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?

We read in Mark 10:46-47 > As Jesus was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a sizable crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind man, the son of Timaeus, sat by the roadside begging. On hearing that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, son of David, have pity on me." Mark goes on to say that after getting healed by Jesus, Bartimaeus followed the Lord 'in the way'(Verse 52, KJV). In the narration of a number of Jesus' miracles, identity of the beneficiary is not given. That Mark mentions the identity of the blind beggar implies that he would subsequently become a household name among the followers of Christ. My question is : What do traditions say about the post- healing life of Bartimaeus, the blind beggar ?

Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common names in the time of Jesus? If not, what were their real names and why were they changed?

If Jesus said that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit then could it be reasonable to assume we are the Holy place? Also we are told that if we take the mark of the beast or worship his image we will not be in the lambs book of life. I ask this because the term "Holy Place" is used and if you presume that it is from the perspective Gods view then what indeed does HE consider "Holy". We are told to be "holy" as He is Holy. I don't see how a place can be Holy. I understand that when Gods presence was in the temple it became a holy place. But now Gods Spirit resides in us. What do you think?

Matthew 19:29 : >And every one that hath left **house**, or **brethren**, or **sisters**, or **father**, or **mother**, or **wife**, or **children**, or **lands** for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. Mark 10:29-30 : >Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left **house** or **brethren**, or **sisters**, or **father**, or **mother**, or **children**, or **lands**, for my sake and for the gospel who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; **houses**, and **brethren**, and **sisters**, [Is the omission of "fathers" here significant?] and **mothers**, and **children**, and **lands**, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. It seems the ordering is from most long-living to least long-living ties. A household (οἰκία) lasts the longest, many centuries. Brothers and sisters are longer-lasting ties than parental ties because siblings are coeval with each other; such ties are lifelong. Children are with their parents longer than with their wives. Lands are the least long-lasting ties, as some people are migratory. Or perhaps the ordering relates to the order of charity ? Have any commentators interpreted the meaning of the ordering of these things? And what about the omission of "wife" or "fathers" in St. Mark's account? cross-posted on Biblical Hermeneutics StackExchange

I have been told that Peter could not read or write. Mark wrote all of Peters’s stories and scriptures. How can I determine if this true?

>(Exodus 31:13-17) What is God's Sign?-The sign of obedience is the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.If men keep the fourth commandment,they will keep all the rest(Letter 31,1898)(7BC 981.5) The above comment is from E G White commenting on Revelation 14.She articulates that those who observe the fourth commandment(Sabbath) will also keep the rest But in many instances the pharisaic order who were keen observers of the Sabbath were lambasted for observing the Sabbath while neglecting the other laws. Luke 6:1-2 NASB >Now it happened that [a]Jesus was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath, and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them. 2 **But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”** Luke 6:6 NASB >On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and taught; and a man was there [c]whose right hand was withered. 7 **Now the scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him [d]closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse Him**. Even when the greatest commandments are mentioned the Sabbath is conspicuous by its absence from the list Matthew 22:36-40 NASB >36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and [u]foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Upon these two commandments [v]hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” Mark 10:19 NASB > You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not give false testimony, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” How then can one understand the assertion that those who keep the fourth commandment will also observe the other laws How can one understand this assertion?

We see in Mark 4:38-40 , a trivial detail: > A great windstorm arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already being swamped. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion.. Mtt 8:23-24 which narrate the same incident, does not mention that Jesus was sleeping on the cushion. Mark is also one of the two Evangelists who speak of the Widow's Mite (Mk 12: 41-44 and Lk 21: 1-4). He also narrates the young follower of Jesus, who runs away in `birthday suit' while Jesus was being taken away by the soldiers (14: 51-52). My question therefore, is: **According to Catholic Church, does Mark have a distinction among the Evangelists for recording trivial details?**

Who was Mark's (or John Mark's) father in the Gospel and what was his name. His mother’s name was Mary. Where can I find the name of Mark’s father mentioned in the bible, if at all?

From [Luke 6:13–16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+6%3A13-16&version=NIV) (NIV): > When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of > them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), > his brother Andrew, James, **John**, Philip, Bartholomew, **Matthew**, > Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas > son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. John and Matthew were included, but the remaining two authors of the Gospel – Mark and Luke – were not. Why is this, and how did they come to know Jesus so closely as to later write his Gospel?

I'm curious how the authors of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) actually knew how to write. They were fishermen and simple people, and very few people knew how to write back then. Perhaps some will say that it was the Holy Spirit who gave them this ability, but I'd like to know whether there is some other historical explanation for the fact that they were literate.

Currently I'm studying Youth Ministry and have a New Testament class that has been challenging. One of the tips for understanding an author better is to read everything they've written. Have these four written anything else that we know of other than the Gospels? Or were they only inspired to write the Gospels?

According to a commentary by Thomas Aquinas , [pita] bread (and I suppose those extremely leavened (aerated) wafers) become "the indestructible flesh of God, the Son": ...The food that sustains the body is perishable, since it is converted into the nature of the body; but the food that sustains the spirit is not perishable, because it is not converted into the spirit; rather, the spirit is converted into its food. Hence Augustine says in his Confessions: “I am the food of the great; grow and you will eat me. But you will not change me into yourself, as you do bodily food, but you will be changed into me.”... But if the flesh is indigestible, won't it end up being flushed down the toilet?: >Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, **and then out of the body**.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Has this been considered and addressed?

Why did Jesus walk on water? In the gospel of Mark we see Jesus walking on water, but why? Is He fulfilling the law? He could have been walking on clouds or flying like an angel around them or any other miracle if it was to show the power of the Messiah.

When Paul says: "Don’t become partners with those who do not believe. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, as God said: I will dwell and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord; do not touch any unclean thing, and I will welcome you. 2 Corinthians 6:14‭-‬17 CSB" Does it mean to not be friends with unbelievers? If yes, doesn't it contradict Jesus in Mark 2 when He was eating and drinking with sinners?

Since Peter was married, and children were normal, and that he stayed with Mark's mother when he was in town, I think the chance is at least fair that this is a plain statement. Add to that Paul's reluctance to have such a young companion, especially one who would report to the Jerusalem church, and the argument strengthens. Is there evidence to refute this thought?