When we turn to tradition, Papias (Eusebius [Eusebius of Caesarea (d. c. 339), the first historian of the Church], "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix) 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, MARK, GOSPEL OF SAINT, II). A widespread, if somewhat late, tradition represents St. Mark as the founder of the Church of Alexandria. Though strangely enough Clement 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 Alexandria the anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist . . . at Alexandria of St. Anianus Bishop, the disciple of Blessed 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 at Jerusalem and Antioch about A.D. 46 (Acts xii, 25), in Salamis about 47 (Acts, xiii, 5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts, xv, 37-9), and when he quitted Antioch, on the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it was not to Alexandria but to Cyprus that he turned (Acts, xv, 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 Apostolic age 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 Jewish priest: "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, iv, 36). Papias (in Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix) 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, vi, 67). The later tradition can have no weight against the earlier evidence, but the statement that Mark neither heard the Lord nor 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, xiv, 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, xiii, 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 ("Hist. eccl.", II, xxiv), that in that year Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the See of Alexandria. Certainly, if St. Mark was alive when II Timothy was written (II Tim., iv, 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 the saint 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 was martyred. This earlier silence, however, is not at all decisive against the truth of the later traditions. For the saint's alleged connection with Aquileia, see "Acta SS.", XI, pp. 346-7, and for the removal of his body from Alexandria to Venice and his cultus there, ibid., pp. 352-8. In Christian literature and art St. Mark is symbolically 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.

Baring-Gould’s sources: Some versions of the Martyrology of S. Jerome on Sept, i^rd, but almost all others in April 25th; as Bede, Hrabanus, Ado, Ui>uardus, Notker, the Greek Menology and Menaea, and the Ro man Martyrology. In the Roman, Jan. 31st is the feast of the translation of his relics to Venice; at Venice is also observed the least of his apparition, on June 25th.] W^a IB f 3 HIS holy Evangelist is believed to have been flrj k° ni J ew ^ s ^ P ar ents, deriving their origin KS] from the tribe of Levi, and of the line of the MramM priesthood. He has also been thought to have been sister’s sou to the Apostle S. Peter, though some have, without reason, confounded him with John sumamed Mark, and Mark, sister’s son to S.. Barnabas. His name, which is Roman in form, was probably assumed by him, according to the usual custom of the Jews, as illustrated in this case of S. Paul (see Jan. 25th), on his removing into Italy. He was converted by some of the Apostles, and probably by S. Peter; indeed, he was his constant attendant in his travels, supplying the place of an amanuensis and inters' Maccail gave the veil to S. Bridget, see Feb. xst., p. 17. This is nearly all that is known of him except the date of his death. April a$0 S. Mark Evangelist.

…preter: for though the Apostles were divinely inspired and, among other miraculous powers, had the gift of languages conferred on them, yet the interpretation of tongues was a gift more peculiar to some than to others. It was probably S. Mark's talent in expounding S. Peter's discourses, whether by word or writing, to those who did not understand the language wherein they were delivered that caused him to be so constantly in attendance on S. Peter, whom he accompanied in his Apostolical progress, when he preached the Gospel in Italy and at Rome. He is traditionally said to have founded the Church in Aquileia, and there to have written the Gospel which bears his name. 1 From Aquileia he sent Hermagoras, its first bishop, to be ordained by S. Peter.

S. Mark was next sent into Egypt to plant Christianity in that country, fixing his main residence at Alexandria, and the places thereabouts; where so great was the success of his ministry, that he converted multitudes, both of men and women, not only to the embracing of the Christian religion, but to more than ordinarily strict profession of it, insomuch that some have traced the institution of the monastic life to his followers.

S. Mark did not confine his preaching to Alexandria and the Oriental parts of Egypt, but removed westwards towards Libya, where, though the people were both barbarous in their manners and idolatrous in their worship, yet by his preaching and miracles he made way for the reception of 1 This copy, or one supposed to be the original, was long preserved in the cathedral at Aquileia. In 615 we hear of it In the monastery of S* John at Friuli. In 1085, it was in that of Belinese, whence It was conveyed to the Cathedral of Aquileia, at the end of the 13th century, or the beginning of the 14th. It formed a portion of a volume containing the four Evangelists. Charles IV. obtained, in 1357, sheets of it, which he gave to the Cathedral of Prag. The five other sheets were taken to Venice, in 1400, where they still are. The sheets containing the other Evangelists are preserved at Clvidale, in Friuli. The MS. is in Latin, in uncial letters; it belongs to the 6th century. the Gospel, and left them not till he had not only gained them to, but confirmed them in the profession of it Returning to Alexandria he preached freely, and ordered and disposed the affairs of the Church, and wisely provided for its perpetuation by constituting governors and pastors of it But the restless enemy of the souls of men would not long suffer him to be quiet It was the season of Easter, at which time the great solemnities of Serapis happened to be celebrated, when the minds of the people being excited to a passionate vindication of the honour of their idol, the mob broke in upon S. Mark, then engaged in the solemn celebration of Divine worship, and binding his feet with cords, dragged him through the streets and the most craggy places to the Bucellus, a precipice near the sea, and for that night thrust him into prison, where his soul was supported and encouraged by a Divine vision. Early the next morning the tragedy began again, he was dragged about in the same manner till his flesh being tom off, and his blood run out, his spirit failed, and he expired. But their malice did not die with him, for they burnt the saint’s body; the Christians however collected his bones and ashes, and decently entombed them near the place where he was wont to preach. His relics [the bodily remains of a saint, or objects they used, kept with honor] were removed with great pomp from Alexandria, in the beginning of the 9th cent, to Venice, where they are greatly venerated. The Saint is adopted as the patron of the state, and one of the richest and stateliest churches that the world can boast of at this day is there erected in his honour. However, the body of S. Mark was also supposed to be at Constantinople, whence his head was brought, and given to the Church at Soissons. At Cambrai is one arm, at Leth another arm and hand; but the Benedictines [monks following the Rule of St. Benedict] at Marolles claim another arm. But it is certain that the body at Venice has not lost its arms; there must consequently be a mistake S. MARK, EVANGELIST.

From the Vienna Missal. L April 25. April a$.j S. Mark Evangelist. somewhere. In the Church of S. Mark, at Rome, are also a portion of the skull and of an arm.

S. Mark suffered on April 25th; though the certain year of his martyrdom is not precisely determined by the ancients; he seems, however, to have survived SS. Peter and Paul His Gospel, the only book which he left behind him, was written, doubtless, for the use of Gentile Christians: some have thought (but apparently without sufficient reason) that it was composed at the entreaty of the converts at Rome, who, not content to have heard S. Peter preach, pressed his disciple, S. Mark, to commit to writing an historical account of what he had delivered to them. S. Mark's close intimacy with S. Peter must have afforded him great opportunities of obtaining full information for this purpose: his great impartiality in his relations is shown in that he, so far from concealing the shameful lapse and apostasy of S. Peter his dear tutor and master, sets it down with some particular circumstances and aggravations of which the other Evangelists take no notice. It is uncertain whether S. Mark's Gospel was originally written in the Greek or the Latin language; though probably the former. The Liturgy of S. Mark, anciently used in the Church of Alexandria, seems, in its main order and substance, to be coeval with the Apostolic age, and to be derived from the instructions and appointment of the blessed Evangelist On this day (April 25th), the Church sings her Great Litanies in solemn procession, to thank God for His benefits, and beseech Him to bless the fruits of the earth.

S. Mark has the Lion as his symbol, because he has set forth the royal dignity of Christ; or, according to others, because he begins with the mission of S. John the Baptist, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” which is figured by the Lion; or, according to a third interpretation, the Lion was allotted to S. Mark because there was, m the (April *5.

middle ages, a popular belief that the young of the lion was bom dead, and after three days was awakened to vitality by the breath of its sire; some authors, however, represent the lion as vivifying his young not by his breath but by his roar. In either case the application is the same; the revival of the young lion was considered as symbolical of the Resurrection, and S. Mark was commonly called the “Historian of the Resurrection.” Another commentator observes that S. Mark begins his Gospel with “ roaring “ the voice of one crying in the wilderness and ends it fearfully with a curse, “He that believeth not shall be damned and that, therefore, his appropriate attribute is the most terrible of beasts, the lion.