Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. lit,
oppc'sition to Mark's Gospel. It was known to Papias of Hierapolis,
t. e., as early as the close of the first century, and there is an unbroken
chain of evidence in its favour since that time. It is true,
Mark's work was, in all probability, written at Eonae, at that time
the capital of the known world, and therefore a fixed and sure tradition
as to the author of the work might be formed at once, and
would easily diffuse itself everywhere abroad. Still, however, there
is one thing which appears very remarkable in regard to the rapid
diffusion and reception of Mark, viz., that it was a production whose
author was not an apostle. John Mark, frequently called Mark
only, was the son of a certain Mary who had a house in Jerasalem
(Acts xii. 12). Mark himself, as we are told in the Acts (xii. 25 ;
xiii. 5 ; xv. 36 seq.), at first accompanied the Apostle Paul in
his travels for the dissemination of Christianity. He afterwards
attached himself to his kinsman Barnabas. At a later period, however,
we find him again in Paul's company (2 Tim, iv. 11). Ac-
cording to the fathers, he was also, for a considerable time, closely
connected with Peter, and was interpreter to the latter when he
preached among the Greeks. He invariably, however, occupied a
dependent situation, and on this account it is impossible that his
name alone should have procured liis Gospel an introduction into
the church. But, as has been already mentioned, Mark did not
write without apostolic authority. On the contrary, he loas under
the direction of the Apostle Peter. This is stated by ihe entire
series of church-fathers during the second and third centuries, with
.perfect unanimity in the main ; and the statement is corroborated
by the case of Luke, which was exactly similar. On this account,
the Gospel of Mark was considered as originating with Peter, and
such individuals as were particularly attached to this apostle used
Mark in preference to all others. Unfortunately, however, we have
no minute accounts as to this matter, and hence do not know
whether these individuals corrupted the Gospel of Mark, as the
Jewish Christians did that of Matthew, or not. It is possible, how-
ever, that the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians was a corruption of
Mark, though the fragments we have of it are not sufficient to en-
able us to form a certain opinion on this point.
As to Luke, we have more clear and certain evidence in this
respect. We know that that sect which carried the sentiments of
Paul to an erroneous extreme, the Marcionites, used only the Gos-
pel of Luke, although Marcion was very well acquainted with the
other Gospels, and regarded them as genuine. They had, however,
altered Luke in conformity with their opinions, and thus formed, as
it were, a new Gospel out of it, which, notwithstanding, still retained
much resemblance to the original. The reason why the Marcionites
selected Luke was, that this Gospel was written under the direction