THE GOSPEL OF MARK IS PETER'S TESTIMONY: 6 Early Church Fathers Confirm

Here are six early church fathers who provide reliable, authoritative and independent confirmation that Mark's Gospel is based on the testimony of the apostle Peter. 

These testimonies are all written within 40 to 130 years of the earliest possible date for the death of Mark. 

Dates for the publication of the Gospel of Mark itself range from c.40 to 70 AD. So these testimonies for the origin of Mark's Gospel are all given within a range of 40 to 160 years of its publication. That is extraordinarily early unanimous independent testimony for its origin. I am unaware of any other ancient document that has this kind of testimony to its provenance.

Papias, quoting the apostle John, of whom he was a disciple (writing c.110 AD):

"And the Elder [the apostle John] used to say this: 'Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teaching as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently, Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he had heard, or to make any false statements in them.' Such, then, is the account given by Papias with respect to Mark" (from Papias' 5-volume work The Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord as recorded in Eusebius' Church History 3.39)

*for more on Papias, see my blog article: The Importance of Papias, The Disciple of the Apostle John

Justin Martyr (writing c.132-165 AD):

“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him [Peter] that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. . ." (Dialogue with Trypho 106, emphasis mine). Compare this with Mark 3:16-17: "These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”),...." This is found only in the Gospel of Mark and not in the other three New Testament Gospels or any of the gnostic or apocryphal writings (including the Gospel of Peter that some have carelessly attributed as the source of Justin's statement).

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John (writing c.180 AD):

"....Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1)

Clement of Alexandria, who assumed leadership of the catechetical school founded by Mark at Alexandria (Clement assumed leadership of this "seminary" and wrote c.180-200 AD):

"But so great a light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter’s listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations they begged Mark (whose Gospel is extant), since he was Peter’s follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the Scripture called “The Gospel According to Mark.” And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches. Clement (of Alexandria) quotes the story in the sixth book of Hypotyposes, and the bishop of Hierapolis, named Papias, corroborates him" (as quoted in Eusebius' Church History 2.15; also see 6.25 and 24:.1: written c.324 AD).

Tertullian (writing c. 207 AD):

"....I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew — while that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was."(Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 5).

Origen, one of the greatest intellects of the early church (writing between 215 and 250 AD):

"The second [Gospel] is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, 'The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.'" [1 Peter 5:13] (as Eusebius notes was recorded in Origen's "first book on Matthew's Gospel, Eusebius' Church History 6.25.3-5: written c.324 AD)

CONCLUSION:

From this we can conclude that the Gospel of Mark is based faithfully and accurately on the eyewitness testimony of the Apostle Peter as written down by his beloved assistant Mark (1 Peter 5:13: "my son Mark"). And note that the Apostle John is emphatic that Mark "made it his one concern not to omit anything which he had heard, or to make any false statements in them." 

Flemish School (c. 1600), Christ Calling Saint Peter (public domain via Wikimedia Commons)

ARE THE GOSPELS FACT OR FICTION?: A conversation with three experts

The YouTube video that preserves this live stream event is found here.

............

Don't miss this! I am super excited about this opportunity--as I've been asked to host this interview!

Here's your chance to hear evidence for the Gospels that you likely never heard before....as three experts offer new and creative insights into the Gospels from philosophy, literature, ancient history, and comparative religions.

COULD THE APOSTLES HAVE WRITTEN THE NEW TESTAMENT IF THEY WERE UNEDUCATED?

"When they [members of the Sanhedrin] saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus." (NIV)

~~*~~

The claim is sometimes made that the apostles could not have written the New Testament because Acts 4:13 says that "they were unschooled, ordinary men."

Is that so?

No. And here is why:

First, the relevant passage at Acts 4:13 only refers to Peter and John at a point soon after the resurrection (33AD). It tells us nothing of the education of the other apostles. For example, Matthew was a tax collector and probably had training similar to an amanuensis (that is, a secretary). Nor does it tell us of any education the apostles received in the intervening decades between the resurrection and the writing of the New Testament. 

Second, it does not make any difference if they used an amanuensis (secretary). It was very common in the ancient world for someone to dictate to an amanuensis/secretary whatever they wanted to be written down in a letter, etc. The amanuensis would take notes and then write it all down for them. 

• This was the case with all of Paul's letters (though he was very highly educated). He only wrote the closing greeting (2 Thessalonians 3:17)  
• And in the case of Peter, Mark was the writer of his Gospel account and he almost certainly used an amanuensis for at least one of his letters. 
• In the case of John, he also almost certainly used an amanuensis for his Gospel (which I strongly believe was John's disciple Papias). 

Finally, this comment by members of the Sanhedrin recorded in Acts 4:13 probably has nothing to do with whether they could read or write, but rather with whether they had received training under one of their approved Rabbis or something beyond the ancient world's equivalent of grade school. "Higher education" in the ancient world was focused on rhetoric. And probably they were amazed that in spite of the fact that they had none of the rhetorical skill that came with that kind of higher education, they were still able to speak very effectively.

On the other hand.....

Pointing to their lack of training in rhetoric only brings up a more serious problem for the skeptic, as pointed out by the quote below....and also in the book Too Good To Be False by Tom Gilson.