The Authorship of the Gospel of Mark

 

In our discussion of the authorship of Mark, we will divide the data into two parts: external evidence and internal evidence.

External Evidence

As was the case with the Gospel of Matthew, our main report concerning the authorship of Mark's gospel comes from Papias of Hierapolis, who says the following (as cited by Eusebius):

"Mark became Peter’s interpreter [ἑρμηνευτής, hermēneutēs] and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them" (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15)

Earlier, Eusebius says (H.E. 3.39.4) that Papias received this information from John the Elder and another elder by the name of Aristion. 

According to Martin Hengel (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, pgs. 65-66), John the Elder did shortly after 100 AD. This would mean that the tradition concerning Mark that was received by Papias dates back to the last decades of the first century. This would shortly after Mark was written, since, as Raymond Brown concludes: “There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70.” (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 164). This increases our confidence in reliability of the testimony of Papias. 

Bearing in mind Eusebius’ chronological sequence throughout his church history, many scholars (example: R.W. Yarborough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26, pgs. 186-90) note the fact that Eusebius places his discussion of Papias prior to his discussion of the persecution under Trajan (ca. 110). 

We should also take into account Papias’ acquaintance with the daughters of the apostle Philip (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Acts 21:8-9). This supports a late first-century to early second-century dating. 

Besides Papias, we also have the testimony of other early Christian writings:

“Mark related, who was called ‘Stumpfinger’ because for the size of the rest of his body he had fingers that were too short. He was the interpreter of Peter. After Peter’s death the same man wrote this gospel in the regions of Italy” (The Anti-Marcionite Prologue [ca. 150-180])

Justin Martyr quotes Mark 3:17 (“the sons of Zebedee, to that of Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’”) and says it is found in the “memoirs of Peter.” (Dial. 106.3)

“But after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter [ἑρμηνευτής, hermēneutēs] of Peter, himself also handed over to us, in writing, the things preached by Peter.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1)

“When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter’s knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.” (H.E. 6.14.6-7)

“That gospel which Mark edited may be affirmed to be of Peter, whose interpreter Mark was” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5)

All of this leads Robert H. Stein and James R. Edwards to conclude the following:

“The evidence of the tradition supporting Markan authorship can be described in general as early, universal, and extensive….Thus the testimony of Papias is early (within thirty years of the writing of the Gospel of Mark) and at most only one generation removed from eyewitness tradition (the apostles—John the Elder and Aristion—Papias) and was probably written down by him in the first decade of the second century….From the above it is evident that the attribution of the authorship of the Second Gospel to John Mark is early and widespread” (Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Mark, pgs. 1-2, 4)

"Although this testimony was penned in the early fourth century, it comes from sources two centuries earlier and represents very reliable tradition. Eusebius derives the above tradition not only from Papias but also from the respected second-century church father Irenaeus. Eusebius includes a lengthy preface to the Papias testimony, noting that although the latter had not heard the apostles directly, he had made careful inquiry into the origins of the Gospel tradition and had received the above information through their immediate successors, a John the Elder and a certain Aristion, who were disciples of the apostle John. This dates the Papias tradition to between 90 and 100. The reliability of the Eusebius quotation is further enhanced by the fact that, in this instance, Eusebius is willing to trust the testimony of a man whom he did not automatically regard as a dependable source." (James Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Gospel According to Mark, pg. 4)

Internal Evidence

In the New Testament, Mark is first mentioned as "John Mark" in Acts 12:12, 25. He is also said to have been the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). 

As for evidence that Mark was in Rome (and thus would have heard Peter), we have the testimony of 1 Peter 5:13, which says "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son." Many interpreters have seen "Babylon" as a reference to the city of Rome. The fact that Peter refers to Mark as "my son" indicates that they had a close relationship, similar to that between Paul and Timothy (1 Tim. 1:2, 18-19; 2 Tim. 2:1). 

Another piece of evidence for Mark as being written with a "Roman" background (and likely a Roman audience) is the presence of various "Latinisms" within his gospel (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pgs. 1043-1044). Here are a few examples:

Mark 4:21 - μόδιος from the Latin modius.

Mark 4:28 - χόρτος from herba (blade of grass)

Mark 6:37 - δηνάριον from the Latin denarius

Mark 7:4 - ξέστης from the Latin sextarius

Mark 15:16 - πραιτώριον from the Latin praetorium. 

"the unusual profusion of Latinisms in Mark favors a setting in Rome." (Robert H. Gundry, Mark, pg. 1044)

The amount of material in Mark about Peter (1:16–18, 29–31, 36; 3:16; 5:37–43; 8:29, 31–33; 9:2–8; 10:28–31; 11:21; 13:3–37; 14:27–31, 32–42, 54, 66–72; 16:7) also supports the traditional view of Mark's Petrine influence.

Some have objected that if Mark were really the "interpreter" of Peter, then we would expect more autobiographical detail on Peter's life and a first-person perspective of Peter to be present in the gospel. Two things may be said in rebuttal to this:

1) Papias says that Mark was Peter's "interpreter" (ἑρμηνευτής), not his secretary or amanuensis. 

2) This objection ignores the fact that as Peter again and again retold the stories of his life in reference to his interaction and time with Jesus, these stories would naturally become more polished and refined over time. 

"If the stories spoken by Peter in the 60s had been reported by him for over thirty years (cf. Luke 1:2; Acts 1:21–22; 2:42; 4:2, 13, 19–20; 5:29–32; 6:4; 8:25; 10:22, 33, 39–43; etc.) and he had repeated them once a month, this would mean that he had repeated the same stories over 360 times by the time Mark heard them in the 60s. If he had repeated them only once every six months, he would have repeated them over sixty times. Surely by then they would have become more “rounded” and stereotyped! In addition, if the author of the Second Gospel is the John Mark of Acts 12:12, he would have heard these traditions thirty years earlier and been involved in passing them on in his own ministry (cf. Acts 12:25–13:13; 15:36–39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13)." (Stein, Mark, pg. 5)