The Gospel of Mark Belongs To Peter

[timtams]

That is one article, representing the views of one person, at one theological institute.

I don't think you know what citations are. This "one person" cites established EO authorities, including the Prologue of Ochrid. But of course you've been so derisive, and condescending, that it's going to be difficult for you to concede or backtrack.

 

[timtams]

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.

Here is the entry from the Prologue of Ochrid for Sept 27:

Mark, Aristarchus and Zenas were apostles of the Seventy. St. Mark was also known as John. The holy apostles gathered for prayer at the house of his mother Mary in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). He preached the Gospel with the Apostles Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12:25). After that, Mark was bishop in the town of Byblos. St. Aristarchus, a fellow traveler of the Apostle Paul, was bishop in Syrian Apamea (Acts 19:29). St. Zenas (or Zena) was described as a lawyer by the Apostle Paul (Titus 3:13). He was bishop in Palestinian Lydda. They shone as stars in the darkness of paganism, and brought many to the Christian Faith. Now they shine as stars in the Kingdom of Christ, their Beloved.

Orthodox Christian Life: The Prologue September 27 / October 10

 

[The Liturgist]

I don't think you know what citations are. This "one person" cites established EO authorities, including the Prologue of Ochrid. But of course you've been so derisive, and condescending, that it's going to be difficult for you to concede or backtrack.

I have the Prologue of Ohrid, and it does not contain the words “John Mark.” And even if it did, it doesn’t matter, because it is not an official Church document, whereas the official Hagiography of the Orthodox Church in America says Mark the Evangelist was also called John Mark. This overrides all unofficial references.

I have told you what will make me concede or backtrack: find me a hagiography or pair of hagiographies on the website of one of Eastern Orthodox Churches in North America, that establish John Mark as someone else. If you can do that, at a minimum I will concede that the matter is not settled between the different churches and the OCA could be in error, and if you find this on more than one church’s website, and the second hagiographa is not copy pasted from the first but is a unique writing, I would at that point concede that the OCA hagiography is probably in error. Surely that is fair.

 

[timtams]

I have the Prologue of Ohrid, and it does not contain the words “John Mark.” And even if it did, it doesn’t matter, because it is not an official Church document, whereas the official Hagiography of the Orthodox Church in America says Mark the Evangelist was also called John Mark. This overrides all unofficial references.

I have told you what will make me concede or backtrack: find me a hagiography or pair of hagiographies on the website of one of Eastern Orthodox Churches in North America, that establish John Mark as someone else. If you can do that, at a minimum I will concede that the matter is not settled between the different churches and the OCA could be in error, and if you find this on more than one church’s website, and the second hagiographa is not copy pasted from the first but is a unique writing, I would at that point concede that the OCA hagiography is probably in error. Surely that is fair.

So you accept that some EO writers and documents have differentiated them? And that some EO writers have at times differentiated three different Marks?

 

[timtams]

Also, can you name "official" documents?
Or are you saying that websites are the only official sources?

You don't seem to understand that the OCA represents just one liturgical source: Reference Book for Clergy-Servers [Nastol’naya Kniga Svyaschennosluzhitelya] published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1978 and 1979.

Why is this more authoritative in your opinion than the Prologue of Ochrid?

 

[timtams]

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.

Well this is just an EO monastery, under the jurisdiction of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America, so I'm sure they're completely wrong and know nothing about EO saints, but they list three Marks separately, as is traditional for Eastern Orthodoxy (though not so much among modern EOs):

Mark, Apostle and Evangelist. Apr. 25.

Mark, Apostle, of the 70, also called John. Sept. 27, Jan. 4.

Mark, Apostle, of the 70, Nephew of Saint Barnabas. Oct. 30, Jan. 4.

Saints-Names-M-2

 

[The Liturgist]

So you accept that some EO writers and documents have differentiated them? And that some EO writers have at times differentiated three different Marks?

Sure, but its meaningless, because different EO writers can say whatever they want provided they don’t contradict the teaching of the Church as established in the Ecumenical Councils, the Photian Synod, or the Palamist Council, or the canons contained in the Pedalion. I can take you to EO writers who say some absolutely bizarre things which are not official EO doctrine in any way, shape or form.

Also, can you name "official" documents?
Or are you saying that websites are the only official sources?

If it has an imprimatur not just from a bishop, which makes it official only within a diocese, but from the Patriarch or the Holy Synod of a canonical autocephalous or autonomous Orthodox Church (and there is no English language edition of the Menaion with an Imprimatur from a canonical Orthodox church, because both editions in print were done by Old Calendarist schismatics), that makes it official for that particular autonomous or autocephalous Orthodox church. Documents official in one Orthodox church are often contradicted by official documents from another.

There is no “ecumenical Imprimatur” which makes a document official for the entire church; the only such documents that are that official are the Acts and Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, and the Quinisext, Photian and Palamist councils, and to a much lesser extent the Synod of Jerusalem in the 17th century.

You don't seem to understand that the OCA represents a compilation by someone who runs the website, not an actual word for word representation of any traditional liturgical source.

On the contrary, the OCA spends the most money of any North American Orthodox Church on their website and curates the highest quality content for it, as they view it as a primary ministry for evangelism. GoArch also does a very good job. The Romanian, Bulgarian and Georgian Churches in America, not so much.

 

[timtams]

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), ...

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.

Yes, because my life is supposed to revolve around impressing you. Just a suggestion but you might wish to consider how you come off on here.

Now this is interesting:

Mark was an idolater from Cyrene of Pentapolis, which is near Libya. Having come to the Faith of Christ through the Apostle Peter, he followed him to Rome. While there, at the prompting of Peter himself and at the request of the Christians living there, he wrote his Gospel in Greek, and it is second in order after Matthew's. Afterwards, travelling to Egypt, he preached the Gospel there and was the first to establish the Church in Alexandria.

Mark the Apostle and Evangelist - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Note, this Mark was an idolater. Contrast this with the OCA description:

The Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark, also known as John Mark (Acts 12:12), was one of the Seventy Apostles, and was also a nephew of Saint Barnabas (June 11).

Apostle and Evangelist Mark

Of course I suppose you might try to reconcile them and probably won't be convinced of the futility of such an endeavor.

And yes, there is a separate (though v. short) entry for John Mark, under Sept 27.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well this is just an EO monastery, under the jurisdiction of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America, so I'm sure they're completely wrong and know nothing about EO saints, but they list three Marks separately, as is traditional for Eastern Orthodoxy (though not so much among modern EOs):

Mark, Apostle and Evangelist. Apr. 25.

Mark, Apostle, of the 70, also called John. Sept. 27, Jan. 4.

Mark, Apostle, of the 70, Nephew of Saint Barnabas. Oct. 30, Jan. 4.

Saints-Names-M-2

Holy Transfiguration Monastery and HOCNA are not canonical; they are not a part of the canonical Eastern Orthodox Church, which is why I did not include them in my list of canonical parishes. Orthodox laity who go there can be excommunicated, and priests who concelebrate with HOCNA priests can be deposed, because they are schismatics. Also, Elder Panteleimon, the founder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and HOCNA, resigned in disgrace after admitting to sexually assaulting novice monks; ROCOR, the only canonical Orthodox church that ever had a relationship with HOCNA, heard rumors that this was happening in the 1980s but was not in a position to act, other than to sever ties, which they did, leaving HOCNA a non-canonical schismatic church ever since.

There are 14 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches worldwide (15 if you count the OCU, which I don’t), and a few dozen autonomous churches. Look to see if a church is canonical before you quote their material, because many churches claim to be Eastern Orthodox but are either schismatic or heretical.

 

[timtams]

On the contrary, the OCA spends the most money of any North American Orthodox Church on their website and curates the highest quality content for it, as they view it as a primary ministry for evangelism. GoArch also does a very good job. The Romanian, Bulgarian and Georgian Churches in America, not so much.

I edited it as I was able to determine some years ago that the source for the OCA saints' days is the Reference Book for Clergy-Servers [Nastol’naya Kniga Svyaschennosluzhitelya] published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1978 and 1979.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, because my life is supposed to revolve around impressing you. Just a suggestion but you might wish to consider how you come off on here.

Now this is interesting:



Mark the Apostle and Evangelist - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Note, this Mark was an idolater. Contrast this with the OCA description:



Apostle and Evangelist Mark

Of course I suppose you might try to reconcile them and probably won't be convinced of the futility of such an endeavor.

And yes, there is a separate (though v. short) entry for John Mark, under Sept 27.

You suppose wrong. There is a conflict between the two hagiographies over the relationship to St. Barnabas. However, if Mark was a convert from Paganism, that does not matter at all, for so many saints were, like Titus. And if you link me to the John Mark entry, I will consider if it meets the criteria I set out.

 

[The Liturgist]

I edited it as I was able to determine some years ago that the source for the OCA saints' days is the Reference Book for Clergy-Servers [Nastol’naya Kniga Svyaschennosluzhitelya] published by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1978 and 1979.

That makes sense because the OCA historically was one of three Russian Orthodox churches in North America to emerge after the Communist takeover, owing to disagreement over Patriarch Tikhon’s instructions. And the OCA was granted a Tomos of Autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate around 1970. In general I tend to trust recent Russian publications more than recent Greek publications due to severe problems in the Ecumenical Patriarch starting around the time they introduced the disastrous Revised Julian Calendar,

 

[timtams]

But again, the OCA says on its official website that St. Mark the Evangelist and John Mark are the same person.

They also contradict that on their official website and list Mark of Alexandria, John Mark, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas as three separate members of the seventy, with separate feast days. This is found in the Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles, which is about as "official" as you can get:


Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles

 

[timtams]

You suppose wrong. There is a conflict between the two hagiographies over the relationship to St. Barnabas. However, if Mark was a convert from Paganism, that does not matter at all, for so many saints were, like Titus. And if you link me to the John Mark entry, I will consider if it meets the criteria I set out.

Nope, they haven't reproduced it, and the title only says "Mark," so I don't think this meets your criteria (even though every EO calendar refers to Sept 27 as the feast day of John Mark):

Mark, Aristarchos, and Zenon, Apostles of the 70 - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

 

[timtams]

Synaxis of the 70 from the Serbian Orthodox Church.

There are two separate biographies below the list:


II. Saint Mark the Evangelist (April 25)

Mark wrote his Gospel under the direction of Saint Peter and is mentioned by that Apostle in his First General Epistle. Peter writes, The church that is at Babylon saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son. Peter ordained Mark Bishop of Alexandria. The idolaters of that city bound him, dragged him over jagged rocks, and beat him; whereupon, the Lord appeared, summoned him to heavenly glory, and received his spirit.



LXI. Saint Mark, or John (September 27)

Saint Mark, the companion of Barnabas and Saul, appears frequently in the Acts of the Apostles, for example, in this passage: Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark. This Apostle, whose shadow healed the sick, was Bishop of Byblus in Phoenicia.



Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles | Serbian Orthodox Church [Official web site]

 

[Ligurian]

There is a big difference between "wild speculation" and the work of educated commentators.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

What I believe comes from instinct, which usually gets followed by the research to find the proof... because I don't expect people to believe my instincts.

Thank you so much for your research... because this is priceless:

"Mark in Rome in Claudius' reign at the same time as
the John Mark of the book of Acts was in Antioch and Cyprus."

"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."

 

[timtams]

Thank you so much for your research... because this is priceless:

"Mark in Rome in Claudius' reign at the same time as
the John Mark of the book of Acts was in Antioch and Cyprus."

"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."

It can all be found in a book that came out last year:

https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/the-john-also-called-mark-9783161592775?no_cache=1

 

[HatGuy]

Of course. You couldn't expect the apostle to the gentiles to say something else.
In context, Paul's audience:

Acts 28:17 And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men [and] brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him.

Matthew 13:10 And the Disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" 11 He answered and said unto them, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, 'By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.'
13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous have desired to see which ye see, and have not seen; and to hear which ye hear, and have not heard."

The rest of the quote:

Esaias 6:11 And I said, How long, O Lord? And He said, Until cities be deserted by reason of their not being inhabited, and the houses by reason of there being no men, and the land shall be left desolate. 12 And after this God shall remove the men far off, and they that are left upon the land shall be multiplied. 13 And yet there shall be a tenth upon it, and again it shall be for a spoil, as a turpentine tree, and as an acorn when it falls out of its husk.LXX

But still, this does not show that there are two gospels - only that Paul and Peter had different missions / people groups to go to with the same, one gospel.

Reading 1 Peter last night, the similarities between what he writes and what Paul wrote is clear. At no point does Peter speak of a "gospel of the Kingdom" and a gospel to the gentiles in his letter - and he wrote the letter for both audiences. This would have been a perfect time to make the distinction. There is no phrase at all that I could find about a 'gospel of the Kingdom' (not that I have a problem with the phrase, only a problem at making this phrase distinctive or different from the gospel of Jesus born, lived, died, raised, ascended, and the Spirit given).

Rather, Peter speaks about:

1. The resurrection (1:3)
2. Faith (vs 5) - his phrase is 'guarded through faith'
3. Faith again in vs 7
4. Faith again in verse 9, and how salvation comes by faith
5. The sufferings of Christ (vs 11)
6. The Holy Spirit (vs 12)
7. Grace (vs 13)
8. Holiness (vs 15) - now after he has spoken about faith and grace and the Holy Spirit and the sufferings of Christ
9. Once again refers to the crucifixion in vs 19, in light of a discussion on holiness
10. Believers, the resurrection and faith (vs 21)
11. Love (vs 22)
12. The Word, the good news, the gospel (vs 25) - which he is implying he has basically outlined.

With (12) in mind, the gospel Peter has outlined has had to do with salvation by faith, the grace of God given, the crucifixion and the resurrection, and holiness in light of these concepts - and holiness is described as love. This is all in 1 Peter 1 and anyone can go read it and see that I am not picking out verses to suit me.

This is identical to Paul and John. The only difference is John works his logic in a circular way, whereas Paul works his logic in a very linear way.

As with Paul, Peter focuses on the crucifixion and the resurrection primarily in his letter, with references to the 'subsequent glories' and the ascension.

There is honestly nothing different here to Paul.

The focus on love is very Johannine. And Paul focuses a huge deal on love in his writings.

How anyone could read Paul and Peter and also John and think there are two different gospels is beyond understanding.

Who was John called to? What mission did he have? Did he have a different gospel too? Did he have Peter's gospel? Or Paul's gospel? Or his own?

 

[The Liturgist]

Dupe

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I am trying to catch up. As far as I can tell, we recognize three Marks, John Mark, the author of the Gospel and Evangelist to Egypt, Mark of the Seventy who was bishop of Biblos, and another John Mark, was a nephew of Saint Barnabas, and was Bishop of Apollonia.