PDA

View Full Version : I think Mark was Peter's son



Nick
Nov 30th 2013, 03:15 AM
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. (1 Peter 5:13, ESV).

We all know that Peter likely helped Mark write the Gospel and probably his letters later on. This verse is interesting. The translators think Mark was Peter's spiritual son but I think based on the age difference and other factors that Mark was Peter's blood son.

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 05:32 AM
Before we send this one to the grave, any thoughts?

Laish
Dec 1st 2013, 05:53 AM
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. (1 Peter 5:13, ESV).

We all know that Peter likely helped Mark write the Gospel and probably his letters later on. This verse is interesting. The translators think Mark was Peter's spiritual son but I think based on the age difference and other factors that Mark was Peter's blood son.






Ok I will hear you out what are the other factors ?
You mentioned age ok .
Blessings
Your brother in Christ
Bill

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 06:05 AM
Ok I will hear you out what are the other factors ?
You mentioned age ok .
Blessings
Your brother in Christ
Bill

Peter and Mark were inseparable. Mark learned most of what he knew about Christ from Peter. We know Peter was married and if they had children Mark seems like a logical guess. I also think that Mark was one of the reasons that caused strife between Peter and Paul. At first I thought Mark was blood related to Barnabas but the more I think about it, Peter makes more sense. That said I believe Mark was Barnabas's nephew.

stlcardinals5
Dec 1st 2013, 10:15 AM
I had a Catholic priest once tell me that Mark was Andrew's son..and Mark was born from a affair Andrew was having.His source on this was someone within the Vatican who had seen "secret" files.I have no clue where that religion comes up with some of these myths.

I do know one thing(not to steal the thread), Peter is not buried up under the Vatican ,nor started the Church in Rome.Peter is buried right outside of Jerusalem.So once you start something based on myths then there is endless possibility of myths you add to the Christian faith to muddy the water.

jayne
Dec 1st 2013, 12:33 PM
I think it was just a term of endearment.

Paul calls Timothy his son (2 Timothy 2:1) and his congregants, his children. John also called his readers his children.

As for Peter helping Mark write the gospel, couldn't it probably be more like Peter was Mark's source (as in journalists having a source?) Mary was Luke's source, but Luke wrote it by himself.

Redeemed by Grace
Dec 1st 2013, 12:48 PM
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. (1 Peter 5:13, ESV).

We all know that Peter likely helped Mark write the Gospel and probably his letters later on. This verse is interesting. The translators think Mark was Peter's spiritual son but I think based on the age difference and other factors that Mark was Peter's blood son.






Hard for me to confirm, for we know that Peter was married, that Jesus healed his mother-in law, but missing is the mention of Peter's son during these writings. Now age wise, we can deduce that Peter was close to Jesus' age, so would Mark be a youngin during Jesus' ministry? Hard to say, thus can only speculate. Now John Mark was also a companion of Paul and Barnabas [and Col 4:10 says that this Mark is Barnabas' cousin], so would that also be Peter's son or someone different? Looking closer...

And then in Acts 12:12, we read that Peter went to the house of Mary, who is the mother of John, who was also called Mark, so this strongly suggests to me that Mark was not only older, but also not birth related to Peter.

So, my conclusion is that John Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, and whose mother's name is Mary, who was a companion of Barnabas and Paul in Paul's' early ministry, who deserted Paul at Perga and then when Paul was in Rome, they reconciled, probably because of Peter's mentoring of John Mark, thus as Paul calling Timothy his son, so too has Peter mentoring Mark as father to a son.

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 06:24 PM
I think it was just a term of endearment.

Paul calls Timothy his son (2 Timothy 2:1) and his congregants, his children. John also called his readers his children.

As for Peter helping Mark write the gospel, couldn't it probably be more like Peter was Mark's source (as in journalists having a source?) Mary was Luke's source, but Luke wrote it by himself.

And and to that point, do we know Timothy wasn't Paul's son? Paul was clearly in single when he planted churches or penned his epistles but what about his life before when he was a Pharisee?

Nick
Dec 1st 2013, 06:30 PM
Hard for me to confirm, for we know that Peter was married, that Jesus healed his mother-in law, but missing is the mention of Peter's son during these writings. Now age wise, we can deduce that Peter was close to Jesus' age, so would Mark be a youngin during Jesus' ministry? Hard to say, thus can only speculate. Now John Mark was also a companion of Paul and Barnabas [and Col 4:10 says that this Mark is Barnabas' cousin], so would that also be Peter's son or someone different? Looking closer...

And then in Acts 12:12, we read that Peter went to the house of Mary, who is the mother of John, who was also called Mark, so this strongly suggests to me that Mark was not only older, but also not birth related to Peter.

So, my conclusion is that John Mark was a cousin of Barnabas, and whose mother's name is Mary, who was a companion of Barnabas and Paul in Paul's' early ministry, who deserted Paul at Perga and then when Paul was in Rome, they reconciled, probably because of Peter's mentoring of John Mark, thus as Paul calling Timothy his son, so too has Peter mentoring Mark as father to a son.

That was some great exegesis. Nice work. We can now clearly see that Mark was blood related to Barnabas but not Peter. One other tangential point, to my knowledge Peter and Paul never reconciled face to face after the great reprove. Yes, they were both in Rome around the same time but tradition has it that Paul was beheaded before Peter arrived on the scene in Rome.

jayne
Dec 1st 2013, 07:03 PM
And and to that point, do we know Timothy wasn't Paul's son? Paul was clearly in single when he planted churches or penned his epistles but what about his life before when he was a Pharisee?

Well, for one thing, Timothy's biological father wasn't Jewish, he was a Gentile. (Acts 16:1) Timothy was (spiritually) raised by a believing mother and grandmother who were Jewish believers living in Lystra (above Cyprus) - a long way from Jerusalem. Paul met Timothy on one of his missionary journeys to the Gentiles.

I don't just pull this stuff out of my hat, you know. ;) LOL!! ;)

the rookie
Dec 1st 2013, 07:13 PM
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. (1 Peter 5:13, ESV).

We all know that Peter likely helped Mark write the Gospel and probably his letters later on. This verse is interesting. The translators think Mark was Peter's spiritual son but I think based on the age difference and other factors that Mark was Peter's blood son.

Mark was Peter's "son" in the same manner that Timothy and Titus were Paul's sons. It was a term to describe more than affection - close disciples were "spiritual sons". We know who Timothy's mother and grandmother were, and where Paul met the family (on his early journeys into the Galatian regions).

John Mark was born into wealth - most scholars and historians agree that the upper room that Jesus used for the Last Supper belonged to his mother, and Mark was the young man that ran naked from the garden the night of Jesus' arrest.

After being restored later on by Barnabas (after abandoning Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey), the early church fathers wrote that Mark became one of Peter's primary transcribers and traveling companions. The Gospel of Mark could be considered, "the Gospel of Peter" because of Mark's source material - which was primarily derived from his transcripts of his time with Simon Peter.

This quote from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis in the early 2nd Century, describes their ministry together, most likely in Rome:


“And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.”

(from "Fragments of Papias")

I appreciate Edgar Goodspeed’s interpretation of this fragment of information:


“…it seems to bring up the picture of Peter, an old man, visiting Rome in his later years and there preaching in his native Aramaic to the Greek congregation. They must have listened with rapt attention as the old apostle told of his walks and talks with Jesus in Galilee, and of the swift tragedy of betrayal and crucifixion which had followed in Judea. Then suddenly Peter is himself snatched from them and suffers martyrdom.

It was one of the most famous of all martyrdoms; St Peter’s marks the supposed spot on the Vatican Hill, and legends like the stirring “Domine, quo vadis?” have gathered about it. It must have filled the Roman congregation with grief. No more would they hear the old man uttering his inimitable reminiscences of Jesus, for with his death a priceless treasure of such memories perished from the earth.

But not entirely. For as the old man had preached, there had stood beside him, of course, now one, now another of them, who could understand his Aramaic speech and immediately translate it into Greek for his Roman hearers. He had used these memories only to illustrate and strengthen his own preaching, and from hearing some incidents over and over a number of times and putting them into Greek, a capable and alert interpreter would come to have a very definite memory of their wording. Out of such memories, Papias means to say, one of these interpreters named Mark composed his gospel.”

(From Goodspeed's, "An Introduction to the New Testament")

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 05:18 AM
Out of the Gospel books, Mark is definitely the most action packed, which was Peter's style. It's a fast-paced narrative and the shortest. The intro also cites Papias' statements.

Here's part of the intro given in the ESV:

"Widespread evidence from the early church fathers affirms that Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to his attendant and writer, John Mark. Of particular significance in this regard are the brief statements by Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis; c. a.d. 120), preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (260–340). Papias states that he received oral tradition from John the elder and apostle, and he passes on the following regarding Mark: (1) he was the writer for Peter; (2) he wrote down accurately as much as he could remember of Peter’s words, which the latter had adapted to the needs of the moment; (3) he was not an eyewitness of Jesus, nor a disciple (but see note on Mark 14:52); and (4) it was his desire not to omit or misrepresent anything. Papias concluded that the Gospel of Mark gains its apostolic and reliable character from its Petrine origin (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1–2; 3.39.14–16).

Internal evidence also supports the Patristic testimony that Peter stands behind Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s account is especially vivid when recounting incidents involving Peter. It presents the weaknesses of Peter, as well as the disciples as a whole, and omits praiseworthy or noticeable references to Peter reported in Matthew and Luke. It has also been observed that there exists a certain structural proximity between Peter’s Caesarea speech (Acts 10:34–43) and the Gospel of Mark."

Jollyrogers
Dec 2nd 2013, 02:55 PM
That was some great exegesis. Nice work. We can now clearly see that Mark was blood related to Barnabas but not Peter. One other tangential point, to my knowledge Peter and Paul never reconciled face to face after the great reprove. Yes, they were both in Rome around the same time but tradition has it that Paul was beheaded before Peter arrived on the scene in Rome.

What do you make out of these verses from 2 Peter 3


2Pe 3:15 And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction)


Peter in this is giving his acceptance that Paul's teachings/writings are from God. I think they did reconcile as Paul & Mark eventually do. Paul even asks that Mark be sent to him in 2 TIm 4:11

Nick
Dec 2nd 2013, 05:52 PM
What do you make out of these verses from 2 Peter 3


2Pe 3:15 And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation (as our beloved brother Paul also has written to you according to the wisdom given to him
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction)


Peter in this is giving his acceptance that Paul's teachings/writings are from God. I think they did reconcile as Paul & Mark eventually do. Paul even asks that Mark be sent to him in 2 TIm 4:11

I said they didn't reconcile in person. Years later, Peter went around to the churches Paul planted and confirmed his apostleship. I don't believe they ever physically saw each other again after Paul rebuked him.

the rookie
Dec 2nd 2013, 05:57 PM
Out of the Gospel books, Mark is definitely the most action packed, which was Peter's style. It's a fast-paced narrative and the shortest. The intro also cites Papias' statements.

Here's part of the intro given in the ESV:

"Widespread evidence from the early church fathers affirms that Peter passed on reports of the words and deeds of Jesus to his attendant and writer, John Mark. Of particular significance in this regard are the brief statements by Papias (Bishop of Hierapolis; c. a.d. 120), preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea (260–340). Papias states that he received oral tradition from John the elder and apostle, and he passes on the following regarding Mark: (1) he was the writer for Peter; (2) he wrote down accurately as much as he could remember of Peter’s words, which the latter had adapted to the needs of the moment; (3) he was not an eyewitness of Jesus, nor a disciple (but see note on Mark 14:52); and (4) it was his desire not to omit or misrepresent anything. Papias concluded that the Gospel of Mark gains its apostolic and reliable character from its Petrine origin (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1–2; 3.39.14–16).

Internal evidence also supports the Patristic testimony that Peter stands behind Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s account is especially vivid when recounting incidents involving Peter. It presents the weaknesses of Peter, as well as the disciples as a whole, and omits praiseworthy or noticeable references to Peter reported in Matthew and Luke. It has also been observed that there exists a certain structural proximity between Peter’s Caesarea speech (Acts 10:34–43) and the Gospel of Mark."

I love this storyline - it's one of my favorites. A young man from some means get thrust into the missions field with much hardship, forcing him to confront all of his fears. He fails the test. Yet the steadfast love of Barnabas brings him back into the fight and he ends up creating a whole new genre of writing - not historical, fictional, or mythical but evangelistic - historical accounts presented in narrative fashion to preach a message. It had never been done before - it's an amazing story of redemption and the grace of God!

Oregongrown
Dec 2nd 2013, 07:11 PM
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son. (1 Peter 5:13, ESV).

We all know that Peter likely helped Mark write the Gospel and probably his letters later on. This verse is interesting. The translators think Mark was Peter's spiritual son but I think based on the age difference and other factors that Mark was Peter's blood son.






Seems like most of the important geneologies, I'm guessing this might have been important when Jesus was choosing the disciples, are mentioned, like the two brothers, was it John and James? Anyway, I don't think the bible says anywhere that Mark was the son of Peter, so I would go with the spiritual on this one as well. Like Paul calls Timothy his son, I think I remember reading that. Just the way I see it, denise, a sister in Christ

exitludos
Dec 4th 2013, 08:08 PM
Peter and Mark were inseparable. Mark learned most of what he knew about Christ from Peter. We know Peter was married and if they had children Mark seems like a logical guess. I also think that Mark was one of the reasons that caused strife between Peter and Paul. At first I thought Mark was blood related to Barnabas but the more I think about it, Peter makes more sense. That said I believe Mark was Barnabas's nephew.
Several of these statements are completely unsubstantiated from a biblical perspective.

Where are we given the impression that Peter and Mark were 'inseparable'? Where are we told that Peter taught Mark 'most of what he knew'? Where are we told how old Mark is in relation to Peter? Where does it says Barnabas and Peter are relatives?

How do we even know the John Mark from Acts and Paul's epistles, is the same person as Mark from 1 Peter 5.13? It's entirely possible they were completely different people with the same Greek name. Acts 15 is the first time Saul is identified by his Greek name, Paul, but this just happens to come right after he speaks to another man named Paul.

The two points of Peter mentioning Mark once, and the Gospel of Mark maybe being written by Mark at the behest of Peter, are not enough evidence for any of the claims being made. (Actually, the idea that Barnabas was Mark's uncle is contrary to Colossians 4.10, where Paul says Mark and Barnabas are cousins, ανεψιος.)

This is not to say Mark could not have been Peter's biological son, but the claim rests on very flimsy assumptions, which in turn rest on very vague evidence. And as pointed out, there are several points of evidence from Luke-Acts that work against the idea.

Most significant is Acts 12.12, which would have said Peter went to 'his house' where 'his wife Mary' lived with 'his son John, whose other name was Mark'. Instead, the narration shows a lack of any family relation between Peter and that house, Mary, and John Mark.