6 Reasons Why Peter Is the Source of Mark’s Gospel
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ย. 2024
- #christianity #apologetics #bible
Many of the early church fathers say that Mark’s Gospel is based on Peter’s preaching. If that’s the case, it’s understandable why an apostle like Matthew or someone like Luke would use Mark as a source. You can’t get much closer to the life of Jesus than through the eyes of Peter.
We’ve looked at what the early church fathers had to say about Mark in a previous video. However, skeptics like Bart Ehrman say that this whole idea that Mark based his Gospel on Peter’s preaching stems from Papias, and Papias doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
OK, so now what?
While I think that argument works, what if I said there was a way to bypass this objection? Are there any internal clues in Mark’s Gospel that point to Peter being the source?
In this video, I look into 6 clues that show that Mark was influenced by Peter.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
/ isjesusalive
Sources and quick resources: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Richard Bauckham amzn.to/2KpS6Bc
An Introduction to the New Testament, Carson and Moo, amzn.to/3nYpRr1,
bible.org/seri...
coldcasechrist...
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommon...
I can just see Matthew, about to compile his gospel, sitting down with a copy of Mark rolling his eyes everytime Mark covered for Peter.
"Don't throw us all under the bus, only Peter said/did that! Come on man!"
Peter was the only one to get out of the boat. Peter had guts.
Our guts arnt enough to save us but Im still impressed by Peter to😂
Mark tells us that someone cut off the ear of one of the priests' slaves when they came to arrest Jesus. John tells us it was Peter. My guess is John was writing after Peter died and felt no need to conceal his identity anymore.
John's Gospel is constantly dissing on Peter all the time. Like when John was racing Peter to the empty tomb 😂
Can I just say I love how detailed this research is. It’s direct, and the format you use is perfect for teaching. Keep it up, and God bless you
One interesting thing to note is that Mark also omits certain details about Peter. Matthew 16 tells of Peter’s confession, Christ’s very favorable words to him, and Christ’s rebuke of him. Luke records Peter’s confession only. Mark records Peter’s confession, omits the speech about “on this rock,” but still records the rebuke from Christ.
While Mark may have omitted certain details in order to not disrespect his mentor, he keeps certain embarrassing details in. I like to think that this speaks to Peter’s humility, since he still told the embarrassing moments for Mark to record.
This is excellent, thank you. I've only recently subscribed to your channel and I'm looking forward to going through your other videos. Keep up the great work brother
Thanks. If it's good, it's grace! I appreciate the sub.
@@TestifyApologetics Hello, I have just finished to watch your "6 Reasons Why Peter Is the Source of Mark’s Gospel", it would be nice if you explain in a video someday from whom you think Luke got the correct view when he departs from Mark. Saint Paul wasn't an eye witness, Luke probably met Peter & James, but in the video "6 Reasons..." he is bypassing/rectifying with authority the gospel of Mark when Peter is omited. I was always curious about the other probable sources that Luke mentionned to Théophile.
@@lereseauamitie6349 Luke was a companion of Paul, and they were both in contact with at least some of the disciples
Your content is great. I'm gonna figure out how to translate the subtitles to Portuguese (yep, I'm from Brazil) so that I can share your videos here.
Go for it
Hey awesome video! Will you make a video that proves the early datings of the Gospels?
Yes, that is something I'm planning on doing at some point for sure.
If you want my thoughts on the dating of the gospels a little early here is a post I've written on it.
isjesusalive.com/13-good-historical-reasons-for-the-early-dating-of-the-gospels/
@Testify, Thanks very much!
The internal data is interesting and should be taken seriously on its own. But when you add the external data to it, then the probability of Peter having nothing to do with Mark becomes very small indeed.
Pretty sound argument. Interesting stuff. I wish I knew some of this before reading the Gospels, and others, because sometimes I think I had a hard time understanding some passages, due to not knowing about the author or the point of view in which some of it was written.
Though, maybe it is better to read them first without any preformed notions, since a lot of people seem to often argue about it. Then maybe reread it after hearing the arguments about it's narration.. Idk.
Great insight bro. Shame it hasn’t had more views.
8.9K views not good enough?
Great material brother. Just discovered your channel.
I am loving your channel, I still have some questions. How do we not know it was the other way around? Mark choosing to delete those shameful details about peter instead of Mark adding them? The testimony of the Early church was that Matthew was first in the language of the Hebrews.
I'm definitely not opposed to Mathean priority and that is possible. I'll ponder this.
@@TestifyApologetics Hi I’m new to your channel and so far I’m loving your content. Just subscribed too. Speaking of Matthean Priority, there’s a TH-camr called Hold To The Rod who makes a strong case for Matthean Priority. He has a playlist a videos on the subject.
th-cam.com/play/PLGACqQS4ut5i8CVQcNzf4pBIA8hC-AIpN.html
Hold To The Rod also has a playlist where he makes a case deconstructing Markan Priority.
th-cam.com/play/PLGACqQS4ut5hTSML4DYKIl8jeZZOErI9X.html
They’re worth the watch.
Imagine saying that a guy that lived in the time of the apostles didn’t know what he was talking when you were born 2000 years after him and can only really make very educated speculations.
Great video! What programme do you use to make this videos?
It is called VideoScribe and it is relatively cheap and easy to use.
Mark 1:8
I baptize you with [e] water, but he will baptize you with [f] the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 11: 16
Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
Mark 1:8 is directly quoting what John the Baptist was saying
You can see this in Mark 1:6-7: And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Mrk 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
@shadowdrakon9913 luke and matthew said with HS and fire but petwr in acts quotes only HS. So Mark relied on Peter.
@@gamerjj777 He. Is. Quoting. John. How is that not clear? Did he mention John just for funsies? Just cuz he liked to say his name?
@@shadowdrakon9913 👍
Great video but I don't understand why Peter would avoid the part in John where Jesus says take care of my lamb to Peter directly multiple times after his resurrection
Hey Testify love your stuff! But I’m confused when you’re talking about Mark shedding a better light on Peter than the other gospels, you said that Mark explains certain events as the disciples asking but the other gospels say that it was Peter who asked. Which is it? Is that a inconsistency because one claims it was Peter but the others say it was the disciples as in plural? Im just a little confused
3:30 in matthew and Luke
Matthew 17:4 Then answered Peter, and said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if you will, let us make here three tabernacles; one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear you him.
Matthew 17:6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
Matthew 17:7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
Luke 9:33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
Luke 9:34 While he thus spoke, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.
After hearing this Islamic people crying in corner 🤣🤣🤣
I always heard that many agree that Mark was the oldest of the 4 Gospels. But yesterday in a stream I watched, I think I heard someone briefly state that early church fathers claimed that Matthew's was first.
I need to go back and relisten to make sure that I heard right. I'd like to look into that further, if some early church fathers did make that claim.
Matthean priority could be correct and was held by the fathers. My mind is open to being changed in this regard. That would change some of what I've said in the video to be honest. This is interesting and fun stuff to study!
@@TestifyApologetics Well, you're way more knowledgeable than I am at this stuff. I can't say that I lean either way, since I'm ignorant about the topic. And I agree, it is fun and interesting to study. Lol
I've read some books on the Synoptic Problem (the Synoptics are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the Synoptic Problem is scholars trying to figure out whether Mark wrote first and was used by the others, or if it was written last and used the others), and I'm convinced Mark was written last. Given that there is evidence from the Church Fathers that (1) Matthew was first and (2) the gospels with the geneologies were written first (these are Matthew and Luke), that makes sense.
The Church Fathers are not infallible; sometimes they're wrong and contradict each other, but they had access to sources we now don't.
My favorite book on this is The Progressive Publication of Matthew, which gives a theory that, basically, Matthew was the scribe of the Apostles (which would make sense, as he would have to be literate to be a tax collector), and that many short 1 page stories about Jesus circulated in the early years, that Matthew published many of these, and that eventually he put together a whole gospel. Luke put together his gospel with research he did while in the area, which included collecting earlier versions of these stories rather than the published version from Matthew. Then Mark sat down with both of these scrolls and his memories of Peter's preaching and composed his using these sources.
@@ancalagonyt This is what I generally subscribe to. Mark is considered the least skilled writer, so it would make sense for him to use other sources to help him write about Peter's testimonies. It would make sense that a translated copy of Matthew's writings would be a good basis for how Mark frames Peter's testimonies.
The one thing I will disagree though is that it's likely Luke was last. Luke plainly admits that he used other sources to compile his Gospel. It's definitely not out of the room of possibility that he was aware of Mark's writings as well.
5:52 Oops! "...there's plenty of evidence in the text itself that shows that Peter is the main source of Matthew's account."
I think you meant Mark's account.
1 Year anniversary! It is 1/19/2022
A cool day!
3:00 is in Matthew to
Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you, That this night, before the cock crow, you shall deny me thrice.
Matthew 26:35 Peter said to him, Though I should die with you, yet will I not deny you. Likewise also said all the disciples.
Yeah, but in Mark it includes Peter's feeling.
Like on the video it's shown.
'But he said emphatically'
That's the argument of pov
God bless you ~
So many good points made in such a brief time. But does the video maker insist on Markan priority>
No, I don't insist on it. I'm open to Matthean priority but am just not quite convinced yet.
why am i crying at this
Great video!!
If true, it's then very interesting that Mark says nothing of the Virgin Birth.
Perhaps that myth arose after Peter? Why else would he leave it out?
Peter is not a witness to the events surrounding Jesus' birth, so Mark, writing for Peter, is not expected to know or write about that.
@@russellchido But Mark is the earliest Gospel.
If Peter and Mark didn't know, how would the later Gospels know about it?
@@haze1123 by consulting relevant witnesses: for example, Mary, or Elisabeth, or Zacharias. A whole library could be written about Jesus, so all the gospels must be narrowed down. Mark, being shorter, indeed could more easily be published sooner; whereas Luke, going into more detail, can take longer in the traveling around and gathering of witness.
The gospels were written by oral tradition. They we to relay messages to the population. There was at least 40 years between the death of Jesus and the 1st gospel.
That's a popular theory, that they were written after 70 AD, but there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. Luke ends Acts in about 62 AD with no mention of Paul's death, it's likely Paul was still alive. Luke wrote his gospel before Acts, so that puts Luke in the early 60s at the latest.
Then there are the church fathers who record that Matthew was written in Hebrew first and then translated to Greek, then Mark and Luke. Testify has a series of videos about the early authorship of the gospels if you want to view them. You can also read what the AnteNicene Fathers have to say.
All the Early Evidence from All Around the Roman Empire: Matthew. Mark, Luke, and John are the Gospel Authors
Skeptics: We don't know who wrote the Gospels
Also Skeptics: We're just looking for evidence, you Christians believe everything on blind faith
What is this video? Matthew is the one who mentions Peter getting out of the boat while Mark is the one who omits him from his account of this story altogether. In fact, Matthew was an eyewitness to Jesus' miracle here while Mark was not. I think you have the two very confused.
Yeah, I think the suggestion at 4:05 is that Mark considers the incident shameful to Peter and omits it, while Matthew does mention it.
(That said of course, we have no guaranteed reason why any particular event was included or excluded, just that we can see a pattern. But maybe you're right that Matthew reported Peter getting out of the boat, and Mark never heard about this or omitted it for other reasons.)
Peter falls in the water, so either Mark chose to leave that part out of the story or maybe Peter did. Matthew doesn't care about protecting Peter from embarrassment, so tells the whole story.
And written in Rome
If you can answer these questions you can be in the right science. Who wrote Marc. Where did wrote it. And when? You are speaking to invente fiction
Perhaps you can explain to us why churches that still had eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ accepted the Gospels as accurate biographies of Jesus Christ, crucifixion and resurrection included.
The gospel of Mark was it written by Mark, therefore claiming Mark as Peter’s scribe is fiction. Where in the “gospel of Mark” does it say Mark is Peter’s scribe.
Early church tradition says that Mark based his gospel on Peter's preaching. Wasn't that in the video?
@@TestifyApologetics 🤔 thanks for answering. so it’s assumed by tradition and not scripture? I’ll listen to the video again 😊
@@chosenskeptic5319 Ver early tradition, yes.
@@TestifyApologetics I did not know that. Thank you for your honesty 👍
Special pleading 🥺, nothing but an assumption
No, that's abiogenesis.