"That said, then, could you cite some of the patristics concerning Mark in Rome?"
The following is long but full of interesting citations on this topic. Enjoy!
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm 1. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?
1.1. Internal Evidence
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous; there is no internal, direct evidence for its authorship. Only sometime during the second century was the title "According to Mark" or "The Gospel According to Mark" affixed to the work, in order to distinguish it from the other gospels, which in itself counts as external evidence that Mark wrote it. There is, however, internal, indirect evidence to consider. What can you infer about the author from the following stylistic features of the Gospel of Mark?
1.1.1. The Gospel of Mark is non-literary, having a simple and popular style; it has affinities with the spoken Greek as revealed by the papyri and inscriptions. Second, the gospel has a Semitic flavor to it. By this is meant that Semitic syntactical features influence the form of the Greek. For example, corresponding to Hebrew and Aramaic syntax, frequently verbs are found at the beginning of a sentence in the Gospel of Mark. Two other examples of a Semitic syntactical feature is the abundant presence of asyndeta, the placing of clauses together without the use of conjunctions, and parataxis, the joining of clauses with the conjunction kai (and) (imitative of the waw-consecutive in Hebrew and Aramaic). (There are many other alleged examples of Semitisms in the Gospel of Mark.)
1.1.2. The Gospel of Mark has vividness of description that is consistent with its being an eyewitness account; details unnecessary to the flow of the narrative are included. Examples include Mark 2:4 (Breaking of the roof); Mark 4:37-38 (Jesus’ sleeping on a cushion in the stern of the boat); 6:39 (The arrangement in groups of the people whom Jesus feeds and the fact that the grass was green); Mark 7:33 (Jesus’ putting fingers in ears and touching of tongue); Mark 8:23-25 (The gradual process by which the blind man’s eyes were restored); Mark 14:54 (Peter’s sitting with the servants around the fire in the courtyard).
From the above data, one can infer that the author’s first language was not Greek, and he did not have a Hellenistic education, so that he did not have enough facility in Greek to write in a highly literary style. The Semitic features of the Gospel of Mark probably indicate that the mother tongue of the author was a Semitic language (probably Aramaic), which is consistent with his being a Palestinian Jew. The author also seems to have been an eyewitness or have had access to eyewitness accounts.
1.2. External Evidence
1.2.1. The earliest piece of external, direct evidence comes to us from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who quotes "the Presbyter" (elder) (Eusebius HE 3.39.15) (Eusebius quotes from what he identifies as the five treatises written by Papias, entitled, Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, which is no longer extant):
"And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."
The first sentence is probably the statement of the presbyter, whereas the remainder is Papias's elaboration of the meaning of the presbyter's statement. Three claims are made in this quotation from Papias:
A. Mark wrote the gospel identified in Eusebius' day (and ours) as the Gospel of Mark.
B. Mark obtained his information from Peter, not being an eyewitness himself.
C. The gospel written by Mark lacks "order," reflecting the piecemeal and occasional nature of Peter's use of the gospel tradition in his preaching.
There are two questions raised by this quotation from Papias:
A. What exactly did Papias mean when he called Mark the "interpreter" (hermeneutês) of Peter? Although this term normally means interpreter, the context suggests more the meaning of "translator."
B. Why did the presbyter say that Mark wrote accurately what Peter remembered (hosa emnemoneusen akribôs egrapsen) but not indeed in order (ou mentoi taxei)? It seems criticism was leveled against the Gospel of Mark for lacking chronological accuracy. In response, the presbyter points out that chronological accuracy was never Mark's intention. Papias explains further that Mark's method of composition was to collect the traditions used by Peter as occasion demanded in his preaching and that there is nothing wrong with this.
If true, what do you conclude about the author of the Gospel of Mark from Papias's statement?
One can conclude that the author was John Mark, who used the apostle Peter as his source for his gospel. He did not concern himself, however, with chronological accuracy, and so did not attempt to arrange Peter's teaching "in order."
How trustworthy is this tradition?
It seems trustworthy, because it is an old tradition quoted by a usually reliable anthologist and it agrees with the internal evidence.
1.2.2. Another early identification of the Gospel of Mark with Peter is found in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho (150): "It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means 'sons of thunder'...." (106.3) If by "his memoirs" Justin means Peter's memoirs, then these memoirs must be the Gospel of Mark, since only in it are the sons of Zebedee called the sons of thunder (3:17).
There are other, later second and third century sources that identify Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark.
A. Irenaeus (130-200), for example, says that the Gospel of Mark was written "When Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there"; he adds, "After their departure, Mark, Peter's disciple, has himself delivered to us in writing the substance of Peter's preaching" (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; HE 5. 8. 2-4) ).
B. Eusebius reports that Clement of Alexandria (150-215), in his Hypotyposeis, citing an ancient tradition of the elders, described how the Gospel of Mark came into being as follows, "When Peter had preached the gospel publicly in Rome...those who were present...besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended" (HE 6.14.6-7).
C. The fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue says, "Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy."
Some scholars claim that some or all of these second and third century identifications of Mark as the author of the Gospel of Mark are dependent on Papias, in which case they are not independent testimonies. But there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to conclude in favor of such dependency.
1.3. Considering all the evidence, what do you conclude about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark?
What internal, indirect evidence there is for the authorship of the Gospel of Mark agrees with the external, direct evidence. (John) Mark, being a resident of Jerusalem, would have been a Palestinian Jew, having Aramaic as his first language. The conclusion follows that (John) Mark wrote the gospel that bears his name.
In spite of the evidence, however, most New Testament scholars are reluctant to identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as (John) Mark and to trace its contents to the apostle Peter. Any other possibility is preferable to this, or so it seems. Thus, the testimony of the early church, no matter how early, is discounted as mere speculation. It should be noted, however, that if it was inventing authors, for apologetic reasons to undergird the authority of the gospels against detractors, the early church would surely have given the Gospel of Mark a direct apostolic origin.
1.4. What can be known about (John) Mark from references to him in the New Testament? (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:13; 15:37-39; 2 Tim 4:11; Col 4:10; Philemon 24; 1 Pet 5:13)
(John) Mark was probably a resident of Jerusalem, since his mother had a house in the city (Acts 12:12). He traveled with Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 12:25), and then traveled with them on the first missionary journey (13:13). He left Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia (13:13; 15:37). Later, because Paul did not want to take him along on a second missionary journey, he traveled with Barnabas to Cyprus and other places (15:39). (John Mark was the cousin of Barnabas [Col 4:10].) (John) Mark is with Paul in Rome during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome (Philemon 24). During his second imprisonment, Paul asks Timothy to bring Mark to Rome (2 Tim 4:11). He is with Peter in Rome when he writes 1 Peter (5:13). (There is a tradition cited by Eusebius that places Mark in Alexandria after the writing of his gospel [HE 2.16.1; 2.24.1]. Whether this is true is a question to consider.)
2. For whom was the Gospel of Mark written?
2.1. Internal Evidence
There is no internal, direct evidence for the intended readership. There is, however, some internal, indirect evidence:
2.1.1. Translations are given of Aramaic words (e.g., Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 15:22). What does this suggest about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?
It suggests that the intended readers were not Aramaic-speaking.
2.1.2. There are many explanations of Jewish terms and customs (e.g., Mark 7:3; 14:12; 15:42). What does this suggest about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?
It suggests that the intended readers were not Jews.
2.1.3. The fact that there are Latinisms in a work written in Greek and full of Semitisms also constitutes internal, indirect evidence for intended readership. (Latinisms are Latin words that are transliterated into Greek.) Examples of Latinisms in the Gospel of Mark are as follows:
A. 4:27: modios = Lat. modius (a measure)
B. 5:9, 15: legiôn = Lat. legio (legion)
C. 6:27: spekoulator = Lat. speculator (guard)
D. 6:37: dênariôn = Lat. denarius (a Roman coin)
E. 7:4: xestês = Lat. sextarius (container)
F. 12:14: kênsos = Lat. census (tribute money)
G. 15:15: hikanon poieô = satis facere (to satisfy)
H. 15:15: phragelloô = Lat. fragellare (to whip)
I. 15:39, 44-45: kenturiôn = Lat. centurio (centurion) (Both Matthew and Luke use ekatontrachês, the equivalent term in Greek.)
In addition, on two occasions Mark provides his readers with Latin translations of Greek words:
A. 12:42: lepta duo, which is said to be the equivalent of a kordrantês = Lat. quadrans (the smallest Roman coin)
B. 15:16: aulês, which is said to be the praitôrion = Lat. praetorium
What does this suggest about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?
The presence of Latinisms and Latin translations of Greek words in the Gospel of Mark implies that the intended readers were Latin speakers, even though they could read or at least understand Greek. Latin speakers would have been found most readily in Italy, although not exclusively.
2.1.4. Mark’s reference to the woman in Tyre to whom he refers as "a Greek, racially a Syro-Phoenician" (Mark 7:24) implies a Roman readership, because such a designation would be most understood by Romans, who distinguished between Carthaginians, i.e., Phoenicians from Carthage and those from Syria.
2.1.5. Internal, indirect evidence for a Roman readership is the fact that in his passion narrative Mark unnecessarily (from a literary point of view) identifies Alexander and Rufus as the sons of Simon the Cyrene (15:21). The probable reason that Mark does this is that these men are known to his readers: Mark wants to ensure that they know that the Simon the Cyrene mentioned in the text is the father of these two men. A man named Rufus is mentioned in Rom 16:13, being a member of the Roman church. If the Rufus in Rom 16:13 is the same as that in Mark 15:21, then likely Mark's intended readers were Roman Christians.
2.2. External Evidence
2.2.1. As already seen, Eusebius claims that Papias wrote that Mark composed his gospel for Peter's hearers in Rome (HE 2.15.2). In addition, both Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus imply that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome (see quotations above). What does this suggest about the intended readers of the Gospel of Mark?
Since the external, direct evidence implies that (John) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome, it is most natural to suppose that the intended readers were Roman Christians.
2.2.2. Further external, indirect evidence is found in the fact that Peter and Mark are placed together in Rome in the early sixties (1 Pet 5:13). On the assumption that it can be proven that the Gospel of Mark was written about this time (see below), who were the most likely intended readers of the gospel?
If he wrote his gospel in Rome, when he was there with Peter, then Mark probably was writing for the Roman Christians.
2.3. What do you conclude from the internal and external data about the intended readership of the Gospel of Mark?
The intended readers of the Gospel of Mark were Roman or Italian, gentile Christians.
3. When was the Gospel of Mark written?
The date of the gospel is difficult to determine with precision. There is no internal, direct evidence nor any internal, indirect evidence, although traditionally scholars have tried to date it after the destruction of Jerusalem based on Mark 13: it is assumed that the reference to "the abomination that causes desolation" in Mark 13:14 is an allusion to Titus's destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. But this is not so obvious as is often thought. The external, direct evidence is as follows. (It should be noted that tradition places Peter's death in Rome during Nero's persecutions [64-68].)
3.1. Irenaeus, as quoted above, says that it was after Peter's death that Mark produced his gospel: "And after the death of these (Peter and Paul) Mark the disciple and interpreter (hermeneutês) of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter" (Adv. Haer. 3. 1. 2 in HE 5.8.2-4).
3.2. Clement of Alexandria, as quoted above, writes in his Hypotyposeis: "When Peter had preached the gospel publicly in Rome...those who were present...besought Mark, since he had followed him (Peter) for a long time and remembered the things that had been spoken, to write out the things that had been said; and when he had done this he gave the gospel to those who asked him. When Peter learned of it later, he neither obstructed nor commended" (HE 6.14.6-7). The implication is that Peter was still alive at the time of the composition of the gospel.
3.3. The fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue, as already cited, says: "...Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy."
3.4. What do you conclude about the date of the composition of the Gospel of Mark?
The external, direct evidence is contradictory. There is disagreement about whether Mark wrote his gospel before or after Peter's death, which took place during Nero's persecution of the church c. 65. The Gospel of Mark was written either when Peter was in Rome or just after his death in Rome. To be on the safe side a date ranging from 63-68 should be attributed the Gospel of Mark.
4. Where was the Gospel of Mark written?
4.1. Internal Evidence
There is no internal, direct evidence to conclude where the Gospel of Mark was written (provenance). The internal, indirect evidence has already been considered in dealing with the intended readership. It is as follows.
4.1.1. The existence of Latinisms and Latin translations of Greek words in the Gospel of Mark implies Latin readers.
4.1.2. The reference to the woman in Tyre called "a Greek, racially a Syro-Phoenician" implies that the Gospel of Mark was written for Romans (Mark 7:24-30).
4.1.3. That Alexander and Rufus are identified as the sons of Simon the Cyrene suggests, as explained above, that the intended readers are Roman Christians; if true, this may imply that (John) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome, where Alexander and Rufus reside.
What does this evidence suggest about the place of composition of the Gospel of Mark?
This evidence suggests that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome. Since the existence of Latinisms and Latin translations of Greek words in the Gospel of Mark implies Latin readers, it is probable that Rome (or Italy) was the place where it was composed. Since the reference to the woman in Tyre called "a Greek, racially a Syro-Phoenician" implies that it was written for Romans, it is probable that the place of the composition of the Gospel of Mark was Rome (or Italy). The fact that the identification of Alexander and Rufus as the sons of Simon the Cyrene implies that the intended readers are Roman Christians further suggests that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome, where Alexander and Rufus resided.
4.2. External Evidence
4.2.1. The external, direct evidence from the second-century points to the conclusion that Gospel of Mark was written in Rome:
A. As already seen, Eusebius claims that Papias wrote that Mark composed his gospel for Peter's hearers in Rome (HE 2.15.2). This implies that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome.
B. As cited above, Clement of Alexandria implies that Mark wrote his gospel in Rome.
C. Irenaeus, as already quoted above, implies that the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome.
D. As cited earlier, the fragment of the Anti-Marcionite prologue placed the composition of the Gospel of Mark "in the regions of Italy."
4.2.2. The fact, as already indicated, that Peter and (John) Mark are placed together in Rome in the early sixties (1 Pet 5:13) constitutes external, indirect evidence that (John) Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in Rome.
4.3. What do you conclude about the place of composition of the Gospel of Mark?
The internal and external evidence points to Rome as the place where Mark wrote his gospel.
....
6. Why was the Gospel of Mark written?
6.1. Internal, direct evidence for Mark's purpose in writing is found in Mark 1:1: "The archê of the gospel of Jesus Christ." It is possible to take this verse as a title for the entire work, so that Mark's intention is to explain to his Christian hearers/readers the beginning or the basis (archê) of the good news that they believed. If this is the meaning of the term archê, what is the purpose of the Gospel of Mark?
Mark aims to give more information about Jesus, the focus of the proclamation of the early church. The Roman Christians believed the good news consisting of Jesus Christ, but needed to know more about the life, death and resurrection of the one in whom they believed, the arche of the gospel of Jesus Christ. From the contents of the gospel itself, he stresses Jesus' passion and resurrection, but also includes many accounts of Jesus' healings, exorcisms, controversies and some teaching. Mark does not intend, however, to provide a completely chronological account, as already indicated.
6.2. If Papias is correct, what is the purpose of the Gospel of Mark?
If Papias is correct, Mark’s purpose seems to have been to preserve Peter's eyewitness testimony and depository of traditions about Jesus for the Roman church.