Featured Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?

[AgnosticBoy]

A member said this regarding the authorship of Mark's Gospel:

I find it amazing how early church fathers, who lived within one generation from the original writing, accept the authorship of Mark, but modern "scholars", two millennia removed, reject Mark as the author.

I would agree with this. But has there been any newly discovered evidence that would disprove the positions of the early church fathers?

During my days as a Christian, I always thought that Mark's Gospel was written by Mark, and that this Mark was a disciple of Jesus. But as I bought non-religious historical books on the subject, I am now convinced otherwise.

Now this my position, subject to change based on evidence...

The earliest Gospel was probably written anonymously by a Gentile Christian for a community outside of Palestine.

Source: https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-mark/

Some key questions arise from this, like was the writer an associate or disciple himself. I suppose if the writer was one of the two, then that would give the writing some credibility, and even some authority. That is probably why the early Christians accepted Mark as part of the NT canon. Non-Christian scholars would probably suggest otherwise or lean towards the view of not knowing if the writer had any affiliation to an apostle, perhaps could've been some lone Christian or Christians taking it upon themselves to compile all of this information with a particular narrative in mind.

But I'll leave it up for the members to discuss this.

For Discussion
Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? Please also explain the reason and evidence behind your view.

 

[Scooter]

God is the Author of the Gospel of Mark.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Now as far as the penman is concerned, early church fathers believed Mark was the writer. You are correct in that Mark was not one of Jesus’ disciples. Neither was Luke who wrote the Gospel with his name. John Mark was the nephew of Barnabas who was Paul’s companion on his first missionary journey. Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on part of their journey but went home before the mission was completed. This later caused an issue between Paul and Barnabas. However, in his last letter to Timothy, Paul asked him to bring John Mark with him when he came to visit.

If there is evidence that Mark is not the writer of this Gospel, I would love to see it.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Now as far as the penman is concerned, early church fathers believed Mark was the writer. You are correct in that Mark was not one of Jesus’ disciples. Neither was Luke who wrote the Gospel with his name. John Mark was the nephew of Barnabas who was Paul’s companion on his first missionary journey. Mark accompanied Paul and Barnabas on part of their journey but went home before the mission was completed. This later caused an issue between Paul and Barnabas. However, in his last letter to Timothy, Paul asked him to bring John Mark with him when he came to visit.

If there is evidence that Mark is not the writer of this Gospel, I would love to see it.

I'll cite the position of a scholar I agree with on this issue, Bart Ehrman. Dr. Ehrman doesn't claim that that John Mark is not the author, but rather that the evidence for his authorship is weak, at best.

The earliest known person to say that John Mark wrote one of the Gospels is Papias. But Papias does not have first-hand knowledge of this. He gets that information from someone who got it someone else that was an acquaintance of the disciples.
Ehrman states:

Firstly, Papias claims (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.2-4.) he received his information from the “companions” of the “elders” who were followers of the “apostles.” This implies that he, at best, relied on fourth-hand oral traditions passed down for years.

Now of course, that by itself doesn't mean it is automatically wrong, but it's like accepting a rumor as credible.

Another point is that the author doesn't show that he's familiar with Palestine's geography which would not be consistent with John Mark who was a native Palestinian.

Dr. Ehrman states:

Firstly, the author of the Gospel of Mark demonstrates a lack of familiarity with Judean geography. When describing Jesus’s travel patterns (7:31), the author states that Jesus “left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of Decapolis.” However, this route would lead Jesus to Antioch rather than the Sea of Galilee.

 

[Scooter]

So I read the piece you referenced from Bart Ehrman's cite. I would like to address a few of his views. First of all, his claim that Papias received his information from companions of elders does not make Papias' claim incorrect. Maybe he did receive that information from second hand or third hand parties, but does that automatically make the information wrong? Now we have all played the game in school of passing information around the class and laughed at how the story changes from 20 to 30 students. Papias doesn't claim that many channels were used to get his information. So Ehrman's view that Papias got it wrong because he received it from others is just an opinion not based on facts.

Second, Ehrman's claim that the writer of Mark did not know the area is based on his quote of Mark 7:31. Here's the rub, Ehrman is obviously using a corrupt version of the Bible. Newer translations do state Jesus moved from Tyre to Sidon then to the Sea of Galilee in Decapolis. Leaving Tyre and going through Sidon would have Jesus traveling north, while the Sea of Galilee is south of both cities. However, from the KJV we understand Jesus' path better as He traveled to the Sea of Galilee: Mark 7:31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. Jesus did not travel north from Tyre to Sidon, but He left the area of Tyre and Sidon and traveled to the Sea of Galilee.

To support my position that Ehrman is basing his hypothesis on a corrupt English translation is this statement he makes:

Additionally, the author makes mistakes when quoting from the Hebrew Bible. At the beginning (1:3), he attributes a passage to Isaiah when it comes from Malachi (3:1). It is unlikely that an educated Palestinian Jew would make such a blunt mistake.

In the KJV, the issue is resolved: Mark 1:1-3 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus while most of the newer translations are based on recently found texts discarded by early Christians.

As I stated earlier, I believe God is the Author of the Gospel of Mark. I am not sure who the actual writer was. Maybe it was John Mark, maybe it was someone else. Ancient church leaders believed Mark wrote it. Modern day scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, show their contempt for the Scriptures by presenting bogus arguments. The only thing Ehrman has proven is that he uses an inferior version of the Bible.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So I read the piece you referenced from Bart Ehrman's cite. I would like to address a few of his views. First of all, his claim that Papias received his information from companions of elders does not make Papias' claim incorrect. Maybe he did receive that information from second hand or third hand parties, but does that automatically make the information wrong? Now we have all played the game in school of passing information around the class and laughed at how the story changes from 20 to 30 students. Papias doesn't claim that many channels were used to get his information. So Ehrman's view that Papias got it wrong because he received it from others is just an opinion not based on facts.

I read Dr. Ehrman stating that the evidence is weak or "not proven". That is different than saying it is false.

Like you, I also think it is possible for rumors to be true. From Papias' standpoint, all he had was hearsay or what someone told him regarding John Mark writing one of the gospels. The problem with that type of information is that it is unverified, so they are not a good basis for accepting something as true.

On a related point, the Apostle Paul also had only the testimony of others to go by when it came to Jesus's physical resurrection. But at least Paul was closer to the event haven talked to the eyewitnesses themselves.

Second, Ehrman's claim that the writer of Mark did not know the area is based on his quote of Mark 7:31. Here's the rub, Ehrman is obviously using a corrupt version of the Bible. Newer translations do state Jesus moved from Tyre to Sidon then to the Sea of Galilee in Decapolis. Leaving Tyre and going through Sidon would have Jesus traveling north, while the Sea of Galilee is south of both cities. However, from the KJV we understand Jesus' path better as He traveled to the Sea of Galilee: Mark 7:31 And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis. Jesus did not travel north from Tyre to Sidon, but He left the area of Tyre and Sidon and traveled to the Sea of Galilee.

Here's a map (mainly the one of the right side) of Jesus's travel in from Mark 7:31...

Source: https://www.faithbiblechurch.com/jesus-heals-a-deaf-mute-mark-731-37/

Just to reiterate your point...Some translations mention Jesus started at Tyre and went towards Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee. So he went north before going south. The KJV and NKJV mention Jesus leaving the regions around Tyre and Sidon instead of saying that Jesus went through one to get to the other. So this comes done to the correct translation. I found one website that quotes from SIL translation notes:

The exact route is not clear. (There is a textual issue in this verse: (1) Some Greek manuscripts indicate that Jesus left Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee.” (UBS4 page 148, Swanson page 115. Most English versions also follow this option: Berean Standard Bible, New International Version, Good News Bible, New Century Version, New Living Translation, NET Bible, Phillips’ New Testament in Modern English, God’s Word, New American Standard Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible.) (2) Other Greek manuscripts indicate that Jesus left both Tyre and Sidon and went to the Sea of Galilee.” This is a more general description. (The King James Version follows this option.) It is recommended that you follow option (1), since it is supported by some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.) See the note on 7:31c.

Source: https://tips.translation.bible/tip_verse/mark-731/

I'll try to find other commentary on that. But for now, I do lean towards the author of Mark 7:31 probably not understanding geography if we he explains Jesus going north to get to a place that requires going South instead. Unless Jesus wanted to take this much longer route for some unknown reason.

 

[Scooter]

Older manuscripts do not mean the best manuscripts. There was a reason those manuscripts were cast aside and not being used.

Anyway, I’m not an apologist for Papias. I do not know for certain who penned the Gospel of Mark. I see no compelling evidence that Mark did not write it. Scholars such as Ehrman are always trying to find fault with the Bible, but in the end they simply come up short and wind up looking foolish.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Older manuscripts do not mean the best manuscripts. There was a reason those manuscripts were cast aside and not being used.

Anyway, I’m not an apologist for Papias. I do not know for certain who penned the Gospel of Mark. I see no compelling evidence that Mark did not write it. Scholars such as Ehrman are always trying to find fault with the Bible, but in the end they simply come up short and wind up looking foolish.

I think in the end, what I question if not knowing the author really matters in terms of credibility. Generally, Mark is dated to 70 CE, and that was its final form. The author probably started putting it together way before then. So based on time period alone, it's reasonable to say that the author was around one or more Apostles and the rest of the early Christian community. I think that alone lends it credibility even if the author is unknown.