Morton Smith the Musical

Peter or Paul Sanctioned the Gospel of Mark in the Churches?

The origins and sanctioning of the Gospel of Mark have long been debated among scholars and theologians. One intriguing perspective comes from Eusebius of Caesarea, who provides varying accounts regarding the apostolic endorsement of Mark's Gospel. This raises an essential question: was the Gospel of Mark sanctioned by Peter or Paul?

Eusebius's Accounts

In his Ecclesiastical History (2.15), Eusebius cites Clement of Alexandria’s Hypotyposes, which narrates how the followers of Peter in Rome implored Mark to document the teachings he had received orally. The account suggests that Peter's audience was so moved by his teachings that they desired a written record. Consequently, Mark wrote his Gospel to fulfill their request.

Here is the standard translation of Eusebius 2.15:

"And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches."

However, a closer look at the Greek text reveals nuances that invite further scrutiny:

"On learning what had been done, through the unveiling of the Spirit, it is said that the apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men, and sanctioned the composition for reading in the Churches."

Here, the term “the apostle” (τὸν ἀπόστολον) is used without specifying whether it refers to Peter or Paul. This ambiguity opens the door to alternative interpretations.

Contradictory Accounts?

Eusebius revisits this narrative in Ecclesiastical History (6.14), where he recounts the same event with a slightly different emphasis:

"The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it."

This account suggests that Peter had a neutral stance towards the Gospel of Mark, neither endorsing nor disapproving of it. This contrasts with the earlier account, where “the apostle” sanctioned it enthusiastically.

Peter or Paul?

Given the ambiguity in the text, it is worth considering whether Paul could be the apostle who endorsed Mark’s Gospel. The terminology used, such as κυρῶσαί (sanctioned) and ἔντευξις (composition for reading), aligns more closely with Pauline language found in his epistles rather than Petrine literature. This linguistic alignment provides some grounds for the hypothesis that Paul might have been the one who endorsed the Gospel of Mark.

Additionally, there is another reference in Clement's writings indicating Peter’s indifference towards Mark’s Gospel. This further complicates the narrative and suggests that if Peter was not keenly interested in the Gospel’s distribution, Paul’s approval becomes a plausible alternative.

Historical and Theological Implications

The potential endorsement of Mark’s Gospel by Paul rather than Peter has significant implications for understanding early Christian dynamics and the spread of the Gospel. Paul’s missionary journeys and extensive correspondence with various churches might explain why he would be enthusiastic about a written Gospel that could be disseminated widely across different communities.

Moreover, Paul’s theological emphasis on the universality of the Gospel and its accessibility to Gentiles might have driven him to support the written account of Mark, which was rooted in Peter’s teachings but intended for a broader audience.

Conclusion

The question of whether Peter or Paul sanctioned the Gospel of Mark remains open to interpretation, primarily due to the ambiguous phrasing in Eusebius’s accounts. However, the evidence leans towards the possibility that Paul, known for his prolific writing and endorsement of scriptural dissemination, may have been the apostle who enthusiastically supported the Gospel of Mark for reading in the churches. This perspective invites further exploration and underscores the intricate and collaborative nature of early Christian scripture formation.