The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: S. Mark
Further, some imagine that the Latin original of Mark has perished through the injuries of time, as the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew has perished. But it is difficult to believe so. For how would the Roman Church, so faithful to her trust, and so careful a guardian of the sacred writings, and especially in those early ages from Mark to Constantine, when it was so ardent and constant in zeal for religion, have suffered so great a treasure committed to her to be lost? Surely she who kept so faithfully what pertained to others did not lose her own. What, did so many copies of the Gospel of S. Mark, which noble Romans and other Italians, converted to Christ by SS. Peter and Paul, would emulously cause to be transcribed, perish to a single copy, so that not even one has survived ? Wherefore we shall say, with greater probability, that Mark, for the reasons already assigned, wrote originally in Greek, but immediately afterwards, either by himself or by another translator, rendered the Greek into Latin, and delivered both to the Romans, in a similar way to S. Paul, who wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, but sent the same to them translated into Latin by Tertius, his scribe and interpreter. The reasons are — 1st. Because SS. Jerome and Austin affirm that Mark wrote in Greek, not in Latin, and 2nd. Because, as Bellarmine has rightly perceived ( de Script. Eccles. in Marc.), it is evident, from a collation of the Greek and Latin texts, that the Old Latin and the Vulgate editions, both of Matthew and Mark, have been translated from the Greek. This is proved by Franc. Lucas by many examples. To these you may add that the Latin translator of Mark Grecized, as when he says (ii. 2) et convenerunt multi, ita ut non caperet neque ad januam , words which are obscurely translated into Latin from the Greek, which reads clearly and elegantly, ὥστε μηκέτι χωρεῖν μηδὲ τὰ πρὸς τὴν θύραν, i.e., so that not even the places about the door could contain the crowd. Again, in iv. 10, the Vulgate has, et cum esset singularis, whilst the Greek is plain, κατὰ μόνας, i.e., alone . Also vii. 17, 18, 20, Qua de homine exeunt , illa communicant hominem , the Gr. κοινοῖ, i.e., make a man common or unclean , is clear. For the Hebrews call common unclean things, that is, things which all, even the impure, use promiscuously and in common. So, again, in chap. i. 45, διαφημίζειν is translated verbally, diffamare , to make known abroad. Again, προσάββατον is rendered ante sabbatum , i.e., the day before the Sabbath.
The original of the Gospel of S. Mark is religiously preserved at Venice, but the letters are so corroded and worn away by age that they cannot be deciphered. When I was inquiring about the matter at Rome, several reliable persons, who had carefully investigated the subject, wrote to me to this effect, that the following is the tradition among the Venetians. They say that this Gospel was written by S. Mark at Aquileia, and left by him there, and that it was brought from thence to Venice. For when Attila took Aquileia after a three years’ siege, and destroyed it, many of the inhabitants fled to the marshes bordering on the Adriatic, and there, in a marvellous manner, laid the foundations of Venice, a.d. 452. Moreover, a trustworthy man, a canon of S. Mark’s at Venice, who has the custody of this relic, and is therefore an eye-witness, wrote to me in answer to my inquiries, within the last few days, that this autograph of S. Mark is written in Greek, and was brought from Aquileia to Venice a.d. 1472.
Pagnini has written a dissertation on this question, dedicated to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in which he maintains that S. Mark in the first instance wrote his Gospel in Latin at Rome, and afterwards in Greek at Aquileia, but that the Latin has been lost, since the present Latin of S. Mark is a translation from the Greek. He cites many passages which go to prove the great prevalence of Greek at Rome in those times. He also cites Damasus as saying (lib. de Vit. Potit.) in the Life of S. Peter , that the Evangelists wrote in Latin (mentioning Mark), in Greek, and Hebrew. But it is well known that this work is not by Damasus, the librarian. What Pagnini adds, that S. Peter preached to the Romans in Greek, and that S. Mark, as his interpreter, rendered his words into Latin, cannot be considered worthy of credit. Besides, the duty of an interpreter was different from this, as I have shown on 1 Cor. xii. 10.
The Syrians, as Fabricius tells us in the preface to his Syriac New Testament, assert that Mark wrote in Latin. They also say that the same Mark translated not only his own Gospel into his Galilean or Syriac mother tongue, but all the other books of the New Testament.
But it is difficult to believe this. For there is no mention of such a translation by Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril, Theodoret, S. Jerome, or other Fathers, who either were Syrians, or who lived in Syria and Egypt, and treated carefully the subject of the various editions and translations of the Holy Scriptures. Therefore this Syriac translation of the New Testament seems to have been made later than S. Mark’s time.
Lastly, S. Mark’s Gospel has always been reckoned amongst the canonical Scriptures, with the exception of the last chapter, doubts about which were formerly entertained by some, as S. Jerome testifies (Ep. 150, ad Hedib. q. 3), because it contained certain things which savoured of Manichaeism, which S. Jerome recites (lib. 2, cont. Pelag.). The words were these, “And they were satisfied, saying, Substance is that world of iniquity and unbelief which suffereth not through wicked spirits the true power of God to be apprehended : therefore now call back thy righteousness.” But these words have been since removed.
Observe Mark’s whole strength is given to narration, and does not care for the order in which things were done. Hence he places events which were done afterwards before some which were prior to them in order of time, and vice versa . Hear S. Jerome (Introd. to S. Matt L), “ Second, Mark, the interpreter of the Apostle Peter, who indeed had not himself seen the Lord, the Saviour, but had heard his master’s preaching, related according to the truth of the things which were done, rather than the order in which they were done.”
There is extant a second volume of S. Chrysostom’s Commentary upon S. Mark, which, although not devoid of genius, learning, and piety, nevertheless seems to be wanting in the style, spirit, and subtlety of S. Chrysostom. Hence Bellarmine says that it is undoubtedly not the work of that Saint, but of a certain simple monk, who expounded the Gospel to his brethren.
Victor of Antioch, an ancient author, wrote especially upon S. Mark, whom one Theodore Peltanus has translated out of Greek into Latin.
The author of the Commentary or Scholiast upon S. Mark in the works of S. Jerome is not S. Jerome himself, for he shows himself to be unskilled both in Greek and Hebrew.
Here only a few things occur to be noted, because most have been spoken of in S. Matthew. There the reader will find them annotated. Here, therefore, I shall be brief.