Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2024
- Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? Technically speaking, Mark's Gospel in anonymous, since the titles attached to them did not appear until probably the second century. So, who wrote Mark? What do the data suggest? What are the pro and con arguments? And what do the majority of critical scholars think? Josh Pelletier has done the research and answers these questions.
Josh Pelletier is a former student of Mike's at Houston Baptist University. Mike served as Josh's supervisor for his thesis, which included the matters of when Mark's Gospel was composed, the authorship of Mark, and whether there is a connection between Mark's Gospel and the apostle Peter. These latter topics are covered in Parts 2 and 3 of this 3 Part series.
Mike Licona is associate professor of theology at Houston Baptist University. HBU offers a fully accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HBU campus in Houston. For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z.
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.licona
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus
#gospelofmark
This was very good. I asked this on your last one, but does Josh have a breakdown of the 207 scholars and where they stand on the gospel? It would seem to me you would need to somehow weigh the individual bias's or at least have a category or categories for where they stand theologically.
I don't recall. However, you can reach out to Josh on Facebook and ask him.
Good point that nearly none of the AUTHENTIC biographies of the time included the name of the author within the text. That is HUGE! It almost makes it seem that if the name of the author was in the text that it would be INAUTHENTIC. That would be analogous to finding an artist's signature on a painting from before the Renaissance.
It seems like some of these scholars are ignoring the fact that non-scholarly people don't care as much about exactitude of language. For example my wife talks of going "up" to a town south-east of us or another town west of us. And once there she will talk about home as "up". And other times in the exact same circumstances she will say "down". That doesn't make it valid to say she doesn't know where she is, where she is going or the surrounding regions. She simply doesn't care and if I am stupid enough to try and correct her I'll get a soft glare and a quiet "You know what I mean, so stop being mean".
😂😂😂😂😂
These guys were not writing a thesis or recording a court transcript. Expecting the gospel to be so is being a jocker
Just because other ancient writings are written anonymously, doesn't justify writings that are perported to be scripture, or "the word of god" being written written anonymously and after the fact, being attributed to someone by the name of Mark, to give it credibility among believers.
I'm re-watching this series and absolutely love it even more the second time.
Great topic and well done. Pretty much makes it clear that the "anonymous" claim is truly a non-issue.
Was wondering who has done the most extensive study on the evidence or lack of evidence for a Hebrew Matthew being first and how the would effect a model for the inter-source material being used within the Synoptics?
So... a "critical scholar" is anyone who has a PhD and opined on the matter? As part of their admission policies, don't many Christian colleges that pump out PhD's require applicants to state they agree that the bible is inerrant?
Hi Mike. Why do you specify that these 200 biographies near the time of Jesus did not have the author name in the preface or title? Did they have it somewhere in their text?
Scholars need to ditch the view that Mark was the first gospel. There's a solid tradition from early Christians that Matthew wrote the gospel first. And the traditional ordering of the gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) reflects the view that Matthew wrote the gospel first.
FaithfulMillennial well there is the fact that the main reason we date mark first is because it’s shorter, however Jewish writers would sometimes see a large version of the story and make a much shorter version.
The idea that Matthew wrote first is a rather new tradition in line with 3 wise men, the prostitute Mary Magdalene, etc - inventions that have come to be believed. If we wanted to list things in chronological order we'd start with Paul who preceded the gospels by decades.
@@smb123211 Wait, what? No.
@@namapalsu2364 What do you mean "No"?
@@smb123211 That it's a new tradition.
Church tradition says that Mark wrote his gospel after the death of Peter to honor the memory of his teacher. Peter is believed to have died around 65, during the persecutions that was organized by Nero, which gives us a starting point. And this point is not really far from the estimate that was made by secular science, which estimates the date of the Gospel of Mark between about 60-70 or 65-75. So if the church tradition and secular science are right then the gospel is written after the year 65. And therefore, I do not understand why some modern Christians see this timing as a problem because early Christians say it is just the right date.
Remember, Josh only surveyed 207 English scholars from 1965. He doesn't know all the scholars, or the German, French, Greek, etc statistics. I think it's safe to say that the majority of scholars worldwide has always held the traditional view of John Mark authorship.
This has to be a deeper questioning than Josh got when he defended his Master's. (Do you even defend a Master's?)
Lighting/camera/sound is spot on for you, Mike.
And where can we get a read of Josh's thesis?
I've heard skeptics say that the original text of the gospel according to Mark would have been passed around and copied by various scribes, causing errors. This could be true, but do you think that Mark would have produced more than one original copy and sent them to various churches? I find it hard to believe that Mark, or whoever the original author is, would have written one copy then retired his pen and papyrus. Due to the incredible responsibility the early church would understood the transmission of this account to be, wouldn't Mark have made sure that the copies of the text were accurate and therefore taken it upon himself to reproduce several copies?
@unusual score you spelled literally wrong lol
@unusual score you spelled anonymous wrong too
@unusual score just because you are terrible at writing doesn't mean that Mark was.
@unusual score the people who lived at the time Mark was written trusted it because it was well known who wrote it. Your mistrust of the account would have been silly 2000 years ago.
@unusual score I'm not interested in answering your question. My comment was a question to the person who posted the video.
When mark wrote the gospel he didn't put his name on it because he was writing about Jesus. He was not writing a research paper where you put your name. However, the people he was writing for knew who wrote it.
But who was John Mark? A thorough explanation would have been useful.
Look for John Mark in the Acts of the Apostles, who was Barnabas' cousin and had accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their journeys. His mother was Jewish (and was one of the disciples too) and his father Greek. Check, I hope I'm right.
@@wossislein2427 There is actually no basis for saying his father was Greek. His mother was Jewish and their home in Jerusalem was a basis of the early Church at least in the 40s, when Peter was arrested and then escaped from Jerusalem. Barnabas, a priest who lived in Cyprus, was his cousin. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first travel but Paul rejected him for the second.
According to tradition he then accompanied Barnabas to Cyprus, where Barnabas was martyred.
He served Peter as interpreter and founded the church in Alexandria. He was martyred there in the mid-60s.
It’s sketchy record of oral storytelling from before (e.g., documenting heresay). I accept it was ‘according to mark’ (mark and Peter’s teachings of whom the biographical record is basically the bible). I came here for the supporting view that it’s mark, because mark is the key to the most timely stories for a triumphal, historical jesus.
Anything beyond (these are oral stories ‘according to mark’ or people that derived the stories from mark) is speculation. The church worked on a lot of the documents eventually, so history itself could be better (only partially for this reason). Josephus is pretty reliably as a historical author, but his history was worked on at some point by church brothers, so you are right in saying the authorship of the period is poor. (Side note: my theory is the anachronism in Josephus wrt Jesus was purposely added by brother’s who felt uncomfortable embellishing what was previously the most accurate and full pure history of the period and felt that this was not what they were hired to do and left a breadcrumb to make the change possible to spot).
I accept most of the skeptical points they make about the problems with authorship of the time, but they also need to be apply to mark and i can’t find an eye witness anywhere that doesn’t require a lot of imagination, other than ‘Paul’ who likely believed spirit Jesus was guiding him and his church brothers (but how he appeared to him is fuzzy…through visions, perhaps, as it seems unlikely that he would never mention meeting historical Jesus on the road, which was embellished later and suggests the later gospels were just making it all fit in a coherent narrative that matched current church views).
*applied (some typos…youtube wont let me edit for some reason)
Summation: it’s bad history, but it’s the history we have….
Great. Too much wonderful information
Good work 😁
I guess I'll go with John Mark until I hear something else.
There is a wind of change in Gospel order. Form criticism is being pressed by other areas of study that respect the Jewish roots of the Gospels
Its already near end 2020 and preachers still doubting who wrote the bible? The end is near people, brace yourself.
That's not the point sir. We have more resources now and ways to check the validity of something... There's always someone who will doubt that the earth is not flat.
"The end is near" I wonder where and when I have heard this before?
Way to many I don't knows for my liking. God Bless
Wow. This is awesome.
John Mark is John the apostle. He was John Zebedee the Brother of James. He got his surname in the very chapter that his brother James was killed by King Herod in Acts 12. Up until X 12 John was always associated with James and called John the brother of James. And James was called James the brother of John and most scriptures about them. Not only that James and John was a lot of the time mentioned with Peter. This is why the John Mark who is also Mark is associated with Peter a lot even after the death of his brother James. Barnabas is a surname that was given to Joses, Which is Jesus his half brother. The mother of the Zebedee children James and John, is Salome which is Jesus is half Sister and also sister to Joses. This is why in one of the Scriptures it says that Marcus is Barnabas’s sister’s son. Mark is John Mark, and John Mark is the apostle John. There’s only one John in the list of the apostles. He was always written as John the brother of James up until his brother died in Acts 12. Also a deeper look at scripture will show that Salome which is John Mark’s mother is also called Mary in the book of Acts 12.
So John the apostle wrote the book of Mark. There’s a really awesome study about who wrote the book of John and the conclusion will blow your mind. It was written by Lazarus which was the disciple Jesus loved. If you do a study on the phrase the disciple Jesus loved, or the one that Jesus loved it goes all the way back to Lazarus. This is also why there is no account of the all of the mount of transfiguration And a few other things that we know and other scriptures that John was present for. So if John wrote the book of John then it would include those events, but you don’t find them in the book of John. This is because John wrote Mark and somebody else wrote the book of John. It’s a really awesome study if you get time you should look into Lazarus writing the book of John. This would further confirm that John Mark wrote Mark.
﴿اللَّهُ لا إِلهَ إِلّا هُوَ الحَيُّ القَيّومُ لا تَأخُذُهُ سِنَةٌ وَلا نَومٌ لَهُ ما فِي السَّماواتِ وَما فِي الأَرضِ مَن ذَا الَّذي يَشفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلّا بِإِذنِهِ يَعلَمُ ما بَينَ أَيديهِم وَما خَلفَهُم وَلا يُحيطونَ بِشَيءٍ مِن عِلمِهِ إِلّا بِما شاءَ وَسِعَ كُرسِيُّهُ السَّماواتِ وَالأَرضَ وَلا يَئودُهُ حِفظُهُما وَهُوَ العَلِيُّ العَظيمُ﴾ [البقرة: ٢٥٥]
Allāh - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Self-Sustaining. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursī extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.
- Saheeh International
Matthew 16:21-24 KJV:
"21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
@you what Quran was written 200 years after Mohammad
@you what Jay Smith disproves the 7th century Quran th-cam.com/video/52PEVUpJBtk/w-d-xo.html
Paul meets with Peter, James and John (eye-witness apostles and closest companions and disciples of Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry) in c. 50 AD in Galatians 1-2. They confirm the gospel that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead.
Muslim scholar Yasir Qahdi admits the Quran is not perfectly preserved th-cam.com/video/2V73m8RPIIg/w-d-xo.html
@you what Polycarp (110 AD) and Clement (90 AD) confirmed that Paul was beloved and was equal with Peter in authority within their writings. 2 Peter 3:15-16 shows he was seen as a huge authority figure and a truthful leader in the church.
@@Revolver9 i can prove you through Qu"ran that Jesus was judgement onto Jews and after
God rose him up and send Roman army to punish Jesus denier.(Jews)
what would a criminal forensics analysis of the four gospels conclude? if we include the traditional accounts from the church fathers, it seems that mark is the john mark is the naked man who fled. he would have been an essene, present during the last supper. why? because the last supper happened in the essene district. john mark would have been a natural scribal writer employed by no other than simon peter after the last supper. the circumstantial evidence makes the most sense
Agree except for the Essene things. There's mo basis for that.
@@str.77 the incident of the anointing of jesus in bethany is narrated by mark and john according to different timings; or so it seems. this has caused so much confusion for about 1900 years. is the bible wrong? could the Holy Spirit inspire confusion and error into the inerrant words of the bible? How do reconcile this?
the answer is because of the existence of two calendars followed by the jews and a calendar followed by the essenes. mark narrated the story according to the essene calendar while john narrated the event according to the jewish calendar. the exact same event: the anointing of jesus at bethany. this was not known until the discovery of the essenes with the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1947. and following logically, you can deduce from the evidence that mark was an essene, the john mark who fled naked. and jesus and the last supper occurred in the essene district of jerusalem. check out john bergsma and the dead sea scrolls
@@jperez7893 The Essene calendar is s red herring and doesn't solve the supposed problem. Supposed because dating the annointing here or there is a difference without substance. In chronological matters, I would always prefer John.
How I would accept Christ;
THE BIBLE;
How do I know that the NT is the same as the original?
How do we know that it’s preserved?
Is The message of the bible not changed since Jesus?
How late are the manuscripts?
How well do the manuscripts agree with each other?
How many copies of the manuscripts do we have and when do they start to arose?
How do I know the gospels were not latter developed to make Jesus more than he is?
Did the NT writers change stories?
Are there any changes?
What’s with the less than 1% that are viable? Wouldn’t God preserve this as well. Shouldn’t his revelation be 100% and not 99.5%?
JESUS:
Does Jesus explicitly claim divinity in the 4 gospels accurately or just in John?
Are Jesus prophecies latter added?
Did scribes change and made Jesus God?
Where does Jesus make the claim outside of the gospels that he is God?
How do I know that the claims of Jesus aren’t latter added?
Why does Jesus become a curse to redeem us?
Wasn’t Jesus just for the lost sheep of Israel?
TRINITY:
Where is the trinity explicitly mentioned in the NT and OT?
Is the trinity a later invention?
Does Jesus or any of the disciples mention the concept of trinity?
Did Abraham, Isaac or any of the prophets believe in a trinity?
How do I know trinity is one God and not three gods?
How is it monotheism?
Is it logical?
How do I know that it is not pagan?
Did the early church fathers believe in this idea as co eternal co equal father son Holy Spirit?
When trinitarians pray, who do they talk to; the father, the son, or the Holy Spirit??
DEATH FOR REDEMPTION OF SINS:
How can Jesus death for our sins be salvation because the Romans killed him that’s why we are saved, like if it wasn’t for the Romans of killing him, we wouldn’t be saved?
How come Jesus got punished for our sins, don’t we have to bear our own burdens?
Didn’t Jesus pray to be saved and he was heard for his prayer Hebrews 5:7?
Whoever is hung on a tree is a curse?
Didn’t Jesus forgave people for their sins before he died on the cross?
How do I know that his sacrifice is biblical and just?
Why do some Christians just believe Jesus died for their sins so they can always sin?
RESURRECTION:
Isn’t the resurrection just a fable story?
Why was the last section of Mark (16:9-20) unauthentic regarding the resurrection and then in Matthew, Luke, and John they are all explicit on the resurrection appearances, why in Mark, the earliest gospel account doesn’t have what is in Matthew, Luke and John?
Couldn’t the people just went to the wrong tomb?
What details do we have of the “500 eye witnesses that’s mentioned by Paul? What names, places, locations, time, etc. Do we have of that event?
Didn’t most people believe in the resurrection because it was a popular story circulating not because they actually witnessed it, because that’s why most people converted?
The volume of questions is too high to be handled in a comments section. Some are fair questions though,...especially the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity (Triune God). The moment you get a grasp of the Triune God, even complex as it is, through the help of God ofcourse, you won't be the same ever again.
Regarding the BIBLE, see the playlist "is the new testament reliable" on the channel inspiringphilosophy, and also this very channel
Regarding JESUS and TRINITY, see Sam shamoun's channel,
Regarding DEATH, see the playlist "penal substitutionary atonement" on the channel "Mike winger", and WLC has some new videos. Jesus was cursed for our sake, and he was victorious over it through the resurrection, and his sacrifice is timeless, the sins of those before him were forgiven through the sacrifice, and no, we don't believe it's okay to sin, read Romans
Regarding the RESURRECTION, see the playlist "The Resurrection" on the channel "inspiringphilosophy"
Josh Armia - are you an abdool? These are the sort of questions they ask. If you are not an abdool write that Muhammad if a false prophet
Josh Armia copy paste from an abdul, you can spot them a mile off. Jesus is lord✝️
Kerusso Apologetics if Christianity is the truth why not
The same scholars who insist on keeping the Gospel of Mark anonymous also insist that Matthew and Luke copied Mark! Besides, they also seem to think that Mark is the most reliable record about the historical Jesus. Yet they shy away from granting that anonymous or not, the Gospel of Mark is a trustworthy document.
Scholars - experts with education, experience in research and knowledge of customs, languages and religion - disagree 100% with this view. The biggest reason is that Matthew and Luke copied Mark. More than that, they made numerous "corrections" - titles, names, cities, geography, mixed up prophecies.
"Matthew" contains numerous mistakes - wrong prophecies, invented prophecies, Jesus riding on two animals (misreading prophecies), a genealogy contradicting Chronicles, Slaughter of Innocents, flight to Egypt (contradicting Luke), Matthew as a disciple (contradicting Mark & Luke) If he was inspired something got off track
"What" is contradicted by scholars? And they don't all agree.
What's the problem with Matthew and Luke copying Mark. And Matthew make quite a few corrections thst are indeed just that, especially.g. calling Herod Antipas a tetrarch instead of King.
Most of the "mistakes" you mention are not actually mistakes but just things you - or your preferred authors - reject.
@@str.77 Virtually all non-evangelical scholars reject "John Mark" as author. In the 4th century Eusebius said Papias said (2nd cent) that John said that Mark said he wrote what Peter said. It's anonymous but unlike the disciples he is educated and probably Roman, using Latin words, making geographical and Jewish custom errors.
Matt & Luke copy Mark but are contradictory in other sections. The genealogies (Luke gives Mary's yet says it is Joseph's!) Was Jesus born before 4 BC (Matt- death of Herod) or 6 AD (Luke -census)? Why no mention by Luke of the slaughter? Did baby Jesus go to Egypt (Matt) or Jerusalem & Nazareth (Luke)? Who showed up - maji or shepherds? Was it angels or a star - Inquiring minds wanna know.
@@smb123211 "Virtually all" doesn't concern me.
There's no reason to reject Papias's (early 2nd century) statement.
Which errors are you talking about?
Luke doesn't give Mary's genealogy but Joseph's (you cannot fault him for your misconception). The differences can be reconciled and explained by both authors being only partially informed. Luke doesn't say Jesus was born in 6 AD - he agrees with Matthew that Jesus was born under King Herod. The "census" of course is a notty problem and could be considered a mistake by Luke.
@@str.77 Eusebius kne what Papias said 200 years earlier like the Bible writers knew private conversations and thoughts. LOL I'm always amused that those without scholarly training know (for sure!) things things Bible scholars don't.
Luke & Acts had dating problems because they were written 95-110 AD as shown through their use of Josephus. It's why Acts contradicts the "real" Paul so frequently.
@@smb123211 Eusebius knew what Papias WROTE.
Dating Luke and Acts to 100 AD is nonsense. And no, Luke didn't use Josephus.
I know soooo many jewish dudes named MARK.Oh wait,that's right,I know of NONE.🤔
To much clout one book has
Talk about putting the guy on the spot for his stats! lol
The guy on the right seems completely clueless and largely incomprehensible, saying very little of any substance and just paraphrasing things he doesn’t seem to fully understand, like he’s doing a school report