Paper presented at the Central States Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Columbia, Missouri, March 11, 2018.
Modern scholarship has witnessed a plethora of suggestions as to the identity of the enigmatic Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel. Such speculation may not be entirely new. J. Edgar Bruns brought to the attention of scholarship two features found in ancient and medieval sources which may suggest that some early sources identified the Beloved Disciple with the John named Mark, spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline corpus. The first feature, found in largely Coptic sources, was the placement of John/Mark in Johannine settings, sometimes even in roles usually associated with the Beloved Disciple; the second is the reduplication of Coptic Markan traditions in Latin sources under the name of John the Evangelist.
Bruns’ work has not garnered a great deal of attention, though his observations have persuaded some important Johannine scholars, including Kysar, Culpepper and Attridge, that John/Mark was probably sometimes confused with John the Apostle. C. Clifton Black has gone so far as to suggest that “some writers of Christian antiquity were inclined to identify John Mark with the apostle [i.e. Evangelist] John”.
The Placement of John/Mark in Johannine Narratives
The Disciple of John the Baptist
The placement of John/Mark in the Johannine narrative begins from the first chapter of John’s Gospel. Bruns drew attention to a copy of the fifth-century Egyptian work, called the Witness of Holy John the Precursor and Baptist, which identifies Mark as one of the two disciples of the Baptist who, according to the Fourth Gospel, followed Jesus after the Baptist pointed him out (John 1:35–42). He notes that this figure has often been identified with the Beloved Disciple, from at least the time of Chrysostom (citing Chrysostom, Hom. John 18.3).
This identification of Mark with the unnamed disciple of John 1:35 is more clearly indicated in the Greek Acts, Miracles, and Passion of Mark, preserved in a single thirteenth-century codex, with which Bruns was not familiar. It relates that Mark was a disciple of John the Baptist and that he followed Jesus when he went from Jerusalem into Galilee (Acta Marci 5). The reference is unmistakably Johannine, referring to Jesus’ departure from Judea to attend the wedding at Cana in Galilee, immediately after the unnamed disciple of John 1:35 began following Jesus (John 1:43; 2:1–2).
The Wedding at Cana
The placement of Mark in the setting of the wedding of Cana is common in Coptic sources. The eleventh-century Egyptian historian Mawhub (HP 1.1 cf. John 2:1–11), Severus of Nastrawa (ninth century) and Ps.-Yusab (seventeenth century) identify Mark as one of the servants who poured out the water which was changed to wine. According to the Coptic priest Ibn Kabar (thirteenth-century) in his Arabic work entitled The Lamp of Darkness, Mark was one of the followers at the wedding “who drank from the water that was transformed to wine”.
The House of John/Mark in Jerusalem
The next placement of John/Mark is a Johannine context is found in the probably sixth-century Encomium of Barnabas by the Cypriot writer Alexander the Monk, which depicts Barnabas bringing Jesus to the home of Mary, the mother of John/Mark, at the time of the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda (cf. John 5:1–9) (cf. Encomium 192–195). Alexander goes on to relate that Jesus subsequently lodged at that house when visiting the city (Encomium 217–219). Bruns concludes that in Alexander’s account, “the house of John Mark becomes the background of the fourth gospel’s narrative of the Jerusalem ministry.”
The Host of the Passover Meal
While not specifically related to the Johannine narrative as such, a number of sources identify John/Mark as the host of the Passover meal (the Last Supper). This is potentially significant, as the host is often thought to have been the Beloved Disciple within scholarship, based on the position he occupied in the seating arrangement at the table (cf. John 13:23), though many identify Jesus as the host. Thus, both Alexander the Monk (Encomium 229–230) and Ps.-Cyril (On the Life and the Passion of Christ) relate that Jesus ate the final Passover at the house of Mary, John/Mark’s mother. The Greek Acts, Miracles, and Passion of Mark goes further, making Mark the one who heard the words, based on Matt 26:18, “Christ who sent us is keeping the Passover (ποιεῖ το πασχα) at your place (προς σε)” (§ 6). This suggests that John/Mark was identified as “the master of the house” (ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης) whom the disciples addressed (Mark 14:14; cf. Matt 26:18).
The Disciple at the Cross
Perhaps the clearest potential vestige of an identification of John/Mark with the Beloved Disciple is found in the tradition which makes Mark to have been a witness of Jesus’ crucifixion, a position which the Fourth Gospel ascribes to the Beloved Disciple (John 19:25–27). The earliest attestation of this is in the Acts of Peter, written by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, possibly in the early fourth century. In this work, Peter addresses Mark as follows: “you evangelist of the only-begotten Saviour, you witness of his suffering.” A manuscript of Severus of Nastrawa’s Homily on Mark refers to Mark as “the martyr and the witness of the suffering of Christ.” Indeed, Mark is still referred to as “the witness to the passion” in a Coptic Doxology.
Mark’s House: Setting of a Johannine Narrative
Lastly, Alexander the Monk identified John/Mark’s house as the place where Thomas doubted Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances (cf. John 20:19–27) (Encomium 230–231). Severus of Nastrawa and Mawhub (HP 1.1) likewise record that the apostles stayed in his house between the resurrection and Pentecost, noting that this was the house into which Jesus entered when the “doors were shut” (cf. John 20:19).
John/Mark’s Gospel of Christ’s Divinity
Besides placing Mark in the Johannine narrative, the Acts, Miracles, and Passion of Mark also seems to attribute a Johannine-type gospel to Mark, speaking of him as “the great herald (μέγιστος κήρυξ) of the evangelical teaching concerning the divinity (τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς θεολογίας)” (§ 2). This seems ill-fitting for the author of Mark’s Gospel but would describe the author of the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, Eusebius described John’s Gospel as beginning with “the doctrine of the divinity (τῆς θεολογίας)” (Hist. eccl. 3.24.13).
Monarchian Prologue to Mark
The fourth or fifth-century Monarchian prologue to Mark describes Mark’s gospel in a way which seems to the Logos Christology of John’s preface. It thus claims that Mark shows in the beginning (initio) of his Gospel that the Word was made flesh (verbum caro factum), so that the reader be not ignorant of “the dwelling of the God coming in flesh” (dei advenientis habitaculum caro). It adds that Mark’s work was “to understand the divine nature of the Lord (divinam domini) in the flesh”. The account engages in a tortuous exegesis of the prologue of the Second Gospel in order to conform it to this Johannine terminology, so that Mark’s reference to “the voice of one crying” (Mark 1:3) ends up bearing the weight of the Logos Christology.
A claim that Mark’s prologue addressed errors concerning Christ’s divinity is found in Chromatius’ commentary on Matthew (late fourth or early fifth century):
Those, however, who dared to blaspheme the true divinity of the Son of God and the unbounded nature of his eternity, denying specifically that he was born from the Father and is true God, and that he was always with the Father, saint John and Mark nevertheless immediately resist, condemning the faithlessness of their blasphemy, testifying in the beginning of their Gospel that the only begotten Son of God is God (in evangelii sui principio unigenitum Dei Filium Deum esse testantes) (Comm. Matt. prolog. 6).
While Chromatius claims that Mark’s (along with John’s) prologue teaches that the “one and only Son” is God, this is actually unique to John’s Gospel (John 1:1; 18).
Thomas Aquinas similarly claims that the beginning of Mark’s Gospel refuted errors concerning the divinity, though he attempts to show this from Mark’s actual prologue:
For Mark and John primarily have destroyed those errors, which are concerning the divinity. Whence John in the beginning said: “in the beginning was the Word.” And Mark commenced thus: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” He did not say, “the son of Abraham.” 
While Mark’s prologue does speak of Jesus as the Son of God, this title is not exceptional to Mark or to the Synoptics generally, and the prologue, unlike John’s, does not especially address Jesus’ divinity.
Chromatius, Aquinas and the Monarchian Prologue have probably each variously attempted to correct a tradition which claimed that Mark’s Gospel refuted errors concerning the divinity and which attributed to it the Logos terminology of the Fourth Gospel.
The second feature to which Bruns drew attention as evidence of possible confusion between John and Mark in antiquity is that of the reduplicated traditions, or traditions shared by both Mark and John. Thus, both John and Mark are said to have had a father named Aristobulus, who was a Levite; both are said to have been born to wealth and status; both are identified as the servant who carried the jar of water at the time of the Last Supper and as the young man who fled naked after the supper; both are presented as exceptional theologians, and both are associated with the site of the Church of Holy Mount Zion in Jerusalem.
A Jerusalemite of the Levitical Tribe
According to the Greek Acts, Miracles, and Passion of Mark, Mark was descended from the Levitical tribe and had his residence in Jerusalem (§ 2). Mawhub, while not mentioning his Levitical descent, names Mark’s father as a certain Aristobulus, the brother of Barnabas, who was a Levite (cf. Acts 4:36) and cousin of Peter’s wife (HP 1.1). Similarly, Ps.-Yusab’s History of the Fathers, the Patriarchs (seventeenth century) claims that Barnabas was the brother of Mark’s father, whose name is not given. Aristobulus and Peter’s wife are mentioned, however, as Mark’s relatives. The name of Aristobulus is also given by the eighteenth-century Cypriot Archbishop Kyprianos, who makes Mary, Mark’s mother, the daughter of Aristobulus.
Two or three learned Spanish ecclesiastical leaders in the seventh and ninth centuries, Julian Peter (642–690), Archdeacon of Toledo, Heleca, bishop of Saragossa (fl. 890) and possibly Braulio of Saragossa (590–651), also mention the name of Aristobulus, only they identify him as the Apostle John’s father. The Greek Synaxarium Constantinopolitanum, a collection of hagiographies, identifies Zebedee with Aristobulus, on the authority of Sophronius of Jerusalem (seventh century). Further correlations of this sort suggest that this was not coincidental. According to the Acts, Miracles, and Passion of Mark, Mark, was a resident of Jerusalem who had inherited great wealth from his ancestors (§ 3). The Egyptian Severus of Nastrawa similarly refers to Mark’s Levitical decent and noble birth. Similar things are related of John by Jerome, who claims that John was known to the high priest (John 18:15) and did not fear any plots “on account of the nobility (nobilitas) of his birth” (Epist. 127.5).
Priests Wearing the High Priestly Plate
Both Mark and John are also described as priests. According to a lost entitled the Passion of Mark, quoted by Henri de Valois (1603–1676) in a marginal note to his edition of Eusebius’ History (5.24), Mark was a priest who bore “the high-priestly crown” (pontificalis apicis petalum) among the Jewish people. The source for this tradition is given only as the “histories of famous men”, though the word petalum (πέταλον) and syngraphae (συγγραφαί) are Greek loanwords, suggesting a Greek derivation for the account.
The late second-century bishop of Ephesus, Polycrates, similarly describes John as “a priest wearing the priestly plate” or πέταλον (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.31.3). While not mentioning the πέταλον, the Monarchian prologue to Mark does describe Mark as a priest who served in Israel. A similar notice is found in two Hiberno-Latin manuscripts of the mid-ninth century (with a text possibly written a century earlier), containing biblical commentary.
The Young Man Who Fled Naked
Both Mark and John are also identified with the “young man who fled naked” at the time of Jesus’ arrest, spoken of in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 14:50–51, 54). The identification with Mark is mentioned in an Arabic marginal note found in a Coptic manuscript dated to 1208 and in a Greek catena of an unknown date, which was preserved in the medieval manuscript Tolosanus. The identification of the young man with John the Evangelist is found in Ambrose, in the fourth century (Enarrat. Ps. 36, 53), in Peter Chrysologus in the fifth century (c. 406–450) (Sermo, 78; cf. 150, 170), and in Gregory the Great in the seventh century (Mor. 14.57).
The Zion Church in Jerusalem
Another important reduplication is that of the traditions associated with the Zion Church (the Cenacle), located on Zion Hill in Jerusalem, which was variously identified as the site both of the house of Mark and of John. This was one of the most important of the churches in Jerusalem and was associated with many events from the Gospels and Acts. Its antiquity is affirmed of by Epiphanius, who states that the building survived the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (De mens. et pond. 14). Archaeological evidence perhaps adds some veracity to the tradition. According to Murphy-O’Connor, it would have been difficult for the Christians to have taken possession of the Zion site after the first century, since a Roman legion was stationed in the adjoining valley in the late first century, separating the location from the city of Jerusalem.
The Zion Church was identified with the Johannine narrative by the pilgrim Egeria, who visited Palestine and Egypt in the period 381–384. She thus records that it was there that the apostles were gathered, “when the doors were shut” (Egeria’s Travels 39.5; cf. John 20:19), that is, the place where Jesus appeared to the disciples and later to Thomas. According to Hesychius of Jerusalem (d. after 451), it was the site of the Last Supper, though the tradition is perhaps presupposed already by Origen, who writes that after the disciples had taken the bread and the cup at the feast, Christ taught them to sing a hymn and “to go across from a height to a height (de alto transire ad altum), because the faithful one is never able to do anything in the valley; therefore, they went up to the Mount of Olives” (Comm. Matt. 86). Finegan thinks that the mention of the mount on which the disciples sang after the Last Supper is an “unmistakable” reference to Mount Zion. Epiphanius may also be interacting with the same tradition when he relates, “Jesus went out to the mountain (ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος)” to eat the Passover (Pan. 51.27.2), and Eusebius when he claims that the new covenant began on Zion Hill (Dem. ev. 1.4).
The earliest extant identification of the church as the site of Mark’s house is made by the pilgrim Theodosius (c. 500) (de Situ Terrae Sanctae 43). Alexander the Monk also identifies it as Mark’s house and relates that it was where Jesus ate the Last Supper and later appeared to the disciples and Thomas (cf. John 20:19–26) and where the Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost (Encomium 230–237; cf. Acts 2:1–13). The Zion church was identified as the location of the Apostle John’s house by the eighth-century writer Hippolytus of Thebes (Chron. 4). Thus, he explains that it was where the Passover meal was prepared, where the apostles took refuge on account of their fear of the Jews and where the Lord appeared to the disciples after his resurrection, “when the doors were shut”, and where he later appeared to Thomas (Chron. 4).
The association of Mark with the site was eventually displaced by John, who continues to this day to be associated with the Cenacle. This did not, however, end the association of Mark with the Zion traditions. Instead, another site, St. Mark’s Monastery in the northern section of Zion, came to be identified as the Zion church and the house of Mark and his mother Mary, as it still is today within the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox Churches. Both St. Mark’s and the Cenacle identify themselves as the same Zion church of earlier sources; both thus claim to be the site where the Passover was kept and where Jesus appeared, “when the doors were shut”. Similarly, a Syriac inscription at St. Mark’s likewise claims that the building is the site of the church of Zion that was erected in 73 C.E. “in the name of the Mother of God” (despite the association of the site with Mark’s mother Mary). However, the inscription was likely not made until the 1470s, after the purchase of the building from the Copts by the Jacobites.
The Deaths of Mark and John
Lastly, the death of John/Mark is remembered by both the Greeks and Latins on 27 September, which is the day after the repose of John the Evangelist is remembered in the Eastern Church. This may not be coincidence, and may again evince evidence that John/Mark and John the Evangelist were sometimes once identified. Furthermore, 27 September was observed in the Ethiopic tradition as the feast day of the sons of Zebedee, and as the feast day of John’s exile in ’s-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands. Thus the reduplication of traditions seems to embrace even the commemorative days associated with the two figures.
In conclusion, the evidence has shown both that John/Mark was sometimes depicted as a Johannine figure and that John/Mark traditions were attributed to John the Evangelist. Despite the later identification of John/Mark with Mark the Evangelist, evidence of an earlier identification of John/Mark with the Beloved Disciple is still pronounced, even if it can now only be indirectly ascertained.
A far more detailed study can be found in my monograph on the subject:
 J. Edgar Bruns, “The Confusion between John and John Mark in Antiquity,” Scr 17 (1965) 23.
 Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and his Gospel: an Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975) 96; R. Alan Culpepper, John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark) 78; Harold W. Attridge, “The Restless Quest for the Beloved Disciple,” in Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon, ed. David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David W. Pao (BIS 66; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 71–80; here 73 n. 17.
 C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 174 n. 29. Black holds that the identification was made with John the son of Zebedee who came to be identified with the Fourth Evangelist, whereas this study will argue that the identification was rather with the Fourth Evangelist, who came to be identified with the son of Zebedee.
 So Bruns, “Confusion,” 23–24; John J. Gunther, “The Association of Mark and Barnabas with Egyptian Christianity (Part I),” EvQ 54 (1982) 233 n. 78.
 Bruns, “Confusion,” 23.
 Bruns, “Confusion,” 23 n. 7, citing Chrysostom, Hom. John 18.3. Chrysostom specifically refers to some who identified the unnamed disciple with the “author” of John’s Gospel.
 François Halkin, “Actes inédits de saint Marc,” AnBoll 87 (1969) 343.
 Cf. Bruns, “Confusion,” 23. Bruns refers to Mawhub as “Severus,” reflecting the traditional attribution of the work.
 Jean Joseph Léandre Bargès, trans., Homélie sur St Marc, Apôtre et Évangéliste par Anba Sévère, Évêque de Nestéraweh (Paris: Leroux, 1877) 78.
 Ṣamuʾil al-Suryani and Nabih K. Dawud, eds., Ta’rikh al-abaʾ al-baṭarika li-l-anba Yusab usquf Fuwwa (Cairo: 1987) 11.
 Most of section 4 of this work was translated into German by George Graf in Felix Haase, ed., Apostel und Evangelisten in den orientalischen Uberlieferungen (NTA 9; Münster: Aschendorff, 1922) 295–300.
 Ibn Kabar, The Lamp that Lit the Darkness, trans. William A. Hanna (St Louis: 2000) 77. Hanna has been followed where sections of Ibn Kabar was not translated by Graf.
 Peter van Deun, ed., Hagiographica Cypria (CCSG 26; Turnhout and Leuven, 1993) 21.
  J. Edgar Bruns, “John Mark: A Riddle within the Johannine Enigma,” Scr 15 (1963) 91.
 The Greek text of Deun, Hagiographica Cypria, 83–122, has been followed, and so hereafter.
 Cf. Bruns, “John Mark,” 91.
 Bruns, “John Mark,” 91.
 Lewis Johnson, “Who was the Beloved Disciple?” ExpT 77 (1966) 157–158; D. E. H. Whiteley, “Was John Written by a Sadducee?” ANWR 2.25.3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985) 2481–2505; J. K. Thornecroft, “The Redactor and the ‘Beloved’ in John,” ExpT 98 (1986–1987) 135–139; Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 15.
 See, e.g., George R. Beasley-Murray, John (2nd ed.; WBC 36; Dallas: Word, 2002) 237–238; Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives, trans. Philip J. Whitmore (New York: Doubleday, 2007) 66; Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God (BTNT; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009) 77.
 Roelof van den Broek, Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem On the Life and the Passion of Christ: A Coptic Apocryphon (VCSup 118; Leiden, Brill, 2012) 9.
 Translated from the Latin translation in PG 18:461; cf. Gunther, “Mark and Barnabas,” 233 n. 78.
 Youhanna Nessim Youssef, “The homily of Severus of Nastrāwa on saint Mark,” BSAC 49 (2010) 147.
 The Holy Psalmody (Lynnwood, Wash.: Saint Mary’s Coptic Orthodox Church, 1997) 109.
 Bargès, Homélie sur St Marc, 78–79.
 The noun θεολογία generally refers to teaching about the divinity (cf. PGL 627). See, e.g., Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 1.1.8), Athanasius (Contra Arianos, 1.18), Gregory Nazianzus (Orat. 38.8) and John of Damascus (Exp. Fid. 1.4).
 Translated from the Latin text in CCSL 9A:188.
 This reading reflects the text of the Latin Vulgate, some earlier Latin writers and the majority of medieval Greek manuscripts (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) rather than μονογενὴς θεὸς of critical texts.
 Translated from the Latin text in Thomas Aquinas, In Evangelia S. Matthaei et S. Ionnis Commentaria, vol. 1: Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum (Turin: Typographia Pontificia, 1893) 7.
 Cf. Bruns, “Confusion,” 23.
 Al-Suryani and Dawud, eds., Tarikh, 11.
 Al-Suryani and Dawud, eds., Tarikh, 11.
 John Hackett, A History of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus (London: Methuen, 1901) 397.
 Bruns, “Confusion,” 24–25; Bruns mentions three clerics, but Jean Bolland (Acta Sanctorum Martii, vol. 2, XV Martiis [Paris and Rome: Victorem Palme, 1865] 369) notes that the quotation attributed to Braulio by Bivarius was handed down under the name of Heleca. It is thus attributed to Heleca by James Ussher (The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., ed. Charles Richard Elrington, vol. 5 [Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1864] 21.
 Bolland, Acta Sanctorum Martii, vol. 2, 369; cf. Bruns, “Confusion,” 24.
 Bruns, “Confusion,” 24–25.
 My appreciation to Dr Mark A. House for forwarding me his unpublished translation of the Acts, Miracles, and Passion of Mark used here and afterwards unless otherwise stated. The Greek text can be found in Halkin, “Actes,” 343–371.
 Bargès, Homélie sur St Marc, 30. This work, however, makes his father Egyptian and his mother of Levitical descent.
 Translated from the Latin text in I. Hilberg, ed., Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae (CSEL 56; Vienna: 1918) 149–150.
 See Eusebius, The History of the Church from our Lord’s Incarnation to the Twelfth Year of the Emperour Mauricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594, ed. Henricus Valesius, trans. anon (Cambridge, 1683) 87.
 Translated from the Latin text in Francis Pritchett Badham, “The Martyrdom of John the Apostle,” AJT 8 (1904) 544 n.16. Cf. PG 5:1360.
 Robert E. McNally, “Two Hiberno-Latin Texts on the Gospels,” Trad 15 (1959) 387–401; cf. J. L. North, “ΜΑΡΚΟΣ Ο ΚΟΛΟΒΟΔΑΚΤΥΛΟΣ: Hippolytus, Elenchus, VII. 30,” JTS 28 (1977) 500.
 Rupert Allen, “Mark 14, 51–52 and Coptic Hagiography,” Bib 89 (2008) 267.
 This seems to have contained the twelfth-century history of Nikephorus Bryennios, but the manuscript is now lost. See Leonora Neville, Heroes and Romans in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: The Material for History of Nikephorus Bryennios (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 7–8.
 Greek text in Pierre Poussines (Petrus Possinus), ed., Catena Graecorum Patrum in Evangelium Secundum Marcum (Rome, 1673) 328.
 PL 14:1040.
 PL 52:421; cf. 600, 645. Cf. Culpepper, John, 170.
 Anon., Morals on the Book of Job by S. Gregory the Great, the First Pope of that Name, Translated, with Notes and Indices, vol. 2 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1845) 154.
 Translated by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “The Cenacle—Setting for Acts 2:44–45,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, ed. Richard Bauckham (BAFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 307; cf. PG 43:261.
 Murphy-O’Connor, “The Cenacle,” 314–315.
 PG 93:1480.
 Translated from the Latin text of Erich Klostermann and Ernst Benz, eds., Origenes Werke, vol. 11 (GCS 38; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1933) 199 (ll. 29–30)-200 (l.1).
 Jack Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church (rev. ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) 234; see also Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, trans. Eugene Hoade (PSBFMi 4; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971) 25.
 Translated from the Latin text in Johann Gildermeister, Theodosius de situ Terrae Sanctae im ächten Text und der Brevarius de Hierosolyma vervollstäandigt (Bonn: Adolph Marcus, 1882) 20.
 Pope Shenouda III, The Beholder of God: Mark the Evangelist, Saint and Martyr, trans. Samir F. Mikhail and Maged S. Mikhail from the 4th ed. (Santa Monica: 1995) 119–120.
 Cf. Shenouda III, Beholder of God, 119–120.
 Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 3, The City of Jerusalem (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010) 323.
 Antoine Augustin Calmet, Dictionnaire historique, critique, chronologique, géographique et littéral de la Bible, vol. 2 (2nd ed.; Geneva: Bousquet, 1730) 661.
 Culpepper, John, 172; Francis X. Gumerlock, “Chromatius of Aquileia on John 21:22 and Rev. 10:11,” in The Book of Revelation and Its Interpreters: Short Studies and an Annotated Bibliography, ed. Ian Boxall and Richard M. Tresley (London: Rowman, 2016) 62 n. 2; cf. Robert Eisler, The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel (London: Methuen, 1938) 126.
 Eisler, Enigma, 61.
 Culpepper, John, 173.