Did the original Gospels have names attached to them? 

• This is a point that is debated among scholars, though the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels did not originally have names attached to them. 
• However, it must be noted that we do not possess any extant full copies of the Gospels that do not include the traditionally ascribed names.
  • The earliest copies of the Gospels are fragmentary, such as P52 (c. 125–150 CE), which is our oldest surviving manuscript and contains a small fragment of John’s Gospel. 
  • The earliest complete manuscripts of the Gospels include Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Vaticanus (4th century). These do contain the traditionally ascribed names, but most scholars believe they were later additions. 
• Earliest fragments containing titles
  • P66 (c. 200 CE) – “Gospel According to John”
  • P75 (c. 175–225 CE) – “According to Luke” and “According to John” 
• What are some reasons scholars believe the Gospels originally circulated anonymously?
  • Absence of Internal Attribution
  • Our earliest fragments either do not have titles or have inconsistent titles 
  • The Church Fathers do not uniformly refer to the Gospels the same way or by the same titles. 
  • Other early Gospels, such as the Gospel of Thomas, did not have titles. 
  • In Codex Vaticanus, the titles appear to be written in a slightly different style and ink than the main text. 
  • A title would have been unnecessary until the church began using multiple Gospels side-by-side. 
• Even if we accept the historical attributions, we still don’t know who these men were. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were common names in antiquity. 

Who is the first person to speak about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark? 

• Papias (c. 60 – c. 130 CE) is quoted by Eusebius (c. 260/265 – 339/340 CE) attributing the gospel to John Mark and connecting Mark to Peter.
  • “The elder also used to say: ‘Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as i said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teaching to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only–to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.’” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15)
    • Ordering of events. 
    • Writing down Peter’s stories led people for a long time to neglect the internal structure and literary devices used in the Gospel. 
• Confirmed by others such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 CE) and Irenaeus (c. 180 CE).
  • Likely relied on the testimony of Papias. 
• Such attributions did not arise in purely neutral settings. A Gospel’s connection to an apostle was vital for the promotion of the Gospels a particular author was in support of.
  • Thus, David deSilva asks the following questions:
    • “Did knowledge of a Gospel’s origins precede and assure the church’s recognition of the apostolic witness of that Gospel, or did the church’s recognition of a Gospel’s preserving an accurate reflection of the apostolic witness lead to traditions attributing the authorship of that Gospel to a particular, historic apostolic figure? 
    • “Might an early tradition that a particular Gospel took shape in a community guided by Matthew (for example) be transformed, when apostolicity became important as an expression of the reliability of Gospel writings, into a claim that Matthew directly authored the Gospel?” 

What Mark is Papias talking about and what do we know about him? 

• Typically believed to be John Mark, who is mentioned in Acts 12:12, 15; 13:5, 13. 
• It is this same Mark that is believed to be referenced in 1 Pet 5:13. 
• Mark was a common Roman name in the first century. 

What do we know for relative certainty from internal evidence about the author of Mark? 

• Christian
• Jew – customs, OT, Aramaic
• Some education (could read and write; knew Aramaic, Greek, and Latin) 
• Most form and redaction critics see multiple levels of tradition in most of Mark’s stories. 

What is the likelihood that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark in our New Testament? 

• Decent likelihood that it is authored by a second generation Christian named Mark.
  • If you were making up an author, you would probably choose an eyewitness who is more well-known, such as an apostle. 
• If it was written by a Mark, it is very difficult to say who this Mark was or whether or not he had any connection to Peter.
  • Common name
  • Don’t know the Mark referenced in 1 Peter. 
  • Biased reason to try and connect the Gospel to an apostle. 
• I am fine attributing the Gospel to a Mark, but I would not want to base my interpretation of the Gospel on any more details about the identity of this Mark. 

Why Does This Matter?

• Interpretation
• Faith

---

Additional Content

---