr supposedly writing in the mid 2nd century knew nothing of any writer named Mark.

[MrMacSon]

Not all of these references are beyond dispute, nor are all of them securely dated to century II, but they ought to be included for the sake of completeness [underlining MrMacSon's]. --

---

Some argue that the Latin prologues date to late century II. [There is] the Marcan one ...

Mark made his assertion, who was also named stubby-fingers, on account that he had in comparison to the length of the rest of his body shorter fingers. He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there.

The Muratorian Canon is thought by most to date to late century II or early century III. It once attested to four gospels (refer to line 9), of which only Luke and John are extant in full. But right before Luke we get this line:

...quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit.

...among which however he was and so he put them down.

This^ is almost certainly the tail end of a paragraph about Mark.


Hippolytus probably dates either to late century II or to early century III. He writes in Refutation of All Heresies 7.30.1:

When, therefore, Marcion or any one of his dogs barks against the demiurge, bearing forth reasons from a comparison of good and bad, we must say to them that neither the apostle Paul nor stubby-fingered Mark announced these things. For none of these is written in the gospel {according} to Mark...

You may also add to Clement the Latin translation by Cassiodorus, Adumbrationes on 1 Peter 5.13:

Mark, follower of Peter, while Peter was preaching the gospel openly at Rome before certain Caesarean knights and proferring many testimonies of Christ, was petitioned by them that they might be able to commit what things were being said to memory, and wrote from these things that were said by Peter the gospel which is called according to Mark, just as Luke is recognized by the style both to have written the acts of the apostles and to have translated the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.

Cheers, Ben. I had seen reference to a few of these, but thought I'd come back to mention [some of] them later. Now I don't have to

[arnoldo]

This may be a depiction of Mark.