Mark background

Mark

Author: Mark, son of Peter
               Note my view is advocated by only a small minority.  Most scholars say that the author is Mark, known as John Mark, who is mentioned in the Bible (1).
Date: 64 A.D. [Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1993), 132.] or before!

Language: It is uncertain, though many say Greek.

Place: Rome most likely. Eusebius stated, "But Peter made mention of Mark in the first epistle, which he is also said to have composed at the same city of Rome, and that he showed by this fact, by calling the city by an unusual figure of speech, Babylon..." (2).
That "figure of speech" implied a city of decadence.

Purpose: To proclaim the gospel, that people would believe in Jesus and follow Him (Mark 1:1 and Mark 8:35-36).
Mark's actions of likewise making an oral proclamation are noted by Eusebius: "The same Mark, they also say, being the first sent to Egypt, proclaimed the gospel there which he had written and first established churches at the city of Alexandria. So great a multitude of believers, both of men and women, were collected there at the very outset, that in consequence of their extreme philosophical discipline and austerity, Philo considered their pursuits..."(Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 2, Chapter 16).

What kind of book?: Historical biography

Reflection: Numerous scholars in numerous seminaries are advocating that Mark was the first gospel written, and that Matthew copied his writing.  In the history of what other subject are the ancient historians so doubted in reputable universities than ancient Christian writers?
Hunter Irvine
(1)   I once studied this topic, and I even thought that it would make a great thesis at CCU, but then I changed my mind, because the topic is so narrow.  Yet here I enclosed the outline to my thesis that never was, so you can see my evidence.
--------------------------------------
Thesis Outline of Hunter Irvine
Copyright 2008 by Hunter Irvine
Introduction: On January 20, 2006, I was near the completion of a personal study of the book of I Peter. After reading I Peter 5:13, I considered that Peter was referring to his physical son named Mark. I recalled a statement from a book that I treasure, In Search of the Twelve Apostles by Dr. William McBirnie, that there was a statement by an early Christian who said Peter was married. Yet then I recalled reading claims by people who advocated that the author of the book of Mark was John called Mark, the cousin of Barnabas.
That weekend, I went to a Christian bookstore which had numerous commentaries, and I started reading each one regarding this issue. Every single commentary I read stated that the book of Mark was written by John called Mark. However, no commentary author gave a single piece of historical evidence to support his firm statement. Thus began the development of my thesis, and the research I have pursued since has led to my conviction.

Thesis Statement: Historical evidence from within two hundred and fifty years of the physical birth of Jesus supports my conviction that Peter had a physical son named Mark, who is mentioned by Peter at the conclusion of his Epistle, I Peter 5:13, and Peter's son was the author of the biblical book of Mark.

1.) Historical evidence
a.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 6, Chapter 25, Verse 5.
[Eusebius, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 998), 215.]
This is a statement by Origen: "The second is according to Mark, who composed it, as Peter explained it to him, whom he also acknowledges as his son in his general Epistle, saying, "The elect church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark my son."

b.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 5, Chapter 11, Verse 4-5
This is a statement by Clement of Alexandria (not to be mistaken with Clement, the Bishop of Rome): "... another of Palestine, a Hebrew by descent. The last that I met with was the first in excellence. Him I found concealed in Egypt; and, meeting him there, I ceased to extend my search beyond him, as one who had no superior in abilities. These, indeed, preserved the true tradition of the salutary doctrine, which, as given by Peter and James, John and Paul, had descended from father to son. Though there are few like their fathers, they have, by the favor of God, also come down to use to plant that ancient and apostolic seed likewise in our minds."

c.) Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 3, Chapter 30, Verse 1.
This is another statement by Clement of Alexandria: "Peter and Philip, indeed, had children."

2.) No ancient historical statements to the contrary.

a.) Clement, Bishop of Rome, referred to Mark simply as a "companion" of Peter in his discussion of the book of Mark (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 2, Chapter 15, Verse 1). However, he gave no statements that I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.

b.) Papias stated that Mark had neither heard nor followed the Lord, yet that he was the "interpreter" of Peter (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 3, Chapter 39, Verse 15). And he gave no statements I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.

c.) Irenaeus stated that Mark was "the disciple and interpreter of Peter" (Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius: Book 5, Chapter 8, Verse 3), yet he gave no statements I have read regarding the specific identity of Mark.
---------------------------------------------
(2) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998) Book 2, Chapter 15.