2nd Century Mentions of Mark

[JoeWallack]

I had always understood this to be a reference to the Gospel of Mark in the text of Justin Martyr. If the OP demurs from this view and offers a contradicting conclusion, then I am not yet able to perceive the outline of the alternative interpretation offered. Could you explain a bit more explicitly what is intended? How are you reading the text of Justin?

The OP is about 2nd century texts that make reference to or are supposed to make reference to Mark or the gospel attributed to him (after having just looked at Irenaeus). In finding a reference to the text of Justin Maryr -quoted in the first text box- I decided to look at it more fully; in context. My comment "So, this passage is about framing the wider narrative" was almost '..this passage seems to be about framing the wider narrative.'

In reading Irenaeus's Adv. Haers. and Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, it seems more likely those commentary-texts are either the forerunner to a developing narrative, or they are developing a narrative, rather than being discussions of pre-existing texts. And it seems they're likely to be doing it together -ie. it would seem Irenaeus and Eusebius are closer in time than we have been otherwise led to believe.

I found always the following case interesting (taken from Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem).

Mark 11

1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, 2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt (πῶλον) tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. 3 And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. 4 And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. 5 And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

At first glance Mark seems to refer to Zechariah 9, but at the end there is no clear textual allusion. On the other hand, there is only one "tied colt" in the LXX. It's the famous Shiloh „prophesy“ in Genesis 49:11

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 11 Binding his foal (πῶλον) unto the vine, and his ass' colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

It could be that Mark wanted to allude to both texts. Zechariah springs to mind, but the wording is related to Genesis.


Matthew 21 made the allusion to Zechariah explicit.

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. 6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

But Justin, First Apology 32, made the allusion to Genesis explicit.

And the prophecy, "binding His foal to the vine, and washing His robe in the blood of the grape," was a significant symbol of the things that were to happen to Christ, and of what He was to do. For the foal of an ass stood bound to a vine at the entrance of a village, and He ordered His acquaintances to bring it to Him then; and when it was brought, He mounted and sat upon it, and entered Jerusalem, where was the vast temple of the Jews which was afterwards destroyed by you. And after this He was crucified, that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For this "washing His robe in the blood of the grape" was predictive of the passion He was to endure, cleansing by His blood those who believe in Him.

imho, both Matthew and Justin did the same thing but in different directions and neither of them mentioned Mark.

JW:
I've mentioned this before, it's clear that "Mark's" (author) primary source for The Jesus Donkey Story is The Saul Donkey Story:

Donkey King by Intendo. Saul/Jesus King Parallels.

A popular comparison in Polemics is David/Jesus. Both sides have ammunition to play with. Fundamentalists claim that the supposed parallels are evidence that Jesus was planned/foreshadowed in The Jewish Bible. Skeptics claim that the parallels are evidence that The Jewish Bible (as opposed to history) was the source to some extent. [understatement]A less popular comparison[/understatement] is Saul/Jesus. An obvious parallel is that Saul was a literal King while Jesus was occasionally shown as some type of King (albeit unorthodox). Another obvious parallel is that with GMark both are shown as failed Kings. This is so obvious that as far as I know no one else has ever identified it. I have faith that because of the latter, I've never seen anyone do a serious analysis of the parallels.

The many parallels between the two, both important and trivial, indicate that "Mark" wanted the source known. Saul was a failed King of Israel, physically. Exactly how "Mark" wanted to show Jesus, a failed King of Israel. Physically. Did "Mark" intend to show Jesus as a failed King period (so to speak)? A question which has not received the proper attention. Again, considering The Extremely Difficult Reading Principle, any original text which implied or explicited may likewise not have survived.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[MrMacSon]

1) The Gospel of Mark and "a gospel attributed to Mark" are not exactly the same thing. Generally, in the literature you will see the "second gospel" (i.e. "the Gospel of Mark") referred to as such if the scholar believes it has substantially much the same Greek text. It might not yet be "attributed to Mark" at that point in time, but that doesn't keep it from being called "the Gospel of Mark" in present-day literature.

OK. So where in the literature do do we see reference to "a gospel attributed to Mark" that is not the Gospel of Mark?

[MrMacSon]

The OP is about 2nd century texts that make reference to or are supposed to make reference to Mark or the gospel attributed to him [prompted by having just been looking at Irenaeus].

• In finding a reference to the text of Justin Maryr -quoted in the first text box- I decided to look at [that text] more fully; ..that passage seems to be about framing the wider narrative.'

In reading Irenaeus's Adv. Haers. and Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, it seems more likely those commentary-texts are either the forerunner to a developing narrative, or they are developing a narrative, rather than being discussions of pre-existing texts. And it seems they're likely to be doing it together -ie. it would seem Irenaeus and Eusebius are closer in time than we have been otherwise led to believe.

I found always the following case interesting (taken from Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem).

Mark 11

1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, 2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt (πῶλον) tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. 3 And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. 4 And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. 5 And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go. 7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

At first glance Mark seems to refer to Zechariah 9, but at the end there is no clear textual allusion. On the other hand, there is only one "tied colt" in the LXX. It's the famous Shiloh „prophesy“ in Genesis 49:11

10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. 11 Binding his foal (πῶλον) unto the vine, and his ass' colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

It could be that Mark wanted to allude to both texts. Zechariah springs to mind, but the wording is related to Genesis.


Matthew 21 made the allusion to Zechariah explicit.

1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. 6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

But Justin, First Apology 32, made the allusion to Genesis explicit.

And the prophecy, "binding His foal to the vine, and washing His robe in the blood of the grape," was a significant symbol of the things that were to happen to Christ, and of what He was to do. For the foal of an ass stood bound to a vine at the entrance of a village, and He ordered His acquaintances to bring it to Him then; and when it was brought, He mounted and sat upon it, and entered Jerusalem, where was the vast temple of the Jews which was afterwards destroyed by you. And after this He was crucified, that the rest of the prophecy might be fulfilled. For this "washing His robe in the blood of the grape" was predictive of the passion He was to endure, cleansing by His blood those who believe in Him.

imho, both Matthew and Justin did the same thing but in different directions and neither of them mentioned Mark.

Cheers Kunigunde. That is interesting: for the reach back to Genesis, and for Matthew doing the same thing as Justin.

That Mark is again left out is interesting.

[Peter Kirby]

1) The Gospel of Mark and "a gospel attributed to Mark" are not exactly the same thing. Generally, in the literature you will see the "second gospel" (i.e. "the Gospel of Mark") referred to as such if the scholar believes it has substantially much the same Greek text. It might not yet be "attributed to Mark" at that point in time, but that doesn't keep it from being called "the Gospel of Mark" in present-day literature.

OK. So where in the literature do do we see reference to "a gospel attributed to Mark" that is not the Gospel of Mark?

So you want torture?

I have been dragged into a tortuous discussion about it by your tortuous commentary.

For your question... if you're really concerned about it, you probably misunderstand.

The 'literature' is just the scholarly literature, if that's not clear.

The Venn diagram looks a bit different than what's suggested by your question: sometimes the Gospel of Mark isn't believed (by scholars) to have been always attributed to Mark (in the past). It may have gotten that attribution later. This is standard crap. Completely standard.

So, in Venn diagram terms, "a gospel attributed to Mark" is the smaller circle inside "the Gospel of Mark" circle.

Is there room for another gospel attributed to Mark? Well, maybe, maybe not, it's not a point I was making.

[MrMacSon]

The 'literature' is just the scholarly literature, if that's not clear.

Yes, I was aware of that. I had not misunderstood.

The Venn diagram looks a bit different than what's suggested by your question: sometimes the Gospel of Mark isn't believed (by scholars) to have been always attributed to Mark (in the past). It may have gotten that attribution later.

So, in Venn diagram terms, "a gospel attributed to Mark" is the smaller circle inside "the Gospel of Mark" circle.

Cheers. That is related to why I started this thread: to try to document and tease out out when "the Gospel of Mark" became a concrete entity, or might have become one.

There seems to be little reference to it, or to passages from it, in the 2nd century.

.

[MrMacSon]

---

OK, lets look at these in chronological order (not as the OP did; from the starting point of Irenaeus's Adv Haers, ), and related to other texts others have pointed out -

---

Justin Martyr's “Dialogue with Trypho” included this passage (Chapter 106): -

“..it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him ... He changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

• similar to Mark 3:17 [part of commentary about the Twelve that Jesus appointed] -
  
  (KJV) "And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder"
  
  The names James and John are introduced in Mk 3;17, but only James is said to be the son (singular) of Zebedee, yet John is a 'brother'

This article contests the meaning of Boanerges - http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... c8WLWhL_Zs


As I said in the opening post, this passage similar to Mark 3:17 is part of a wider narrative. Chap. 106 of Martyr's Dialogue is at the end of several chapters of Martyr's commentary about Psalm 22,

• as I discussed briefly on the 2nd page, here http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 795#p74795

Here again is chap. 106 of Martyr's Dialogue [paragraphed by me] -

The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs.

And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' [Numbers 24:17] and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

---

Adv Haers 3.1.1

After [the departure of Matthew, Paul, & Peter], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Adv Haers 3.10.5

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative:

• "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." ...

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God"; [Mark 16:19]

Adv Haers 3.11.7

7/ ... Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified ...

• That's interesting: references to those 'separating Jesus from Christ', 'preferring the Gospel of Mark' ... may have their errors rectified ...

Adv Haers 3.11.8

8/ ... Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias [aka Isaiah] the prophet, — pointing to the winged aspect* of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.

• reference to an/the eagle. In Irenaeus, the eagle is associated with Mark, the human with Matthew, the calf with Luke, and the lion with John - Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective by Francis Watson, p. 24

---

Hippolytus, late century II or to early century III, writes in Refutation of All Heresies 7.30.1:

When, therefore, Marcion or any one of his dogs barks against the demiurge, bearing forth reasons from a comparison of good and bad, we must say to them that neither the apostle Paul nor stubby-fingered Mark announced these things. For none of these is written in the gospel {according} to Mark.

Setting announcements, at least, by Mark and Paul as being contrary to Marcion and/or his dogs, or perhaps just their 'comparison of good and bad'

---

The Marcan Latin prologue, which may date to late century II -

Mark made his assertion... He was a disciple and interpreter of Peter, whom he followed just as he heard him report. When he was requested at Rome by the brethren, he briefly wrote this gospel in parts of Italy. When Peter heard this, he approved and affirmed it by his own authority for the reading of the church. Truly, after the departure of Peter, this gospel which he himself put together having been taken up, he went away into Egypt and, ordained as the first bishop of Alexandria, announcing Christ, he constituted a church there.

---

As far as Eusebius's mention of Mark, or people who mentioned Mark, in Ecclesiastical History, it's a question of whether one does that in understood chronology of the people or numerical order of the books of Hist. Eccl.


Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.14-16 re Papias

14 ... we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever 'he remembered' of the things said or done by Christ.

For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses*, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

* 'no intention of giving a connected account' is an interesting thing to write/record

Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History II, Chap 15, says Clement of Alexandria wrote in 'Hypotyposeis' reference to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginning”: -

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally;

Hist. Eccl. III.39.14-16 - see above

Eusebius also wrote, in Ecclesiastical History VI Chap 14, -

5. Again, in the same books [Hypotyposes, +/- others(?)], Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:

6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

---

For completeness of posts so far -

Ben said, re references to Mark's stubby fingers [in Refutation of All Heresies 7.30.1 and the Marcan Latin prologue: -

Mark, as a defector from Paul (Acts 13.13; 15.37-38) may be being compared to a member of the priestly tribe who mutilates himself (by cutting off his fingers) in order to escape the priesthood.

Acts 13:13-15

13 From Paphos, Paul and his companions sailed to Perga in Pamphylia, where John left them to return to Jerusalem. 14 From Perga they went on to Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent word to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have a word of exhortation for the people, please speak.”

Acts 15:35-39

35 ..Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus ..

.

[Peter Kirby]

The only mention of Mark by Irenaeus seem to be Adv Haers 3.1.1, 3.10.5, and 3.11.7-8 -

Adv Haers 3.1.1
"... Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”

Adv Haers 3.10.5
Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face, who was John, crying in the wilderness, "in the spirit and power of Elias", [Luke 1:17] "Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and another God, but one and the same; under various aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God"; [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your foes Your footstool." Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103310.htm

Adv Haers 3.11.7 & 8
7/ ... Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true.

8/ ... Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,— pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings. Such, then, as was the course followed by the Son of God, so was also the form of the living creatures; and such as was the form of the living creatures, so was also the character of the Gospel. For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform, as is also the course followed by the Lord. For this reason were four principal (καθολικαί) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm

Adv Haers 3.1.1

After [the departure of Matthew, Paul, & Peter], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Adv Haers 3.10.5

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative:

• "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, which shall prepare Your way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." ...

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God"; [Mark 16:19]

Adv Haers 3.11.7

7/ ... Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified ...

• That's interesting: references to those 'separating Jesus from Christ', 'preferring the Gospel of Mark' ... may have their errors rectified ...

Adv Haers 3.11.8

8/ ... Mark, on the other hand, commences with the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias [aka Isaiah] the prophet, — pointing to the winged aspect* of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.

• reference to an/the eagle. In Irenaeus, the eagle is associated with Mark, the human with Matthew, the calf with Luke, and the lion with John - Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective by Francis Watson, p. 24

There's at least one more explicit reference to Mark in Irenaeus.

Adv. Haer. 4.6.1.

For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]; "and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

There also happen to be loads of references in Irenaeus to gospel material in Mark, which are common to Matthew and/or Luke.

[Peter Kirby]

Another possible point of contact:

The parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29) is unique to the Gospel of Mark.

Irenaeus at Adv. Haer. 4.18.4 references the same phrase used in that parable.

But how can they be consistent with themselves, [when they say] that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood, if they do not call Himself the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, His Word, through whom the wood fructifies, and the fountains gush forth, and the earth gives "first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear."

[Peter Kirby]

Adv. Haer. 2.20.3 quotes the words of the resurrected Jesus in the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:18).

The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective; but His passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, "ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men," and conferred on those that believe in Him the power "to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy," that is, of the leader of apostasy

Similar is spotted in Luke 10:19, but the context of resurrection speech seems to fit better what Irenaeus is saying.

[Ben C. Smith]

There's at least one more explicit reference to Mark in Irenaeus.

Adv. Haer. 4.6.1.

For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]; "and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.

There also happen to be loads of references in Irenaeus to gospel material in Mark, which are common to Matthew and/or Luke.

This one is most interesting because it is either a mistake on Irenaeus' part or an indicator of a fluctuating Marcan text; our extant Mark bears no such passage.