The First Gospel Was Written By A Roman Who Had Never Been To Jerusalem

[RationalOkie]

Source: http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/mark.html

 

The Gospel Attributed to Mark

 

“This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, between 60 and 80CE, by a Roman convert to Christianity. It was copied word-for-word and used extensively by Matthew and Luke, as their primary source although they edited some details. Nevertheless, the gospel author didn't meet Jesus, wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, and was not a Jew. It is unlikely that Mark knew any Jews. There was no-one to correct his blunders about Jewish life, such as misquoting the 10 commendments, attributing God's words to Moses, and having Jews buy things on the Sabbath. The Gospel of Mark has undergone many changes and there are several ancient versions. The oldest versions of Mark all end at Mark 16:7. The Gospel of Mark contradicts the other gospels on many points and contains internal inconsistencies, some of these were later fixed by Matthew and Luke when they made their own copies of Mark. Half way through the second century the Christian proto-orthodox had come to call it 'Mark', although the author is unknown.”

 

 

Interesting read.

[NonXNonExX]

You could also add that experts point out that the Greek in Mark is very poor and that the story is poorly written. On the other hand it must have been popular in early religious circles to survive against the later improved versions of Matthew and Luke.

[RationalOkie]

You could also add that experts point out that the Greek in Mark is very poor and that the story is poorly written. On the other hand it must have been popular in early religious circles to survive against the later improved versions of Matthew and Luke.

 

I assume by the word 'improved' you mean.... Jewey'er

[ContraBardus]

You could also add that experts point out that the Greek in Mark is very poor and that the story is poorly written. On the other hand it must have been popular in early religious circles to survive against the later improved versions of Matthew and Luke.

 

I assume by the word 'improved' you mean.... Jewey'er

 

By Jewey'er I assume you mean that it was just as popular, but they enjoyed it less.

[RationalOkie]

You could also add that experts point out that the Greek in Mark is very poor and that the story is poorly written. On the other hand it must have been popular in early religious circles to survive against the later improved versions of Matthew and Luke.

 

I assume by the word 'improved' you mean.... Jewey'er

 

By Jewey'er I assume you mean that it was just as popular, but they enjoyed it less.

 

Ya....Jewey ....

[Abiyoyo]

Nevertheless, the gospel author didn't meet Jesus, wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, and was not a Jew. It is unlikely that Mark knew any Jews.

 

Mark may have been Peter's interpreter.

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. iii. 39

 

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. 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." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

 

Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

[ContraBardus]

Why would Peter need an interpreter?

 

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.

 

Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

 

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, "Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?

 

We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God."

 

Doesn't sound much like he'd need a translator to me.

[Dagan]

Or Mark could have been the disciples' boy toy, which is why he's only in the gospel as a kid wearing a sheet. First he "had a friend in Jesus" (see the Secret Mark fragments). Then he was Peter's "interpreter." Then he was Paul's "missionary companion" for a while until Paul got sick of him, or they had a lovers' spat or something and Paul accused him of not having enough faith.

Then John Mark wrote his book for the lulz.

It's not much of a stretch. Ignore the bible study part at the end and the rest is interesting.

[dagnarus]

Nevertheless, the gospel author didn't meet Jesus, wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, and was not a Jew. It is unlikely that Mark knew any Jews.

 

Mark may have been Peter's interpreter.

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. iii. 39

 

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. 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." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

 

Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.

 

All this really says is that according to Papias Mark wrote a gospel account. Is there anything linking the gospel of Mark we have today to the gospel which Papias is referring to? I ask this because Papias is used to assert that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew even though our gospel is and was written in Greek whereas (according to Papias) Matthew wrote his in Hebrew.

[RationalOkie]

 

 

Mark may have been Peter's interpreter.

 

Ya...I've heard that before. My understanding, and I'm not a qualified scholar, is that Papias was a 2nd Century writer. He was one of the first Apologists for the church because he was a bishop and therefore not impartial. He goes out of his way to make it sound impossible that Mark could lie. But then, why the major mistakes?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Mark may have been Peter's interpreter.

 

Ya...I've heard that before. My understanding, and I'm not a qualified scholar, is that Papias was a 2nd Century writer. He was one of the first Apologists for the church because he was a bishop and therefore not impartial. He goes out of his way to make it sound impossible that Mark could lie. But then, why the major mistakes?

 

Second century as in 100AD to 200AD, yes. But the Gospels are dated in that time frame, so this information to me is relevant to the Mark subject.

[RationalOkie]

 

 

Mark may have been Peter's interpreter.

 

Ya...I've heard that before. My understanding, and I'm not a qualified scholar, is that Papias was a 2nd Century writer. He was one of the first Apologists for the church because he was a bishop and therefore not impartial. He goes out of his way to make it sound impossible that Mark could lie. But then, why the major mistakes?

 

Second century as in 100AD to 200AD, yes. But the Gospels are dated in that time frame, so this information to me is relevant to the Mark subject.

 

 

I agree that it IS relevant but what are your thoughts on the Jewish snafu's the Author of Mark makes?

[Guest Davka]

If Mark was Peter's interpreter, he was really bad at his job. Peter was a pretty orthodox Jew, according to both Acts and 1 & 2 Peter. Paul even gets pissy with Peter for observing Jewish orthodoxy whenever there are Jews around, indicating that he was embarrassed by the christian sect's acceptance of gentiles and gentile customs.

 

So Peter knew damned good and well what was kosher and what was not. Why would he make such obvious mistakes in relating his story to Mark? It doesn't add up.

[NonXNonExX]

I hate to take on the role of apologist here, but i know of at least one explanation for the errors that the author of GMark made. Peter used to give lectures on the Jesus he supposedly knew and Mark was his interpreter for people who didn't speak Aramaic. After Peter died, Mark got the idea to write down as much of what he could remember of Peter's preaching, adding some of his own beliefs and interpretations. Because he was relying on memory and adding some of his own philosophy and interpretations, errors and inconsistencies were inevitable. A later editor added a birth narrative, and a still later editor "fixed" the ending, but both left the basic story untouched.

 

I should add that this is still largely speculation based on a secondhand quote from a work no longer extant. Even if this version of events is true, it means that GMark is based on what Mark, not likely to be Paul's John Mark, remembered of the preaching of an old man. Who knows what the old man really preached or whether he was even preaching about someone he actually knew. This would account for the rough and unpolished nature of GMark at least, since the author was trying to write just what he remembered of the old man's words. This still leaves major problems for believers since it would mean the story is removed several times from the source and no contemporary thought the story was important enough to record for posterity.

[Guest Davka]

I hate to take on the role of apologist here, but i know of at least one explanation for the errors that the author of GMark made. Peter used to give lectures on the Jesus he supposedly knew and Mark was his interpreter for people who didn't speak Aramaic. After Peter died, Mark got the idea to write down as much of what he could remember of Peter's preaching, adding some of his own beliefs and interpretations. Because he was relying on memory and adding some of his own philosophy and interpretations, errors and inconsistencies were inevitable. A later editor added a birth narrative, and a still later editor "fixed" the ending, but both left the basic story untouched.

 

I should add that this is still largely speculation based on a secondhand quote from a work no longer extant. Even if this version of events is true, it means that GMark is based on what Mark, not likely to be Paul's John Mark, remembered of the preaching of an old man. Who knows what the old man really preached or whether he was even preaching about someone he actually knew. This would account for the rough and unpolished nature of GMark at least, since the author was trying to write just what he remembered of the old man's words. This still leaves major problems for believers since it would mean the story is removed several times from the source and no contemporary thought the story was important enough to record for posterity.

That actually makes sense. It seems even more likely, if Mark was Peter's interpreter, that Mark did not actually write down GMark himself but rather dictated it to a scribe.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

 

I agree that it IS relevant but what are your thoughts on the Jewish snafu's the Author of Mark makes?

 

I think NonX summed that up.

[RationalOkie]

Why would Peter need an interpreter?

 

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.

 

Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.

 

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, "Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?

 

We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome, both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God."

 

Doesn't sound much like he'd need a translator to me.

 

Ya...what's up with this? Good point.

[Guest Davka]

 

 

 

I agree that it IS relevant but what are your thoughts on the Jewish snafu's the Author of Mark makes?

 

I think NonX summed that up.

So if GMark is the transcribed, admittedly poor recollection of an oral translator, and Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark - but with the blatant mistakes "fixed" by the Jewish author of Matthew - what does this say about the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels?

[RationalOkie]

 

 

 

I agree that it IS relevant but what are your thoughts on the Jewish snafu's the Author of Mark makes?

 

I think NonX summed that up.

 

The best argument I've heard.

[RationalOkie]

So if GMark is the transcribed, admittedly poor recollection of an oral translator, and Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark - but with the blatant mistakes "fixed" by the Jewish author of Matthew - what does this say about the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels?

 

Oooo' Oooo' I know. Call on me....

[Neon Genesis]

 

Mark may have been Peter's interpreter.

Eusebius Hist. Eccl. iii. 39

 

Bart D Ehrman brought this quote up in his book Lost Christianities and according to him, most biblical scholars don't consider this to be authentic evidence that Mark really wrote Mark. For one thing, the quote says the gospel of Mark was written as a collection of Jesus' sayings and did not include a narrative. But the Mark we have is a narrative with an actual plot and is not just a collection of Jesus' sayings. Also, it says that Mark wrote down everything Jesus said in his life, but read aloud, the gospel of Mark only takes two hours to read at most. Are we really to believe that if Mark is a historical account of the life of Jesus and he really wrote down everything he heard, that he could only write down two hours worth of Jesus' life out of the three years his ministry lasted? Is that really believable?

 

Furthermore, the book of Acts states that the apostles were uneducated, so how could any of them write anything if they were uneducated? So, either Acts is wrong if Mark wrote Mark and the bible is historially inaccurate. Or if Acts is right, then Mark really didn't write Mark and the bible still isn't historically accurate, so take your pick. Besides which, where in Mark's gospel does it every say Mark wrote it or who wrote it at all? It doesn't have an author subscribed to it at all and the only reason people believe Mark wrote it is because the church fathers said he did.

[mwc]

I'll refer to part of the previous quote attributed to Papias from above:

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." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

Ummmm...Papias is clearly stated as having Mark writing the entire gospel out of order. So who put it right? Or was it correct but it disagreed with what was later decided to be "correct?"

 

Next, as can be seen from the quote, the argument that Mark makes or inserts any errors into the stories, simply fails. It is denied outright. Beyond ordering the account is said to be reliable.

 

Since the synoptics are in agreement over the basic ordering of the story, and G.Matthew is included in that group, would mean that G.Mark follows G.Matthew? Yet G.Matthew "borrows" largely from G.Mark. So the G.Mark and the G.Matthew we have must not be the G.Matthew or G.Mark that Papias references. His G.Mark is out of order and his G.Matthew is in Hebrew (and makes it sound like a sayings gospel like G.Thomas). He makes no mention of G.Luke or G.John. Just the Hebrew G.Matthew (comprised of oracles) and the out of order G.Mark.

 

Also, Papias is responsible for the the third version of the death of Judas (where he gets crushed by the chariot) so Luke/Acts must not have been distributed as a pair or the death of Judas must not have been contained in his G.Matthew and/or Acts. It would almost appear that Papias should be attributed with the first, not third, account of Judas.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

 

So if GMark is the transcribed, admittedly poor recollection of an oral translator, and Matthew and Luke are both based on Mark - but with the blatant mistakes "fixed" by the Jewish author of Matthew - what does this say about the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels?

 

To what degree of reliability? I guess to someone that believes the Gospels were eyewitness accounts, it would be fatal. I just see it as another perspective of Christ's story.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

The best argument I've heard.

If you want to argue about your opinion on it, then argue away....I just agreed with the synopsis that NonX laid out.

[RationalOkie]

 

 

The best argument I've heard.

If you want to argue about your opinion on it, then argue away....I just agreed with the synopsis that NonX laid out.

 

Yes, and I agreed with you about agreeing with NonX...so, what's with the forehead slap? Every time I agree with you I get a forehead slap? Geesh... I kid..I kid...