"Anonymous" Gospel of Mark - CLARIFIED!
The Gospel of Mark
Although the Gospel is anonymous, there is adequate reason to ascribe the book with certainty to John Mark, the attendant of Peter. (Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.)
Amanumensis - A literary agent who is empowered to dictate, copy, sign, and/or publish what another person has instructed.
In this situation, the preaching and actions of Apostle Peter were recorded and put into a book form (Gospel) by John Mark. The audience for Mark's Gospel being Romans. It is almost weird to even remark that this writing is anonymous when there are many indicators of its authorship by Mark.
The Authorship and Publication of the Gospel of Mark
By Ron Jones, D.D. © The Titus Institute, 2010
The historical literary evidence demonstrates that Mark, the close associate of Peter the apostle, wrote the Gospel of Mark from the preaching of Peter and published it first in a private edition for the church at Rome and then in public edition for the church at large.
The Authorship of the Gospel of Mark
The universal testimony of the early church fathers is that Mark, the close associate of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark.
Mark wrote down the gospel that Peter preached.
Eusebius in his Church History (3.39.14-15) writes of Papias (c.120 A.D.), an early church father, quoting what he stated about the origin of the Gospel of Mark.
“But now we must add to the words of his, which we have already quoted, the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. ‘This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.’ These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.”
Papias calls Mark Peter’s interpreter and then explains what he means. Mark “wrote down accurately what he remembered that Jesus said and did,” but it was not from his own knowledge of Jesus, but of Peter’s. David Black comments on what “interpreter” meant,
“The almost invariable use by the fathers of the word hermeneutes (Latin interpret) to describe Mark’s function proclaims that he was not the author in the normal sense, but rather the “go-between” or “interpreter” of Peter…The term hermeneutes signifies someone who passes on the message received from another without alteration or modification, that is, a “go-between” or “recorder.” In its original sense it cannot mean an editor or one who “interprets” in the sense of explaining someone’s message to someone else. Applied to Mark, it means that he was no more than the instrument of communication between Peter and his audience.
. . . .
Summary
David Black comments on the Mark’s authorship of his gospel,
“Thus Clement, and other ancient witnesses, understood Mark's function to have been simply that of reporting Peter's words with total accuracy. That is, Mark was not the author of the Gospel but simply the agent of its publication, because all of this material came from Peter's own memories of what Jesus had said and done and because what Mark did was to retrieve faithfully, as Peter's amanuensis , what the latter had spoken-on certain special occasions. These are the basic historical facts around which all of the internal evidence will be found to fit exactly.”
REFERENCES:
http://jesusevidences.com/originntgospels/authorshippublicationgospelmark.php
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
96 visitors
John Mark, the attendant of Peter wrote the "anonymous" Gospel of Mark, the second Gospel, according to the English Bible.
and.....
Hi DRHunk! This is a continuation discussion on the historicity of the New Testament. Some commenters have recently questioned the value of a so-called "anonymous" book of the Bible. Especially, when the Gospel of Mark is considered (may not be the case) to have been relied upon in part or whole to build the remaining two Synoptic Gospels. It is time we set the record straight!
"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him"
So basically the book is whatever Mark interpreted on his own and could remember based on what Peter may or may not have said and then written down some 40 years after the fact.
And then it was again edited in the canonization of the bible in A.D. 170.
Sounds like 40 year old 2nd hand story, that gets distorted and re-remembered before actually being written only to become what we know it to be today 100 years after it was written originally.
The reliability is not so good, IMO.
DRHunk! Above, I have completed the sentence Eusebius made in his church history. I pulled from the article above the word, " Amanumensis " for your consideration. In addition, there is a reference link with more historic data and statements that is available in the article above. I am providing it freely here as a courtesy:
These ancient writers took care to say what they meant, You must take care to not invalidate their statements with your opinion.
How does anyone know Mark was accurate? People are exceptionally good at embellishing their accounts. In fact it is extremely difficult to have accurate accounts - especially with the passage of time and when accounting the accounts of others.
Lol I caught a fish once, it was this <......................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................> big.
Well, the 'fish-tale' story may be an obvious case of deception or hyperbole. Ancient writers used indicators in their writings to signal when they were being serious or less so.
Accurately, in the sense that one writes down what one is told to write. It is no different that if you were to dictate a letter to your secretary and expect that s/he would only enclose what you expressly stated. Frankly, we have no way to test the writings beyond what was shared and corroborated by these men informing us. Of course, when these men were doing their writings - they used an appropriate standard of writing suitable to the times they lived in. They knew of no other standard. So, unless we can prove they were liars and deceivers. . . .
How do we know it is accurate?
The problem really is testing the veracity of these men. Based upon the rather extreme claims they made and the lack of corroborating evidence, chances are good their writings are substantially embellished.
It all boils down to the same thing. There are those who believe what some human being claims as truth and those who look for evidence appropriate to corroborate the claim. The more unusual the claim (e.g. claiming to be the supreme entity) the more one should demand strong evidence.
These men wrote words on pages. The words are rather grand claims. Sans evidence, it is more likely they exaggerated than accurately reported.
You may not know, but they were not writing to, or for, everyone:
TiG, what is the moral or spiritual meaning of this parable? Keep in mind, this story took account of the times and understanding of those to whom it was being delivered.
If you are going to insist on locating my articles and commenting on them 'at will,' then at the least you can do me the courtesy of reading what I post and replying with a comprehensive reply in support or in disagreement of the message! The "Call" to salvation is not an objective "world-wide" message. It involves faith. I'm sorry if faith offends you and other non-believers.
Mind you, that every man or woman living that has come to a personable faith in Jesus Christ has done by coming from "the world" or the unbelieving (objective) public. I, being one such individual. At some point, what you treat as "mere words" become a way of life for millions of modern men and women such as yourself. Of that you can not deny.
Why do you presume I am not reading what you post? As for comprehensive reply, that is asking for too much. All of us comment on the aspects we wish to comment on and none of us are obligated to provide a comprehensive reply.
Besides, you would not want me to give comprehensive replies to everything you post.
The above question is a great example of my point. Your question has nothing to do with the point I made in my prior comment. You disregard my point, complain that I do not comprehensively address everything you post and then offer deflection. I am stating this in case you do not realize that this is indeed what you are doing.
You now want me to comment on a parable encouraging people to accept the Holy Spirit (in other words: believe on faith). Non sequitur. That has nothing to do with determining the veracity of ancient men with pens. ( And, in case you are going here, you really do not want to posit that God has certain people who are chosen and the rest are doomed. )
Did you miss this at the top of my comment? Not everything is for you, TiG, as an unbelieving skeptic. For instance, faith is not for you at this stage of your development, if ever.
Why do you presume I am not reading what you post?
I presume it because you are silent on the meaning of biblical verses. It is not any deceit on my part to display scripture—it is who I am and you should know this by now. Then you wrote this:
"All of us comment on the aspects we wish to comment on"
Then, you proceed to accuse me of disregard, complain and deflection. Well, how about that? I don't get to comment how I see fit back?
The parable is there because sometimes telling a story can carry meaning across to the heart and mind of another person better than words. Thus, it does follow. I will magnify the point with another short verse:
27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me.
I restate: I am one of those unbelievers of the agnostic variety, that came to follow and "hear" the voice of a shepherd long, long, gone in my own 'day.' I need not apologize or be sorry for believing, any more than any other for not receiving. It is just one of those things. The Call came in to me and I picked it up.
No.
I am not going to comment on everything I read Calbab. Nobody does.
Because your comment replied to my comment yet ignored all of it. You did not focus on any aspect, you ignored it entirely and went a different way. Do you not realize that?
No it absolutely does not follow. It is an entirely new subject. Remember, we were talking about biblical accuracy - the veracity of the authors. Switching abruptly to the intended audience of the Bible is a non sequitur.
Switching into how you heard the shepherd is somewhat interesting but certainly you can see how that in no way continues the discussion on accuracy and veracity.
I am not going to comment on everything I read Calbab. Nobody does.
Ditto.
You say the claims are without evidence. I say the claims are acceptable to modern men and women by faith. You see extravagant claims, and I see changed lives and millions upon millions sitting in faith and belief of a 'shepherd' from Galilee. There is no "crime" hinted at here.
Why respond at all, when your response has nothing to do with the comment to which you're responding?
Perhaps a stand-alone comment, rather than a reply, would be more appropriate. It would certainly look less like evasion.
To anybody reading this conversation, it comes across as:
TiG: It seems to me as if that author of that article on the front page is engaging in a bit of sensationalism. I think I need to see some supporting facts before I believe such an outrageous claim. Can you point me toward any evidence to support the author's claims?
Calbab: But surely you understood the meaning of the horoscopes tucked away in the back of the newspaper, right?
But those are two entirely independent statements. Seems both are true. The claims are clearly without evidence and the claims are also demonstrably acceptable to millions of modern people - indeed the very definition of faith.
You are not rebutting the lack of evidence; you are simply saying that no evidence is okay. My comment is that believing something this profound (claim of being the supreme entity) without evidence is a bad practice. A clear contemporary example of just how bad this can get is the Islamic terrorist organizations whose agents of terror actually believe they are doing the will of Allah by blowing themselves up so as to take out a bunch of (innocent) infidels.
... because they are extravagant claims. Right? 'I am the supreme entity' might be the grandest possible claim.
I see that too. There is indeed good in religion. I think a lot of people need the promise offered by religions to cope with everyday life. Others who do not really need this are nevertheless comforted by the hope they will see their loved ones again, etc. For those who have lived for years with such hopes there is no great reason for giving them up. However, it is arguably good to not indoctrinate the next generation with beliefs based simply on ancient words in ancient books propped up by the glorification of 'belief with evidence' ... as if that was a good thing.
Actually my argument is faith is a distinct type of evidence; living by faith is an experience. And, such personal knowledge is not a bad practice. To think it so, is to consider 'bad' a man of faith such as your 90'ish year old relative who you wrote about last week as having great faith and integrity! Moreover, you would have to consider millions of other good people who walk by faith guilty of bad practices. You have no evidence to back up such an accusation should you declare it so.
A clear contemporary example of just how bad this can get is the Islamic terrorist organizations whose agents of terror actually believe they
are doing the will of Allah by blowing themselves up so as to take out a bunch of (innocent) infidels.
Non-sequitar. What evidence do you have of contemporary Christian terrorist organizations blowing up innocent people? In fact, this discussion is about ascribing the Gospel of Mark to John Mark, an attendant of Apostle Peter. It has early attestations by Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome.
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to convince a modern skeptic to consider faith as valuable.
What qualifies you to recommend the 'killing off' of a collection of ancient books from which derive indefinite numbers of worldviews? Those books you seek to disqualify from future generarations belong to the world's bank of knowledge. What becomes of diversity in such a scheme?
People can read the Bible without being indoctrinated into Christianity. We can have knowledge of what is written in it without believing it to be true.
It's not any kind of evidence.
As has happened many times, you try to equate unsupported belief with knowledge.
Not a strong argument, but it is a common one. If only those experiences could be verified, you might have something.
Did you read my " There is indeed good in religion." part? I think you are preaching to the choir right now. So since I just spent time talking about how there is good in religion why are you tossing out this strawman that I would consider people of faith necessarily guilty of bad practices? It is so strange to make a point and have you respond as if you did not even read what I wrote.
I do not think non-sequitur means what you think it means . At least you are not demonstrating understanding with the above.
Hello? Where did I make such a claim? I gave an example - in the example I used Islamic terrorists since they are the obvious place to go right now for examples of bad practiced enabled by faith. But if you would like examples of Christian terrorism they do indeed exist. Thankfully not nearly as bad as Islamic terrorism but unfortunately Christians are still perfectly capable of being terrorists. Indeed, anyone could be a terrorist regardless of beliefs. It is just easier to convince people to engage in suicide bombings if they truly believe it is the will of Allah who will be waiting in Heaven to reward them once they pull the pin. See, that lack of critical thinking is a prime example of the 'bad' part of faith.
And I pointed out that the veracity of these accounts (accounts of accounts) is suspect. For such a grand claim - supreme entity - having merely ancient words by a handful of ancient men is pretty thin as evidence goes. And really nothing about the Bible is going to change. It has been analyzed for thousands of year and has already been subjected to modern techniques. I doubt we will learn much more in the future. The evidence, if any, will come from another source. God showing up today (rather than making His last appearance two thousand years ago) would be helpful.
Who said anything about 'killing off ' a collection of ancient books? Whose posts are you reading??
By the way, we are all qualified to render our opinions. So you have that to think about.
Disqualify ?? Do me a favor, just go by what I write and refrain from adding your own extreme seasoning. It gets old having to constantly bring you back to what I wrote. Here, you actually quoted me in your post. Look at the words you quoted:
Read the above quote. Note the words in blue . There is a profound difference between studying the Bible as a work of ancient men (we have evidence for that) versus indoctrinating young minds with the belief (no evidence) that this is the Word of God (for which there is zero evidence - indeed the content of the Bible is arguably evidence against its claimed divinity).
The early church with its nearness to the Gospel as a strong say in this.
A CRITICAL-THINKER seeks to raise the intellect of others - not simply be predictable and offer a set of caricature performances. Shouting reductionist phrases like, "NAY!" "NAY!" "NAY!" is a misuse of the concepts of effective communication, problem-solving, and respect for the dignity of others.
God, by definition, transcends the five senses of humanity. When a man or woman limits belief to the five-senses, there can be no relationship with God.
Are you even aware of the irony of having those two paragraphs in the same post?
Here the irony is this lack of respect for the main subject matter ("The Gospel of Mark"), and your insistence of making the thread all about your self-interest. I will resist such attempts at any continuing manipulation after this. If you can not add anything constructive to this thread-consider reading only.
Why does the subject matter deserve any special respect?
What do you claim is my "self-interest"?
And for you to accuse me of manipulation while trying to twist the meaning of "critical thinking" to include the acceptance of nonexistent evidence is also irony.
If you want an echo chamber, you should limit yourself to posting in private groups. You are not entitled to having your claims go unquestioned.
IMPASSE.
Do you agree with Kirk Cameron on this point?:
The Gospel of Mark is the topic. Do return to the topic or I will end my reply to your comments here.
Then, Calbab, refrain from making entirely off-topic gratuitous posts such as this:
If you want your readers to stay on topic then you as the author should NOT go off topic and challenge the readers. You go off topic, we respond, and you reprimand us for replying to your off-topic comment.
I am quite willing to have a thoughtful, topical discussion. If this is what you wish, then I advise you to not play games . Answer questions directly. Stay on topic. All that stuff.
Sort of like saying, "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of thing? I see that a lot here on NT.
Hello Raven! I do not fully understand what your comment signifies. Can you elaborate, please?
Ditto.
Dear Friend Calbab: Please feel free to delete this post if it is felt off topic, disrespectful, negative or any other reason.
Gospels are not my Scripture.
This really isn't something about which I should be writing.
That said, the main topic, as I understand it is who is the actual author of the Gospel according to Mark?
Some things are at least for now, and perhaps for all time for our species lost in the annuals of history over the passage of time.
What we are left with is what data we have, and theories of how best to interpret it.
In this manner, Asher Ginsburg, who wrote under the pen name of Ahad ha Am (Hebrew for One of the People - he was a populist author in early Zionism) made an interesting distinction that may be helpful here.
He wrote about Tefillin (morning prayer garments for the Brachot ha Schachar and Scharit AM Services (pre-dawn and after sunrise Services).
The Torah tells us we Jewish People must wear Tefillin at these Services, except on the Sabbath, other High Holy Days, and when we are ritually impure for a number of specific reasons.
It commands us to do this.
It does not tell us what they are, and how to do so.
All that is explicated in the Talmud (Scriptural commentary).
The Talmud anthologies post date TaNaCh (the correct name for Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic primary Scripture by substantial time frames.
Ahad ha Am poses this question.
The Head block of Tefillin is according to the Talmud is square in shape.
Suppose a la H.G. Wells someone invented a time machine.
Using it transported us back to the time when Tefillin were first adorned at earliest Services.
What should we do if we discovered the head part of the garment were in fact round and not square originally?
Options:
1. Change to round.
2. Stay with Square.
3. Let each Rabbi and Congregational Ritual committee decide.
4. Leave it up to the individual to make that choice.
Ahad ha Am opines we should stay with the square shape.
Even so we would know the original was round in appearance.
Why does he so advocate?
He makes the distinction between archeological and historical truth.
The time machine would give us the archeological truth that round was how it originally was made.
The historical truth which tips the scales for square for him is this.
Over the past 6,000 or so years on our calendar the square shape is what has molded and served the development of the Jewish soul in morning prayers for the vast majority of us Jewish People.
This is the shape which nourished our spirits, in times good neutral and adverse.
It is theologically of no consequence round or square.
The main point is to wear the garment at such individual and communal prayer sessions.
Not its shape.
So he leans towards the historical truth side of this issue.
Of course, all of this may well be off point.
Gospels are Christian Scripture.
This isn't an attempt to derail your discussion, influence or in any way disrespect what you and others of my brothers and sisters in the Christian religious community believe and do.
As you know, being my brother in spirit, good friend, and treasured writing partner I support you and all others in whatever way you approach life on terms best for you.
What ever brings out a person's better self, I am there for and with you on it.
So if in any way this post isn't what meets your discussion thread criteria for acceptability, kindly delete it.
I merely offer something parallel from what we do and think for consideration on dealing with something which fits the debate on archeological versus history truth.
To you, yours, and all the fine fellow members of the news talkers community I wish peace, abundant blessings and the very best 2018 can offer us all.
Enoch, who when running low on inspiration goes to my morning prayer book to Tefillin Up (Smiles).
Good morning, Enoch! Your message is well-received. Moreover, I am most satisfied when you stop by. Know this: I think about your supportive voice, it's need - and yet how it is used sparingly - often. In this way, it offers all of us the maximum benefits. To be even clearer, I am glad you shared this comment.
In the coming period, I am going to invest time and energy to explore the heart and soul of my faith. It will be a bit indulgent in one sense or another, but I daresay informative to all who care to engage or read along with others who engage.
To make this work well, I will not be turning aside from 'bloaters,' and naysayers who misread and chatter ceaselessly to disgrace and mar my efforts. Once detected by me, I will kindly ask those individuals to cease what they are doing and return to the purposes of good writing, good order, and shared purposes for which we all take the time to come here.
Our faiths are written treasures to each of us. I can read and am touched by your devotion and attention to Judaism. More so, I am struck by how I am buoyed up by your supplementing of my understanding of who you are as a Jewish man. You approach with purpose, interest, focus, and definitely with moderation. Thus, I receive from you.
Well, . . . enough for now. I end this comment with this on my topic:
Although the Gospel is anonymous, there is adequate reason to ascribe the book with certainty to John Mark, the attendant of Peter. The Marcan [ascribe to Mark] authorship finds its earliest attestation in the writings of Papias from the early part of the 2nd century, and is further confirmed by Irenaeous, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue.
Internal evidence reveals the author's familiarity with Palestine (11:1); with Aramaic, the language of Palestine (5:41; 7:34); and with Jewish institutions and customs (1:21; 7:2-4). These items suggest authorship by a Palestinian Jew, such as Mark was (Acts 12:12). Furthermore, the striking similarity between the general outlines of the second Gospel and of Peter's sermon in Caesarea (Acts 10:34-43) harmonizes with NT indication that Mark and Peter sustained a close relationship (I Peter 5:13).
— Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, John Rea, Editors. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. pp. 1078. First printing, 1998
CORRECTION: I will be turning aside from . . . .
Right there in this sentence error, we can see the power of how one word can make a simple statement unclear. Thankfully, the paragraph balances this error. Also, my correction does too. When ancient people wrote and the mistake was not caught, it remains for all time. And future readers must look to broader context. Peace.
The logical and factual problems in the Bible are easily explained if you just follow the evidence. If you were to go by what we know - the Bible is a book that was written by fallible men with agendas - the Bible is exactly how one would expect it to be. Of course it is errant. Of course it will contradict itself at times. Of course it will present a naive view of reality - a view that ancient men had by simply looking at the sky and looking around on the land.
It is only when one deems this the divine Word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God (supreme entity) that problems arise. The belated, sporadic accounts of Jesus are just the tip of the iceberg.
It is enough. This article is now locked.