Here I will refer to the gospel that appears first in our bibles as The Gospel of Matthew, in italics. The second I will call The Gospel of Mark. I will refer to people using normal font.
It will be argued, for the first time, that Matthew, who was a tax collector and one of the twelve, wrote The Gospel of Mark. First we will see that The Gospel of Mark refers to Matthew as Levi son of Alphaeus, and that this is consistent with Matthew being the author. We will then explore other internal evidence in The Gospel of Mark that suggests that the author was one of the twelve apostles and Matthew in particular. Then, we will see that the person who compiled The Gospel of Matthew was likely aware that The Gospel of Mark was written by Matthew. We will then see that Papias's information confirms that The Gospel of Mark, not The Gospel of Matthew, was written by Matthew. Then, the attribution of the gospels to Matthew and Mark will be explained.
The identity of Levi
Mark 2:14 tells of the calling of Levi, son of Alphaeus, but Matt 9:9 calls him "Matthew" and restructures Mark 2:14, writing that the man was "called" Matthew.
|
Whenever The Gospel of Matthew refers to a person using "called" (λεγόμενον) it is introducing a name that is not a mere birth name (Matt 1:16; 4:18; 10:2; 26:3, 14; 27:16, 17, 22). Matt 9:9 is therefore presenting "Matthew" as a new name that was given to Levi son of Alphaeus. This is confirmed by Matt 10:3, which identifies Matthew as the tax collector and reverses the order of Matthew and Thomas so that Matthew is next to his likely brother, James son of Alphaeus. Note that Matt 10:2 similarly moves Andrew so that he is next to his brother, Peter. The compiler of The Gospel of Matthew had a tendency to clarify identities. Matt 4:18 derives from Mark 1:16 but adds "who is called Peter" after Simon's name, for clarity. Also, Matt 27:56 calls Salome (Mark 15:40), "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" to clarify that she is the same person as mentioned in Matt 20:20.
The renaming of Levi should not be surprising. Jesus gave new names to Simon (Cephas/Peter) and to the sons of Zebedee (Boanerges) (Mark 3:17), and probably to Mary (the Magdalene (tower)). The renaming habit continued with the apostles calling Joseph "Barnabas". Among Paul's associates we have Titus being called "Timothy" (honouring God), Crispus, who was named "Sosthenes" (saving strength). Ignatius calls himself "Theophorus" (bearer of God). Renaming in Paul's churches is discussed here. The name "Matthew" means "gift of God" and was an appropriate name for Levites, for the name is over-represented among priests, High Priests, and also among immediate relatives of men called Levi.
| Total valid | Number that are immediate relatives of a Levi | High Priests | Priests | Priests and High Priests | Ratio | |
| Mattathias | 68 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 10.3% |
| All males with biblical names | 2038 | 10 | 33 | 45 | 78 | 3.8% |
| Ratio | 3.3% | 20.0% |
But why did The Gospel of Mark not make it clear that Matthew was Levi renamed? This has long puzzled commentators. And why did the author feel the need to give the name of Levi's father? The gospels give the names of fathers only when there was a need to distinguish between multiple people of the same name, as the following list demonstrates. Here the number of occurrences of each name of Jews in Palestine (330 BCE to 200 CE) in Ilan's Lexicons are given in parentheses. The square brackets give the number of others of the same name in the same gospel.
Simon (254) son of Jonah (Matt 16:7 [4]) son of John (John 21:15, 16, 17 [2]);
Judas (174) son of Simon Iscariot (John 6:71; 13:2, 26 [1]), son of James (Luke 6:16 [1]);
John (131) son of Zechariah (Luke 3:2 [1])
Jesus (101) son of Mary (Mark 6:3) son of Joseph (John 1:45; 6:42).
James (43) son of Zebedee (Matt 4:21; 10:2 [2]; Mark 1:19; 3:17 [3]), son of Alphaeus (Matt 10:3 [2]; Mark 3:18 [3]; Luke 6:15 [3]);
James (43) son of Zebedee (Matt 4:21; 10:2 [2]; Mark 1:19; 3:17 [3]), son of Alphaeus (Matt 10:3 [2]; Mark 3:18 [3]; Luke 6:15 [3]);
Levi (28) son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14 [0]).
Jesus is called son of Joseph and son of Mary, but only in speech to people who were not Jesus followers. The name of the father of BarTimaeus (Timaeus) (Mark 10:46) was likely given only to show that BarTimaeus was his birth name, rather than a symbolic name (son of honour) (so, correctly, Carlson).
The text in The Gospel of Mark makes most sense if the author was Levi-Matthew. The author would not have needed to identify Levi as Matthew if the intended audience already knew. The author probably expects them to know Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:13; Rom 16:21), as commentators correctly point out, so he may have expected them to know himself as well. In much the same way, we can assume, for example, that the audience of Galatians knew that Cephas was Peter. The addition of "son of Alphaeus" could have helped with the identification. Not only might it have been unnecessary for Levi-Matthew to explicitly make the identification, it would have been egotistical for him to draw attention to the fact that Jesus had given him the name "Matthew", since new names were given to the most prominent believers.
Ancient historians often avoided use of the first-person and referred to themselves by name, as if the author was writing about someone else. The gospel writers, in particular, show humility by avoiding excessive reference to themselves. Luke avoided first person self-reference except in his preface, and in the "we-passages" of Acts where only the modest plural form of the first-person is used. Elsewhere he avoids first-person self-reference completely, even for events in which he must have participated. The Gospel of John limits self-reference to the third-person, and even manages to avoid naming himself by substituting the phrase "the beloved disciple" and similar. Presumably the gospel writers were influenced by Jesus's teaching on humility, and/or they wanted to model humility and/or they wanted the readers' attention to be on the subject matter, rather than on the person of the author. Their preference to remain in the background seems to have been respected by the early church because there seems to have been little interest in the identities of the authors until well into the second century. We should not be surprised that a gospel writer should mention themselves only by name, while avoiding first-person language.
The author as one of the twelve
On any hypothesis Peter was the leading apostle during the ministry of Jesus and in the early church. With James and John, he had privileged access to Jesus. It is therefore to be expected that his reports would feature in The Gospel of Mark, whoever wrote it. However, The Gospel of Mark names Peter fewer times than any of the other gospels. It is the twelve who are mentioned more often in The Gospel of Mark than in any other.
| Mark | Luke | Matt | John | |
| Words | 11304 | 19482 | 18345 | 15635 |
| Namings of Simon/Cephas/Peter | 26 | 31 | 28 | 39 |
| Occurrences of Peter per 1000 words | 2.30 | 1.59 | 1.53 | 2.49 |
| Mentions of "12" (or "11") apostles | 12 | 9 | 9 | 4 |
| Occurrences of the 12 (or 11) per 1000 words | 1.06 | 0.46 | 0.49 | 0.26 |
| Mentions of Herod Antipas and Herodians | 10 | 13 | 4 | 0 |
| Herod Antipas and Herodians per 1000 words | 0.88 | 0.67 | 0.22 | 0 |
The Gospel of Mark is written from the point of view of a member of the twelve. For example, Mark 10:32 reads:
They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them; they were amazed, and those who followed were afraid. He took the twelve aside again and began to tell them what was to happen to him,
The verse is difficult to follow because we are not told who "they" are. Neither The Gospel of Matthew, nor Luke's include this event. If, however, the author of The Gospel of Mark was one of the twelve it becomes clear. Here, as elsewhere, he distinguished between the twelve and the larger body of followers. The author, if he was one of the twelve, would think "we" but decide to put "they" instead to avoid first person self-reference. The text would read more smoothly if we replaced "they" with "we". The author's ambiguous or awkward wording can often be explained by his desire to avoid first-person self-reference. See C.H. Turner "Marcan Usage: Notes Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel V. The Movement of Jesus and His Disciples and the Crowd" JTS (1925). Examples are listed below, along with the parallel passages, which were reworded to avoid the problems, except where shown in brackets.
Mark 1:29; Matt 8:14; Luke 4:38
Mark 1:32; (Matt 8:16); Luke 4:40
Mark 2:3; Matt 9:2; Luke 5:18
Mark 2:15; Matt 9:10; Luke 5:29
Mark 2:24; Matt 12:2; Luke 6:2
Mark 5:1–2; Matt 8:28; (Luke 8:26–27)
Mark 8:14; Matt 16:5; Luke 12:1
Mark 10:32; Matt 20:17; Luke 18:31
Mark 11:27; Matt 21:12; Luke 19:45
Mark 14:31; Matt 26:35; No parallel
Mark 14:50; Matt 26:56; No parallel
Mark 6:6–13 reports instructions given only to the twelve. The twelve are sent out, and return at Mark 6:30. The author reports no information about Jesus during the mission of the twelve, perhaps because he was one of the twelve, so had no first-hand information.
Note that Mark 14:22-24 includes the twelve five times:
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
The equivalent passage in 1 Cor 11:23–25 does not feature the twelve at all. This suggests that The Gospel of Mark was closer to eyewitness testimony even than Paul, who wrote these lines in 54 AD, and knew Peter. The perspective of the twelve in The Gospel of Mark means that the author was one of the twelve and not just a hearer of Peter, for Paul was a hearer of Peter and lacked the perspective of the twelve in 1 Cor 11:23–2.
The author as a Capernaumite
Even though Jesus travelled throughout Galilee (Mark 1:39), Capernaum is the focus in The Gospel of Mark.
Mark 2:1 reads, "When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home". This verse seems to be written from the perspective of someone who was at Capernaum, who was waiting for Jesus to return, and who knew of only one home where Jesus had stayed.
The calling of the twelve (Mark 3:13–20) happens on a mountain and it seems that only Jesus and the twelve are present. The manuscripts are evenly divided about whether we should read, "Then he went home" or "Then they went home". The plural is more likely because Mark 1:29 demonstrates the tendency to change manuscripts from the plural to the singular. In any case, these words seem to come from someone whose home was in Capernaum.
Mark 1:14–15 records the calling of Simon, Andrew, James, and John, which happens close to Capernaum and/or Levi's tax booth, which was likely at Capernaum's harbour for taxing goods imported by boat from outside of Antipas's territory.
The author as Matthew
While the author likely writes from the point of view of one of the twelve, in most cases it is impossible to determine whether he is writing as Matthew, or reporting Peter's perspective (or both). However, the following texts favour Matthew's authorship.
Mark 1:19 says "he went", even though Peter and Andrew were with him (Mark 1:16–18). The author's tendency to include the disciples by using third person plural verbs has not yet begun, presumably because the author was not a travelling companion of Jesus until after his calling (Mark 2:14).
Mark 1:21–28 takes place in the synagogue in Capernaum and Levi may have been present. Indeed, if we replace "they" with "we" in Mark 1:22, 27 it reads as Levi's explanation of why he was so impressed by Jesus.
Mark 1:29 reads, "As soon as they left the synagogue, they entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John." (The ESV changes "they" to "he"). The third person verb here seems unnatural, and the text is explained if the author accompanied Jesus from the synagogue to the house of Simon and Andrew: "As soon as we left the synagogue, we entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John." The author, wanting to avoid first-person verbs, censored himself, and used the third-person plural.
Mark 1:39 says that he [Jesus] went throughout Galilee. After the calling of Levi, The Gospel of Mark usually includes the twelve by using the plural, they. The use of the singular here, and the fact that the tour of Galilee is summarized in just this one verse, suggests that the author did not accompany Jesus here. The only recorded incident during this tour is the story about the leper, which the author tells us became common knowledge (Mark 1:40–45). The passage (Mark 1:36–39) implies that Peter, James, and John, did accompany Jesus. The passage is therefore more likely to be written from the perspective of Levi, who had not yet been called, than that of Peter.
Mark 2:3 reads, "Then they came, bringing to him a paralyzed man". The third-person plural verb has no explicit subject and the NRSV has to supply one, as do the other synoptic gospels. All is explained if the author was Levi, who brought the paralyzed man to Jesus, with three others. Jesus recognized his audacious faith (Mark 2:5), and this would explain why Jesus called him from his tax booth in the very next pericope (Mark 2:13–14).
Mark 2:15 refers to Levi's house as "his house", but the NRSV writes "Levi's house" to clarify. The other synoptic gospels avoid the awkwardness. The audience of The Gospel of Mark, knowing that Levi was the author, will realize that he has replaced "my house" with "his house".
The author records insider information only after the calling of Matthew. There is a meal (Mark 2:13–17), and insider teachings with no mention of a crowd (Mark 2:18–22). In Mark 2:23–28 Jesus was with his disciples in the grainfields and again crowds are not mentioned, so the author may have been one of the disciples by that time.
At Mark 14:31 Peter says that he will not deny Jesus, and we are then told, "And all of them said the same". An audience who knew that the author was Matthew would know to translate, "And all of us said the same", which would be natural. Luke has no parallel, but Matt 26:35 clarifies the subject by writing, "And so said all the disciples". This example suggests that Peter was not the only member of the 12 who was a source for The Gospel of Mark.
The author as a former employee of Herod Antipas.
Mark 3:6 "The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him". How did the author know about this conspiracy? Levi/Matthew worked for Herod Antipas, so his contacts could have informed him.
As the table shows, The Gospel of Mark mentions Herod Antipas and the Herodians more frequently than any other. The account of the killing of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29) could have been learned by Matthew from his Herodian contacts.
The Gospel of Mark is less critical of tax collectors and of Herod Antipas than The Gospel of Matthew. Luke seems to be intermediate.
Richard Bauckham has shown that those associated with the administration of the Herods often had Latin names and connections to Rome. Matthew, the former collaborator, who had worked for Herod, might well have fled to Rome to escape from the sicarii. Herodion (Rom 16:11) might have moved to Rome for a similar reason. The Gospel of Mark seems to have been written from Rome.
As a tax collector and a probable Levite, Matthew was probably literate and therefore better able to write a gospel than Jesus's uneducated companions (Acts 4:13).
In short, the internal evidence in The Gospel of Mark points tentatively to Matthew, the tax collector, as the author.
Who did the compiler of The Gospel of Matthew think wrote The Gospel of Mark?
Here we assume Marcan priority. The compiler of The Gospel of Matthew used most of The Gospel of Mark, generally in sequence. He placed additional material where it seemed to belong chronologically (the birth narrative must come first, for example) or where it fit the theme (the parable of the weeds follows the parable of the sower, for example). However, the compiler does make some changes to the sequence that he inherited from The Gospel of Mark, and it will now be argued that he did so to minimize the extent of Matthew's presence with Jesus, relative to Peter. This is explicable if the compiler was known to have been a hearer of Peter, and if The Gospel of Mark, which he intended to replace, was known to have been written by Matthew.
He placed a lot of miscellaneous teaching (the sermon on the mount: Matt 5:1–7:29) immediately after the calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John. Whereas The Gospel of Mark puts the calling of Levi/Matthew just 43 verses after the calling of Peter, The Gospel of Matthew puts 161 verses between them. Indeed, the compiler's desire to exclude Matthew from being a witness to the Sermon on the Mount may explain why he reverses the sequence of events to make Jesus leave Capernaum immediately after the calling of the four, rather than after the healing of Simon's mother-in-law. His source for the Sermon on the Mount material is perhaps implied by his mention of the disciples (Matt 5:1). He further delays the calling of Matthew by rearranging his written source to put the calming of the storm and the demoniac narratives before Matthew's calling. We can also note that The Gospel of Matthew eliminates the pronoun at Matt 9:10 (compare Mark 2:14), so that Matthew is no longer obviously Jesus's host. Also, at Matt 10:3 the compiler demoted Matthew by one place.
Having finally called Matthew (Matt 9:9), the compiler soon sends him away, along with the other eleven. He does this by reversing the sequence of The Gospel of Mark so that the sending of the twelve (Matt 10:1–11:1) is before, rather than after, the events of Mark 2:22–6:5. In The Gospel of Mark the twelve are sent at Mark 6:13, and following only the account of the death of John the Baptist, they return to Jesus at Mark 6:30. The compiler of The Gospel of Matthew, however, does not mention the twelve again until Matt 20:17. The twelve are not mentioned at Matt 13:10 or Matt 18:1, even though the Marcan parallel passages mention them. Peter, however, appears at Matt 14:28–32; Matt 15:15; Matt 16:17–19; Matt 17:24–27; Matt 18:15–22. The parallels to these verses, where they exist, in The Gospel of Mark and in Luke, do not mention Peter. The only two mentions of "church" (ἐκκλησία) in the gospels occur in two of these passages (Matt 16:18; 18:17), so they may be anachronistic in wording. Matt 16:17–19 records Jesus as saying that Peter is the rock on which the church is to be built. This would have been particularly interesting to the audience if their congregations had been established by Peter (see below). In summary, the compiler of The Gospel of Matthew, went out of his way to diminish the duration of Matthew's presence with Jesus, relative to Peter's presence. We can now turn to Papias.
Papias and the attributions of the gospels
Eusebius reports what Papias had written in the early second century:
And the Elder said this also: ‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord’s oracles (λογίων). So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.’ Such then is the account given by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made (by him): ‘So (οὖν) then Matthew composed the oracles (τὰ λόγια) in the Hebrew language (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ), and each one interpreted them as he could.’ The same writer used quotations from the first Epistle of John, and likewise also from that of Peter, ...
Which gospel did the Elder's "Mark" write? Peter became an apostle exclusively to the circumcised, after Paul agreed to take responsibility for the uncircumcised (Gal 2:7–8). Peter then went to Antioch (Gal 2:11). As is generally agreed, The Gospel of Matthew was written for churches of Christian Jews in Syria (where Antioch was the largest city). So The Gospel of Matthew was written for churches that could well have been established by Peter. The Gospel of Matthew therefore was likely the gospel compiled by the interpreter of Peter for Peter's Jewish Greek speaking converts in Syria. It is unlikely that the more gentile audience of The Gospel of Mark would have been the domain of Peter's interpreter, since Peter was the apostle to the circumcised.
The "Mark" referred to by the elder put events in a wrong order. It is unlikely that his gospel was The Gospel of Mark, since its sequence is largely trusted by both the later synoptic gospels. The gospel with the bad order was The Gospel of Matthew, and Luke knew it, as we will see. Luke-Acts was written to churches of the Aegean. Evidence is given here. Also, Luke mentions Philip's daughters (Acts 21:8–9), who later lived in Hierapolis (Eusebius, EH 3.31.9; 5.17.3), which is close to Ephesus.
Luke also mentioned Joseph Justus Barsabbas (Acts 1:23), as did Papias of Hierapolis (Eusebius, EH 3.39.9). The Latin name, Justus, suggests that he left Palestine, because Christians did not use Latin names in Palestine. Luke might have mentioned this Justus and Philip's daughters because they were known to at least some of his intended audience. Note also, that Papias's story of the death of Judas seems to be an embellished version of the account in Acts 1:18, rather than the account in Matt 27:5. Luke's connection with Ephesus is further shown by the fact that he mentions Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) in a way that suggests that Tyrannus was a Christian known to at least some of his audience. Also, Luke's gospel often agrees with the gospel of John, against The Gospel of Mark and The Gospel of Matthew, in episodes that the beloved disciple had witnessed (see Luuk van de Weghe, Living Footnotes). This suggests that Luke preferred eyewitness testimony, and that he had met the beloved disciple, who may well have been John the elder, who lived in Ephesus. The relevance of all this is that Luke respected the order of The Gospel of Mark, but thoroughly disrespected the sequence of The Gospel of Matthew. This is demonstrated by the following charts from Douglas Harder). The chart on the left shows how Luke took material from The Gospel of Mark to make his "orderly account" (Luke 1:3). Most of the erratic lines here represent Lukan pericopes that parallel their Marcan equivalents only weakly. Indeed, it has been said that Luke made only two true transpositions of material in The Gospel of Mark. The chart on the right shows how Luke took pericopes from The Gospel of Matthew that are not found in The Gospel of Mark.
The additional material about Peter in The Gospel of Matthew also supports the view that Papias's Mark compiled it. Also, Peter's interpreter would likely write for churches that he had helped Peter to found (churches built on the rock of Peter), and these are more likely to be the Syrian Jewish congregations of The Gospel of Matthew, than the mixed Roman congregations of The Gospel of Mark. I am also tempted to wonder whether the varying views of the role of the Jewish Law in The Gospel of Matthew can be explained by the fact that Peter's opinion changed with time (see Acts 10), and by his tendency to adapt to his audience (Gal 2:11–14).
The elder's Mark "made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard". This does not fit The Gospel of Mark, which is the shortest gospel. On any hypothesis Papias knew of at least two gospels that were longer than The Gospel of Mark.
So, since Papias's Mark likely compiled The Gospel of Matthew, which gospel did Papias's Matthew write? The Gospel of Mark is now the only sensible candidate. It is not clear whether Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ means Aramaic, or just a semitic style of Greek. Either way, those who "interpreted them" may be the aforementioned Mark, and also Luke. Thus Papias may be observing that both The Gospel of Matthew and Luke improve the Greek of The Gospel of Mark.
If, on the other hand, Papias's Mark was supposed by him to be the author of The Gospel of Mark, the text in red font would be a strange digression that has little to do with Mark. The last sentence confirms that Papias was still talking about Mark, since he brings up 1 Peter where Mark is mentioned as an associated of Peter (1 Peter 5:13) (the reference to 1 John was probably to show that John, unlike Mark was an eyewitness (1 John 1:1–3)).
But do we need to conclude that the church fathers misunderstood Papias and misattributed The Gospel of Mark to Mark and The Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, instead of the other way round? Such misattributions are possible, but unlikely (see an article by Gathercole).
It seems more likely, to me, that the compiler of The Gospel of Matthew, and his patron, attributed his gospel to his major source, Matthew, who had contributed about half of his material. That is to say, Matthew's authorship of The Gospel of Mark explains how The Gospel of Matthew was attributed to Matthew. Some compare the gospel writers to students who copy each other's homework, while taking the credit for it. This analogy, while appealing to professors, needs to be abandoned, as we have no evidence of any such plagiarism. Matthew wrote from his own memory, Mark credited Matthew, and Luke acknowledged that he used sources. Most of the early evangelists had Latin names (presumably Roman citizenship gave them needed legal protection) and it was not uncommon for them to use Latin praenomina (Luke/Lucius, John Mark, Titus Timothy). About 25% of men with a Latin praenomen were called "Mark", and in Palestine the ratio is even higher. It was about twice as common as Lucius.
The attribution of The Gospel of Mark to Mark may simply indicated that Matthew used the name "Mark" when in Rome. Followers of Jesus did not use Roman names in Palestine. Richard Bauckham explains, "Few Palestinian Jews would have wanted a name that proclaimed allegiance to Rome" (Bauckham, "Paul and Other Jews with Latin names in the New Testament"). However, when they left Palestine they generally adopted (or already had) Latin names (the possible exceptions are Andronicus and Peter, which are Greek names; and Barnabas and Manaen, which are Semitic). Consider Saul/Paul, Silas/Silvanus, Joseph/Justus, Jesus/Justus, Luke/Lucius, John/Mark, Simeon/Niger, Timothy/Titus, Simeon/Niger, and perhaps Joanna/Junia. In all these cases, except John/Mark and Simeon/Niger, the Latin and non-Latin names have a phonetic similarity. The name pair Matthew/Mark fits this pattern. The hypothesis that Matthew was Mark the evangelist explains the head-rhyme. Matthew would need a non-semitic name when in Rome at about the time of the war, and Mark, which was a common name, would be a likely name for Matthew to use. Some may object that there is no document that explicitly says that Matthew was Mark, but this is weak. We have no document that explicitly equates Silas with Silvanus or Titus with Timothy. Those who had two names were often split into two people by later tradition. This happened to Cephas/Peter, Silas/Silvanus, Titus/Timothy, and Levi/Matthew himself. Similarly, two people with the same name were often conflated. This happened to Marys, Philips, Johns, Jameses, and Clements, among others.
It is likely, then, that we are looking at two Marks.
1. One may have been a close associate of Peter (compare 1 Peter 5:13) and may have compiled The Gospel of Matthew. It is possible that he was John/Mark, but John/Mark is perhaps more likely to have been the author of The Gospel of John. See Pierson Parker "John and John Mark" JBL (1960), and Dean Furlong, The Identity of John the Evangelist.
2. The other may have been Matthew, the tax collector.
Conclusions
The Gospel of Mark was written by Matthew, the tax collector, probably for the churches in Rome. He may have been known as "Mark" there.
Peter's interpreter, who was also called "Mark", compiled The Gospel of Matthew for congregations of Jewish Christians in Syria that had been founded by Peter. He used The Gospel of Mark, that had been written by Matthew, and probably credited Matthew (he was not a plagiarist). He also used material that he had learned from Peter, which he arranged thematically.
Luke wrote for the Aegean churches. He, and the elder mentioned by nearby Papias, knew that The Gospel of Matthew was not arranged chronologically, but he trusted the sequence in The Gospel of Mark and compiled his gospel accordingly.
The Farrer theory is thus confirmed.
Posted 2024 08 24. Updated 2024 Sept 9 18,19,20,30, Oct 3,5,8,10,22.
No comments:
Post a Comment