It is traditionally held that Mark wrote his gospel based on information he learned from St. Peter, after having been his travelling companion.
Where does this claim come from?
And would it surprise you to know that we have a first century source that claims precisely this?
Here's the story . . .
What We Know About Mark
We know that Mark was a travelling companion of Peter, because Peter mentions the fact in his First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13).
We also know that Mark was a travelling companion of other apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, which Luke discussed in Acts.
Mark may have even been an eyewitness of part of Jesus' earthly ministry. It is often thought that he refers to himself, anonymously, in his own gospel, as the man carrying a jug of water on his head or as the man who slips out of his clothes and runs away naked on the night Jesus is arrested.
Also, as Luke mentions in Acts, Mark's mother was prominent in the early Christian community, which at times met at their house in Jerusalem.
So why would we suppose that Mark got the information from St. Peter in particular?
The Origin of the Claim
The claim is found today in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the so-called "father of Church history." Specifically, it's found in his multi-book set Church History (a.k.a. Ecclesiastical History).
Eusebius wrote this work just before the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). He finished it about A.D. 324.
The claim concerning Mark's Gospel is earlier than that, though, because in the relevant passage of Church History, Eusebius is quoting an earlier writer, named Papias.
Who?
We don't know as much about Papias as we'd like. He was a second century figure who served as the bishop of Hierapolis. This was a town in modern Turkey that is near Laodicea and--a bit more distantly--Ephesus and the other "seven churches of Asia" mentioned in Revelation.
Papias is known for having conducted a series of interviews with people who knew Jesus and his immediate disciples, thinking he could learn more by doing so than just by reading books alone.
He recorded his thoughts in a multi-volume work called Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord.
This work is now lost, but parts of it survive in quotations in other authors, including Eusebius.
For our purposes, a key point is when he wrote: He is thought to have written the Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord around A.D. 120-130 (or even earlier).
That carries our tradition about Mark's connection to Peter back to the early second century.
But we can carry it back further than that, because Papias was basing his book on earlier traditions, and in this case he names his source for this tradition.
The Presbyter?
Here is the relevant passage from Eusebius's Church History. I've labelled who is speaking to make the source of particular words more obvious.
[Eusebius:] But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he [that is, Papias] gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
[Papias:] "This also the presbyter said:
[The Presbyter:] '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 theLord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as heremembered 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.'"
[Eusebius:] These things are related by Papias concerning Mark [Church History 3:39:14-15].
So Eusebius is quoting Papias, and Papias is quoting a figure called "the Presbyter."
Who is that?
Meet the Presbyter
"The Presbyter" is identified by Eusebius in the sentence immediately before the ones we quoted, where Eusebius writes:
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion, who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John, to which we refer those who are fond of learning.
This individual--known as "John the Presbyter" or "John the Elder" (the Greek word presbuteros can be translated both ways)--is identified by Papias as a disciple of Jesus who was apparently distinct from John the Apostle.
Here Papias identifies John the Presbyter as a disciple of the Lord distinct from the previously-mentioned apostles, including John the Apostle.
Into the First Century
As we noted, Papias is writing c. A.D. 120-130 (or earlier), but he's quoting the earlier source John the Presbyter.
That pushes the date of the tradition regarding the origin of Mark's Gospel into the first century.
Remember: John the Presbyter is identified by Papias as one of "the disciples of the Lord," which is why he was interested in interviewing him to find out what he said about Jesus' teachings.
He and Aristion were, apparently, people who knew Jesus but who didn't end up being appointed as apostles. They were, however, companions of apostles, just as Mark and Luke were.
And so it's not surprising that John the Presbyter--a contemporary of St. Mark, one who lived at the same time Mark wrote his gospel--would have information about how Mark's Gospel came to be.
In any event, we're dealing with a first century tradition regarding the origin of Mark's Gospel.
And maybe something even more than that.
Stay tuned for our next post.
In the Meantime . . .
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Articles fleshes out what I had already learned at my Catholic grade school, high school, and university, that Mark’s was the first gospel; it is the shortest gospel; St. Peter was likely the principal source; and a common theme of the gospel was that the Jewish elders, early on, we’re plotting and scheming against Jesus.
Thanks for the insightful details.
But do you REALLY think it is a good idea to have your mailing list named “Secret Information Club?” Can’t it just be an email list like everyone else?
It could be.
But it wouldn’t be *nearly* as much fun!
Glad you liked the post!
Jimmie,
This is wonderful stuff- but how ‘bout tackling a bigger question about the early Church Fathers. Apparently many believed we were a reincarnationist faith- was this a paradigm or a Truth?
I like the email address, if you can’t have fun with your faith….
There are subjects of lightheartedness and there are subjects of gravitas. An astronomer who discovers a new asteroid, planet, or galaxy does not start the press release with “Whoa!” Likewise, a researcher who solicts information from people suffering from a malady does not emply an email address such as getwellordie@. . .
Discussion of or recounting information on the historical basis of Jesus and His disciples needs to be presented as a matter of importance.
If you do not take yourself seriously, why should anyone else?
By serious I do NOT mean somber or morbid, I do mean professional.
Anyone who really thinks that a man who writes as Jimmy Akin does doesn’t take “the historical basis of Jesus and His disciples” or himself seriously or has not “presented as a matter of importance” this subject, needs to re-read this article. And, I suggest he read more of his articles. Mr. Akin is extremely “serious” and “professional” and it is reflected in his writings and podcasts. A reader does not comment on the article but criticizes Jimmy Akin’s e-mail address? Seriously?
The information you presented says nothing about whether Mark was the first Gospel written. More likely it was Matthew which was written first in Hebrew and translated into Greek, just like the Letter to the Hebrews. Hence, the canonical order in the bible from the 4th century placing Matthew in order first.
Don’t believe the whole Mark/“Q” mumbo jumbo.
To the other commentator . . . if we cannot treat theological issues in a light-hearted way then we are the saddest of creatures. It is explicitly evident from the Scriptures that God himself has a sense of humor.
@Donald—The material that Mr. Akin is presenting isn’t exactly brand new. Rather, it’s a re-presentation of things known for centuries. Plus, this is a blog post, not an academic paper. A certain amount of informality is to be expected.
.
In other words, lighten up, Francis…
I would imagine “secret” is an acceptable designation, as long as it does not mean secret knowledge of the faith, exclusive to few, who are the arbiters of salvation. For that who be a bit gnostic.
Sometime shortly before Y2K, I distinctly recall reading in the New York Times, of all places, about an archeological discovery which included almost the entire Gospel of Mark. The material was part of a scroll which had a lot of other content on it (sort of like a late-breaking news or newsreel); from the other content, the scientists concluded that the scroll could be reliably dated to A.D. 52, and probably from March-June.
If anyone knows any more about this discovery, could you please let us know where more information can be found?
I have often wondered if The Gospel according to John was the first, John, having stayed behind at the request of Jesus, so that he could accurately record the Word of God at The Last Supper in regards to The Sacrament of The Holy Eucharist, The Sacrament of The Most Holy and Undivided Blessed Trinity.
Dear Jimmy,
thank you very much for that lovely information. Your other articles equally sound great. Please continue the good work for our Lord and His Church.
prasad
Thanks for this and other articles - I greatly appreciate the information you provide. But I must ask how reliable Papias is as source. I know many of the traditions he relates are consistent with what is known from other sources or otherwise consistent with what we would expect. But aren’t there some passages attributed to Papias that seem better suited to the more extravagant fancies of the Apocrypha? I vaguely recall seeing something in Papias about Judas Iscariot (?) that made me wonder about his overall reliability. I know this is tricky business and that is precisely why I would welcome your opinion on the matter.
Peace.
Considering that Eusebius is famous fo inventing “pious frauds” and was documented as saying that lying is acceptable in order to win souls for Christ, it doesn’t seem a good idea to treat him as a reliable source.
Korou please source and give links re the claims you made about Eusebius:
1. ...inventing “pious frauds”
2. documented ...lying is acceptable….
I often feel that Peter may have served as an eyewitness for all the synoptic Gospels. Then there would be no need for Q source. Other eyewitnesses could have helped too. I also wonder if John also helped provide some of the information for the Gospel According to Luke and Book of Acts due to certain similarities with the Gospel Accoding to John and the fact that he (John) was present at certain events and was closely connected with Mary and Peter.
I often have time to read these posts during my night-shift and I find them interesting. The “secret club” image is fun and most probably a remnant of boyhood or scouts or something of the sort. I share your enthusiasm concerning Benedict xvi. The clarity of thought is comforting and the ease with which he overturns many a table in the temple these days is astounding. Take the historical critical method for eg. With a brush of the hand its contents are on the floor. Lovely.
Thanks for your childlike enthusiasm, it is very much appreciated
As you state in another article on John the Presbyter, Pope Benedict himself sees John the Presbyter as the author of 2 and 3 John and as having helped with the writing of the Gospel of John, based on the memories of John the Apostle. Benedict also suspected the existence of a ‘Johannine School’ in Ephesus of which John the Prebyter was the leader and direct ‘literary executor’ of John the Apostle.
Jerome had a very modern and canny ear for authentic traditions - I particularly love the story he preserved and vouched for of the beloved disciple John in his old age constantly exhorting his fellows “Little children, love one another!” The elderly apostle said this so often some wondered if perhaps he was a bit senile, but he reassured them, “I say this so often because My Lord did!”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.