Any ideas on who wrote the Gospel of St. Mark?

  • Thread starter Thread starter confusedgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

confusedgirl

Guest
I have been doing some research and from what I have read on the gospels, we can say that original Aramaic version of the Gospel of St. Matthew was likely written by him because he was among the apostles as these events unfolded. The Gospel of St. Luke as well of the Acts of the Apostles was written by St. Luke, especially since Acts, starts with the ending of Luke. The Gospel of John was confirmed by St. Irenaeus as being authored by St. John as he was the teacher of St. Polycarp and St. Polycarp was the teacher of St. Irenaeus. All I know was that the Gospel of St. Mark is anonymous and only associated with John Mark who we call St. Mark who was a follower of St. Peter. However, because the authors would often have scribes dictate their accounts on their behalf, my guess would be that this is likely that St. Mark was told to write this account by St. Peter’s himself or St. Mark was recording what he had been told by St. Peter. I think that because they were going around teaching the people about Christ maybe they wanted something to pass on to the people who were going to continue in their place once they had passed away (thank goodness they did). Its also believed that this Gospel is the first to be written so that is why I think that it is likely that it is St. Peter’s account. It’s hard to really know for sure if St. Mark was really responsible for recording this account. Those are just my opinions though I would love to get more information if anyone knows anything that I may have missed.
 
My personal guess is that Mark was written by a scribe associated with Mark and Peter. Perhaps, even written with Mark’s knowledge. If not by St Mark himself.
 
Last edited:
confusedgirl said:
It’s hard to really know for sure if St. Mark was really responsible for recording this account.
Click to expand...
Yes, the usual view, I think, is that Mark was acting as an aide or secretary for Peter in Rome, and that what he put in his Gospel he learned mainly from Peter. But it isn’t something we can have certain knowledge of. It’s a question of the balance of probabilities.
 
confusedgirl said:
Its also believed that this Gospel is the first to be written
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the most popular belief
(assuming that we do not include over 1800 years of tradition that says otherwise.)

The arguments for Markan Priority, that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written, do not hold up under scrutiny. And it requires the rejection of most of what the early church fathers stated.
(Note : this is the same group of fathers that we look to confirm the Canon of the Bible.)

How the Gospels Were Written
http://www.defendingthebride.com/bb/matt/index.html

John
 
St Mark wrote it.

The Clementine tradition puts the order at Matthew, Luke, Mark then John.
 
Last edited:
It doesn’t make sense, considering the amount of material Mark would delete from both Matthew and Luke.
 
Last edited:
Mark’s gospel was written for the Romans (Matthew - Jews; Luke - Greeks, John - developing church) It is no stretch to believe that Mark was a protégé of Peter and wrote/dictated his gospel, maybe even at the urging of Peter who was in Rome at the time.
 
When writing for a specific audience certain things get emphasized. Take John for example, he does not repeat the others but fills in blanks where needed.

Perhaps Peter emphasized certain things for the same reason. Perhaps Mark did not record everything because much was already contained in Matthew and the orderly account given by Luke.
 
JohnR77 said:
The arguments for Markan Priority, that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written, do not hold up under scrutiny.
Click to expand...
In departments of New Testament studies at universities around the world, Markan priority now seems to have gained general acceptance. Not 100 percent acceptance, I wouldn’t go so far as that, but pretty close. Since their arguments, in your words, “do not hold up under scrutiny,” what is the compelling evidence that these academics have failed to scrutinize?
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps Peter emphasized certain things for the same reason. Perhaps Mark did not record everything because much was already contained in Matthew and the orderly account given by Luke.
Click to expand...
That is just conjecture.
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps Mark did not record everything because much was already contained in Matthew and the orderly account given by Luke.
Click to expand...
Regardless whether or not you hold to ‘Markan priority’, it is generally accepted that Luke’s Gospel did not precede the other synoptics…
 
This was a Protestant innovation. I think it has run its course.

The Clementine Tradition puts it at Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. St Jerome after, put it at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As if the Bible just fell put of the sky, we now say Markan priority, disregarding the long history.
 
buffalo said:
This was a Protestant innovation. I think it has run its course.

The Clementine Tradition puts it at Matthew, Luke, Mark and John. St Jerome after, put it at Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As if the Bible just fell put of the sky, we now say Markan priority, disregarding the long history.
Click to expand...
Was Augustine’s, Irenaeus, Papias’s, or Origen’s statements that Mark was written before Luke Protestant innovations?

What I personally believe is that Mark was the first to compose his Gospel in Greek. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, then Mark, then Matthew in Greek, then Luke.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
confusedgirl:
All I know was that the Gospel of St. Mark is anonymous
Click to expand...
‘Anonymous’ in what way? I mean, the text itself says “the Gospel according to Mark”, so that’s hardly anonymous, right? 😉
Click to expand...
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, but confusedgirl may have obtained that from the intro to Mark in NAB (Mark, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK | USCCB). Here are the relevant passages:
Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading “According to Mark” in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled (Acts 12:12).
Click to expand...
Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria, and perhaps shortly after the year 70.
Click to expand...
Anonymous here means they don’t trust the attribution to Mark. Instead, they believe the author is unknown. Also, this “modern research” is likely outdated since this introduction would have been written back in the '70s when the NAB was being developed. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some other consensus these days.
 
Jared2914 said:
Anonymous here means they don’t trust the attribution to Mark. Instead, they believe the author is unknown.
Click to expand...
OK, so… not “anonymous”, just “scholars didn’t trust the very words staring them in the face”, not to mention the fact that the ECFs all attested that it was written by Mark. :roll_eyes:
 
I think the Gospel being called that, Mark confirms that was who wrote it.
The reason is at the time nobody would have given the authors name as someone obscure and unknown to the majority. They would likely use a famous Apostles name. Which like we see in the New Testament Apocrypha is exactly what happened.
The only issue I have with the Gospel of Mark is the end. There’s literally three endings and clearly the extended ones are later additions. Weird, it originally ended just saying " And they ran away and told no-one for they were afraid".
 
I’ve have read at some time, that some of the earlier manuscripts don’t have the “Gospel of Mark” heading.
 
Gorgias said:
OK, so… not “anonymous”, just “scholars didn’t trust the very words staring them in the face”, not to mention the fact that the ECFs all attested that it was written by Mark.
Click to expand...
Every single one of them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top