5 ms·
Matthew was one of the disciples, as well.
by 5555624 2y ago
Matthew was one of the disciples, as well.
- bluGill 2y agoMark is thought to be Peter's son, and the gospel does read like Father telling his son the stories. (We know Peter had a son Mark, I don't know how sure we are that this is the same Mark though) Luke was not a disciple, but the rest of his works read like a scholar doing careful interviews of eye witnesses to find the truth.
- sramsay 2y agoI'm pretty well read in this area, and I have never come across the theory that the Gospel of Mark was written by Peter's son (or even that Peter had a son, never mind his name). Where are you getting all of this? Most of the associations between Mark and Peter come from Papias (whom we possess only in fragments). He makes no suggestion of a filial relationship between the author of the second gospel and Peter.
- bluGill 2y agoI Peter 5:13 identifies Mark as his son. It might just be a metaphor, but the text is clear enough that you should be aware of it.
- sramsay 2y agoI'm aware of the verse. I'm not aware of any scholar taking that meaning literally and concluding that 1 Peter (the author of which is unknown) is referring to Peter's biological son and further concluding that this son is the author of the Gospel of Mark (the author of which is also unknown). I guess at this point, I'm legitimately asking who holds this view such that one can say "It is thought that . . ."
- bluGill 2y agoWell it was in the introduction of first bible I was given years ago - but that was 40 years ago and I can't find it anymore to give you more details. I've heard others say it - they might be a group repeating each other, but still that is two different groups.
- DANmode 2y agoWhat is the generally accepted meaning?
- chx 2y agoIt could be affection and spiritual relationship. Or it could be a biological son but this Mark is not John Mark who is likely to be the evangelist. https://overviewbible.com/john-mark/ https://overviewbible.com/john-mark/
- chx 2y agoPlease check https://overviewbible.com/john-mark/ https://overviewbible.com/john-mark/ even if he had a son called Mark that was not John Mark who is likely the evangelist. It's possible "son" here is meant spiritually.
- MisterBastahrd 2y agoNone of the names associated with the gospels had anything to do with the writing of said gospels. All of them were composed after the deaths of these people.
- hyfbjtdeh 2y agoWe know this. Because someone said it. And someone else wrote it down.
- tasty_freeze 2y agoThere are writings from early Christianity which reference the Gospels. Bart Ehrman has said it isn't until circa AD 170 where the the gospels have an author's name attached to them.
- zifpanachr23 2y agoRight, but due to pretty obvious references earlier than then we can assume they were written earlier. We don't really have great information on authorship or the exact forms the texts took...but it's largely agreed upon that there were books about Jesus floating around (we don't necessarily know the content) well before AD 170 (throw in some wiggle room years past Jesus death for stuff to settle down and spread, and subtract some years for the spread from the earliest references, and you wind up within the range most scholars would date the authorship). That may have been what you were trying to say and I just misunderstood. I think I may have just misunderstood what you meant by the 170 AD date.
- tasty_freeze 2y agoFor sure, they were written earlier. The point is two of the purported authors claim to be of the 12 disciples; the other two were scribes to two apostles. There is no evidence that this is true. It seems weird that the authorship was not reported for 140 years and then suddenly the authors were rediscovered. Why does it matter? It is the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay. Either type of testimony could be true or false, but generally speaking we put more weight on eyewitness testimony and far less on hearsay.