Can we trust the ancient tradition that Peter was the source for Mark’s Gospel?

by Julie M. Smith

The oldest statement about the authorship of Mark’s Gospel comes from Papias, who was the bishop of Hieropolis (in what is now Turkey) and lived from about 60CE to 130CE. Most scholars date Papias’ statement about Mark’s Gospel to close to 130CE,[1] but a few scholars think his statement might have been made closer to 100CE[2] and that he was referencing information that he learned at an earlier time, perhaps 80CE.[3] Unfortunately, Papias’ original works are lost and come to us only through quotations contained in Eusebius, who was a bishop in Palestine and lived c260-340. 

The statement from Papias, preserved by Eusebius, concerning Mark’s Gospel reads as follows:

And the Presbyter [or: elder] used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.’[4] 

The information in this statement is a treasure trove of background information about Mark’s Gospel, but it raises as many questions as it answers:

1. Is Eusebius likely to have accurately conveyed Papias’ words? We know that Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias; at one point he calls him “a man of very little intelligence, as is clear from his books.”[5] This may imply that Eusebius would have been comfortable editing Papias’ work as he thought necessary, making the tradition less trustworthy. On the other hand, if Eusebius were going to concoct a story about the origins of Mark’s Gospel, he presumably would not have placed that origin story in the mouth of someone whom he tells his readers is stupid; the fact that he does this probably indicates that the tradition is trustworthy.

2. Is Papias likely to have accurately conveyed the Presbyter’s words? There is nothing in Papias’ statement that will help us answer this question, but it is worth remembering that we cannot assess this link in the chain.

3. Who was “the Presbyter”? Earlier in his text, Eusebius identifies the person called “the Presbyter” (alternate translation: “the elder”) as “John.” But who is this John? There is no scholarly consensus here: some understand this to be the apostle John and others to be a different John, a second-generation church leader.[6]

4. Did John the Presbyter have accurate information about the Gospel? There is nothing in Papias’ statement that would help us determine this.

5. Who said what? In the text from Eusebius, it is difficult to determine if the entire statement consists of Papias’ quotation of the Presbyter, or if some of the text is Papias’ commentary on what the Presbyter said, or even Eusebius’ commentary on what the Elder (or Papias) said.[7] A tradition dating from the time of Eusebius would be less trustworthy than one dating from Papias’ time.

6. What does it mean to say that Mark was Peter’s “interpreter”? There are several different theories about what “interpreter” might have meant here. Perhaps Peter only spoke Aramaic (although other scholars find this unlikely[8]), so he needed Mark to translate into Latin or Greek when he preached in areas where the audience did not know Aramaic.[9] Had Mark translated frequently, he would have become very familiar with Peter’s stories of Jesus and therefore have been capable of writing a Gospel. Another possibility is that Mark’s “translating” occurred when he recorded Peter’s (Aramaic) memories in the form of a (Greek) written Gospel.[10] Or perhaps Mark was Peter’s “transmitter,”[11] with responsibility for conveying Peter’s teachings to others. In this view, writing the Gospel would have been a part (perhaps the main part) of his interpreting role.

7. What does it mean to say that Mark’s Gospel is “not in order”? The obvious interpretation of this statement is that the events in Mark’s Gospel are not in chronological order: Peter would not necessarily have told stories about Jesus in chronological order (especially if he were telling them “as necessity demanded”) and therefore Mark, not an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, would have had no idea how to order the events in the Gospel.[12] (Note that Papias says that Matthew did put the stories in order in his Gospel.[13]) However, other scholars take Papias’ comment as referring not to chronological order but to topical order.[14] (But most scholars feel that there is quite a bit of order to Mark’s work; perhaps Papias did not appreciate the order and just noticed the lack of chronology?) Other scholars read the idea of the Gospel not being in order as implying “gaps”[15] in the record.

8. What does it mean to say that Peter taught “as necessity demanded”? While this phrase has normally been understood to mean that Peter recounted stories of Jesus’ ministry that were particularly appropriate to the situation of his audience, there is another view. It involves keeping untranslated the term chreia as “a technical rhetorical term to describe the form in which Peter delivered his teaching.”[16] An appropriate English synonym might be “anecdotes.” In other words, the Gospel is not a systematic or sequential presentation of Jesus’ life, but rather a collection of anecdotes.

9. How likely is that Mark “left out nothing of what he had heard”? Of all of the components of Papias’ statement, this one is perhaps most disputed by scholars. Particularly if the Mark who wrote the Gospel is the Mark who is Peter’s associate in the New Testament, then for it to be true that Mark left nothing out would mean that Mark was only familiar with about an hour and a half of spoken stories about Jesus; it seems pretty unlikely that Mark could have spent any amount of time with Peter and not have learned more. Further, given that there are stories about Peter that appear in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, if it is true that Mark left nothing out, it must mean that those stories were never recounted in Mark’s hearing, and yet were told to others; this also seems unlikely. One scholar reads this statement as referring not to Mark leaving anything out, but rather to Peter not leaving out anything that he remembered about Jesus.[17] Again, however, it is difficult to imagine that Peter would only have had an hour and a half of stories to tell about Jesus and that the material about Peter that is in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark was known to someone other than Peter, but not Peter himself. It seems safest to conclude that Mark (or Peter) did leave some stories of Jesus out of this account and that perhaps the Presbyter (or Papias or Eusebius) is engaged in a bit of hyperbole here.

10. What was the purpose of Papias’ statement? Papias’ statement seems like a defense of Mark’s Gospel (“Mark did nothing wrong” and left nothing out and made no false statements); the precise nature of what Papias was defending Mark against is not clear, although it seems to be either the criticism that his Gospel is not in the proper order or that he merely had written down what he had remembered (as opposed to providing a complete account or as opposed to writing things down from a written source) or that he had added to Peter’s words with his own ideas (something that Revelation 22:18-19 suggests was not considered acceptable in the ancient world).[18] Papias seems open to acknowledging some weaknesses in the Gospel, but ultimately finds it reliable and trustworthy.

11. In general, how reliable is Papias’ statement about the origins of the Gospel of Mark? The modern scholarly consensus is that Papias’ statement should not be given much weight at all. Representative of this sentiment is Mary Ann Tolbert, who writes that “an anonymous author writing in koine Greek to a Greek-speaking, predominantly Gentile audience during the second half of the first century C.E. is about as specific as our knowledge can be concerning the history of the Gospel’s production.”[19] Joel Marcus adds: “the very vehemence of Papias’ insistence upon the connection with Peter creates suspicion.”[20] There are also concerns about Eusebius’ general level of accuracy: he writes that Papias claimed that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, but virtually no scholars believe that;[21] this error might call Eusebius’ other statements into question. And it is certainly true that third-hand information (from John the Presbyter to Papias to Eusebius) should receive exceptionally close scrutiny.

But there are also solid reasons for trusting the tradition associating Peter with Mark’s Gospel, not the least of which is the somewhat defensive tone of the statement: Papias appears to be defending the Gospel of Mark and concluding that it is trustworthy despite its shortcomings. While Papias was familiar with 1 Peter and could therefore have built a fabrication around the relationship between Peter and Mark from that letter,[22] if someone were going to embellish or even fabricate a history of a Gospel, this is not the story that he would generate. He would have attributed the book to an apostle, not the “interpreter” of an apostle. There is no important early church leader named Mark, and therefore no incentive to attribute a Gospel to him. If this Mark is the same person described in the New Testament, then he does not have a flawless reputation.[23] If the goal were to concoct a pedigree for an anonymous Gospel, Papias would presumably not have criticized the author for writing in the wrong order[24] or have emphasized the fact that he was not an eyewitness. Ironically, the unflattering elements of Markan authorship are a good indication of its truthfulness: when people tell tales, they usually tell much prettier ones.