The Place Where the Gospel of Mark Was Written
It is certain that the Gospel was written at Rome.
St. Chrysostom indeed speaks of Egypt as the place of composition (“Hom. I. on Matt.”, 3), but he probably misunderstood Eusebius, who says that Mark was sent to Egypt and preached there the Gospel which he had written (Church History II.16).
(Steefen: So, the misunderstanding is that Mark had already written the Gospel before being sent to Egypt.)
Some few modern scholars have adopted the suggestion of Richard Simon (“Hist. crit. du Texte du N.T.”, 1689, 107) that the Evangelist may have published both a Roman and an Egyptian edition of the Gospel. But this view is sufficiently refuted by the silence of the Alexandrian Fathers.
Other opinions, such as that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor or at Syrian Antioch, are not deserving of any consideration.
The Date of Composition for the Gospel of Mark
The date of the Gospel is uncertain.
The external evidence is not decisive, and the internal does not assist very much.
St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Tertullian, and St. Jerome signify that it was written before St. Peter’s death (circa 67).
The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (A.D. 38-40).
(Steefen: The Ascension may not be a scientific event; as such, it cannot be a historical event. If the non-scientific event is a symbolic event, we have to determine for what it is a symbol. If it is symbolic of the ascension of Flavians to the Roman throne, then Mark was written in 79, shortly before the dates (80-85) given to Matthew and Luke which copied sections of Mark.)
The “Paschal Chronicle” assigns it to A.D. 40, and the “Chronicle” of Eusebius to the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). Possibly these early dates may be only a deduction from the tradition that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius, A.D. 42 (cf. Eusebius, Church History II.14; Jerome, “De Vir. Ill.”, i).
(Steefen: So, with Mark being a friend of Peter and with Mark being written in Rome, Mark could not have written his gospel before Peter got there to give him the accounts.)
St. Irenæus, on the other hand, seems to place the composition of the Gospel after the death of Peter and Paul (meta de ten touton exodon–Against Heresies III.1).
(Steefen: That would be after the year 67. BINGO: one reason for saying Mark was written in 67. This seems incorrect because one would think Mark would have taken some notes while Peter was relaying accounts.)
Papias, too, asserting that Mark wrote according to his recollection of Peter’s discourses, has been taken to imply that Peter was dead.
This, however, does not necessarily follow from the words of Papias, for Peter might have been absent from Rome. Besides, Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Church History VI.14) seems to say that Peter was alive and in Rome at the time Mark wrote, though he gave the Evangelist no help in his work.
(Steefen: Gave no help in his work? The accounts are Peter’s, no? If not, then whose?)
There is left, therefore, the testimony of St. Irenæus against that of all the other early witnesses; and it is an interesting fact that most present-day Rationalist and Protestant scholars prefer to follow Irenæus and accept the later date for Mark’s Gospel, though they reject almost unanimously the saint’s testimony, given in the same context and supported by all antiquity, in favour of the priority of Matthew’s Gospel to Mark’s.
Various attempts have been made to explain the passage in Irenæus so as to bring him into agreement with the other early authorities (see, e.g. Cornely, “Introd.”, iii, 76-78; Patrizi, “De Evang.”, I, 38), but to the present writer they appear unsuccessful if the existing text must be regarded as correct. It seems much more reasonable, however, to believe that Irenæus was mistaken than that all the other authorities are in error, and hence the external evidence would show that Mark wrote before Peter’s death (A.D. 64 or 67).
From internal evidence we can conclude that the Gospel was written before A.D. 70, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, such as might naturally be expected in view of the prediction in xiii, 2, if that event had already taken place.
(Steefen: Mark 13: 2, Jesus says not one stone will be left upon another. I disagree with the reasoning above. The prophecy of destruction is allusion to the actual destruction.)
On the other hand, if xvi, 20: “But they going forth preached everywhere”, be from St. Mark’s pen, the Gospel cannot well have been written before the close of the first Apostolic journey of St. Paul (A.D. 49 or 50), for it is seen from Acts 14:26 and 15:3, that only then had the conversion of the Gentiles begun on any large scale.
(Steefen: It seems a little odd that the Jerusalem Church would make Paul who only had a questionable vision of Jesus leader for the responsibility of going forth preach everywhere. Chapter 16: 20 has a shorter ending with Jesus himself sending the disciples at the Ascension from east to west. This going forth did not wait for Paul’s conversion.)
Of course it is possible that previous to this the Apostles had preached far and wide among the dispersed Jews, but, on the whole, it seems more probable that the last verse of the Gospel, occurring in a work intended for European readers, cannot have been written before St. Paul’s arrival in Europe (A.D. 50-51).
Taking the external and internal evidence together, we may conclude that the date of the Gospel probably lies somewhere between A.D. 50 and 67.
(Steefen: I’m willing to extend the oral tradition to the year 79.)
The subscription of many of the later unical and cursive manuscripts states that it was written in the tenth or twelfth year after the Ascension (A.D. 38-40).
# # #
That’s odd.
The biblical Ascension would not have been AD 38-40 and
The biblical Ascension +10/12 would not be AD 38-40.
It is NOT certain the gospel of Mark was written in Rome. Joel Marcus in his fine Anchor Bible commentary makes the case for a Syrian provenance. I confess I’m not qualified to have an opinion one way or another. I merely note that while the dominant view is that Mark was written in Rome this is by no means universal. It’s seems obvious why the Catholic Encyclopedia would privilege Rome but that’s not evidence. We shall have to live with uncertainty.
There are lots of reasons for supposing the gospel was written around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. But who knows, really? As I said we shall have to live with uncertainty.
Why does the religious sensibility have such a problem with accepting “I don’t know” as an answer?
Stephen said
It is NOT certain the gospel of Mark was written in Rome. Joel Marcus in his fine Anchor Bible commentary makes the case for a Syrian provenance.
Stephen, you are correct about the Joel Marcus Anchor Bible commentary. I bought the first volume on chapters 1 – 8 in December and I think it’s probably my favorite of the commentaries that I own.
To be clear about what Joel Marcus says, he spends 40 pages in the intro talking about authorship and where Mark was written relying on the previous work of numerous well respected scholars (Hengel et al.) as well as mentioning current scholarship (as of 1999 at any rate). He lists the three places which are most believed to be the place of origin of Mark’s gospel: Rome, some other Roman province and Syria. This pretty much covers every possible place it could have been written! He lists numerous pros and cons for each of the three with those pros and cons hinging on the possible interpretation of Mark 13 and WHEN the gospel was written.
If anyone is interested I can list bullet points for each location’s pros and cons for place of origin.
Marcus is clear that it is NOT certain that Mark was written in Rome and I have to say that I like his reasoning for a Jerusalem place of origin, or the Levant in general at the very least.
Steefen, I don’t agree with all of your points, but I do like your presentation though 
All Christians believe Jesus was resurrected and is alive in heaven. There has been billions of words written whether this or that happened. Millions have died in the cause of religion. God was supposed to have spoken with OT prophets. How come that both God and Jesus have been silent for 2000 years when it could all be resolved. What a waste of human resources while children die of disease and starvation. Does anyone get tired of the same old circular arguments that really go nowhere?
gmatthews said
Stephen said
It is NOT certain the gospel of Mark was written in Rome. Joel Marcus in his fine Anchor Bible commentary makes the case for a Syrian provenance.Stephen, you are correct about the Joel Marcus Anchor Bible commentary. I bought the first volume on chapters 1 – 8 in December and I think it’s probably my favorite of the commentaries that I own.
To be clear about what Joel Marcus says, he spends 40 pages in the intro talking about authorship and where Mark was written relying on the previous work of numerous well respected scholars (Hengel et al.) as well as mentioning current scholarship (as of 1999 at any rate). He lists the three places which are most believed to be the place of origin of Mark’s gospel: Rome, some other Roman province and Syria. This pretty much covers every possible place it could have been written! He lists numerous pros and cons for each of the three with those pros and cons hinging on the possible interpretation of Mark 13 and WHEN the gospel was written.
If anyone is interested I can list bullet points for each location’s pros and cons for place of origin.
Marcus is clear that it is NOT certain that Mark was written in Rome and I have to say that I like his reasoning for a Jerusalem place of origin, or the Levant in general at the very least.
Steefen, I don’t agree with all of your points, but I do like your presentation though
gmatthews,
I for one would be interested in the points for each location’s pros and cons for place of origin.
Thank you.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** wrote
To be clear about what Joel Marcus says, he spends 40 pages in the intro talking about authorship and where Mark was written relying on the previous work of numerous well respected scholars (Hengel et al.) as well as mentioning current scholarship (as of 1999 at any rate). He lists the three places which are most believed to be the place of origin of Mark’s gospel: Rome, some other Roman province and Syria. This pretty much covers every possible place it could have been written! He lists numerous pros and cons for each of the three with those pros and cons hinging on the possible interpretation of Mark 13 and WHEN the gospel was written.
Yes of course sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My main point is that there are indeed reputable scholars who do dissent from the Roman point of view.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** wrote
All Christians believe Jesus was resurrected and is alive in heaven. There has been billions of words written whether this or that happened. Millions have died in the cause of religion. God was supposed to have spoken with OT prophets. How come that both God and Jesus have been silent for 2000 years when it could all be resolved. What a waste of human resources while children die of disease and starvation. Does anyone get tired of the same old circular arguments that really go nowhere?
In the main I suppose your first statement is true. Once you move on to exactly what that means, then the arguments start! For myself I remain totally fascinated by historical questions. I have zero interest in theology. For me the questions of who Jesus was, what he might have said and what he might have done are purely historical.
Stephen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** wroteTo be clear about what Joel Marcus says, he spends 40 pages in the intro talking about authorship and where Mark was written relying on the previous work of numerous well respected scholars (Hengel et al.) as well as mentioning current scholarship (as of 1999 at any rate). He lists the three places which are most believed to be the place of origin of Mark’s gospel: Rome, some other Roman province and Syria. This pretty much covers every possible place it could have been written! He lists numerous pros and cons for each of the three with those pros and cons hinging on the possible interpretation of Mark 13 and WHEN the gospel was written.
Yes of course sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My main point is that there are indeed reputable scholars who do dissent from the Roman point of view.
I understood what you were saying, I was just fleshing out further what you said.
Steefen: I’ll post it tonight.
Stephen,
In the main I suppose your first statement is true. Once you move on to exactly what that means, then the arguments start! For myself I remain totally fascinated by historical questions. I have zero interest in theology. For me the questions of who Jesus was, what he might have said and what he might have done are purely historical.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
That’s a fair point. The problems of doing that only just begin because we don’t have any original text to consider as Bart says we only have copies ad nauseum and for me that has becomes a sort of waste of time as its clear the writers had a massive vested interest in not in telling the truth but bending the truth and imo downright lying. Just consider the sermon on the mount or the feeding of the 5000 or any large group? Just how could Jesus have made his voice heard past a couple of dozen people? Just try and converse with someone ten yards away in a normal voice never mind someone across the street and its almost inaudible and yet we are asked to believe the hollywood type scenarios where Jesus spoke to hundreds and hundreds of people even from a boat apparently as there was little room on the shore for all the people.
In itself people may consider such things unimportant as it was the ‘message’ that was and not the numbers but IF as I believe these were disorted massively, then can we take seriously anything else these writers wrote in the Gospels? My point really is that there is almost no way to show the validity of truth other than by logic and reason and we should use that now today on today’s problems and not who and what when on 2000-6000 years ago in Palestine.
The other point is the Gospels and other stuff was written for an audience of mostly unlearned and uneducated men to convince them to join the band of brothers and to stay in there come what may. I doubt they thought people would be reading and analysing it all thousands of years later. Its why even though it took me some time to suss this all out, millions haven’t that incliude many very learned and educated people who despite really REALLY knowing what is true, they cling to their childhood indoctrinations out of IMV fear of eternal death and judgement.
Christopher Hitchens always made a point in his speeches and I will expound further for those that don’t know but I have asked many Christian people and emailed Professors of theology the same question. That is…
A parent has no problem in forgiving their child or children no matter what they have done because they love them. There may be some exceptions. But they don’t need someone to die for their wrong doings, they don’t need someone else to intervene or intercede because that is what love means to them.
Now! They tell us that God’s love is greater than human love and God is all loving and all forgiving and that love is unconditional. I tell them to shock and horror, that’s a lie and false, because the NT says God will only do that IF we accept that Jesus died for us, otherwise he won’t just punish us but eternal hell awaits us. So that means a parents love is greater than God’s love.
I put this question to a Pastor of a local church just last week who has spent 60 years as a Christian and 30 years teaching and preaching and yet he was dumb founded by that single question. I wish Bart and others would put that and maybe they do as not watched them all that very same question to the likes of William Lane Craig. I doubt Billy Graham would answer my email. At least Judaism and islam don’t make the same claims. Even though they too have made God in their image.
Steefen said
I for one would be interested in the points for each location’s pros and cons for place of origin.
In re-reading part of the intro to Joel Marcus’ Anchor Bible Mark 1-8 commentary I see now that he stakes out that his preferred origin setting for Mark is Syria. Last night I was jumping around the sections and I thought he was simply presenting current scholarship on each location, but in the end he writes that his entire commentary is based on the idea that it was written in Syria since understanding the geographical origin of Mark is important to understanding the Gospel itself. My description of the pros and cons will hopefully at least give clues as to why it is important. Last night I wrote that there were three locales that he presents as possible places of origin: Rome, Syria or some other Roman province, but in actuality he only presents Rome and Syria. He discusses how Mark is a topical gospel written for a specific local community and in this context I believed he was discussing a third possible place of origin for Mark, but he was not.
My summary below will hardly do the least bit of justice to the ideas and topics that Marcus reviews so I highly recommend that anyone interested order the book from Amazon. It can be purchased used for $28.00 (as of this moment).
Marcus first reviews whether or not Mark was written for a local community versus Christendom at-large. The challenges to this view are given as those described by Richard Bauckman.
| In defense of a local readership | Opposition given by Richard Bauckman |
| The anonymity of the gospel points to local authorship (gospel anonymity in general was discussed in a previous section) | Argues Mark and the other gospels were written for an at-large readership unlike Paul’s epistles which had, initially, a local readership. Believes scholars have been misled by the examples of the Pauline epistles. |
| Mark’s reference in 15:21 to Simon of Cyrene being the father of Alexander and Rufus points to an intimate readership who would have known these people personally. Matthew and Luke omit the names indicating their book was written elsewhere and for a different audience. | Bauckman: there would have been no need to write for a local community because oral tradition would have sufficed. “It was distance that required writing, whereas orality sufficed for presence… Literature addressing a specific locality is very rare…” |
| Some of the prophecies in Mark 13 are best interpreted as directions to a people in a specific locality |
Next, a review of a Roman origin for the gospel. I’m not going to give a detailed listing of what Tacitus wrote as Marcus does. He lists point by point detail of Tacitus and compares it to what is written in Mark 13. One example to give you an idea of what he says is that Mark says in 13:13 Jesus says his followers will be “hated by all for my name’s sake. Marcus says Tacitus’ exact phrase odio humani generis, which can be translated as “because of the human race’s hatred for them” is analogous.
| For Roman origin | Against Roman origin |
| Testimony of Papias seems to assume Mark wrote in Rome after Peter died around 64 CE | Modern scholars question whether Papias knew what he was talking about (as we’ve seen Prof Ehrman describe recently!) |
| This dating agrees well the prophetic references given in Mark 13 | If the prophecies of Mark 13 fit the Neronian persecutions so well why is there no “prophetic substitute figure” for Nero in Mark (such as a bestial anti-God figure)? It seems if Nero was so central to the prophecy of Mark 13 there would have been some figure described as his stand in. |
| Primary support for above point comes from the description of Neronian prosecution as given by Tacitus | While the Neronian persecution is well-attested, it was not the only persecution known from the 1st century. Others from Acts, the Pauline epistles, Josephus and others from before Mark’s time are known as well in places such as: Judea (Jerusalem in particular), Damascus in Syria, various cities in Asia Minor, and Greece. |
| the Gospel’s Latinisms such as 12:42 and 15:16 where Latin is used to clarify Greek may point towards a Roman origin | 12:42 and 15:16 uses Latin to clarify words that are imprecise in Greek, but precise in Latin |
| a local ethnic designation such as “Syrophoenician” in 7:26 would not be necessary with a Palestinian audience, but would for Roman readership | 7:26 clarifies a specific type of Phoenician to a Syrian audience, not explaining a particular non-Roman ethnic to a Roman audience |
| the assertion by some that the Rufus in 15:21 is the same Rufus in Romans 16:13 | Rufus was a common name. No conclusion can be drawn by the name appearing twice in the NT. |
As mentioned above, Joel Marcus states that Syria is where he believes the gospel originated. He barely lists any challenges to this idea so I’ll just list his discussion in bullet points.
- In general many scholars believe Mark describes the revolt of Palestinian Jews in 66-73CE rather than the Neronian persecution. The bitterness of the gospel is directed at the Jews and not the Romans, hence the “savage events” of that war provide a more plausible setting.
- General course of the events of the Jewish War more closely reflect Mark 13
- destruction of the Jewish Temple – 13:1-2
- betrayal to councils, beatings in synagogues and trials before rulers – 13:9
- the “abomination of desolation” – 13:14
- appearance of messianic pretenders and prophets – 13:22
- The Revolution was apparently led by pretenders to Davidic messiahship…possibly goes to Mark’s apparent ambivalence to the Davidic image of Jesus which he sometimes affirms and sometimes denies
- The apparent detailed knowledge of the Jewish War is most easily explained by an origin in Palestine, but probably not Palestine itself (as seen below)
- Older opinions of origin pointed to Galilee, but this seems unlikely as the Markan community appears to be largely Gentile whereas Galilee was obviously overwhelmingly Jewish
- If late 60s is seen as time of writing of Mark then a Galilean province is highly unlikely as it was a war front
- Best solution seems to be an area close to Palestine, but not actually in Palestine, ergo: Syria which shares a border
- Syria was close enough to Palestine so that Mark was exposed to traditions about Jesus, but was in a largely Gentile area so that his description of the exposure of Jesus to non-Jews, freedom from the Law, Jewish customs and Aramaic terms is easily explained
- If Mark’s exhortation to Judaean Jews to flee to the hills on the appearance of the abomination of desolation reflects a Markan community history then those hills are likely on the edge of the Jordan Valley, an area that Mark seems to show great interest in (5:1-20, 7:31-37). A flight such as this, if it occurred, would correspond to reports by Eusebius and Epiphanius that the Judaean church fled to the Decapolis city of Pella (side note by me: this episode was written up in the May/June 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review which I can’t put my hands on at the moment. It’s also briefly described on their website here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **)
- A Syrian setting during or after the war could explain the gospel’s emphasis on persecution since the war spilled over into Syria with Gentiles persecuting Jews
Marcus concludes by saying the Syrian setting seems strongest and as can obviously be seen he gives far greater evidence for it. For me, he seems very convincing and I tend to believe it makes more sense. The single weak challenge to the Syrian setting is the lack of direct historical evidence for the persecution of Christians in the first Jewish War (although it does exist for the second revolt).
Marcus concludes his Introduction with a couple of pages on the dating of Mark, but at a glance I believe that Prof Ehrman has already covered his explanation elsewhere.
As I said at the beginning I hardly feel my summary above does justice to what Joel Marcus describes. This is especially true of the treatment I gave for his explanation of a Syrian setting. Marcus’ description is far more compelling than my attempt at brevity.
Steefen said
Please explain the Mark 13 and Nero against Roman origin line given that General Titus under Emperor Vespasian destroyed the Temple.
I don’t understand what you mean. I said that Mark 13 seems to reflect events from the Jewish War more than the Neronian persecution.
Steefen said
Peter goes to Damascus, Syria in Acts.
Peter goes to Rome in a book of the New Testament or only by Christian tradition?
Peter can meet Mark in Damascus Syria may be stronger than Peter meeting Mark in Rome.
What do you think?
You obviously hold to the Peter-dictated-to-Mark idea. 
I don’t, so all of that doesn’t mean anything to me except to create several what-ifs to insert Peter into a Syriac setting for the gospel. If it weren’t for the passage by Eusebius attributed to Papias there would never be any suggestion that Peter had anything to do with Mark’s gospel. What is there in Mark that suggests it is a Petrine inspired work? What about the parts of Mark that describe events where Peter and/or other disciples aren’t present? Why doesn’t Peter play a more prominent role in a gospel that he supposedly dictated? He’s a more prominent player in Luke and Matthew.
The gospel was quite likely originally penned by someone named Mark, but there’s nothing particularly inspiring to make us think that a companion of Peter wrote the gospel aside from words that are ascribed to Papias. The name “Mark” was so common that it would be like writing a book by “John Smith” today. If it were pseudonymous then the forger chose the most unlikely name possible.
gmatthews said
Steefen said
Please explain the Mark 13 and Nero against Roman origin line given that General Titus under Emperor Vespasian destroyed the Temple.I don’t understand what you mean. I said that Mark 13 seems to reflect events from the Jewish War more than the Neronian persecution.
Steefen said
Peter goes to Damascus, Syria in Acts.
Peter goes to Rome in a book of the New Testament or only by Christian tradition?
Peter can meet Mark in Damascus Syria may be stronger than Peter meeting Mark in Rome.
What do you think?
You obviously hold to the Peter-dictated-to-Mark idea.
I don’t, so all of that doesn’t mean anything to me except to create several what-ifs to insert Peter into a Syriac setting for the gospel. If it weren’t for the passage by Eusebius attributed to Papias there would never be any suggestion that Peter had anything to do with Mark’s gospel. What is there in Mark that suggests it is a Petrine inspired work? What about the parts of Mark that describe events where Peter and/or other disciples aren’t present? Why doesn’t Peter play a more prominent role in a gospel that he supposedly dictated? He’s a more prominent player in Luke and Matthew.
The gospel was quite likely originally penned by someone named Mark, but there’s nothing particularly inspiring to make us think that a companion of Peter wrote the gospel aside from words that are ascribed to Papias. The name “Mark” was so common that it would be like writing a book by “John Smith” today. If it were pseudonymous then the forger chose the most unlikely name possible.
So, THAT is the source of the tradition that Mark was a friend of Peter?
Wait a second, how could Mark even write a gospel without an original 12 as source?
So, THAT is the source of the tradition that Mark was a friend of Peter?
Wait a second, how could Mark even write a gospel without an original 12 as source?
I’m assuming you aren’t being sarcastic 
“Matthew” presumably wrote his gospel without one of them telling him what to write. If the Markan community really was in Syria and it was close enough to have fled to Pella in the Jordanian hills (as a point of reference this area is in the hills to the east of the Sea of Galilee just over the Jordan River) then surely Mark was in an area where stories of Jesus were well known and were being repeated. Churches would have been established from Jerusalem to Damascus putting the Markan community in between them and in a place to be exposed to every oral tradition concerning Jesus. Who knows how voluminous the material Mark must have had to work with?
Remember that with Papias there are multiple reasons to distrust him as a reliable source and not just the issue over his description of Matthew’s gospel. See Bart’s post here for another example (a supposed logia of Jesus): ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Steefen said
Steefen said
Please explain the Mark 13 and Nero against Roman origin line given that General Titus under Emperor Vespasian destroyed the Temple.I’m talking about the row under For Roman Origin vs. Against Roman origin.
Sorry about the confusion.
OK, I guess you’re talking about what I said about reasons to doubt the prophecies of Mark 13 referring to the Neronian persecution. The oldest theory about the location of Mark when he wrote his gospel is that he was in Rome. The primary reason to place him in Rome is that we have Papias telling us that he was a companion (or secretary) of Peter, hence he must have been in Rome. From there it followed that Mark 13 was a backwards looking prophecy aimed at the persecuted Christians of Rome describing the horrors of Nero and his blaming the burning of Rome on the nascent Christian movement.
But, in actuality, Mark 13 better describes what must have happened during the Jewish War:
- Destruction of the Temple (obviously this would have happened in Jerusalem, how could it happen in Rome?)
- False messiahs (again, this would have been more likely to have happened in Judea like with Simon Magus, etc
- Etc, see my original posting for further details on this.
I guess you could be saying to yourself that even if the events of Mark 13 refer to what happened in Judea that doesn’t preclude the gospel being written in Rome. True enough, but I have to agree with the distrust of Papias as a reliable witness. If we disregard his telling us that a companion of Peter wrote the gospel in Mark then we have no reason to believe it would have been written in Rome.
gmatthews said
So, THAT is the source of the tradition that Mark was a friend of Peter?
Wait a second, how could Mark even write a gospel without an original 12 as source?
I’m assuming you aren’t being sarcastic
“Matthew” presumably wrote his gospel without one of them telling him what to write. If the Markan community really was in Syria and it was close enough to have fled to Pella in the Jordanian hills (as a point of reference this area is in the hills to the east of the Sea of Galilee just over the Jordan River) then surely Mark was in an area where stories of Jesus were well known and were being repeated. Churches would have been established from Jerusalem to Damascus putting the Markan community in between them and in a place to be exposed to every oral tradition concerning Jesus. Who knows how voluminous the material Mark must have had to work with?
Remember that with Papias there are multiple reasons to distrust him as a reliable source and not just the issue over his description of Matthew’s gospel. See Bart’s post here for another example (a supposed logia of Jesus): ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Assumption correct. I’m not being sarcastic. I thought scripture was the source, somewhere where Mark is mentioned in the New Testament as being a friend of Peter. I’m saying, I thought the Peter-Mark relationship could still stand without Papias.
Are you sure there isn’t another leg or legs to the Peter-Mark acquaintance?
What?!
“If the prophecies of Mark 13 fit the Neronian persecutions so well why is there no “prophetic substitute figure” for Nero in Mark (such as a bestial anti-God figure)? It seems if Nero was so central to the prophecy of Mark 13 there would have been some figure described as his stand in.”
Do you really see a pit-stop prophecy at Nerorian persecution when Jesus is clearly prophecizing about the destruction of the Temple?
Not you, per se, but whoever came up with THAT. Now, the Beatitudes are a different story–but even there, the beatitudes aren’t prophecy.
Grrrr….I just wrote a reply and when I hit Post the site told me I wasn’t logged in and trashed what I had written… Here goes again:
Here is a list of the verses in the NT where someone named Mark is mentioned. The first three contain two references which are not believed to be genuinely Pauline as I’m sure you will accept (Colossians and 2 Tim); and, 1 Peter is generally not believed to have been written or dictated by Peter and was probably not written until after his death. Whether or not you accept what I say about 1 Peter there is still no denying that his reference to someone named Mark is very fleeting and could not in any way make anyone believe that Peter’s enigmatic Mark had anything to do with the Gospel bearing his name (unless you invoke Papias who came after the fact).
Co-worker of Paul: Col 4:10; Philemon 24; 2 Tim 4:11
resident of Jerusalem, associate of Paul who had a falling out with him (aka John Mark): Acts 12:12,35; 13:5; 15:36-41
Co-worker of Peter: 1 Pet 5:12-13
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert