The Gospel of Mark Belongs To Peter

Ligurian said:

Celts are always described as Germanic-looking. Which means the Britons are not Celts, or Belgae, or Angles, or Nordic.

"Avienus makes only one direct reference to the Celts when he mentions that
beyond the tin-producing Oestrymnides was a land now occupied by the Celts,
who took it from the Ligurians."--Cunliffe, Ancient Celts

"The district round the Phocaean colony of Marseilles was inhabited by Ligurian tribes, who held the region between the river Po and the Gulf of Genoa, as far as the western boundary of Etruria, and who probably extended to the west along the coast of Southern Gaul as far as the Pyrenees.141 They were distinguished from the Celtae, not merely by their manners and customs, but by their small stature and dark hair and eyes, and are stated by Pliny and Strabo to have inhabited Spain. They have also left marks of their presence in Central Gaul in the name of the Loire (Ligur), and possibly in Britain in the obscure name of the Lloegrians."--Dawkins, Cave Hunting

The Welsh Element in the South Wales Coalfield; An Anthropological Study Based on ABO Blood Groups; The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 95, No. 1 (Jan. - Jun., 1965), pp. 104-114

This paper says the Welsh still hadn't changed in 1965 when this study was done. And most people used to know that the Silurians came from Iberia. Since this is the body type Tacitus found, and Mount Siluria is near Lake Liguria (both words having gotten their -r- from the Romans) the Silures are the Salyes which are a Ligurian tribe. The Britons are Ligurians, by body type, process of migration, and by the language which is called a blend of Latin and Cymry. Rhys and others say these are the people who had the Druid priests. But the Celtic people are the ones who changed this religion (which had oracle doves in the oak trees like in Dodona) into the magicians and wizards and witchcraft of today.

Click to expand...

This is interesting and I did not know it, but it makes sense. So, can we be friends? That’s the more important question for me.

The Liturgist said:

Also, Mark owned the house that contained the Cenacle. It is a Syriac Orthodox Monastery today.

Click to expand...

Not possible. Papias says that Mark neither heard nor followed the Lord but became a follower of Peter. Therefore he couldn't have hosted the Lord at the Last Supper as he had never known him.

Ligurian said:

Galatians 2:7-9
Two stewardships: Paul, Peter.
Two house-laws: the gentiles, the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Matthew 23:10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Click to expand...

It would appear that it is incumbent upon yourself to present your evidence for this "two house-laws" doctrine of yours. It is entirely foreign from the apostolic doctrine of the Church of the last two thousand years.

-CryptoLutheran

Ligurian said:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;--KJV

The people who added the words [the gospel] were trying to help the people who wouldn't otherwise make the obvous connection.

Some words are left out because they are implied, and those with good reading comprehension will know what those words would be.

Some people act as though Paul didn't know how to write a good sentence, because it fits what they want to believe.

Click to expand...

Claim without substantiation. Provide evidence that those who rendered the Greek in that way intended to say what you are saying.

For your consideration:

The Vulgata
Sed e contra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Evangelium praeputii, sicut et Petro circumcisionis

Wycliffe
But ayenward, whanne thei hadden seyn, that the euangelie of prepucie was youun to me, as the euangelie of circumcisioun was youun to Petre;

Tyndale
But contrary wyse when they sawe that the gospell over the vncircumcision was comitted vnto me as the gospell over ye circucision was vnto Peter:

So we can see that this rendering of the text is something that began in English with Wycliffe. Now can we find anything about Wycliffe or his views that would substantiate your claim? How about with Tyndale? We can ask the same whenever and wherever relevant.

For continued consideration:

Luther's Bible (1545)
sondern dagegen, da sie sahen, daß mir vertraut war das Evangelium an die Heiden, gleichwie dem Petrus das Evangelium an die Juden

Is there anything in Luther that supports your position? No, there isn't.

But you are absolutely free to defend your position if you believe you can do so.

-CryptoLutheran

Ligurian said:

I told you my thinking several different ways now, and you have not yet figured it out. Instead, you continue to think its all about personal glory for humans... which is something I would never even dream of thinking...

Click to expand...

Yet you are the one who talks about Mark "getting all the credit".

Ligurian said:

I have nothing but scorn for wild speculation. I thought I had made that clear.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between "wild speculation" and the work of educated commentators.
Maybe you could suggest another reason for Mark commenting that they tried to arrest an unknown man but he ran away naked? It doesn't add anything to the account, and the verse before says that everyone else around him ran off, so Peter wasn't there at that point.

Ligurian said:

Others who were alive within a relatively short time frame say Mark never met Jesus, had followed Peter for a long time and was even Peter's disciple.

Click to expand...

You seem to be prepared to accept their statements but not those of Scripture or of other commentators. Is that because they agree with your own ideas?
Scripture tells us that when Barnabas and Paul argued, Barnabas took Mark with him to Cyprus. Later, Paul instructs someone to send Mark to him because he had been useful. Peter referred to Mark as a son, but that is not proof that Mark was his disciple.

Ligurian said:

But robbing Peter's dispensation to pay Paul's dispensation doesn't sit well with me, given the importance of John 17:20.

Click to expand...

No idea what that means. I have asked you before, but you don't explain.

Ligurian said:

Jesus says in John 21:19 what sort of man Peter would turn out to be, and John says that's exactly what happened.

Click to expand...

So?
Jesus prophesied what would happen to Peter; what does that have to do with Mark?

Ligurian said:

Peter would of course have had a sense of urgency because of the persecution that always follows the truth... but not for his own self.

Click to expand...

While Peter was very willing to die for the Gospel, I'm fairly sure he was not willing to sit around and wait for them to come and kill him. Of course he wanted to escape; the longer he stayed alive, the more people he could preach to.

Ligurian said:

I feel this same sense of urgency... and it's certainly not for myself... like Peter, I am unwilling to go to ground and hide... which is what logic would suggest that a faint-hearted witness might try to do. How worthy would that have made him of the Prophecy of John 21:18?

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about him hiding. Read Acts of the Apostles 8:1 - when persecution broke out, believers were scattered. They all went to other parts of the country, or abroad, taking the Gospel with them.

Ligurian said:

If that were me, I'd have given up on this thread, day one.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you started it.
So you want to call the 2nd Gospel "The Gospel of Peter"? Go ahead. Like I said, you'll spend much time explaining to people what you are talking about and that you are not referring to a heretical book - but that's your choice.

Your first question was "what do we have to do to get Mark's name off the Gospel?"
That's easily answered; there's nothing you can do. Call it what you want, it remains "the Gospel according to Mark."

Strong in Him said:

Yet you are the one who talks about Mark "getting all the credit".

Scripture tells us that when Barnabas and Paul argued, Barnabas took Mark with him to Cyprus. Later, Paul instructs someone to send Mark to him because he had been useful. Peter referred to Mark as a son, but that is not proof that Mark was his disciple.

Click to expand...

You assume the identification of John Mark and Mark the Evangelist. Not sure why. Tradition doesn't. Nor do commentators. Nor does Scripture. Hmmmm.

timtams said:

You assume the identification of John Mark and Mark the Evangelist. Not sure why. Tradition doesn't. Nor do commentators. Nor does Scripture. Hmmmm.

Click to expand...

The New Concise Bible Dictionary (IVP) says that traditionally, the author of the 2nd Gospel was said to be John-Mark.
The Tyndale NT commentary on Mark says that tradition unanimously declares the author of the Gospel to be John-Mark.
William Barclay, (theologian and commentator) wrote that the author of the Gospel was John-Mark, and the IVP Bible commentary says that it was probably John-Mark, though it is hard to be certain.

Also:

Proposed Author by Tradition: John Mark, who transcribed the teachings of Simon Peter, is traditionally held to be the author of the Second Gospel.

Click to expand...

Crossexamined.org

Though the author does not directly identify himself, there is still strong evidence to attribute the Gospel to John Mark.

Click to expand...

Blue letter Bible.

Several early church fathers claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by a man named John Mark—a companion of both Paul and Peter

Click to expand...

Zondervan academic.

How was I making an assumption?

Strong in Him said:

The New Concise Bible Dictionary (IVP) says that traditionally, the author of the 2nd Gospel was said to be John-Mark.

Click to expand...

That's simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church have always differentiated them in their official liturgical sources. Check the Menaea and Menology of the Eastern Church and the (pre-1970) Martyrology of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Puritan commentator Matthew Henry (1662-1714) considered it “altogether uncertain” whether John/Mark was the same Mark as the Evangelist.

The Benedictine scholar Dom Antoine Augustin Calmet (1672-1757) spoke of “Jean-Marc, que quelques-uns confondent très-mal à propos avec saint Marc l’Evangéliste” (John Mark, whom some wrongly confuse with Mark the Evangelist).

Roman Catholic hagiographer Alban Butler (1710-1773) claimed it was “generally believed they were different persons”.

The Tyndale NT commentary on Mark says that tradition unanimously declares the author of the Gospel to be John-Mark.

Click to expand...

That is an inaccurate claim. To give one example, the medieval work Hippolytus on the Seventy Disciples differentiates them. And not a single early church father of the first three centuries claims that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. If you disagree, please cite one.

You're relying upon modern resources rather than substantiating the claim from tradition itself. Perhaps you have never looked into the primary evidence. The problem with your approach of not verifying it yourself is that I also could name scholarly sources that claim that tradition wasn't unanimous and that the earliest traditions didn't identify the two. I have already named some above.

How was I making an assumption?

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused. You were recently dismissing tradition. Papias and others related that Mark the Evangelist neither had heard nor followed Christ but became a follower of Peter, but you say they are wrong because John Mark is said to have followed Paul. Yet you also appeal to tradition to support your identification of the two. I am not sure how you reconcile this.

timtams said:

That's simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church have always differentiated them in their official liturgical sources. Check the Menaea and Menology of the Eastern Church and the (pre-1970) Martyrology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

Maybe they do; I'm not a Catholic.
You made the statement that neither tradition, nor commentators, say that Mark the evangelist and John-Mark were the same person. I provided 4 commentators and 3 websites which say otherwise.

timtams said:

The Puritan commentator Matthew Henry (1662-1714) considered it “altogether uncertain” whether John/Mark was the same Mark as the Evangelist.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the IVP commentary also says that we can't be completely sure; I said that.
But that's not the same as saying that they are definitely NOT the same person and here's the evidence.

timtams said:

The Benedictine scholar Dom Antoine Augustin Calmet (1672-1757) spoke of “Jean-Marc, que quelques-uns confondent très-mal à propos avec saint Marc l’Evangéliste” (John Mark, whom some wrongly confuse with Mark the Evangelist).

Click to expand...

And did he give any evidence for that or explain why he believed it to be so?

timtams said:

Roman Catholic hagiographer Alban Butler (1710-1773) claimed it was “generally believed they were different persons”.

Click to expand...

"Generally believed"; by whom?
Maybe that was the case in the 1700s and more research has been done since then?

timtams said:

That is an inaccurate claim. To give one example, the medieval work Hippolytus on the Seventy Disciples differentiates them. And not a single early church father of the first three centuries claims that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. If you disagree, please cite one.

Click to expand...

I haven't looked into it. I was quoting commentators who state that traditionally Mark the evangelist was John-Mark - and whom you stated don't exist.
Presumably they have reasons for saying that, or they would lose credibility.

timtams said:

You're relying upon modern resources rather than substantiating the claim from tradition itself.

Click to expand...

Yes, but those modern sources say that traditionally, this is what people thought.
You stated that no commentator says this and tradition does not back it up.

timtams said:

The problem with your approach of not verifying it yourself is that I also could name scholarly sources that claim that tradition wasn't unanimous and that the earliest traditions didn't identify the two. I have already named some above.

Click to expand...

But I was responding to your post which said that no commentators say that Mark the Evangelist was John-Mark and neither Scripture nor tradition say it either. This, together with the "hmmmmm" at the end of your statement, implied that you thought that I might be making such a claim up.
I wasn't. I wanted to know more about the person who wrote Mark's Gospel so I looked in commentaries and a Bible dictionary that I own, and then I googled it.
There are reasons why these sources said "traditionally, the author of Mark's Gospel and John-Mark were said to be one and the same man." If your ancient sources contradict modern discoveries and scholarship; so be it. I was just answering your statement.

timtams said:

That's simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church have always differentiated them in their official liturgical sources. Check the Menaea and Menology of the Eastern Church and the (pre-1970) Martyrology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

It amuses me endlessly when an argument on a forum references a book no one has, or can afford* (a 12 volume Orthodox Menaion from St. John of Kronstadt Press costs $1200). However, @GreekOrthodox as a protopsalti in the Greek Orthodox Church has access to one, albeit I think his would be from Holy Transfiguration Monastery, with all the annoying /// marks that Byzantine cantors need but that everyone not using Byzantine chant finds either annoying, or a nostalgic reminder of the old logo of United Airlines before they were acquired, in an odd twist, by Continental. U N I T E D /// R I S I N G

Ahh those were the days - cue Rhaposdy in Blue by George Gershwin.

But at any rate @tintams I am pretty sure you’re completely wrong, because the OCA hagiography of St. Mark the Evangelist says they were the same person. Apostle and Evangelist Mark

timtams said:

Not possible. Papias says that Mark neither heard nor followed the Lord but became a follower of Peter. Therefore he couldn't have hosted the Lord at the Last Supper as he had never known him.

Click to expand...

Since when is St. Papias the sole infallible record of Church History? Since when do the numerous saints whose accounts support the history of the monastery of St. Mark not matter? Do you have an objection to the Syriac Orthodox Church, one of the most persecuted in history?


*To be fair however, I do this myself, but I don’t claim not to be a little bit hypocritical from time to time. But think of me as a friendly, well meaning hypocrite. And it seems like every time when I do quote such a work no one cares about or replies to my post anyway.

Strong in Him said:

Maybe they do; I'm not a Catholic.
You made the statement that neither tradition, nor commentators, say that Mark the evangelist and John-Mark were the same person. I provided 4 commentators and 3 websites which say otherwise.

Click to expand...

My point was open to misinterpretation, but my meaning was this: tradition and commentators differ on these matters and hold various views, one of which is that John Mark was Mark the Evangelist, but there are many views. Therefore no-one can say that "scholarship" supports the identification. Thus, it seems that it was inconsistent for you to berate someone else for rejecting scholarship when your own view is a matter of discussion within scholarship. Nothing he said about Mark not knowing Jesus (on the basis of very ancient Christian sources) deserved to be represented as somehow being prideful or as rejecting scholarship.

And did he give any evidence for that or explain why he believed it to be so?

Click to expand...

Yes. Because it contradicts the earliest Christian sources, such as Papias who Eusebius, who placed Mark in Rome in Claudius' reign at the same time as the John Mark of the book of Acts was in Antioch and Cyprus.

"Generally believed"; by whom?
Maybe that was the case in the 1700s and more research has been done since then?

Click to expand...

No, the same sources are discussed. You again seem to assume that everyone accepts your identification. They don't.

Presumably they have reasons for saying that, or they would lose credibility.

Click to expand...

Of course they have "arguments" (Gundry's The Old is Better attempts to justify this identification). It sounds like you wish to just take their word for it and pretend contrary arguments and studies don't exist.

But I was responding to your post which said that no commentators say that Mark the Evangelist was John-Mark and neither Scripture nor tradition say it either. This, together with the "hmmmmm" at the end of your statement, implied that you thought that I might be making such a claim up.

Click to expand...

My meaning wasn't that no commentators hold it (I of course know they do) but that "scholars" (i.e. scholarship) as a whole aren't all supportive of it. Remember the context: you were berating someone for rejecting "scholarship" as though there is some monolithic view. When I stated "scholars" don't hold that view, it means in context that I was saying it's not monolithic.

There are reasons why these sources said "traditionally, the author of Mark's Gospel and John-Mark were said to be one and the same man." If your ancient sources contradict modern discoveries and scholarship; so be it. I was just answering your statement.

Click to expand...

Again you assume that scholarship supports your view. And you have shown no desire to actually investigate the evidence for yourself. You seem content to take their word for it, even though you can't name a single church father from the first three hundred years of church history who agrees with their assertions.

The Liturgist said:

It amuses me endlessly ...

Click to expand...

smh.

timtams said:

My point was open to misinterpretation, but my meaning was this: tradition and commentators differ on these matters and hold various views, one of which is that John Mark was Mark the Evangelist, but there are many views.

Click to expand...

Right, and I can agree with that.
I'm not arguing scholarship, and I wasn't implying that my sources are better than yours. I was answering your comment to me that "no commentators think that". Well several of the commentaries that I own, say just that.

timtams said:

Again you assume that scholarship supports your view. And you have shown no desire to actually investigate the evidence for yourself. You seem content to take their word for it, even though you can't name a single church father from the first three hundred years of church history who agrees with their assertions.

Click to expand...

I didn't enter this thread because it was a serious discussion about the authorship of the 2nd Gospel; I wouldn't have done that since I know little about it.
I commented on the thread because the OP was saying "What do we have to do to get Mark's name off the Gospel and for Peter to be rightfully accredited"? He was talking about plagiarism and intellectual theft, asked why people hated the Galilean Apostles and threw doubts on the canon of Scripture and those who compiled it.
Those were the arguments that I was addressing.

Just at the moment I have neither the time nor the inclination to research and check dozens, or maybe hundreds, of references which might prove, or disprove, that Mark the evangelist and John-Mark were separate people.
I don't feel that that was what the OP was asking in any case; he seemed to be more bothered that the 2nd Gospel is not called the Gospel of Peter and that he didn't get any credit for it.

And now I must go; I've wasted far too much time on this as it is.

timtams said:

smh.

Click to expand...

If your head is shaking, mine is doing the Linda Blair 360 degree swivel at the speed of a Pratt and Whitney JT8D turbofan engine.

Because, you know, you did make a serious mistake - the Eastern Orthodox Church, according to the source I have provided, and I can provide more, regards St. Mark the Evangelist and John Mark as the same person. The Hagiographies on the OCA website are admired throughout English speaking Orthodox communities for their accuracy, detail and completeness; I believe their quality is due to the input of the brethren at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, which is generally considered the academic apex of the anglophone world.

The Liturgist said:

]It amuses me endlessly when people quote a book no one has, or can afford (a 12 volume Orthodox Menaion from St. John of Kronstadt Press costs $1200). ...
But at any rate @tintams I am pretty sure you’re completely wrong, because the OCA hagiography of St. Mark the Evangelist says they were the same person. Apostle and Evangelist Mark

Click to expand...

Actually the EO Church has often differentiated three Marks:

Many people have confused the Evangelist Mark with another member of the Seventy, John surnamed Mark (Acts 12:12). In addition, there was a third member of the original Seventy Apostles named Mark, who was the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). They are three different individuals who came from different locales and who had much different roles in the Early Church. Modern accounts of these three individuals are often blended together. The Evangelist Mark was originally an idolater1 from Cyrene of Pentapolis, which is near Libya. He came to the Faith of Christ through the Apostle Peter. John Mark, on the other hand, in addition to being one of the original Seventy Apostles, was born at Jerusalem2 , and the house of his mother Mary (Acts 12:12) adjoined the Garden of Gethsemane. John Mark was later Bishop of Byblos in Phoenicia just north of Beirut on the Mediterranean coast. Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, was3 also one of the original Seventy Apostles and was later the Bishop of Apollonia in Samaria, just north of Joppa on the Mediterranean coast.

Click to expand...

As further proof that the three Marks are different individuals, the Evangelist Mark was martyred6 in Alexandria in the 8th year of Nero, or 61 AD. Yet Paul wrote to Timothy in 67 AD, just before his own martyrdom, to get Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, and bring him to Rome (2 Timothy 4:11). ... Other testimony that they were different individuals includes Hippolytus8 , Nickolai Velimirovic9 , and Demetrius of Rostov10. There are the names of two Apostles named Mark listed in the Byzantine, Greek and Russian Menaion for January 4th, the Feast Day for the Seventy, and they are referred to by the St. Sabbas Typicon (6th century). Both are also included in the Painter’s Manual of Dionysius of Fourna11 as different individuals.

Click to expand...

https://www.stathanasius.org/site/assets/files/8437/study_04_25_21b.pdf

The Liturgist said:

If your head is shaking, mine is doing the Linda Blair 360 degree swivel at the speed of a Pratt and Whitney JT8D turbofan engine.

Because, you know, you did make a serious mistake - the Eastern Orthodox Church, according to the source I have provided, and I can provide more, regards St. Mark the Evangelist and John Mark as the same person. The Hagiographies on the OCA website are admired throughout English speaking Orthodox communities for their accuracy, detail and completeness; I believe their quality is due to the input of the brethren at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, which is generally considered the academic apex of the anglophone world.

Click to expand...

It's better to study first and speak second.

In the martyrologies and liturgical tradition of both East and West, Mark the
Evangelist and John Mark are regarded as being separate persons. John Mark is
in the Greek Menaion on September 27, and on the same date the Roman Martyr-
ology has : “At Byblos in Phoenicia, St Mark the bishop, who by blessed Luke is
also called John and who was the son of that blessed Mary whose memory is noted
on June 29 That he became a bishop at Byblos or elsewhere is a tradition of the
Greeks, from whom the West acquired it.

Click to expand...

Alban Butler, Lives of the Saints

timtams said:

Actually the EO Church has often differentiated three Marks:






https://www.stathanasius.org/site/assets/files/8437/study_04_25_21b.pdf

Click to expand...

That is one article, representing the views of one person, at one theological institute. The hagiography on the OCA website represents the entire Orthodox Church of America, which I enjoyed being a member of for many years until I felt a calling to reclaim liturgical Congregationalism from the clutches of the UCC. The OCA is one of the largest Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in North America, along with GoArch (the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese), the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, and the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America. The other canonical churches in America are the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of North America, the American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese, the Patriarchal Parishes (a Diocese of churches in America that is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, i.e. the Russian Orthodox Church Inside Russia), the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Georgian Orthodox Church, which is the smallest with just three parishes, and also, I think for a time, and maybe even now, the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem jointly operated or operates some parishes with GoArch (this was one of the contributors to the schism between the Church of Antioch vs. the Church of Jerusalem and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which GoArch is a part of).

So if you want to impress me, and convince me you are right, find in a directory of Orthodox saints on the website of one of the other Orthodox churches in North America separate hagiographies for St. Mark the Evangelist and John Mark.

timtams said:

It's better to study first and speak second.

Click to expand...

I agree. So I just read my St. Innocent’s Orthodox Calendar and looked up the 27th of September, and there was no mention of John Mark.

I believe Butler confused a different feast, the synaxis of the martyrdom of the Holy Apostles of the Seventy Mark the Evangelist, Aristarchus, and Zenas, which is an easy mistake to make, since they both happen on the same day. But again, the OCA says on its official website that St. Mark the Evangelist and John Mark are the same person.