<

Is Mark an Eyewitness Account?

How do we know that Mark wrote the gospel of Mark? How do we know that Mark recorded the observations of an eyewitness?

The short answer is because Papias (< 70 – c. 155) said so. Papias was a bishop and an avid documenter of oral history from the early church. His book Interpretations was written after 120 CE.

Jesus died in 30, Mark was written in 70, and Papias documents Mark as the author in 120 (dates are estimates). That’s at least 50 years bridged only by “because Papias said so.”

But how do we know what Papias said? We don’t have the original of Papias, nor do we have a copy. Instead, we have Church History by Eusebius, which quotes Papias and was written in 320.

And how do we know what Eusebius said? The oldest copies of his book are from the tenth century, though there is a Syriac translation from 462.

Count the successive people in the claim “Mark wrote Mark, which documents an eyewitness account”: (1) Peter was an eyewitness and (2) Mark was his journalist, and (3) someone told this to (4) Papias, who wrote his book, which was preserved by (5) copyist(s), and (6) Eusebius transcribed parts of that, and (7) more copyist(s) translated Eusebius to give us our oldest manuscript copy. And the oldest piece of evidence that we can put our hands on was written four centuries after Mark was written.

That’s an exceedingly tenuous chain.

The sequence of people could have been longer still. Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis, in western Asia Minor. Mark might have been written in Syria, and no one knows how long the chain of hearsay was from that author to Papias. No one knows how many copyists separated Papias from Eusebius or Eusebius from our oldest copies.

It gets worse. Eusebius didn’t think much of Papias as a historian and said that he “seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books” (Church History, book III, chapter 39, paragraph 13). Evaluate Papias for yourself: he said that Judas lived on after a failed attempt at hanging and had a head swollen so large that he couldn’t pass down a street wide enough for a hay wagon. Who knows if this version of the demise of Judas is more reliable than that in Matthew, but it’s special pleading to dismiss Papias when he’s embarrassing but hold on to his explanation of gospel authorship.

Even Eusebius’s Church History is considered unreliable.

The story is similar for the claimed authorship of Matthew. A twist to this story is that Papias said that Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic), which makes no sense since Matthew used Mark, Q, and the Septuagint Bible, all Greek sources.1

What about the other gospels? That evidence comes from other documents with simpler pedigree but later dates.

  • Irenaeus documented the traditional gospel authorship in his Against Heresies (c. 180). Our oldest copy is a Latin translation from the tenth century.
  • Tertullian also lists the four traditional authors in his Against Marcion (c. 208), but he doesn’t think much of Luke: “[Heretic] Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.” Our oldest copy of this book is from the eleventh century.
  • The oldest manuscript labeled “gospel according to Luke” dates from c. 200.
  • The Muratorian fragment, a Latin manuscript from the seventh century, may be a translation of a Greek original from the late second century (or maybe from the fourth). It lists many books of the New Testament, including the gospels of Luke and John.

We grope for evidence to back up the claim that the gospels document eyewitness accounts. Perhaps only faith will get you there.

1Randel Helms, Who Wrote the Gospels? (Millennium Press, 1997), 41.

If we submit everything to reason,
our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element.
If we offend the principles of reason,
our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.
— Blaise Pascal

Photo credit: Wikimedia

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Orbital Teapot

    I don’t really care whether Mark was Peter’s secretary or whether the other Gospel writers knew Jesus or his apostles… It’s not clear to me that the Gospels are even MEANT to be read as historical reports. They may be theology treatises written in a narrative form. Somewhat the way Aesop’s tales are not zoology, but morals.

    I don’t claim Jesus never existed though. No serious scholar thinks that.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Apologists go on and on about getting the genre right. I wish they were a little more amenable to your proposal that they’ve miscategorized the gospels into the Biography (or History) section.

      It’s not that scholars claim Jesus never existed; it’s that they don’t find the arguments that he did satisfactory. And yes, serious scholars accept the Jesus Myth theory. Robert Price and Richard Carrier, for example.

  • Orbital Teapot

    Hi Bob,

    I’m no specialist of the Bible so I cannot prove that the Gospels are symbolic rather than “biographies”. But that’s what I was taught.

    Sure, a very few scholars claim that Jesus never existed. But then, a few biologists deny evolution. Does it mean something? In neither case do they express the consensus. Your dear consensus.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Yes, that Jesus existed is the consensus of historians, so that’s what I accept. But that seems to be to be a much less ironclad consensus than that for evolution, for example.

      Creationism is implausible and radically different from evolution, but that the gospel story sprung from a tradition in which an actual dude named Jesus didn’t exist is a small tweak from the hypothesis that it sprung from one in which he did exist.

  • Pingback: The Evolving Jesus Story | Cross Examined

  • Pingback: Dr Johnson: Extraordinary Claims and Extraordinary Evidence

  • Pingback: Probability Proves Bible Prophecy (or Not)

  • Arkenaten

    I once proposed over a dinner discussion that if the Synoptic gospels were treated as homework or exam papers handed in by pupils, each would be disqualified for cheating/cribbing based on the amount of verbatim material in each.
    Encyclopaedia Britannica states that the oldest extant copies of Mark’s gospel do not even feature the Resurrection.
    Makes you wonder, does it not?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      The history behind this stuff is fascinating.

      People argue that these are eyewitness accounts but that they had to copy from someone else?

      The oldest copies of Mark have the resurrection, but it ends with the angel telling the women to spread the word and they leave in fear and tell no one. The End. A rather odd ending!

  • Pingback: Video: Are the Gospels Eyewitness Accounts?

  • J. Bob

    According to the Muratorian fragment, a 7th century document, & a copy of the mid 2nd cent. NT canon, it noted the 4 gospels, Acts, all of Paul’s works, & most of the other books should be included. One of the earliest fragments of John, found in Egypt has been dated to about 120 AD. Some the other surviving manuscripts (Bodmer ) date from the mid 2nd century. And these are copies, so the originals, allowing for the fact they did not have printing presses, would have been composed much earlier.

    It was common that in the Jewish culture, that students would note sayings of the teacher. With Matthew, being a tax collector, it’s a good probability he could make notes along the way.

    Fr. Jean Carmignac, one of the translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has a interesting book “The Birth of the Synoptics”. In it he comments on translating the Greek Mark & Matthew back into Hebrew. He notes that the reading is much “smoother”, indicating the original was in Hebrew, the formal language of Sacred Scripture. Also Carmignac along with J.A.T. Robinson, and others, have noted that the original gospels may have been completed prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Since John stated the pool with the 5 porticos was standing. These were destroyed by Titus in 70 AD.

    Hence from their standpoint, the gospels would have been pretty much complete by late 1st century.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      According to the Muratorian fragment

      Yes, I mentioned that one.

      One of the earliest fragments of John, found in Egypt has been dated to about 120 AD.

      But when was “John” attached to this book? This fragment doesn’t help us.

      the originals, allowing for the fact they did not have printing presses, would have been composed much earlier.

      We’re not worried here about the dating of the gospels but rather who wrote them and how reliable their information is.

      With Matthew, being a tax collector, it’s a good probability he could make notes along the way.

      We don’t start with the assumption that Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collector; rather, we ask when that name was attached to that gospel and question how reliable that link is.

      …Matthew back into Hebrew. He notes that the reading is much “smoother”, indicating the original was in Hebrew

      Do biblical scholars agree?

      the gospels would have been pretty much complete by late 1st century.

      Yes, I believe this is the consensus view.

  • Pingback: Gospels vs. the Perfect Miracle Claim


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X