Did Peter Write the Gospel of Mark? Debunking the Tradition

The question of whether Peter, one of the apostles closest to Jesus, wrote the Gospel of Mark has long been up for debate. Traditional Christian teaching suggests that Peter was the primary source, as the gospel is traditionally attributed to Mark, who supposedly recorded Peter's eyewitness accounts. However, a closer examination of the text and historical context reveals several reasons that challenge this claim.

The Role of Mark as "Apollos" or "Interpretor"

Christian tradition often credits Mark as Peter's companion and apollos or interpreter, who diligently recorded Peter's teachings. However, the internal evidence from the New Testament provides grounds to doubt this tradition. The book of Acts mentions a companion of Peter named John Mark, but there is no evidence to suggest this John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.

Historical and Geographical Anomalies

One of the most significant pieces of evidence against Peter being the author is the numerous geographical, cultural, and chronological inaccuracies found in the Gospel of Mark. For example, Mark describes a herd of pigs being cast into a sea, which is over 30 miles away from the region where pigs were traditionally farmed. Additionally, Mark fails to mention several key events described in the other Gospels, such as the virgin birth, the Massacre of the Innocents, and the Sermon on the Mount.

The Chronological and Traditional Discrepancies

Christian tradition places the martyrdom of Peter and Paul around 65 AD, and it is believed that the Gospels, including Mark, were written much later. Acts, which records the preaching of Peter, does not reflect the Gospel of Mark in terms of content and credence. Key teachings of Peter, such as the quote “Thou art Peter and upon you I will build my church,” are not mentioned in Mark, casting doubt on Peter’s authorship.

Historical Context and Authorship

The author of Mark most likely wrote the gospel in Greek, intended for a Roman audience. The text portrays Jewish disciples as failing to understand Jesus, which is contrary to what one would expect from Peter, who is traditionally seen as a reliable witness. Scholars also point out that Mark's portrayal of Jesus aligns more closely with the teachings of Paul, who emphasized Romans’ understanding and the rejection of unnecessary Jewish traditions like kosher dietary laws and circumcision.

Furthermore, Mark does not sugarcoat the crucifixion, showing a soldier proclaiming Jesus as the "Son of God." This stark presentation would be surprising if it were based on Peter's eyewitness account, as Peter's message was traditionally more nuanced and less harsh. Additionally, Mark acknowledges the lack of post-resurrection encounters, attributing this to the women who did not report the discovery of the empty tomb.

In conclusion, a critical analysis of the texts and historical context suggests that the Gospel of Mark was not written by Peter or an eyewitness but rather by an author influenced by Pauline Christianity, possibly for a Roman audience with a focus on highlighting certain aspects of Jesus' message rather than providing a comprehensive eyewitness account.

References:

Acts – Scripture passage discussing John Mark's relationship to Peter. Historical and geographical inaccuracies in the Gospel of Mark. Paul's teachings as reflected in the Gospel of Mark.