(6 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...I come now – at *last*, you might say – to the final post in this thread dealing with how the Gospels of the New Testament came to be named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I have covered a lot of territory in this thread, arguing that the Gospels were not known by these names until near the end of the second century; that they probably acquired their names because of an edition of the Gospels produced in Rome sometime after the time of Justin Martyr (mid second century), an edition that influenced both Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian canon, and eventually all of Christendom.
This edition named the first and last of the Gospels after two of Jesus’ disciples and the third Gospel after a companion of the apostle Paul. I have explained the reasons in the preceding posts. And now comes the most difficult and puzzling question: why was the second Gospel attributed to Mark?
I regularly am asked this question, and usually the questioner expresses it with some surprise: why *Mark* of all people? Why someone so obscure? Why not an apostle, or at least someone famous?
I have several responses to that question. The first is that….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!! OR YOU MAY NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER!!!
This series has been interesting, informative, and readable.
I am not in the “at last” crowd.
Well done, Dr. E.
But…isn’t it true that the Gospel of Mark was long (wrongly) assumed to be a condensed version of Matthew? Shouldn’t the early Church fathers, believing that, have expected that a Gospel inspired/influenced by Peter would have more of his “personal stamp” on it?
Maybe so! The problem is that we don’t know if Christians in the second century thought this about Mark; it was a later claim.
To follow up on this a bit:
Who (or when) was the first indication that readers started noticing that there actually were connections between Mark/Matthew/Luke? In other word that there _was_ anything like a Synoptic Problem (although, of course, they wouldn’t have used this terminology)?
(Needless to say, the notion that one Evangelist might have copied from another comes as a shock to many readers even today.)
There are authors already in the third century (e.g., Origen) who recognize that htere are problems with parallel passages in the Gospels (or even in the second century, since this is probably what compelled Tatian to make his Diatessaron), and Augustine provides a kind of answer to the Synoptic Problem (Mark is a condensation of Matthew). But I don’t know the full history of the ancient discussion.
If , during the canonization process, the Gospel of Mark was attributed to “Mark”, because there already was another Gospel attributed to Peter, then why wasn’t the apocryphal Gospel of Peter moved into the Canon? If the key decision makers in the canonization process in fact though that this attribution to Peter (in the apocryphal g.) was shaky, they would not have hesitated attributing the canonical gospel of Mark to Peter, while explicitly denouncing the apocryphal one. I did not find your argument here quite convincing?
Good question. I’ll answer it in a post soon.
I found this bizarre footnote to Acts 4:13 in the New English Translation:
“Uneducated does not mean “illiterate,” that is, unable to read or write. Among Jews in NT times there was almost universal literacy, especially as the result of widespread synagogue schools. The term refers to the fact that Peter and John had no formal rabbinic training and thus, in the view of their accusers, were not qualified to expound the law or teach publicly.”
Where might they have gotten this notion? They boldly state it as if it’s common knowledge. Seems really implausible to me. Might they have just pulled this out of their backsides, or possibly just repeated what circulates among evangelicals without bothering to validate it first? Or is there competing data on the question?
Wow. Yes, they’re just makin’ that up!
I have to say I’ve hear that a LOT, though. If someone (generally a mythicist or someone leaning that way) asks why we don’t have any first-hand accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and I point out that Jesus and his followers were likely illiterate, it’s pretty much inevitable that they’ll come back with, “Of course they were literate, all Jewish men were required to able to read so that they could study the Torah.” So I think it *is* considered common knowledge, and not just among evangelicals… WRONG common knowledge, but considered common knowledge.
I never know what to say in response to this, frankly. My impression is that (1) this may have been the sort of thing that was the ideal, not what actually happened in practice and (2) that this was an idea of Rabbinic Judaism, not necessarily Second Temple Judaism. (And of course (3) in antiquity not everyone who could read could write.) Any words of wisdom?
You might tell them that the comprehensive study of literacy in Roman Palestine indicates that literacy rates were probably at around 3%. (book by CAtherine Hezser)
Even if that’s true, are there linguistic grounds for interpreting “unlettered” to mean “illiterate”? In a vacuum, as a 21st century layman, I would have assumed “unlettered” meant “not a scholarly type”. Similar to what a person today might mean by “I’m not a man of letters…”
Yes, the way to determine this is to see how the word is typically used in ancient writings. It means “someone who does not know the alphabet”
Clooney 🙂
Right, not a household name in my household….
Matthew, John, Luke, Mark…
The “Western” order? 😉
Right!
The Gospel of Peter is earlier than Papias’ tradition about Peter, Mark, and GMark?… how early do you think the Gospel of Peter is?
No, I’m saying it’s earlier than the second century edition of the four Gospels that I’m positing. I date it to around 120 or so, as a guess. (A common guess)
Sorry for another question, but I’m not sure I understand your response. Did you mean that you think the tradition (Mk-Peter-GMk) is earlier than the second-century edition of the 4 Gospels you’re positing… or that just GPeter… or both?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the scenario you’re proposing in these posts. I thought you might be saying there was no tradition about the origins of the 4 gospels prior to this edition in Rome ca 150… and that your unknown editor in Rome assigned origins to the four (similar to what we find for GJohn in the Muratorian Fragment)… and that the association of the anonymous book that what we call GMark was connected to Peter & Mark in rejection of the Gospel of Peter. At least, that’s what I thought you meant in the last 2 paragraphs of this blog post, but I was puzzled cause you had just been discussing Papias a few days ago… and Papias would seem to precede all that.
The Gospel of Peter is probably from around 120 CE. Papias is around 120 CE. The four Gospels are called by their names in Irenaeus in 185 CE. They are quoted but not called by name in Justin, around 150 CE. If my hypothetical Gospel edition existed in Rome, it came into being between Justin and Irenaeus. If there was an *earlier* tradition about the four Gospels being named as they are today, we don’t have evidence of it.
Or earlier — Justin may not have possessed it or may not have “bought in” to that edition’s naming?
My sense is that he would have been happy with it if he had known about it…
Some date the Gospel of Peter very early. I’ve never been convinced because the gospel seems part of the progression of more and more details for resurrection appearances as time passes. Is the progression of details for the resurrection something a scholar would take note of in dating a text like Peter? Or does the progression just show the wide range of appearance stories without necessarily being a trajectory in time?
I don’t know anyone who dates the Gospel particularly early, thought some may do so. Crossan’s argument is that it is based on a no-longer surviving text that is first century (the Cross Gospel), which it represents better than do the canonical Gospels. But our Gospel is later. And yes, the legendary accounts of the resurrection are part of the argument for a later date.
Sort of unrelated, but do you think the author of the Gospel of Peter read any of the canonical Gospels, or it probably entirely independent of canonical Gospels?
I fluctuate. If he read them, he certainly was not intent on copying them. But I’m not sure he read them.
I note that you talk about this theoretical edition as a singular entity-not that it evolved like everything else in the tradition. Is there evidence to think that one person then is responsible for the attributions of the four gospels we have today? Is there any record from the ancient world of discussion and debate about who “must have” authored the manuscripts? And on that note, when do you first start seeing the claim that Yahweh magically dictated the four conflicting accounts so it doesn’t matter whose hand held the stylus?
The idea that God guided the authors is already in the early sources that speak of the four Gospels (e.g., Irenaeus and Tertullian, and especially Origen). I don’t think this edition appeared completely out of nowhere; the Gospels were floating around, but were not named, in my opinion, until something “happened” to make them named — namely the collection of them into one edition. At least that’s the theory!
How did the tradition that Paul co-founded the Roman Church begin? The strongest connection between Paul and Rome was in Paul’s epistle to the Romans, which showed that the Roman church was already well established before Paul set foot in the city.
Great question! I don’t know when that was first espoused, or how it could have been given the letter to the Romans.
I appreciate this post not only because it is interesting in itself but as a reminder that we get locked into our own point of view and miss other possibilities, such as Mark may have been well-known in his time.
Speaking of the Gospel of Mark, have you heard any more about Dan Wallace’s mysterious fragment? This article says that it’s from a paper-mache Egyptian mask and may date to the 80sCE. I’m very skeptical of all of this. https://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/mark-strikes-back-mummy-cartonnage-and-christian-apologetics-again/
I think that must be the fragment. It’s highly controversial just now, since apparently the people wanting to get to these papyri have no scruples at all about destroying other antiquities (masks from Egypt) in order to get to them.
I’m very interested in the contents of that fragment. I hope you could give us a summary Dr. Ehrman
I’m afraid I don’t know the contents: no one does! But we eagerly await its publication.
This has been a terrific series of posts and I still think you have the makings of a book here. For me, the question of whether or not the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or, at least, by colleagues of eyewitnesses, is the whole ball game about their reliability. Thanks for your work on this series. I assume you presented much of these posts at your recent Bible conference. If so how was it received?
Yes, all this will probably show up in the book I’m working on now, if all goes to plan.
If this hypothetical edition of the four gospels in Rome did not attribute ‘Mark’s gospel to Peter because the gospel of Peter was already known at that time, why did this edition of four gospels also not include the gospel of Peter?
Great question. I’ll deal with it in a later post.
Clooney, Professor
Right! Not a household name in my household.
Watch “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and he will become a household name.
Yup, seen it. Like the music better than the rather hokey plot….
This has been an excellent series of posts. You are continuously challenging us to think beyond the surface, and I look forward to reading your posts each day. It’s series like this one that make the blog extremely valuable. Thank you for sharing your wisdom!
Bart: Thanks for another fine series on the naming of the gospels. In that vein, I have a question for you. Since we don’t know who really wrote the gospels, and since whoever did write them had no trouble with creative redaction, why do historians so often state that these same inventive writers got all there material from stories that were “passed on to them.” How do we know they were passed on? Human nature being what it is, might it not be just as likely, especially with stories found only in M and L, that the authors simply made a few of them up? Why do we grant these unknown writers such a huge benefit of the doubt? Thanks for your time.
One reason for thinking that each of the Gospels didn’t simply make up the stories is that some kinds of stories are found independently in different sources (so no one of them *could* have made them up — otherwise the other sources, if they’re truly independent, wouldn’t attest them.)
hello bart
I have heard you saying in one of your lecture that ending of Mark was added by one scribe . I disagre wiith you it was not the work of man there must be a committe or authority made up of many people who decided to add those veres . it is impossible that one scribe would have the audacity to add that many verses one word or one verse maybe , but not 9 verses therefore it was done by group of church leaders
I don’t see why it’s impossible! Individuals copied the texts of scripture, not communities.
true individual copied the text but they were hired by church leaders . what i am trying to say that ending of mark was not done by one man because how could one scribe add that many verses and impose those verses and the rest in christiandom only church leaders could have had that power
Love the last paragraph.
If scholars think Jesus’ prophesy of the destruction of the Temple was not prophecy but that the gospels were written after the Temple’s destruction, any pre-AD 66 oral tradition or writings would not include Jesus’ mention of the Temple being destroyed?
A lot of scholars think that Jesus did predict that the Temple would be destroyed. Just like a lot of people have predicted that we’re going to have a nuclear war.
Thank you. Then the gospels can be dated earlier with these scholars. Do you have two top books that specialize in the dating of the gospels that list the criteria? Here on this blog one criteria seemed to have been removing the possibility of Jesus accurately predicting the destruction of the Temple. Maybe he was referencing Jeremiah or some Old Testament prophet.
The Temple was barely 100% complete in 30. The only motivation I can see is Jesus was so zealous about the Son of Man and identifying with the Son of Man that if he wasn’t going to be the Son of Man for the Son of God, there might as well not be a Temple.
Even though you say a lot of scholars believe it was prophecy, it’s quite a zealous, ethnocentric prophecy. In my book, when I share that people didn’t like Herod I extend that to people not liking the Temple.
What interesting here is Did Jesus make only 1 trip to Jerusalem for Passover as an adult? If he wasn’t captured, would he have made a sacrifice at the Temple. With the gospel that implies Jesus’ ministry was 3 years, we really don’t get Jesus being Passover-observant describing the animal he sacrificed. Of course, that would put Jesus at the table of the money changers without creating a scene.
You might look at the first volume of John Meier’s A Marginal Jew. Any standard crticial commentary will discuss the dates of the Gospels (e.g., Allison/W. D. Davies on Matthew ; Marcus on Mark; Fitzmyer on Luke; R. Brown on John). My view is taht Jesus was in Jerusalem only one time in his life, his last week.
Thank you very much.
Bart.
I thought I submitted this question about a week ago, but it seems it was lost in cyber-space! Ah, well….! It’s off-topic but only requires a very brief answer.
I came across a copy of DFS’ “Life of Jesus” recently and had a quick look through it. I was very impressed with the way he deals with the accounts of Jesus’ life that are found in the Gospels; he seems to examine them in incredible detail and with great insight. I did notice, however, that the book is very long and quite heavy-going, so I wonder whether you recommend people read the book, which is almost 200 years old, or is there a more modern, “lighter” work by another scholar that would suffice for the layman?
Also: At some stage, would you post on Jesus’ relationship with, and attitude to, the Gentiles, please? I know you have loads of topics to cover, but you might add it to the pile!
Regards.
Strauss’s book is a classic, but its value is in understanding what a ground breaking work from 1834-35 looks like. If you want to know what scholars today say, you need to read recent books, such as those by E. P. Sanders, Dale Allison, John Meyer, A. J. Levine, and Pauls Fredriksen. Or if you want a fairly broad consensus statement, see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Dr. Ehrman, do you mean John P. Meier? Oh, and were there any breakthroughs in the past 10 years or so? I always feel that books before 2000 are outdated.
Yes, his book is authoritative, even still!
I can already hear people objecting to this hypothesis with the question, “so where is this hypothetical document”? I’m sure we only have a tiny fraction of such ancient works, correct? What percentage of ancient works, like the hypothetical edition of the 4 gospels your proposing, are with us today, would you guestimate (I promise I won’t hold you to it)
We certainly have collections of the four Gospels in one manuscript in antiquity.
Are there any credible scholars who still believe Morton Smith’s “Secret Mark” was really part of Mark at some point? I’ve been (slowly) reading Metzger’s “Canon of the New Testament” and I guess it was never revised after he gave a cursory mention to Secret Mark in his section on Clement. One thing that caught my eye though was in his footnotes on Clement Metzger was talking about how a proto-Mark was used for Luke and Matthew and then a later revised version was actually published as what we call the Gospel according to Mark. Interspersed in his footnote description was how Secret Mark played into all that with different versions of Mark. Anyway….is there still scholarly opinion on a proto-Mark being inspiration for Matthew or Luke or is it now just thought that Mark as we know it (more or less) was the basis or inspiration?
Yes, there are some scholars who still think that Secret Mark was originally part of Mark. But my sense is that the view is now in the minority.
Yes, an excellent series of posts. I wonder, however, why we think, besides some supposed textual clues, that these gospels were not written in the early to mid second century. The earliest citations of these texts come from the early second century. What makes us believe that they were not composed then and edited together shortly thereafter? A common apologetic I hear is that, there’s no way false gospels would have circulated because the original disciples would have called them out as fakes. That problem goes away if they were composed long after those disciples were dead. Are there any quotations from any of our gospels that come from the first century?
It’s mainly because Gospel traditions of Matthew seem to be known by someone like Ignatius, around 110 CE, so they were in circulation then.
Is not the same one . The gospel of Matthew that Ignatius was talking about was written in Hebrew the one that we have today is in Greek and he said it contain just saying of Jesus the one that we have today is much more than that
Where do the names Matthew, Mark, Peter, John, Mary, etc, come from, surely those were not common Aramaic names?
All but “Peter” are standard Hebrew/Aramaic names; Peter is a nickname that means “rock”
Thanks Bart.
Dr. Ehrman,
I am interested in studying the question of the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. Christians tell me to read Bauckman (sp?). Which authors and books would you suggest?
Correction:
Richard Bauckham and his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.
I’d suggest you start with a good commentary — for example Joel Marcus’s. I will have fuller discussion in my next book Jesus Before the Gospels
Thank you.
Hi Dr. Ehrman. Thank you for the thoughtful and interesting post. I’ve often heard that Mark was written in Rome and I’m wondering why this seems to be a primary theory?
My sense is that most critical scholars just say we don’t know today; but the reason for putting Mark there historically is that htere are some Latin terms in his Gospel and he is associated with Peter who was thought to have been in Rome. Both are very weak arguments, I think (Latin, e.g., was spoken all over the place in the empire, not just in Rome)
I had never heard that there are Latin terms in in his gospel that’s very interesting. Thanks!
ANd they tend to be taken out by Matthew and Luke. But of course since Latin was spoken throughout the empire, it doesn’t help us in knowing where the book was written.
Hello Dr. Ehrman! I apologize if you’ve already answered this but I was listening to one of your debates (the one with Richard Bauckham in 2016) and in it you mention that the only gospel Justin Martyr names is the “memoir” of Peter and you said that Justin was referring to the gospel of Peter. I’m assuming you were talking about Dialogue with Trypho 106 where Justin writes:
“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. . .”
From what I understand the event Justin describes here is only found in the gospel of Mark (Mark 3:16-17) but it is possible it was also in the gospel of Peter since we currently don’t have a complete copy of it. So my question is this: What makes you think Justin was referring to the gospel of Peter here when it looks like (at first glance) he was referring to the gospel of Mark?
Thanks
The Greek actually says “his memoirs.” Normally that would be a genitive of origins or source, describing the one who produced the memoirs. If you change the name you’ll see what I mean: if Justin has said “As once happened to the apostle Matthew, as is written in his Gospel.” The main reason readers (and translators!) have wanted to suggest that Justin is NOT referring to the Gospel of Peter is that they simply can’t believe he’d quote a book that didn’t come to be in the NT. But that *does* seem to be the implication of what he says. Supporting evidence comes from the fact that that when Justin refers to events of Jesus’ passion, he sometimes does so using phrases that are now found only in the Gospel of Peter, not in the accounts of the other four. There’s some terrific scholarship on this question, but unfortunately the best is found only in German!
Dr. Ehrman,
Assuming Peter was illiterate, isn’t it possible for him to have had a amanuensis for 1&2 Peter (as well as anybody else who was illiterate and wanted to write)?
I”ve written about that at length, including on the blog. Do a word search for “secretary.” Or read my book Forged, or even better Forgery and Counterforgery, where I deal with all these questions you’re asking at some length.
Dr. Ehrman,
Did you ever address this question below?
“If this hypothetical edition of the four gospels in Rome did not attribute ‘Mark’s gospel to Peter because the gospel of Peter was already known at that time, why did this edition of four gospels also not include the gospel of Peter?”
Didn’t see it. It didn’t include Peter because it’s author and his community didn’t think it should be included in the canon.
My church is holding a series of lectures in December , 2023 through February, 2024 on the Gospel of Mark. The announcement include the following sentence.: “What Mark gives us are the memories of the aging Peter, a direct record of what Jesus said and did.”
I remember hearing the Mark was a disciple of Peter and Luke a disciple of Paul. As an adult I now know that the Gospels are anonymous works that were written many years after Jesus’ death and probably when the apostles themselves were dead, but it seems that the opinion expressed in the previous sentence is still around.
Very much so, even among evangelical scholars. It is based on the claims of the early church father Papias.