שיש, 1 Chron. xxix, 2; Esther i, 6; Canticles v, 15; a valuable
kind of stone, of a texture so hard and compact, and of a grain so fine,
as readily to take a beautiful polish. It is dug out of quarries in
large masses, and is much used in buildings, ornamental pillars, &c.
Marble is of different colours, black, white, &c; and is sometimes
elegantly clouded and variegated. The stone mentioned in the places
cited above is called the stone of _sis_ or _sish_: the LXX and Vulgate
render it Parian stone,” which was remarkable for its bright white
colour. Probably the cliff Ziz, 2 Chron. xx, 16, was so called from
being a marble crag: the place was afterward called Petra. The variety
of stones, בהט, שיש, דר, סחרת, mentioned in the pavement of Ahasuerus,
might be marble of different colours. The ancients sometimes made
pavements wherein were set very valuable stones.
MARK was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister’s son; and he is
supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls
him his son, 1 Peter v, 13; but no circumstances of his conversion are
recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New
Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch,
with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with
those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of
the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different
countries: but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at
Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem, Acts xiii. Afterward, when
Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which
they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with
them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former
journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas,
which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to
Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that
island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterward reconciled to St.
Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his epistles written
subsequently to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which
he gives to Timothy: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is
profitable to me for the ministry,” 2 Tim. iv, 11. No farther
circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is
believed, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his
journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with
him for some time; perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.
Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerom, all assert that Mark preached the
Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him bishop of Alexandria.
Dr. Lardner thinks that St. Mark’s Gospel is alluded to by Clement of
Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly
mentions it is Papias. It is mentioned, also, by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine,
Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous
quotations from this Gospel; and, as their testimony is not contradicted
by any ancient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St.
Mark is genuine. The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the
question concerning the identity of Mark the evangelist, and Mark the
nephew of Barnabas; since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was
the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the
work which he undertook, by having heard, for many years, the public
discourses and private conversation of that Apostle.
Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this
Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to
St. Peter; by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark’s right
to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the
sanction of St. Peter’s name. The following passage in Eusebius appears
to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this
Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that we think it
right to transcribe it: “The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of
Peter’s hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare
hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they
earnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant
upon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions
which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist
till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the
writing of that Gospel, which is called according to St. Mark; and they
say, that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation
of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized
the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this
account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis, bears testimony to it.” Jerom also says, that St. Mark wrote
a short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of
the brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved, and
published it in the church, commanding the reading of it by his own
authority.
Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel; but
there being almost a unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was
written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any
ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till A.
D. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.
D. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians
at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre
of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all
peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons.
Quotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs,
are, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as
might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is
first mentioned in this Gospel, the word _river_ is prefixed, Mark i, 5;
the oriental word _corban_ is said to mean a gift, Mark vii, 11; _the
preparation_ is said to be the day before the Sabbath, Mark xv, 42; and
defiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands, Mark vii, 2; and the
superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than
it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.
Some learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s
Gospels have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so
many instances that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St.
Matthew’s Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to
warrant such a conclusion; and seems no greater than might have arisen
from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the
same events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and
the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who
sought not after excellency of speech,” but whose minds retained the
remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them,
even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural
guidance. We may farther observe that the idea of St. Mark’s writing
from St. Matthew’s Gospel does not correspond with the account given by
Eusebius and Jerom as stated above.
kind of stone, of a texture so hard and compact, and of a grain so fine,
as readily to take a beautiful polish. It is dug out of quarries in
large masses, and is much used in buildings, ornamental pillars, &c.
Marble is of different colours, black, white, &c; and is sometimes
elegantly clouded and variegated. The stone mentioned in the places
cited above is called the stone of _sis_ or _sish_: the LXX and Vulgate
render it Parian stone,” which was remarkable for its bright white
colour. Probably the cliff Ziz, 2 Chron. xx, 16, was so called from
being a marble crag: the place was afterward called Petra. The variety
of stones, בהט, שיש, דר, סחרת, mentioned in the pavement of Ahasuerus,
might be marble of different colours. The ancients sometimes made
pavements wherein were set very valuable stones.
MARK was the nephew of Barnabas, being his sister’s son; and he is
supposed to have been converted to the Gospel by St. Peter, who calls
him his son, 1 Peter v, 13; but no circumstances of his conversion are
recorded. The first historical fact mentioned of him in the New
Testament is, that he went, in the year 44, from Jerusalem to Antioch,
with Paul and Barnabas. Not long after, he set out from Antioch with
those Apostles upon a journey, which they undertook by the direction of
the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in different
countries: but he soon left them, probably without sufficient reason, at
Perga in Pamphylia, and went to Jerusalem, Acts xiii. Afterward, when
Paul and Barnabas had determined to visit the several churches which
they had established, Barnabas proposed that they should take Mark with
them; to which Paul objected, because Mark had left them in their former
journey. This produced a sharp contention between Paul and Barnabas,
which ended in their separation. Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas to
Cyprus, but it is not mentioned whither they went when they left that
island. We may conclude that St. Paul was afterward reconciled to St.
Mark, from the manner in which he mentions him in his epistles written
subsequently to this dispute; and particularly from the direction which
he gives to Timothy: Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is
profitable to me for the ministry,” 2 Tim. iv, 11. No farther
circumstances are recorded of St. Mark in the New Testament; but it is
believed, upon the authority of ancient writers, that soon after his
journey with Barnabas he met Peter in Asia, and that he continued with
him for some time; perhaps till Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome.
Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Jerom, all assert that Mark preached the
Gospel in Egypt; and the two latter call him bishop of Alexandria.
Dr. Lardner thinks that St. Mark’s Gospel is alluded to by Clement of
Rome; but the earliest ecclesiastical writer upon record who expressly
mentions it is Papias. It is mentioned, also, by Irenæus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine,
Chrysostom, and many others. The works of these fathers contain numerous
quotations from this Gospel; and, as their testimony is not contradicted
by any ancient writer, we may safely conclude that the Gospel of St.
Mark is genuine. The authority of this Gospel is not affected by the
question concerning the identity of Mark the evangelist, and Mark the
nephew of Barnabas; since all agree that the writer of this Gospel was
the familiar companion of St. Peter, and that he was qualified for the
work which he undertook, by having heard, for many years, the public
discourses and private conversation of that Apostle.
Some writers have asserted that St. Peter revised and approved this
Gospel, and others have not scrupled to call it the Gospel according to
St. Peter; by which title they did not mean to question St. Mark’s right
to be considered as the author of this Gospel, but merely to give it the
sanction of St. Peter’s name. The following passage in Eusebius appears
to contain so probable an account of the occasion of writing this
Gospel, and comes supported by such high authority, that we think it
right to transcribe it: “The lustre of piety so enlightened the minds of
Peter’s hearers at Rome, that they were not contented with the bare
hearing and unwritten instruction of his divine preaching, but they
earnestly requested St. Mark, whose Gospel we have, being an attendant
upon St. Peter, to leave with them a written account of the instructions
which had been delivered to them by word of mouth; nor did they desist
till they had prevailed upon him; and thus they were the cause of the
writing of that Gospel, which is called according to St. Mark; and they
say, that the Apostle being informed of what was done, by the revelation
of the Holy Ghost, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and authorized
the writing to be introduced into the churches. Clement gives this
account in the sixth book of his Institutions; and Papias, bishop of
Hierapolis, bears testimony to it.” Jerom also says, that St. Mark wrote
a short Gospel from what he had heard from St. Peter, at the request of
the brethren at Rome, which, when St. Peter knew, he approved, and
published it in the church, commanding the reading of it by his own
authority.
Different persons have assigned different dates to this Gospel; but
there being almost a unanimous concurrence of opinion, that it was
written while St. Mark was with St. Peter at Rome, and not finding any
ancient authority for supposing that St. Peter was in that city till A.
D. 64, we are inclined to place the publication of this Gospel about A.
D. 65. St. Mark having written this Gospel for the use of the Christians
at Rome, which was at that time the great metropolis and common centre
of all civilized nations, we accordingly find it free from all
peculiarities, and equally accommodated to every description of persons.
Quotations from the ancient prophets, and allusions to Jewish customs,
are, as much as possible, avoided; and such explanations are added as
might be necessary for Gentile readers at Rome; thus, when Jordan is
first mentioned in this Gospel, the word _river_ is prefixed, Mark i, 5;
the oriental word _corban_ is said to mean a gift, Mark vii, 11; _the
preparation_ is said to be the day before the Sabbath, Mark xv, 42; and
defiled hands are said to mean unwashed hands, Mark vii, 2; and the
superstition of the Jews upon that subject is stated more at large than
it would have been by a person writing at Jerusalem.
Some learned men, from a collation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s
Gospels have pointed out the use of the same words and expressions in so
many instances that it has been supposed St. Mark wrote with St.
Matthew’s Gospel before him; but the similarity is not strong enough to
warrant such a conclusion; and seems no greater than might have arisen
from other causes. St. Peter would naturally recite in his preaching the
same events and discourses which St. Matthew recorded in his Gospel; and
the same circumstances might be mentioned in the same manner by men who
sought not after excellency of speech,” but whose minds retained the
remembrance of facts or conversations which strongly impressed them,
even without taking into consideration the idea of supernatural
guidance. We may farther observe that the idea of St. Mark’s writing
from St. Matthew’s Gospel does not correspond with the account given by
Eusebius and Jerom as stated above.