The Admiral

I have recently, in discussions with fundamentalists, run across the belief that the apostle Mark was a disciple Peter. I am by no means a bible scholar, merely a bible reader, but this position does not seem to be supported by the gospels. Could some bible scholar in the group comment on this? I would appreciate a lead to reading matter on this point.

The Admiral

Vorkosigan

Eusebius quotes the second century Churchmen Papias as saying:

"[John?]the elder also used to say this: Mark had been the interpreter (or translator) for Peter. And he wrote down as much as (Peter) told of the sayings & deeds of Christ --- accurately, but not in order. For he was not a hearer or follower of the Lord but, as I said, of Peter, who adapted his teaching as needed and did not arrange the sayings of the Lord in an orderly manner. And so, Mark made no mistake in writing some things down as he recalled them. For he had a single concern: to omit nothing of what he heard & to introduce no false statement (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.15)."

that is the origin of the Mark -- Peter connection.

Vorkosigan

not a theist

Give them some time. They'll eventually argue that the scantly clad youth at the arrest was Mark. They may even argue that the Last Supper was held in Mark's parents house. I've heard both claims made before.

The Admiral

Well, that is of some help but what I'm getting at is if these credulous folk believe that the gospels were written by the men whose names they bear and that these men were discipels who knew Jesus personally and traveled with him how can they not believe that Mark would have as much to say on his own as Peter?

G B Mayes

The author of Mark is generally considered to be John Mark, the fellow Paul was disappointed in because he left Paul and Barnabas during Pauls' first missionary journey. Paul later reconciled with him. Also, the same John Mark whose mother's house was used for a meeting place in Jerusalem. As previously mentioned much of it seems to be based on Peter's preaching.

-Brent