St., the Evangelist, is, according to ecclesiastical testimonies, the same person who, in the Acts, is called by the Jewish name John, whose Roman surname was Marcus (Acts xii. 12, 25). He was a convert from Judaism, and the cousin of Barnabas, and was most probably of Jewish descent. We find his mother Mary a resident in Jerusalem, and entertaining the apostles at her house (Acts xii. 12). He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their travels as an assistant (Acts xii. 25; xiii. 5), but afterwards left them and returned to Jerusalem. On this account Paul refused to take Mark with him on his second apostolical journey, but subsequently became reconciled to him, and he was present with the apostle during his captivity at Rome.

There is a unanimous ecclesiastical tradition that Mark was the companion and ἐπισκοπεύς of Peter. This epithet, according to A. Tholuck, was applied to Mark because he was the assistant of Peter, and either orally or in writing communicated and developed what Peter taught. This tradition is the more credible, as the New Testament does not contain any passage that could have led to its invention; and, moreover, the testimony in favour of the connection between Mark and Peter is so old and respectable, that it can with difficulty be called in question. It first occurs at the commencement of the second century, and proceeds from the presbyter John (Euseb., Hist. Eccles. iii. 39); it afterwards appears in Irenæus (Adv. Haer. ii. 1, 1, and x. 6); in Tertullian (Contra Mort. iv. 5); in Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and others. Eusebius infers (Hist. Eccles. ii. 15) from the later life of Mark, that he was with Peter at Rome. Epiphanius and others inform us that he introduced the gospel into Egypt, founded the church at Alexandria, and that he died in the eighth year of Nero's reign. This apostle is the author of the gospel which goes by his name.

Mark, St., Gospel of, the same ancient authors who call Mark a μαθητής (disciple) and ἐπισκοπεύς (secretary) of Peter, state also that he wrote his gospel according to the discourses of that apostle. The most ancient statement of this fact is that of the presbyter John and of Papias, which we quote from Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39) as follows:—Mark having become secretary to Peter, whatever he put into style he wrote with accuracy, but did not observe the chronological order of the discourses and actions of Christ, because he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord; but at a later period, as I have said, wrote for Peter to meet the requisites of instruction, but by no means with the view to furnish a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord. Schleiermacher, and after him Strauss, have turned this into an argument against the gospel of Mark. They assert that this gospel is a συντάγμα, which, if not chronological, is Mark at least a concatenation according to the subjects. Now the presbyter John states that Mark wrote ὁ Ῥαῖσα, without order. We learn, however, from what Papias adds, how Papias himself understood the words of the presbyter; and we perceive that he explains ὁ Ῥαῖσα by ὁ Ῥαῖσα γράφων, writing isolated facts. Hence it appears that the words ὁ Ῥαῖσα signify only incompleteness, but do not preclude all and every sort of arrangement.

If the opinions concerning the relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke, which have been current since the days of Griesbach, were correct, we might be able to form a true idea concerning the chronological succession in which the first three gospels were written. The chronological order of the gospels is, according to Origen, the same in which they follow each other in the codices. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, iii. 1) states that Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul; but according to Clemens Alexandrinus (Hypotyposes, vi.) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., vi. 14), he wrote at Rome while Peter was yet living. Griesbach, Saumier, Strauss, and many others, however, state it as an unquestionable fact, that the Gospel of Mark was merely an abridgment of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Weisse, Wolke, and Bauer, on the other hand, have in recent times asserted that the Gospel of Mark was the most ancient of all the gospels, that Luke amplified the Gospel of Mark, and that Matthew made additions to both.

We do not see any reason to contradict the unanimous tradition of antiquity concerning the dependence of Mark upon Peter. We deem it possible, and even probable, that Luke read Mark, and that he also alludes to him by reckoning him among the many, who had written gospel history before him. This supposition, however, is by no means necessary or certain; and it is still possible that Mark wrote after Luke. Some of the ancient testimonies, namely, those of Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Jerome, and others, state that Mark's gospel was written at Rome. In favour of this opinion there have been urged some so-called Latinisms; for instance, in ch. xv. 15, and ch. v. 23. These expressions are, however, rather Graecisms than Latinisms. Others appeal to words which have a Latin origin; but these are military terms which the Greeks adopted from the Romans. These Latinisms cannot prove much, however, respecting the locality in which Mark's gospel was written; but it is certain that it was written for Gentile Christians. This appears from the explanation of Jewish customs (ch. vii. 2, 11; xii. 18; xiii. 3; xiv. 12; xv. 6, 42). The same view is confirmed by the scarcity of quotations from the Old Testament, perhaps also by the absence of the genealogy of Christ, and by the omission of the Sermon on the Mount, which explains the relation of Christ to the Old Testament dispensation, and which was, therefore, of the greatest importance to Matthew.

The characteristic peculiarity of Mark as an author is particularly manifest in two points: 1. He reports rather the works than the discourses of our Saviour; 2. He gives details more minutely and graphically than Matthew and Luke; for instance, he describes the cures effected by Jesus more exactly (iv. 31, 41; vi. 5, 13; vii. 33; viii. 23). He is also more particular in stating definite numbers (v. 13, 42; vi. 7; xiv. 30), and furnishes more exact dates and times (i. 32, 35; ii. 1, 26; iv. 26, 35; vi. 2; xi. 11, 19, 20, &c.).

Most of the materials of Mark's narrative occur also in Matthew and Luke. He has, however, sections exclusively belonging to himself, viz., ii. 21, 31, sq.; vi. 17, sq.; xi. 11; xii. 28, sq. These peculiar statements of Mark have an entirely historical character; consequently we deem it unjustifiable in Strauss and De Wette to endeavour to depreciate them by calling them arbitrary additions.

We may mention respecting the conclusion of Mark's gospel (ch. xvi. 9, 20), the genuineness of which, from its omission in several of the codices, has been called in question, that Michaelis and Hug are of opinion that the addition was made by the evangelist at a later period, in a similar manner as John made an addition in ch. xxii. of his Gospel. Perhaps also an intimate friend, or an amanuensis, supplied the defect. If either of these two hypotheses is well founded, it may be understood why several codices were formerly without this conclusion, and why, nevertheless, it was found in most of them.

Among the various commentaries on the Gospel of Mark which have been published in modern times, the following deserves to be specially mentioned:—Evangelium Marcii recensuit, et cum Commentariis perpetuis edidit, C. F. A. Fritsche, Lipsia, 1830. On the whole subject consult An Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr S. Davidson, London, 1848; also The Origin of the Gospels, by James Smith, Esq., F.R.S., Edinburgh, 1853. For a compendium of all critical investigations into the history contained in the gospels consult Ebrard's Wissenschaftliche Kritik der Evangelischen Geschichte, 2 vols. 1842.

Market-Harborough, a market-town of England, in the county of Leicestershire, on the left bank of the Welland, 15 miles S.S.E. of Leicester, and 83 N.W. of London. The town consists of one principal street, and several smaller ones; and it is well paved and lighted. It contains a town-hall; a handsome church of the fourteenth century, with a tower and a lofty octangular spire; places of worship for Wesleyan Methodists, Independents, and Baptists; national and British schools, a free school, &c. A silk mill and several breweries are in operation, but the inhabitants are chiefly employed in agriculture. A carpet manufactory, which formerly existed here, has been discontinued, and the wool, on being prepared here, is now sent to London to be made into carpets. Market-Harborough is mentioned in history as the head-quarters of the royalists before the battle of Naseby. It is connected with London by the North-Western and Rugby and Stamford Railways. The market-day is Tuesday; and fairs are held twice a-year. Pop. (1851) 2325.

Markinch, a village and parish in Fifeshire, Scotland, situated not far from the Leven, 7 miles N. of Kirkcaldy. The town contains a parish church, a Free, and a United Presbyterian church, and two schools. Coal is worked to a considerable extent in the parish; and there are also paper, woollen, linen, and flax mills, and bleachfields. The parish includes also the villages of Milton and Thornton. Markinch was formerly a residence of the Culdees. Pop. of parish (1851) 5843.

Markland, Jeremiah, one of the most learned scholars and acute critics of his age, was born in 1692 at Childwall in Lancashire, and received his education in Christ's Hospital, and at St Peter's College, Cambridge. Having taken his degree of M.A. in 1717, he soon after became a fellow and tutor in his college, a position which he subsequently resigned for that of a travelling tutor on the Continent. He became first publicly known by his Epistolae Criticae, addressed to Bishop Hare. In this he gave many proofs of extensive erudition and critical sagacity. He afterwards published an edition of the Sylva of Statius (London, 1728), and the Supplices (1763) and Iphigenias (1771) of Euripides; and he assisted Dr Taylor in his editions of Lysias and Demosthenes by the notes which he communicated to him. He also very happily elucidated some passages in the New Testament, which may be found in Mr Boyer's edition of it; and he was author of a volume of valuable remarks on the Epistles of Cicero to Brutus, and of an excellent little treatise under the title of Questio Grammatica. He died in 1776 at Milton, near Dorking in Surrey, where he had spent the greater part of a long life in the closest retirement, admired alike as a scholar and as a man.