St. Mark is thought to have based his Gospel on what he learned as the companion of St. Peter. Would it surprise you to know that there is a 1st century source that says exactly this?
It is traditionally held that Mark wrote his gospel based on information he learned from St. Peter, after having been his travelling companion.
Where does this claim come from?
And would it surprise you to know that we have a first century source that claims precisely this?
Here’s the story . . .
What We Know About Mark
We know that Mark was a travelling companion of Peter, because Peter mentions the fact in his First Epistle (1 Peter 5:13).
We also know that Mark was a travelling companion of other apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, which Luke discussed in Acts.
Mark may have even been an eyewitness of part of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It is often thought that he refers to himself, anonymously, in his own gospel, as the man carrying a jug of water on his head or as the man who slips out of his clothes and runs away naked on the night Jesus is arrested.
Also, as Luke mentions in Acts, Mark’s mother was prominent in the early Christian community, which at times met at their house in Jerusalem.
So why would we suppose that Mark got the information from St. Peter in particular?
The Origin of the Claim
The claim is found today in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the so-called “father of Church history.” Specifically, it’s found in his multi-book set Church History (a.k.a. Ecclesiastical History).
Eusebius wrote this work just before the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). He finished it about A.D. 324.
The claim concerning Mark’s Gospel is earlier than that, though, because in the relevant passage of Church History, Eusebius is quoting an earlier writer, named Papias.
Who?
We don’t know as much about Papias as we’d like. He was a second century figure who served as the bishop of Hierapolis. This was a town in modern Turkey that is near Laodicea and–a bit more distantly–Ephesus and the other “seven churches of Asia” mentioned in Revelation.
Papias is known for having conducted a series of interviews with people who knew Jesus and his immediate disciples, thinking he could learn more by doing so than just by reading books alone.
He recorded his thoughts in a multi-volume work called Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord.
This work is now lost, but parts of it survive in quotations in other authors, including Eusebius.
For our purposes, a key point is when he wrote: He is thought to have written the Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord around A.D. 120-130 (or even earlier).
That carries our tradition about Mark’s connection to Peter back to the early second century.
But we can carry it back further than that, because Papias was basing his book on earlier traditions, and in this case he names his source for this tradition.
The Presbyter?
Here is the relevant passage from Eusebius’s Church History. I’ve labelled who is speaking to make the source of particular words more obvious.
[Eusebius:] But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he [that is, Papias] gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
[Papias:] “This also the presbyter said:
[The Presbyter:] ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.'”
So Eusebius is quoting Papias, and Papias is quoting a figure called “the Presbyter.”
Who is that?
Meet the Presbyter
“The Presbyter” is identified by Eusebius in the sentence immediately before the ones we quoted, where Eusebius writes:
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion, who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John, to which we refer those who are fond of learning.
This individual–known as “John the Presbyter” or “John the Elder” (the Greek word presbuteros can be translated both ways)–is identified by Papias as a disciple of Jesus who was apparently distinct from John the Apostle.
A bit earlier, Eusebius quoted another passage from Papias, in which the second century author explained his interview method:
If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice [Church History 3:39:4].
Here Papias identifies John the Presbyter as a disciple of the Lord distinct from the previously-mentioned apostles, including John the Apostle.
Into the First Century
As we noted, Papias is writing c. A.D. 120-130 (or earlier), but he’s quoting the earlier source John the Presbyter.
That pushes the date of the tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel into the first century.
Remember: John the Presbyter is identified by Papias as one of “the disciples of the Lord,” which is why he was interested in interviewing him to find out what he said about Jesus’ teachings.
He and Aristion were, apparently, people who knew Jesus but who didn’t end up being appointed as apostles. They were, however, companions of apostles, just as Mark and Luke were.
And so it’s not surprising that John the Presbyter–a contemporary of St. Mark, one who lived at the same time Mark wrote his gospel–would have information about how Mark’s Gospel came to be.
In any event, we’re dealing with a first century tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel.
Did the gospel writers feel free to make stuff up?
Some people hold the view that the writers of the four gospels felt free to basically make stuff up, to freely shape the narratives they were writing about Jesus’ life by either manufacturing stories about his deeds or making up teachings and putting them on his lips.
The idea is that they used the figure of Jesus as a vehicle for their own ideas, and they made up material to serve the perceived needs of their local Christian communities.
It’s easy to show that by the second century there were a lot of people identifying themselves as Christians who did exactly this. That’s why there were so many Gnostic gospels dating from the second to the fourth century.
But what about the first century, canonical gospels?
Let’s take a look . . .
What We’re Talking About
I should say a word about what I mean and what I don’t mean.
I’m talking about making stuff up out of whole cloth–the kind of things that the authors of the Gnostic gospels did, telling stories and making up sayings that have absolutely no relation to the historical Jesus and what he said and did.
I’m not talking about paraphrasing what Jesus said–using different words to express the same thing. Or simplifying a story by choosing not to record certain details about what happened. Or telling a story from a certain point of view or bringing out an implication, nuance, or meaning that others might not have brought out. Or using a bit of literary artistry or reorganization in how the material is presented.
The gospel authors did all of those things, as is easy to show. John did a bit more of them than the other three.
What I’m talking about is fundamentally different. I’m talking about making stuff up.
While the Gnostics may have been into that kind of thing, there are very good reasons to think that the authors of the canonical gospels weren’t.
It’s the day I get eye surgery on my right eye (the left will be in a month or so), so that I can (hopefully) stop being legally blind.
Recently, when I was in the eye surgeon’s office, having my eyes measured for the surgery, this exchange occurred:
ME: As far as I know, I’m legally blind right now.
TECHNICIAN WHO MEASURED EYES: (Snort!) That’s a safe bet.
Heh. 🙂
Anyway, I wanted to thank everyone for their prayers.
Some people have asked the exact time, and it’s scheduled to start around 3:15 or 3:30 Pacific Time and run about 20-30 minutes.
Some have also asked for my prayers, including one gentleman who is scheduled for cataract surgery the very next day.
I will be praying for everyone who has been kind enough to pray for me and offer up the experience of the surgery and recovery for their intentions. I’ll also be praying for everyone in similar situations, as well as anyone who might want or benefit from prayer.
Many thanks to everyone!
BTW, here’s a picture I took of my work screen today, to illustrate the giant-type, high-contrast mode I’ve had to put the computer in to be able to read. Even with this mode, it still looks blurry to me, but hopefully that will be over very soon.
This looks blurry to me when I'm a foot away from it.
The Immaculate Conception Is About MaryA reader writes:
Can you point me in the direction of why the Immaculate Conception is important in regards to salvation?
A follow up or clarification might be how does Mary’s Immaculate Conception point to Christ’s redeeming act on the cross?
First of all, let’s deal with a common misunderstanding: The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. Instead, it refers to the conception of Mary in such a way that she was preserved free from all stain of original sin.
I gather that the first question may be based on a common Protestant objection to the Immaculate Conception.
This objection is based on the fact that the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church and so is required belief for Catholics. To know that it is infallibly defined, to know that beliefs that are infallibly defined must be accepted, and to deliberately reject such belief would fulfill the conditions for mortal sin.
So what makes the Immaculate Conception so important that our salvation should hinge on it?
At First Glance
The concern expressed in the objection is understandable. At first glance, the Immaculate Conception does not seem like something that our salvation ought to hinge upon.
After all, it’s not a truth directly connected with how to achieve salvation. It’s not like accepting belief in God, repenting of sin, having faith in Christ’s atonement, and being baptized. It’s not one of what theologians would call soteriological beliefs (from “soteriology”–the doctrine of salvation).
Compared to the the Trinity, the central mystery of the Christian faith, the Immaculate Conception is lower down on what the Second Vatican Council referred to as the “hierarchy of truths.”
This is illustrated, among other ways, by the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined until 1854
So what makes it important enough that our salvation should hinge on accepting it?
Another Way of Looking at the Issue
Consider this fact: The Bible discusses angels and the fact that they are rational, non-physical beings created by God.
We are obliged to believe in the existence of angels because the Bible is the inspired, written expression of God’s word, and as such it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author. Consequently, whatever Scripture asserts (in the proper sense) is something asserted by the Holy Spirit.
You might look at the doctrine of angels (angelology) and say, “This isn’t directly related to our salvation. It might be helpful to us in some way to know about the existence of angels, but they are clearly far down the hierarchy of truths.”
In fact, knowing about the existence of angels is not dissimilar to knowing about the existence of aliens. If God has created other rational physical beings in the universe, it might be of some use to know about them, but that knowledge isn’t essential to our salvation.
One might object that angels have, in fact, interacted with our race, which is true, but that doesn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology. (Just as if it turned out that aliens had interacted with our race, that wouldn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology, either.)
The point is this . . .
It’s a Question of What God Reveals
The reason that we are obliged to believe in the existence of angels but not aliens is that God has revealed the existence of the former to us but not the latter.
For us to reject the existence of angels would be to reject the authority of God as our teacher, and to do that knowingly and deliberately would be a mortal sin.
For those who have been exposed to God’s revelation such that they know he has revealed the existence of angels, their salvation does hinge on their believing in angels–not because the doctrine of angels is high up in the hierarchy of truths, and not because it is a truth directly connected with salvation, but because it is a truth God has revealed.
We are obliged to accept whatever God has revealed. We may have questions at times about what the meaning is of something he has revealed, but if we know for a fact that a particular proposition has been declared to us by God, we must accept it in order to be in union with him.
This is what the Church refers to as having divine faith, which includes belief in God and in whatever he reveals–because of the authority of him who reveals it.
There is another mode of faith, though . . .
Catholic Faith
Catholic faith refers to the faith that we are called to exercise when the Church has definitively proposed something. It also ultimately rests on divine faith, because the Church has no teaching authority apart from God.
However, God has given the Church the authority to teach us and even to infallibly proclaim things to us in certain situations. He also has revealed that this is the case, and so divine faith entails Catholic faith.
One of the key functions of the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, is to help us understand what God has revealed, to make sure that we don’t ignore or misinterpret it, and it has done so in a variety of ways down the centuries.
Early in Church history, the truths that are at the top of the hierarchy of truths were infallibly defined–the existence of one and only one God, the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc. And over time, once the most important issues were taken care of, the Church has deemed it appropriate to define truths that are lower in the hierarchy.
The Immaculate Conception
By 1854, the Magisterium determined that the time had come to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so Pope Pius IX defined it in that year.
It had already been divinely revealed and thus called for divine faith, but not that it had been infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it came to call for catholic faith as well.
As such, it is obligatory for us, not because it is a truth at the top of the hierarchy of truths, not because it is directly connected with how to be saved, but because it has been infallibly proposed by the Church using the authority given to her by God. To know all this and to deliberately reject it would thus be to reject the teaching authority of God, and thus commit a mortal sin.
That’s true of anything that must be believed by divine faith or by catholic faith, for both are backed by the authority of God.
God, for reasons known to him, deemed it useful for us to know about the existence of angels, and so he revealed that truth. He also deemed it useful for us to know about the Immaculate Conception of his Son’s mother, and so he revealed that as well.
To promote knowledge and ensure belief in the latter revelation, the Church deemed it useful to exercise the authority God gave it to infallibly define it.
The reason why has to do with the reader’s section question . . .
The Immaculate Conception & the Cross
The Immaculate Conception can be related to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross in various ways. Some of these go beyond Church doctrine and into the realm of theological elaboration. But here are two ways that seem certain. . . .
The Immaculate Conception Prepares for the Cross
First, the Immaculate Conception prepares for the Cross by making Mary a fitting mother for the Son of God, who came to die on the Cross. It isn’t that God had to make Mary immaculate in order to send his Son into the world. He didn’t. God is omnipotent, and his power is not limited. He could send his Son into the world without an immaculate mother if he chose.
But it was fitting that the mother of Christ be a holy woman, and in fact a woman who was a perfect example of holiness. Thus he prepared her for this role from the moment of her conception by giving her a special grace to preserve her from all stain of original sin.
This is why in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which he defined the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX spoke of it being “fitting” that Christ’s mother would be so prepared, not that it would be “necessary” that she be so prepared.
The Immaculate Conception Reflects the Cross
Second, the Immaculate Conception reflects the cross in that it is what Jesus did on the Cross that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it.
This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting in part the Second Vatican Council, explains the Immaculate Conception by saying:
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
But since all redemption comes to mankind through the Cross, it was the Cross itself that made the Immaculate Conception possible.
There is also another way in which the Immaculate Conception reflects the Cross . . .
An Icon of Our Destiny
Although God does not redeem us the same way he redeemed Mary, at the beginning of our lives, he will eventually free us of all stain of original sin as well. We will all one day be “stainless” (immaculate) if we persevere in his grace.
Thus, by redeeming Mary in such a way that she was given this gift while still in this life–and at the very beginning of her life–he made her an icon of what he will one day do for all of us.
Mary thus shows us what we an be–and will become–as a result of Christ’s death on the Cross, if we only persevere in the Christian life. She shows us the fruit of the Cross in one who is a mere human being, like us.
Christ also show us what we will become, for as Scripture says, when he appears again we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.
He, of course, is not just human but also the divine Son of God. Mary, however, is just human, and thus she serves as a direct example of what it is like for a human to be fully conformed to the image of her Son.
All these may offered as reasons why God–and the Church–deemed it important for us to know about the Immaculate Conception.
By the Way . . .
I’m currently preparing a mailing for the Secret Information Club in which I talk about Pope Benedict’s book recommendations for summer reading.
I had to delay the mailing a few days while I’m waiting on eye surgery. (I was able to get the piece composed, but not loaded into the highly graphical interface to send it.)
As a result, there’s still time to sign up!
Would you like a book recommendation from the pope?
Assuming all goes well with the eye surgery (prayers appreciated!), I should be sending out the special mailing with Pope Benedict’s summer reading recommendations later this week.
You’ll also get additional fascinating things. In fact, the very first thing you’ll get when you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the Book of Revelation (I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings). Its fascinating stuff, so be sure not to miss out!
To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:
I’m always delighted when fellow Catholic professionals recognize the effort I’m putting into the Secret Information Club and trying to make it fun and informative for everyone.
Thank you, Deacon Harold!
If you’d like to see what “the Dynamic Deacon” is talking about, be sure to check out www.SecretInfoClub.com or just sign up using this handy signup form:
Most scholars today think that the book of Revelation was written around the year A.D. 95, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian.
Historically, though, many thought it was written earlier than that, and there is a surprisingly strong case that the book was written in the late A.D. 60s or the early part of A.D. 70. Let’s take a quick look at the evidence . . .
“Five Are Fallen”
In Revelation 17, John sees a vision of the Whore of Babylon seated on the beast with seven heads, and he is told:
[9] This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
[10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.
There’s pretty good evidence that the beast represents the Roman empire and that these seven kings represent the line of first century Roman emperors.
Assuming that identification is accurate, that gives us a pretty strong clue about when the book was written. If five of the kings (emperors) are fallen (dead) and one is (living/reigning) then that means Revelation was written during the reign of the sixth emperor. So which would that be?
Here are two possibilities . . .
The Reign of Nero?
The Emperor NeroIf you start the count with Julius Caesar then the sixth emperor would be Nero:
Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Nero certainly fits well with the description of the beast that is given in the book (see the two videos), but there is a possible problem: Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor. He was a dictator (meaning: the Roman Senate voted him the title “dictator”–which was an actual political office back then, before the term came to mean “tyrant”), but he wasn’t voted the title “emperor.”
Still, it’s possible that this might not have made a lot of difference from the perspective of first century Jews and Christians.
Technically, the Roman emperors weren’t kings at all (the Romans were very proud of the fact that they had ended the line of Roman kings and set up a republic), but they functioned as kings, and everybody understood that.
This is why the crowd cried “We have no king but Caesar!” during the trial of Jesus.
So if the count starts with Julius then we have reason to think Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, which was between October 13, A.D. 54 and June 9, A.D. 68.
But there’s another possibility that may be even more likely . . .
The Reign of Galba?
The Emperor GalbaThe first person to be voted the title “emperor” was Augustus, and he could well be regarded as the starting point of the count by people all across the empire, including Jews and Christians. If so, then this is what we would get:
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Galba
I know. You may be saying, “Who?”
Galba isn’t a very famous emperor, and one reason is that he didn’t reign very long. In fact, he reigned only a few months, during a disastrous period known as “the Year of Four Emperors,” in which Rome was torn apart by a series of bloody civil wars in which one emperor toppled another in rapid succession.
But if that’s the case then, since Galba reigned such a short time, we’d actually be able to date the writing of Revelation very precisely.
It would have to be between June 8, A.D. 68 and January 15, A.D. 69. (Galba actually began reigning the day before Nero died, because Nero had been declared an enemy of the state by the Senate and went on the lam before being coerced into committing suicide.)
So it could be that Revelation was written during a very short span in late 68 or (very) early 69.
Is there other evidence that has a bearing on this?
“He must remain only a little while”
The Emperor OthoYou’ll recall that the seventh king was said to remain (reign) only a little while. Does that fit the situation?
Yes. In fact, it fits both of the possibilities we’ve mentioned.
If Nero was reigning then Nero’s successor, Galba, certainly reigned a short time–just barely over 7 months.
If Galba was reigning then, since he was reigning in the Year of Four Emperors, his own successor–Otho–lasted only a short time as well, just 3 months (from January 15 to April 16, A.D. 69).
“Do not measure the court outside the temple”
The Jerusalem Temple, including the broad, outer courtyardBack in Revelation 11, John was told:
[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
[2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.
This passage speaks of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing.
The text speaks of the gentiles (or nations, same word in Greek) trampling the holy city (Jerusalem) and invading the temple courtyard.
They also invaded and destroyed the temple itself, but the text speaks of this as not having happened yet, since John is told to measure the temple, its altar, and those worshipping there. So it was still functioning.
Since the temple was destroyed on August 5, A.D. 70, that also suggests that Revelation was written before this date.
Learning More
I’m currently writing a book–titled Secret History of the Bible–which will go into this kind of information and more, revealing fascinating facts that bear on how, when, and by whom the Bible was written.
That’s not out just yet though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.
