Follow the BLOGS to explore the possibilities...

Mark, Interpreter for Peter

Mark’s Gospel seems like the fairy tale style stepchild of the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus of Nazareth. Shortest of the four and probably the least quoted by Christians and skeptics alike, that does not mean the Gospel is less than credible or authentic.

Assessing the merit and authenticity of Mark can be approached in two ways – historical and uniqueness. How far back in history can the source of Mark’s Gospel be traced? What information in Mark does not appear in any of the other three Gospels?

Experts date the writing of Mark to around 60 AD possibly making it the oldest Gospel written, although there is debate that Matthew preceded it.[1] One key reason for the date is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.[2] In fact, Mark 13:2 refers to the destruction of the Temple in future tense suggesting it had not yet happened.[3]

Origins of the Gospel’s author can be traced outside the Bible back to some of the original Disciples – first generation sources. Papias, an astute man born in 70 AD, said:

“For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.” [4]

A direct reference was made to books already written just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, quite possibly the Gospels themselves. Setting aside books as a primary source of information, Papias made it his personal mission to seek out the actual elders of the early church to ascertain the truth from them directly:

“If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,-what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.”

Identified by name as sources, Aristion and the presbyter John both personally knew seven of the Disciples.[5] At the conclusion of his investigation, Papias provided a matter-of-fact report, saying in part:[6]

“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.  It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them.  For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who himself was personally mentored by the Disciple John.[7] Like Papias, Irenaeus identified Mark as the author of the Gospel, the traveling interpreter for the Disciple Peter:[8]

“…Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”

“…Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative…”

Several times in the New Testament Mark is mentioned. Peter referred to Mark as “my son.”[9] The Book of Acts written by the author of Luke makes three mentions, 12:12-14, 25 and 15:37, identifying John called Mark.

Apostle Paul made several references to Mark. In Colossians 4:10, the Apostle identified Mark as the cousin of Barnabas. Paul called out by name Mark and Luke twice – in Philemon: “Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers” and in 2 Timothy 4:11: “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.”[10]

Not just casual acquaintances, Luke and Mark were part of Paul’s ministry, yet neither were eyewitnesses to the life and times of Jesus.[11] Mark’s Gospel reflects the knowledge gained during his years spent traveling with Peter and Paul, his interactions with the other Disciples and listening to eyewitness accounts.

Some differences between Mark and the other Gospels are readily apparent. Mark begins by immediately declaring Jesus to be the Son of God, then ties an Isaiah prophecy to his introduction of John the Baptist.[12] Matthew has 28 chapters and Luke 24 whereas Mark has only 16 chapters. Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, did not provide any genealogical details of Jesus.

Miracles by Jesus solely reported in Mark are two, the healing of the deaf mute and healing the blind man at Bethsaida.[13] One parable by Jesus, the seed growing in secret, is exclusive to Mark and perhaps another (or was it an analogy?) about the householder.[14]

Mark is the only Gospel reporting activity the night before the Resurrection event. He named three women, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, who purchased and prepared aromatic spices and anointing oils for the following morning.[15]

Both Mark and Luke pick up the Resurrection story at the tomb after the stone had been rolled away. Mark reveals a very specific detail not described in the other Gospels: “Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right.” Further, he reports the witnessing women trembled, were amazed and afraid – details not reported in the other three Gospels.

Digging deeper reveals more differences. Nearly 8% of Mark, 51 verses, is unique content.[16] Writing analysis strongly suggests Mark had the special ability to interpret both Aramaic and the Roman Greek.[17]

In the world of investigators, identical or nearly identical statements can be a clear indication of collusive deception as are alleged by some Gospel critics.[18] Are the differences in Mark enough to say it is not identical to the other Gospels? If Mark did reference Matthew or vice versa, in their era of history it was common and acceptable practice to copy information from other sources without any formal references.[19]

With charges of collusion, deception or plagiarism unfounded, what remains is believability – does Mark’s Gospel about Jesus of Nazareth bear the marks of credibility and authenticity?

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

REFERENCES:

[1] Ryrie. Charles C., ed.  Ryrie Study Bible. New American Standard Trans. 1978. “Introduction to the Book of Matthew;” “Introduction to the Book of Mark; “Introduction to the Book of Luke.”  “New Testament – Historical Books.” “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011. <http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament> “The Four Gospels.” ReligionFacts.com. 2019. <http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/texts/gospels.htm>
Gloag, Paton J. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. 1895. pp 45, 204. <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002051125079&view=1up&seq=9>
[2] “Mark, the Gospel According to.” Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary. 3rd Edition. n.d.  <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002400.html#T0002421> Ryrie. Ryrie Study Bible. “Introduction to the Book of Mark.”
[3] “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. “The Four Gospels.” ReligionFacts.com. Gloag. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. pp 45, 204.
[4] Papias. “Papias.” Fragment I. “From the exposition of the oracles of the Lord.”  2005. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.i.html>
[5] Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers. “Introductory Note to the Fragments of Papias.”  <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.i.html>  Papias. Fragment I, footnote #1739.  Papias. Fragment VI, footnote #1755. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.vi.html>
[6] Papias.  Fragments I & VI. Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. 1902. pp LX – LXI. <https://books.google.com/books?id=WcYUAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA127&ots=f_TER300kY&dq=Seneca%20centurio%20supplicio%20pr%C3%A6positus&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false>
[7] Schaff, Philip. “Introduction – The General Character of His Work.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.xi.i.i.html>  Schaff, Philip. “Introductory Note to the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.” Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume I.  n.d. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. 13 July 2005. http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.i.html>  Gloag, The Synoptic Gospels. p11.
[8] Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book III, Chapters I.1, X.5, XIV.1. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.html> CR Acts 12:12.
[9] 1 Peter 5:13.
[10] NKJV.
[11] Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. pp XV – XXI. Irenaeus, Against Heresies. Book III, Chapter XV.3.
[12] Mark 1:1-4. NLT, NASB.
[13] Mark 7:31-37; 8:22-26.  Aune, Eilif Osten. “Synoptic Gospels.” Bible Basics. 2013. <https://web.archive.org/web/20171214110423/http://www.bible-basics-layers-of-understanding.com/Synoptic-Gospels.html>  “Luke, the Gospel According to.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd Edition. n.d. <http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0002300.html#T0002331> Ryrie. “The Miracles of Jesus.”
[14] Mark 4:26. Sween, Don and Nancy. “Parable.” BibleReferenceGuide.com. n.d. <http://www.biblereferenceguide.com/keywords/parable.html>  Ryrie. “The Parables of Jesus.” Aune. “Synoptic Gospels.”
[15] Mark 16:1.
[16] “Mark, the Gospel According to.” Easton’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd Edition.  Swete. The Gospel According to St. Mark, The Greek Text with Notes and Indices. pp XIX, LXXIV.
[17] MacRory, Joseph. “Gospel of Saint Mark.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1910. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm>  “Miscellaneous Notes and Queries.” 1895. History, Folk-Lore, Mathematics, Mysticism, Art, Science, Etc. Volume 13. p21. <https://books.google.com/books?id=diwAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=what+language+did+Mark+interpret+for+Peter?&source=bl&ots=AnNyDYHoXC&sig=ACfU3U1nG49JG00-xpncw9xnrUbYIAs6ng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipo6-qwdjjAhUInawKHRHOA8U4ChDoATADegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=what%20language%20did%20Mark%20interpret%20for%20Peter%3F&f=false>
[18] Vick, Tristan D. “Dating the Gospels: Looking at the Historical Framework.” Advocatus Atheist. 2010.  <http://advocatusatheist.blogspot.com/2010/01/dating-gospels-looking-at-historical.html>  “New Testament.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 2011.  Etinger, Judah. Foolish Faith. Chapter 6. 2019. FoolishFaith.com. <http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap6_history.asp>  Shamoun, Sam. “The New Testament Documents and the Historicity of the Resurrection.” Answering-Islam.org. 2013. <http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm>  Sapir Avinoam. LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation. Language analysis courses.  <http://www.lsiscan.com/id37.htm>
[19] Reed, Annette Yoshiko.  Pseudepigraphy, Authorship, and ‘The Bible’ in Late Antiquity. pp 478 & 489. 2008. Academia.edu. <http://www.academia.edu/1610659/_Pseudepigraphy_Authorship_and_the_Reception_of_the_Bible_in_Late_Antiquity> Chase, Jeffrey S. “The Gutenberg Printing Press.” Duke University|Department of Computer Science. n.d.  <http://www.cs.duke.edu/~chase/cps49s/press-summary.html>  Fausset, Andrew R.  “New Testament.” Fausset Bible Dictionary. 1878. <http://classic.studylight.org/dic/fbd> “Custom Cheating and Plagiarism essay paper writing service.” ExclusivePapers.com. 2019.  <http://exclusivepapers.com/essays/Informative/cheating-and-plagiarism.php> Cummings, Michael J. “Did Shakespeare Plagiarize?” Cummings Study Guides. 2003 <http://cummingsstudyguides.net/xPlagiarism.html> Pearse, Roger, ed.  “Tacitus and his manuscripts.” The Tertullian Project. 2008. <http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>