0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

More on Mark and Peter

In answering the question about why it appears that Mark did not serve as the scribe/secretary for Peter, writing down Peter’s (Aramaic) recollections of his time with Jesus and putting them in narrative form in Greek, I already discussed the slender record of that being the origin of Mark’s Gospel, based on the discussion in Papias.  Now in this post I want to discuss the direct evidence that suggests that this is not how Mark’s Gospel came into being.  Here I will make three points.

First – this will not seem overly convincing to some readers, but then again it’s not really my main point – there is in fact nothing in Mark’s Gospel to make anyone think that it is Peter’s version, any more, than, say the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of John.  There is no first-person narrative, no recollection about what “Jesus said to me” and so on.  Peter is one of the main figures – yes indeed.  But the Gospel is not told from his perspective.

Second.  I don’t think this Gospel could have been written by Mark and I don’t think it could have been representing the views of Peter, for one very strong reason (a second strong reason will be next): this Gospel was almost certainly not written by (or based on reminiscences by) a Jew.   Both Peter and John Mark….


FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site.  If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, WILL YA???





Mark and the Resurrection (For Members)
More on Mark and Peter (For members)


You must be logged in to post a comment.