Why Mark had to be called Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:22 am

1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Joseph D. L.
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:39 am

Mark is named Mark, perhaps, because he is derived from Markianos/Mahalia.

Justin Martyr also purports the Mark, secretary of Peter tradition. Who came before whom?

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2362
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by DCHindley » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:14 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:22 am
1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.
Joseph DL responded
Mark is named Mark, perhaps, because he is ...
The real reason, and the one that resonates with eternal truth, is that the name "Mark" would in time provide Stephan Hüller with endless inspiration for his academic obsessions (all said in a good way, mind you). It was fated to happen. I guess this makes God "good" after all ... :scratch:

DCH

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5392
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:21 pm

Mark my words ...

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:36 pm

My best friend growing up was named Mark and we really called him Marky. I swear to God. He ended up leaving my street and going away to live in some remote part of Ontario. Then one day the doorbell rings at my parents house where I was residing (I must have been 20 or so). In walks Marky but he has no legs! He just wanted to say hi. He was lying in the snow and his dad decided to rev up the snowblower. True story.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9397
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:39 pm

I had a lot of friends like that. This other guy named Troy went out with his dad in the car while his dad was loaded at was permanently paralyzed. I think that happened when I was 10 or something.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by toejam » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:46 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:22 am
1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.
I see it just as likely that 1 Peter was aware of the Papias tradition (either directly from Papias or from a shared source) and used this in as an attempted deceptive verisimilitude to give his epistle the appearance of authenticity.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

Giuseppe
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:37 am

toejam wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:46 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:22 am
1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.
I see it just as likely that 1 Peter was aware of the Papias tradition (either directly from Papias or from a shared source) and used this in as an attempted deceptive verisimilitude to give his epistle the appearance of authenticity.
so you have the problem of the surprising Silence, in 1 Peter, about the Gospel Jesus of the Gospel of Mark.

My hypothesis doesn't suffer about that problem.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by arnoldo » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:20 am

There is also a possibility his name was John Mark according to the following source.

Barnabas, Jew and Levite, was one of the very first Christians. He is called an Apostle in Acts 14:14, and was most probably one of the 70 disciples of Jesus (Luke 10:1). Barnabas was a wealthy man of the early church noted for his generosity, as well as for his ability to be an encourager. His name means “Son of Encouragement” in Greek. He was charged with providing leadership and training in the church of Antioch, shortly after its founding. Because of this, he went and brought in his fellow Jew, Paul to help him in training new disciples. He is also a relative of John Mark’s, as noted in Colossians 4:10, where he is identified as an Uncle or perhaps Cousin. Tradition concerning Mark suggests that Barnabas was Mark’s father’s brother. He was a close associate of Paul’s for several years, and even introduced him to the church and apostles at Jerusalem, when the Christians were suspicious of Paul. After a dispute with Paul over John Mark, Barnabas went to Cyprus to continue his ministry, taking Mark with him.
http://www.earlyafricanchristianity.com ... -mark.html

Allegedly, there is a African tradition that Peter was married to a relative of John Mark.

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by toejam » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:22 pm

so you have the problem of the surprising Silence, in 1 Peter, about the Gospel Jesus of the Gospel of Mark.

My hypothesis doesn't suffer about that problem.
What "silence"? "Gospel Jesus" is all through 1 Peter. Numerous references are made to Jesus' suffering and abuse, his having led a sinless life, his death on a cross "in the flesh", his resurrection. The author of 1 Peter also presents Jesus as having been the fulfillment of the "stone laid in Zion" (i.e. Jerusalem) prophecy of Isaiah.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

Post Reply