Summary: The ancient claim of Papias and other Christians that Mark’s Gospel is derived from Peter’s teaching delivered to Christians in Rome has been often rejected for years now. But a new, excellent case for the truth of that claim insists that when we read Mark, we are truly in touch with the memories of Jesus’ disciple and eyewitness, Simon Peter.
There arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed. – Acts 15:39-40a (ESV)
Are the Gospels Reliable?
It is only natural to wonder where our four Gospels came from, and how we can know they are faithful reports about Jesus. Lately, the “new atheists” have taken aim at the Gospels, sensationalized by the media, so that their derisive critiques have reached a wide audience. They would have us believe that the Gospels contain almost nothing about Jesus that is true. Further, for years the idea has been circulated by Form Critics that the stories and sayings of Jesus were told, not written, until much later. During that time they were supposedly susceptible to error and invention.
But the Christian faith did not originate in a vacuum. Early Christian leaders had things to tell us about the ministry of Jesus, and about the story of the infant church. These were based on traditions alive in the places where Jesus walked, and where the church began. Is that really all worthless? One of those early believers was Papias. He was a collector of Jesus’ knowledge; we know he wrote a five volume work called: An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. No copies of it have survived, but it is clear that Papias had information to share. Fragments from Papias’ writings have come down to us in quotes.
The ancient tradition from Papias says Mark was Peter’s “interpreter” in Rome. Mark wrote down what he had often heard Peter teach, but not in the right order of events. That was how we got the Gospel of Mark. So which is correct, the Form Critics’ opinion or the early church tradition? Within the Gospel are numerous, surprising signs of Peter’s influence, if you know where to look. We will briefly mention three kinds of these signs.
An Odd Choice of Words…
Already in the 1930’s a New Testament scholar noticed something about the words in Mark’s Gospel. As he told certain stories, Mark used an odd expression. Matthew and Luke used better Greek when they told those same stories. Here is an example: “And they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath he entered the synagogue and was teaching” (1:21). The “they” are the disciples. “He” is Jesus. Why are there twenty-one examples of this in a book only sixteen chapters long?
Have you ever followed a public speaker or lecturer, and heard that person more than once? Almost certainly you began to recognize familiar expressions, because you had already heard them in prior addresses. So it is with speakers and teachers. Why would we expect Peter to be any different? He must have chosen his words for telling of his experiences with Jesus, and used those words again and again. Mark heard them again and again. They are what he wrote.
If you were Mark writing what you had heard Peter say on many occasions, you would recall his typical words: “We came into Capernaum, and on the Sabbath Jesus entered the synagogue…” But if you were Mark, you could not say “we”, because you weren’t there. You would have to change the “we” to “they”. The simplest explanation is: the unusual wording in Mark at many points involving Jesus and the disciples is due to Mark’s need to write as a narrator, not witness. He was modifying only slightly the actual words of Peter himself.
Aramaic Quotations
The Gospel of Mark was written in Greek. Of that there is no doubt on the part of anyone. Greek was the semi-universal language left behind by Alexander the Great as his armies swept across the world.
Why then would we find Jesus saying to a twelve-year-old girl who had just died: “Talitha, cumi” (5:41)? That’s an Aramaic expression, not Greek. It is not the only one. The reader will encounter Boanerges, corban, ephphatha, abba, and more. These words would have been unintelligible to most who heard them in the Roman world. The simplest conclusion is that Mark wrote exactly what Peter had said when he told these stories in Rome, and Peter the eyewitness quoted Jesus. These words are not verisimilitude, meaning that they are like what Jesus said. They are the actual words Jesus said in the actual language he said them in.
That’s a far different conclusion from the form critics’ claim of stories repeated and changed for years before they were written down.
Inclusio
A feature of ancient literature now recognized more than in the past is: inclusio. As the word implies, it involves inclusion. In our time we use footnotes, endnotes, and quotation marks to give credit to our sources. Ancient writers might credit their sources by using their names at the beginning and at the end of the material which came from them. What was included between the two instances of the name was thus understood to be derived from that person—based on that person as a source.
Now, let us consider this in relation to the book of Mark. It is shortly into the Gospel that Jesus calls his first disciples. He has been baptized by John the Baptist, and he has been tempted in the wilderness. As his public work now begins he calls his first disciples. “Passing alongside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea…” (1:16). These two men follow Jesus and become disciples.
At the other end of the Gospel some women on the first day of the week find that Jesus’ tomb is open. These women are named; they are remembered, historical persons. A man in a white robe meets them, telling them Jesus has been raised from the dead, and inviting them to see where his body had been. He goes on to say: “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee…” (16:7).
Why would Peter’s name appear here, rather than simply “But go, tell his disciples”? Peter was still a disciple, even if he had denied Jesus after his arrest. Besides, this white-robed man wants Peter to know Jesus has risen, just as he wants the rest to know. Peter’s name is intentionally written here to stand out, completing the inclusio which tells the audience that what they have heard in the Gospel comes from Simon Peter himself, an apostle and an eyewitness.
Did Peter Write, Too?
Not all New Testament scholars follow the Form Critics, at least not all the way to the conclusions we have seen from them. Some New Testament scholars believe Jesus’ disciples may have taken notes, because they were rabbinical students after all, and Jesus had lots to say. It may be that Peter himself used documents he had written in earlier days, when he traveled the roads of Galilee, Judea, the Decapolis, Tyre, and Sidon as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. Whether that is true or not, a very good case can be made that Mark gave us in writing what Peter gave Roman Christians orally.
Conclusion
Realize that many people have heard from numerous sources that the Gospels aren’t really from eyewitnesses, but persons with agendas writing much later, incorporating false stories to invent their own Jesus . These misled people haven’t heard about Papias and his explanation of how we got our Gospels. They don’t know that Luke was a doctor who carefully collected the Jesus stories and even interviewed people who knew him. They don’t know that John was often present with Jesus, including when he died, and after he rose. They don’t know that Matthew seems to have used Mark and other already-existing Jesus literature to craft a full Gospel as an eyewitness himself.
You can read your Gospel of Mark and hear at places the very words Jesus spoke. Deniers of the credibility of the Gospels are more successful in sowing doubt the less people know. That’s more reason to keep thinking.
TOP PHOTO: The winged lion, symbol of Mark the Evangelist. (Credit: Tim Green aka atoach, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons)
NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing Thinker articles necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that readers can become familiar with the different arguments involved. – Keep Thinking!
