Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/726

 refused on account of it to take Hark with him on the for some time, and returned to Komc before I Peter

second Apoetolic jouney, This refusal led to the waa written, the Petrine and Pauline references to the

aepairation of Paul and Barnabas, and the latter, tak- Evangelist are quite intelliKible and conmst^t.

" ' ■' '■ -...-. '.-. ~- .-" V... ^g ^uj^ yj traditii

ing Mark with him, sailed to Cyprus (Acta, xv 37-40). At this point (a. d. 49-60) we lose sight of Mark in Acts, and we meet him no more in the New Testament, tiU he appears some ten ^ears afterwards as the fellow-

that

_.. . ., . 300) asserts . later than A. D. 130,on thcauthority of an"eldcr" t Hark had been the interpreter (/p»ii|Hur4i) of

workerofst. Paul,andm thecampanyofSt.Peter,at Peter, and wrote down accurately, tjiough n_. _ Rome. order, the teaching of Peter (see below Mahk, Gospel

St. Paul, writing to the Colossians during his first OF Saint, II). A widespread, if somewhat lfl(«, tradi- Roman imprisomnent (a. d. 59-61), says; "Aristar- tion represents St. Mark as the founder of the Church chAs, my fellow prisoner, aaluteth you, and Hark, the of Alexandria. Though strangely enough Clement cousin of Barnabas, touching whom you have received and Orijjen make no reference to the saint's coaneiion commandments; if he come unto you, receive him" with their city, it is attested by Eusebius (op. cit., II,

(Col., iv, 10). At the time this was written, xvi, xxiv. in P. Q XX, 173, 205), by 8t. Je-

Mark was evidently in Rome, Imt. hahaniuB ("Hier.", li, 6, i '^

K his te]. low-workers (ouF^friTrf.Philem., 24). The Evangelist's intention of visiting Asia Minor was prob- ably earned out, for St. Paul, writing shortly before his death to Timothy at Ephesus. bids him pick up Mark ana bring hi"i with hmi to Rome, adding " for be is profitable to me for the ministry" (11 Tim., iv, U). If Hark liame to Home at this time, he was probably there when St. Paul was martyred. Turning to I Peter, v, 13, we read: "The Chureh that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you, and (so doth) Mark my son" (Mdpnt, i v\^ m). This letter was ad- dnseed to various Churehes of Asia Minor (1 Peter, i, 1), and we may conclude that Mark was known to them. Hence, though he had refused to penetrate into Asia Minor with Paul and Barnabas, St. Paul makes it probable, and St. Peter certain, that he went afterwards, and the fact that St. Peter sends Mark's greet- ing to a number of Churches implies that he must have

«';

, and by many later authorities. The "Martyrolo- gium Romanum" (25 April) records: "At Alexandria the anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist ... at Alex- andria of St. Anianus Bishop, the discipl'? of Blessed Mark and his successor in the epis- copate, who fell asleep in the Lord" (cf. Lc Quien, Oriena Christ.", II, Paris, 1740, 334; "Acta SS.", IX, 344- 0; Lipsius, 323 sqq.). The date at which Mark came to Alexandria is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius (P. G., XIX, 5:19) assigns it to the first years of Claudius (a. d. 41-4), and later on (ibid., 543) states that St. Mark's first su(»;esBor, Anianus, suc- ceeded to the See of Alexan- dria in the eighth year of Nen> (61-2). This would make Mark Bishop of Alexandria for a period of about twenty ^ears. This is not impossible, it we might suppose in accord- ance with some early evidence that St. Peter came to Rome in A. D. 42, Hark perhaps ac- companying him. But Acts ^ Fr» Bmrtolommeo. Pitti PbIbm. Floroiae ru3es considerable difficultiea.

been widely known there. ]ncaiLngHarkhis"BDn", On the assumption that the founder of the Church of Peter may possibly imply that he bad baptised him, Alexandria was identical with the companion of Paul though in that case r/mr might be expected rather and Barnabas, we find him at Jerusalem and Antioch than ulii (cf. I Cor., iv, 17; I Tim., i, 2, 18; II about a. d. 46 (Acts xii, 25), in Salamis about 47 Tim., i, 2; ii, 1; Tit., i, 4; Philem., 10). The term (Acts, xiii, 5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts, need not be taken to imply more than affectionate xv, 37-9), and when he quitted Antioch, on the sepa- r^ard for a younger man, who had long ago sat at ration of I^ul and Bamaoas, it was not to Alexandria Peter's feet in Jerusalem, and whose mother had been but to Cyprus that he turned (Acta, xv, 39). There is the Apostle's friend (Acts, xii, 12), As to the Baby- nothing mdeed to prove absolutely that all this is in- lon fronn which St. Peter writes, and in which Hark is consistent with his being Bishop of Alexandria at the present with him, there can be no reasonable doubt time, but seeing that the chronology of the Apoetohc that it is Rome. The view of St. Jerome: "St. Peter age is admittedly uncertain, andthat we have no also mentions this M>irk in his First Epistle, while earlier authority than Eusebius for the date of the referring figuratively to Rome under ttje title of Baby- foundation of the Alexandrian Church, we may perhaps Ion" (De vir. Illustr., viii), is supported by all the conclude with more probability that it was founded early Fathers who refer to the sulnect. It may be somewhat later. "There is abundance of time between said to have been questioned for the first time by a. n. 50 and fiO.aperiodduringwhich theNewTesta- Erasmus, whom a numl«r of Protestant writers then ment is silent in regard to St. Mark, for his activity followed, that they might the more readily denv the in Egypt.

Roman connexion of St. Peter. Thus, we find Mark IntbeprefacetohisGospelinmanuBcriptaoftheVii]- in Rome with St. Peter at a time when he was widely gate, Marie is represented as having been a Jewish known to the Churehea of Asia Mmor, Ifwesuppose priest: "Hark the Evangelist, who exercised the him, as we may, to have gone to Asia Minor after the priestly office in Israel, a Levite by race ". Early au- date of the Epistle to the Cotosrians, remained there thoritiee, however, are silent upon the point, and itia IX.-43