Modern critics continue to assert that we don’t know who wrote the four Gospels. This assertion, however, completely ignores the mounds of evidence that points towards traditional authorship (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). In this post, I want to focus specifically on the authorship of Mark. I will examine both the external and the internal evidence in support of traditional authorship.

External Evidence for Mark

By external evidence, I mean what people have said about it, specifically the early church. Let’s consider a few key figures.

Papias (AD 130)

Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis—a strategically located city at the crossroads of Antioch and Ephesus. This uniquely-placed city afforded Papias opportunities to receive news from Christian leaders who often passed through his city. In fact, Papias claims he received information from the disciple John while he was still living. Moreover, Hierapolis was where Philip the evangelist (Acts 6) and his daughters settled down after the formation of the early church.¹ And it is from Philip’s daughters that Papias learned much about the apostles.

While most of Papias’s works have been lost to us, a few fragments survive in other people’s writings. Consider the following exert which details how Papias obtained information about the apostles:

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.²

Papias seems to have been in a position to receive reliable information about the disciples’ whereabouts. While Papias wrote this work around AD 130, he’s most likely reminiscing about an earlier time when many of these disciples were still living—perhaps around AD 80. Since Papias was in a position to speak reliably on matters pertaining to the early church, his comments on Gospel authorship carry significant weight. Consider his comments on the Gospel of Mark:

This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.³

This quotation from Papias suggests that Mark (John Mark from Acts 15:36-38) wrote the Gospel that bears his name based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. We know from Acts 12:12-24 that Peter once visited Mark’s house. Moreover, we know that Mark and Peter were close companions in Rome (1 Peter 5:13). We can envisage, then, that Peter and Mark sat down together to record all of Peter’s reflections on his time with Jesus.  Papias notes that Mark did not record them in a chronological order per se, but he did so accurately. Papias claims to have received this information from the “presbyrter” (or elder) John. Scholars dispute if this is the apostle John or another John who was also a disciple of Jesus.

Irenaeus (AD 180)

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons during the later part of the second century. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. That is to say, he was in a position to know who stood behind the four Gospels. He remarks:

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.⁴

Irenaeus also calls Papias a “hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp.”⁵ In other words, Irenaeus believed Papias was a reliable source.

Tertullian (AD 207)

Writing a couple of decades after Irenaeus, Tertullian also affirms Markan authorship based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. He asserts:

The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.⁶

Clement of Alexandria (AD 200)

Clement also confirms Markan authorship based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. He notes:

And such a ray of godliness shone forth on the minds of Peter’s hearers, that they were not satisfied with the once hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with all manner of entreaties importuned Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, he being the companion of Peter, that he would leave in writing a record of the teaching which had been delivered to them verbally; and did not let the man alone till they prevailed upon him; and so to them we owe the Scripture called the “Gospel by Mark.”⁷

This sample size demonstrates that the early church universally affirmed Markan authorship based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. We don’t know of any dissenting voices.

Internal Evidence for Mark

The Gospel according to Mark is formally anonymous. That is to say, Mark never claims to be the author inside the body of the text. That said, all the earliest manuscripts contain titles which attribute the Gospel to a person named “Mark.” But what if the text didn’t have a title? Do any internal clues point to a particular source behind the text?

As we established in the previous section, the early church affirmed that Mark wrote the Gospel based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. Therefore, we should expect to find clues in the Gospel that suggest we are getting Peter’s perspective. What might these clues look like?

Inclusio

An inclusio is a literary device that functions like “bookends” in a written work. In other words, the author frames material in such a way to emphasize a certain theme for his audience. Mark does a bit of an inclusio with Peter’s name.

Following the outset of Jesus’ ministry, Peter is the first mentioned disciple. Mark 1:16 notes, “Passing along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea.” Not only does Mark mention Peter (Simon) first, he appears to place an emphasis on his name by repeating it when he mentions Andrew. He could have just as easily said, “Simon and his brother Andrew” like he did in verse 19 when he stated, “James the son of Zebedee and John his brother.”

Fast-forward to the end of the book and Peter is the last disciple mentioned in the book. After all the disciples had abandoned Jesus, the women at the tomb were instructed to “go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee” (Mark 16:7). It seems as if Mark goes out of his way to mention Peter when it was completely unnecessary. By placing Peter at both the beginning and the end, Mark wishes to demonstrate the prominence of Peter in his narrative.

As Bauckham asserts, “The two references form an inclusio around the whole story, suggesting that Peter is the witness whose testimony includes the whole.”⁸

Frequency of Peter’s Name

The name Simon/Simon Peter/Peter appears twenty-six times in Mark’s Gospel. This number, of course, does not refer to the other Simon’s in the narrative. No other disciple even comes close. James is mentioned twelve times, John ten times, and Andrew three. Moreover, Peter is present throughout most of the narrative from 1:61-14:72. The lone exceptions are 6:14-29; 10:35-40; 14:1-2, 10-11, 55-65.⁹

Among the synoptic Gospels, Mark uses Peter’s name with the highest frequency per word. For example, Mark uses Peter’s name once for every 432 words compared to Matthew (once every 654 words) and Luke (once every 670 words). Additionally, Peter appears to represent all the disciples at several points throughout the Gospel (14:37-38; 1:36-37; 8:29; 10:28).

Final Remarks

Based on the evidence above, Mark wrote the Gospel that bears his name based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony. Not only did the early church universally affirm his authorship, literary clues within the text itself suggest Peter’s involvement. We conclude with Bauckham:

With regard to Mark’s sources, the evidence is at the very least consistent with, at most highly supportive of, the hypothesis that Mark’s main source was the body of traditions first formulated in Jerusalem by the Twelve, but that he knew this body of traditions in the form in which Peter related them.¹⁰

1. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.9.
2. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4.
3. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15.
4. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.
5. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3.
6. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5.
7. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 2.15.1.
8. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 125.
9. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 126.
10. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 172.