I know our Gospel of Mark is anonymous, and I am trying to understand where the traditions of attribution come from. As far as I understand, the tradition is that the Gospel was written by Mark the interpreter of Peter, who would also be the John Mark referred in *Acts of the Apostles* as a companion of Paul who split up with Barnabas at some point. As *Acts* does not state that John Mark became an interpreter of Peter, I assume these are two different claims: - **Claim 1:** "The author of Mark was the interpreter of Peter". - **Claim 2:** "The author of Mark is John Mark, the character from *Acts of the Apostles*". I know that we can trace *Claim 1* one to Papias (though we do not know if he's discussing *our* Gospel of Mark), and later to Irenaeus (who is definitely talking about our Gospel of Mark). But they do not seem to indicate that the author was also John Mark from *Acts of the Apostles*. I have failed to find our first source for *Claim 2*. **I am interested in finding out at which point in history people started assuming that John Mark (the character in *Acts of the Apostles*) is the author of our Gospel of Mark** (or, failing that, at which point people started assuming that John Mark from the Acts of the Apostles became later in his life an interpreter of Peter).

GotQuestions.org has an article entitled [*Why did Jesus say that the demon could only come out by prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29)?*](https://www.gotquestions.org/only-come-out-by-prayer-and-fasting.html) , which I’d like to quote to motivate this question: > Later, the disciples privately asked Jesus why they could not cast out the unclean spirit (Mark > 9:28), and Jesus replied that this particular kind could only come out > “by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29, KJV). It is only the King James > Version (and NKJV) that records Jesus saying the demon could only come > out by prayer and fasting. Other translations (ASV, NASB, ESV, NIV, et > al.) leave out *and fasting* and only mention prayer. The difference is > due to a textual variant. The two oldest and most reliable Greek > manuscripts omit *and fasting*. > > While there are many variants in the Greek manuscripts of the New > Testament, it is remarkable that none of the variants create any > significant doctrinal challenge—they are usually minor and don’t > impact the message of a passage at all. Mark 9:29 is one of the more > significant variants, as the differing translations make it unclear > whether the demon in Mark 9 could only come out by prayer and fasting, > or whether prayer alone would work. It is worth noting that in the New > Testament fasting was simply prayer so focused and intense that a > person did not give attention to things like eating or drinking—so > either way, Jesus is emphasizing that the demon in Mark 9 could only > come out by intensive prayer. > > As Jesus explains to the crowd, the key was the faith of those > involved (e.g., Mark 9:19, 23). So it is evident that prayer rooted in > faith in Jesus Christ is effective (see James’ assertion that the > prayer of a righteous [believing] person is effective, James 5:16b). > Jesus was challenging the crowd, the boy’s father, and the disciples > on the importance of believing in Him as the One who could accomplish > what would otherwise be impossible. Whether one accepts the *prayer and fasting* variant or the *prayer only* variant, it is clear that, in either case, a special kind or a higher degree of prayer is required before attempting difficult exorcisms. Unfortunately, Jesus’s recorded words are quite vague on this point, as He does not provide a more precise protocol, leaving several questions unanswered, such as: - How can one determine if an exorcism will be particularly difficult? - What factors contribute to the difficulty of an exorcism? - How much time should be devoted to prayer in preparation for a difficult exorcism? - Is fasting ever necessary, at least in extreme cases, and if so, for how long? Or is prayer alone always sufficient? Are there any Christian denominations or traditions that teach a more detailed protocol for preparing for difficult exorcisms?

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

We read in Mark 15: 42-44: > "When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. " That implies that Jesus'death on the cross happened earlier than had been expected. Some medical professionals theorize that Jesus died of a heart failure, to which extreme mental stress had significantly contributed. They believe that the Lord's psychological trauma did not end with the Sweating of Blood at Gethsemane, rather followed Him to the Cross. Now, one should not expect that the Creed will be re-written to state that Jesus died on the Cross, of heart-failure. But, understanding the theory helps one to look at the mental agony of Jesus with the same gravity as his physical suffering. My question therefore, is: Has the Catholic Church taken cognizance of the theory that the terminal cause of Jesus's death on the cross was heart-failure ?

Eusebius in his *Historia Ecclesiastica 3.39.15* writes about Papias claiming Mark, an attendant of Peter, had written an account about Jesus: > And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of > Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he > remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he > neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, > who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an > ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin > having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made > one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or > falsify anything in them. > > Και τουθ ο πρεσβυτερος ελεγεν· Μαρκος μεν ερμηνευτης Πετρου γενομενος, > οσα εμνημονευσεν ακριβως εγραψεν, ου μεντοι ταξει, τα υπο του κυριου η > λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα. ουτε γαρ ηκουσεν του κυριου ουτε παρηκολουθησεν > αυτω, υστερον δε, ως εφην, Πετρω, ος προς τας χρειας εποιειτο τας > διδασκαλιας, αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων, > ωστε ουδεν ημαρτεν Μαρκος ουτως ενια γραψας ως απεμνημοσευσεν. ενος > γαρ εποιησατο προνοιαν, του μηδεν ων ηκουσεν παραλιπειν η ψευσασθαι τι > εν αυτοις. Could the phrase ου μεντοι ταξει refer to the concept of a rhetorical arrangement that is not in order, in that it skips over major sections of the life and ministry of Jesus? There are two references in the New Testament that are different, yet similar: > Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account > of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the > beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them > down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated > everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in > orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], most excellent Theophilus; so that you > might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1.1-4) > > But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them > in orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], saying.... (Acts 11.4) The early second century literary critic Lucian in his book, *How to Write History* uses ταξει in a broad sense when he writes: > As to the facts themselves, [the historian] should not assemble them > at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking > investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, > listen to those who tell the more impartial story, those whom one > would suppose least likely to subtract from the facts or add to them > out of favor or malice. When this happens let him show shrewdness and > skill in putting together the more credible story. When he has > collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a > series of notes, a body of material as yet with no beauty or > continuity. Then, after arranging them into order [τάξιν], let him > give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, > and rhythm. (47-48) Of course, it is possible that Papias is making reference to an early version of Mark's Gospel. If so, it might be similar to how Tertullian in his work *Against Marcion* writes: > Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my > concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My > first edition [primum opusculum], too hurriedly produced, I afterwards > withdrew, substituting a fuller [*pleniore*] treatment. This also, > before enough copies [*exemplariis*] had been made, was stolen from me > by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who > chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly > [*mendosissime*], and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need > for correction [*emendationis necessitas facta est*]. The opportunity > provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus > this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third > from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the > work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or > another he comes across varying forms of it [*varietas eius*]. > (1.1.1-2) The target audience of Mark's Gospel appears to be Cæsar's equites . So, an abridged version of the life and ministry of Jesus might have deliberately been crafted to leave out certain events for rhetorical purposes such as memory retention, etc. For example, in the Fragments attributed to Clement of Alexandria it states (emphasis added): > Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel > at Rome before some of **Cæsar's equites**, and adduced many testimonies > to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to > memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely > what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be > recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the > Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. So, what is a survey of the various views that Christians related to the question of what did Papias mean when he wrote how Mark did not write "in order" about what Jesus said or did?

I also first published this question in BHSE, but it’s relevant to historical investigations into Christianity, can anyone help me to understand this below? Mark’s Gospel is often considered the earliest gospel written by scholars. We read: > “Immediately the king[*Herod*] sent a soldier of the guard with orders > to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,” ‭‭Mark‬ > ‭6‬:‭27‬ ‭NRSV‬‬ But British scholar F.F. Bruce records this information: (A Baraitha from the period of 70A.D.-200A.D. named "TJ Sanhedrin 1.1" says:) > "forty years before the destruction of the temple the right to inflict > the death penalty was taken away from Israel." > -Source: "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" by F.F. Bruce (page 56, footnote 5). **Question:** How is Mark 6:27 historically reliable given that Herod killed John the Baptist in Prison but likely didn’t have authority to execute capital punishment given the information in the Baraitha?

At the end of the Gospel of Mark, the boy in the tomb tells the women to give a message to "[Jesus's] disciples AND Peter" (Mark 16:7). Nowhere else in Mark is any apostle "separated" from the word "disciples" and Peter, the "leader" of the disciples, is given second billing. What, if any, are the official church explanations for this unusual language?

This question discusses the differences between Marcan priority and Matthean priority and asks about the arguments in favor of Matthean priority. My question is who holds and promotes this view. I heard the claim made that there are only a few scholars who hold to this view and that Marcan priority is almost undisputed. Is it true that the overwhelming majority of Christian and secular scholars hold to Marcan priority? Who are the major voices on the side of Matthean priority? Is there a reliable indication of what proportion of the scholarly community holds to Matthean priority or disputes Marcan priority? I'll also accept a well-sourced answer confirming the claim that Marcan priority is all but undisputed.

Simple question: What are the best arguments for the divine inspiration of the longer ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), according to believers in its inspiration? These are examples of articles presenting arguments *against* Mark 16:9-20's inspiration: - [Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark](https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/) - [Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?](https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html) Answers rebutting these articles will be highly appreciated. ____ A related question illustrating why the question about inspiration is important: [Are the signs mentioned in Mark 16:17-18 universally expected of all true believers?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/59009/38524)

This haunting question came to me after seeing a documentary regarding the gospels and how John is not considered synoptic. It seems that scholars hold the belief that Mark was the first gospel ever written making it not so far from the time of the resurrection and so I personally think that Mark must be the most reliable. Looking into why Mark doesn't contain the virgin conception, I stumbled across scholar findings regarding other sources other than Mark that were responsible for both Matthew and Luke. For example, the Q-source and the M and L source. I don't know if I believe these theories but since Mark is the earliest, it sure does make sense. But my question still stands why didn't Mark contain the virgin birth given that it was the very first gospel? Why didn't any of the disciples have a more detailed account of the life of Jesus for that matter, I mean I think I would have given up everything to have wrote everything with every detail as possible if I was one of the disciples, wouldn't you? One part that makes me think about this, is when Jesus told his disciples who He was but didn't want them to let any one know until it was all done, if this was the case why didn't they mention each and everything once everything was done.

Why, in the Gospel of Mark, is Jesus referred to as the son of Mary but, in the Gospel of Luke, he is referred to as the son of Joseph? >Is not this the carpenter, **the son of Mary**, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. (Mark 6:3) >And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, **Is not this Joseph's son?** (Luke 4:22)

There are numerous Christians hymns and references in Christian literature that Jesus was "forsaken by all mankind, yet to be in Heaven' enthroned", etc. In essence, there is this powerful image of Christ hanging crucified on the cross bearing the sins of all mankind, totally abandoned. (cf. Mark 15:34) The Gospels, however, at least the Gospel of John, presents the apostle John and Mary the mother of Jesus present at the crucifixion (cf. John 19:26–27), showing somehow that not every human betrayed or forsaken Christ. Are the Christian hymns a simple exaggeration to make a point, or was Jesus indeed literary forsaken by all humans? If so, how are we to interpret the passages cited in John's Gospel?

Matthew 12:22-32 and Mark 3:22-30 both tell the account of the Christ casting out devils while Pharisees accused Him of being possessed by Beelzebub. The Christ rebukes them and declares the following from Matthew 12:31-32: > 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. It appears that the Christ is telling us that blasphemy against the Father or the Son (i.e. *"God damn it!"* or *"Jesus Jumping Christ!"*) is forgivable, but not of the Holy Spirit. However, most preachers and theologians I have listened to believe that it really means that it means living an unrepentant life. My question is how Christian theologians have made this conclusion and if it holds up to biblical doctrine.

Concerning the end of the world and when this will happen Mark 13:10 says: > And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. (NIV) Has the gospel been preached to all nations?

I'm aware someone asked this question already, but they no longer have an account, the post has no answers, and I'm hopefully going to reformulate the question in a way that hopefully explicates the objection more. Mark 1:1-5 states (verse numbers removed): >The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” - “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’” And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark's quotation is seemingly a conglomeration of a few Old Testament passages, but of the passages he does use from Isaiah and Malachi that are relevant, they both say essentially the same thing. Malachi 3:1 (Emphasis added and verse numbers removed): >“Behold, **I** will send **My messenger**, who will prepare the way before **Me**. Then the Lord whom you seek will suddenly **come to His temple**—the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight—see, He is coming,” says the LORD of Hosts. So in Mark 1 we are introduced to two figures, Jesus, and John the Baptist. In Malachi, we are introduced to two figures, God, and the messenger, who will prepare the way before God. Notice that immediately after describing a messenger who will come and prepare the way, Mark launches into his description of the ministry of John the Baptist. Since we know that John the Baptist's purpose was to bring in Jesus' ministry, that means that John the Baptist is the messenger making the path straight for the Lord, Jesus. But that means Jesus must be God. To break this down into a syllogism: 1. The Old Testament speaks of a messenger preparing the way for God to meet his people. 2. Mark identifies this messenger as John the Baptist. 3. John the Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus to make his people. 4. Therefore, Jesus is God as described in the Old Testament.

The standard reading of John 1:1 > "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the > Word was God." is that the beginning - ἀρχῇ (archē) - refers to the old beginning, i.e., the beginning described in Genesis 1. What are the main arguments in favour of the beginning at John 1:1 referring to the new beginning, i.e., the beginning of Jesus' (human) life or ministry? This question is a mirror of this question .

Mark 13:32 says: >"**No one** knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but **only the Father**." Jesus here is apparently saying the Holy Spirit doesn't know something. How do Trinitarians, who hold the Holy Spirit as a co-equal person of the Godhead, understand this verse?

As a Catholic, I have to take it as a dogmatic tenet of faith that everything in the Latin Vulgate during the council of Trent was inspired by the Holy Sprit. That being said, I am seeing good arguments for Mark 16:9-20 being later additions, for example, it is missing from both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. What would be the best arguments in favor of Mark 16:9-20 being part of the original text? Edit: I found this (very long) article very helpful in answering this question for myself. I realize now looking back that this question deserves a small book as an answer and is therefore not appropriate for this medium. If you are also asking this question I recommend you read the article linked to below. God bless! https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/

We read in Mk 3:19-21 (KJV) : > Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” One wonders as to why the kith and kin of Jesus made that comment in the initial days of his public life. Did they foresee a security threat from the side of the rulers or the religious hierarchy whom he criticized ? Did they really mean what they said ( "He is out of his mind") , or was it said to find an excuse for not getting involved in the affairs attributable only to him? My question therefore is: **Did the kith and kin of Jesus anticipate a security threat for themselves?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

I vaguely recall a homily from several years ago where the priest explained what Mark 8:22-26 meant when Jesus healed a blind man that he saw other people's blindness (i.e. it was their souls that looked like trees, walking). Venerable Bede says that this is in reference to a person needing to be [purified by degrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_man_of_Bethsaida) but what other takes are there on the reason this particular man 1. Wasn't cured at once and 2. Saw people that looked like trees. Looking primarily for historical or contemporary Catholic exegetes.