Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Full Version: Mark
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Mark’s name was actually John Mark, but he was referred to as Mark to distinguish him from the others named John.

Mark was an eyewitness to Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, for his account tells us (at Mark 14:50-52), ‘Then [the Apostles] all abandoned him and ran. But, a certain young man who had slipped a linen nightgown over his naked body, started following close behind. However, [the mob] tried to grab him, so he ran away naked, leaving his covering behind.’ The fact that mark doesn’t identify this young man by name indicates that he was talking about himself.

The next mentioning of him in the Bible is when he traveled with Paul and BarNabas to Antioch, then on to the Island of Cyprus. From there, he (against Paul’s wishes) returned home to Jerusalem. And that departure later caused quite an argument between Paul and BarNabas, when BarNabas wanted to take Mark along on a subsequent missionary journey. However, in a letter written several years after that, Paul indicated that he had forgiven Mark and asked him to come to him.

Mark was a resident of Jerusalem, because the Bible tells us that Peter went to the home of Mark’s mother (in Jerusalem) after a messenger from God freed Peter from the jail there. And the fact that Mark was present in a nightgown at Jesus’ arrest indicates that Jerusalem was his home.

Some commentators have claimed that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written, but there is no proof of that claim, and it appears as though much of Mark’s story is actually borrowed from the more detailed account of Matthew. Also, the fact that the book of Mark appears to be written for the benefit of the gentiles, indicates that it is likely a later writing.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with one Bible writer copying the words of another, since Mark and Luke appear to be compiled accounts, and the writings of Matthew were included in those compilations.

The reason why Mark wrote this book was apparently to eliminate many of Matthew’s references to Hebrew prophecies. He likely did this so that gentiles (the ones he was preaching to) could see how Jesus’ life and words applied to them, rather than to the Jews. His writing is definitely more direct, interesting, and abbreviated than the Book of Matthew. However, many of the details that are found in Matthew and Luke are missing.

There are several important places where Mark’s Gospel disagrees with Matthew’s Gospel. Yet, that is simply to be expected when several people tell the same story from different points of view. While many of the things that Jesus said and did followed the same order as they are told in Matthew (but not in the same order as in Luke’s Gospel), someone (probably Peter) appears to be commenting on the points where his recollections differed, or where he remembered more.
Papias an early Christian writer before 155 AD said this regarding Mark

Papias Wrote:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

Good research. Thanks, Anthony.
Hey Jim

Hope all's well with you big brother. :love:

Mark may very well have written the Gospel attributed to him, however many of our beliefs regarding who wrote the Gospels come from traditions relayed by the Church Fathers just as the tradition that Moses wrote Genesis comes from Rabbinic tradition.

Quote:
Some commentators have claimed that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written, but there is no proof of that claim, and it appears as though much of Mark’s story is actually borrowed from the more detailed account of Matthew.


The idea that Matthew was written before Mark is another tradition of the Church Fathers & was carried over into the Middle Ages until scholars noticed that ancient texts tended to get expanded & ambiguities clarified rather then shortened & made more ambiguous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority

Quote:
Papias an early Christian writer before 155 AD said this regarding Mark


Hi justin :hibye:

In his "Ecclesiastical History" Eusebius quotes a tradition that he attributes to Papias:

"Another wonderful event happened respecting Justus, surnamed Barsabas, who, though he drank a deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious through the grace of the Lord."

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3

Mark 16:9-20 is absent from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus & other early manuscripts. Mark 16:18 reports that believers could drink deadly poison & not be hurt, in light of these possible origins perhaps we ought to treat the comments of the so-called Church Fathers with reservation. Many of the Church Fathers were schooled in Gnostic belief systems & had no problems with demonising their opponents, why Christians today don't regard these people as prototype clergy & post-apostolic usurpers is baffling to me.

agape Johnny :heartbeat:

KOF Wrote:
Hi justin

In his "Ecclesiastical History" Eusebius quotes a tradition that he attributes to Papias:

"Another wonderful event happened respecting Justus, surnamed Barsabas, who, though he drank a deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious through the grace of the Lord."


It is unfortunate that none of Papias original works remain. All we know of him we get from quotes from other sources, like Irenaeus and Eusebius. Later he fell into disrepute with some writers because of his literal views about the millenium reign of Christ upon the earth.

Not sure what you intended by the quote. I didn't see a connection Mark, unless it has to do with the so-called "long ending" of Mark. (Mark 16:15-18) I'm not sure about Justus Barsabbas, but from my own experience I can say that has been proved true.

Some scholars view Papias as a good source of information regarding the authorship of the gospels since he was an incredibly early source. Whether his opinion carries any weight with anyone else, it don't particularly matter to me.

Knight Of Faith Wrote:
The idea that Matthew was written before Mark is another tradition of the Church Fathers & was carried over into the Middle Ages until scholars noticed that ancient texts tended to get expanded & ambiguities clarified rather then shortened & made more ambiguous.


Hey little brother;

My observations about Mark aren't based on traditions but on clarifications of Matthew's account that I find in Mark. Mark 11:11 is a good example of this. (A traditionalist would still be attending the Kingdom Hall!.)

Reference URL's