Mark's Gospel: His Dad's [Peter's] Recollections

[Deadworm]

Peter had a mother-in-law and was therefore married (Mark 1:30-31).  The early tradition that Peter had biological children is therefore probably true (Clement Stromata 3:52).  Peter (Cephas) took his wife with him on his missionary tours (1 Corinthians 9:5) and was martyred together with her in Rome (Clement, Stromata 7:11). So it seems probable that Peter took his children with him on his missionary travels.  Indeed, Peter's “son” (Greek: “huios”) Mark traveled with him on his tours (1 Peter 5:13). Paul uses “teknon” rather than “huios” when he calls his young missionary companions his “child.” So there is no reason to believe that Peter means “son” in a figurative sense. Paul never refers to young male believers as his “son” (Greek : “huios).” Though Paul does call both Timothy and Titus his “child” (”teknon”), he makes it clear that he is speaking figuratively of his “loyal child in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4).

Papias (c. 60-130 AD) prefers “the living voice” of eyewitnesses to Jesus to written traditions and hears what 2 of Jesus' disciples, John and Aristion, are currently saying. Neither disciple is one of the Twelve, but both may well be included in the 70 other disciples (Luke 10:1). He refers to these 2 disciples as “the Elders” and quotes one of them on the origin of Mark's Gospel:

“The Elder [John or Aristion] said this: Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately what he recalled. However, it was not in he exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ...He accompanied Peter, who accomodated his instructions to the necessities of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Therefore, Mark made no mistake in writing some things as he recalled them (Eusebius HE 3:39).”

Note 2 implications of what Papias reports: (1) Mark is providing Peter's eyewitness testimony to Jesus' words and deeds. (2) Eyewitnesses were still alive to correct the sequence of Mark's Gospel, which is based on Peter's catechetical notes rather than on a sequential biography. So Mark's Gospel is basically Mark's record of his Dad's teaching about Jesus' words and deeds!

 

 

[Deadworm]

After Peter is saved from execution by a miraculous deliverance from prison, his next decision supports the claim  that Mark (also known as "John called Mark") is his biological son.  We are told that Peter goes to Mary's house to let them know of his deliverance and that he must immediately leave Jerusalem (Acts 12:12, 17).  Mary just happens to be Mark's Mom, the young man Peter calls his "son."  So why does Peter go to Mary's house rather  than James's house?  After all, Jesus' brother James was the leader of the Jerusalem church.  Because Mary is Peter's wife and Mark is his son, Peter's top priority is to let his family know he's OK and must immediately leave town.  Obviously, he promised to let them know where he was, so that they could eventually be reunited.  Thus, Paul's note that Peter took his wife with him on his missionary travels makes sense (1 Corinthians 9:5).  After an unsuccessful missionary stint with Paul and Barnabas, Mark joins his "cousin" (so Colossians 4:10) Barnabas on a mission to Cyprus (Acts 15:39).  From there Mark, keeping his missionary efforts in the family, joins his Dad Peter on the mission field (1 Peter 5:13). 

So why didn't Luke explicitly identify Mary as Peter's wife?  It is unusual that the house in question is identified as Mary's house rather than her husband's.   The answer is Luke's lack of interest in the family relationships of apostolic leadership.  Thus, in Luke's repeated references to James, he never identifies James as Jesus' brother and never mentions that Barnabas and Mark are cousins. 

[Who me]

Sorry but it is all speculation, those who know never said that Peter was related to Mark.

You are building a house of straw that is irrelevant o the gospel.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Who me

[Deadworm]

12 hours ago, Who me said:

Who me: "Sorry but it is all speculation, those who know never said that Peter was related to Mark.

Can't you read?  Peter himself refers to Mark as his "son."  Since Peter had children and his wife traveled with him on his missionary journey, it is only natural to assume that Peter means what he says and says what he means when he calls Mark his "son."

Who me: "You are building a house of straw that is irrelevant o the gospel.

On the contrary, many bright college students are losing their faith partly because their professors teach that the Gospels are largely a collection of myths and legends.  So establishing a Gospel connection with eyewitness testimony can be a life-saver for many young Christians.  

 

[Jayne]

Paul also refers to Mark as his "son".   It's a brotherly and spiritual thing, not biological.

[Deadworm]

9 hours ago, Jayne said:

Paul also refers to Mark as his "son".   It's a brotherly and spiritual thing, not biological.

No, he doesn't!  He refers to Timothy and Titus as his "loyal child ("Greek: "teknon") in the faith," but never uses the biological term for "son" (Greek: "huios") like Peter does.

So he uses a term of endearment without ambiguity.  Peter's reference is clearly biological, especially given our knowledge (1) that Peter's wife joined him on his missionary efforts and (2) that he had children, who would likely joiin their parents.

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, Deadworm said:

No, he doesn't! 

So he uses a term of endearment without ambiguity.  Peter's reference is clearly biological, especially given our knowledge (1) that Peter's wife joined him on his missionary efforts and (2) that he had children, who would likely joiin their parents.

No need to shout, brother.

I stand corrected on Paul calling Mark "son".  I was thinking of when he called for him to join him and why.

What you have is still just speculation.

[Deadworm]

12 minutes ago, Jayne said:

What you have is still just speculation.

So is the NT claim that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.  Many scholars assume that the Romans removed Jesus' nearby corpse from the tomb when they removed the corpses of the 2 thieves from the cross to put all 3 in an unknown pit for criminals.  but I believe that speculation that Jesus' rose bodily from the dead is well grounded in evidence, just as I (less importantly) believe that Mark may well have been Peter's son.  Much of the biblical record involves speculation, but there is evidential speculation and wild speculation.

[Jayne]

For a Christian to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is mere speculation is distressing to me.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is factual.

[Deadworm]

On 8/7/2020 at 5:46 PM, Jayne said:

For a Christian to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is mere speculation is distressing to me.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is factual.

Most NT scholars I know believe that Jesus' disciples had authentic visions of Jesus, but think the evidence suggests that He did not rise bodily from the dead.  They deem it more reasonable that the Romans removed Jesus' corpse from the nearby tomb on Saturday night, when they come to dispose of the corpses of the other 2 thieves, so that they could dump all 3 corpses in a common criminals' pit.  This is the Apologetics section and Apologetics deals with evidence that might convince a skeptic.  Your declaration, therefore, that Jesus' resurrection is a "fact" is not helpful in this context.  From a neutral point of view, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is indeed "speculation" because no disciple was present to witness it and because apparitions are often accompanied by seemingly "physical" corroborations, even when no bodily resurrection is claimed.  That said, I choose to believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.  See my new resurrection thread for a discussion of how to defend the Resurrection rationally to a skeptic.

On 8/7/2020 at 5:46 PM, Jayne said:

For a Christian to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is mere speculation is distressing to me.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is factual.