Whatever you may think of the TeeVee series known as the Chosen, I included it because I think it is key to understanding the message.
The "hired hand" cares nothing for the sheep. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. So there you have it. That is how you can make the distinction. That is, if your brain is still working.
Whoever takes money for their services is just a hired hand, in my opinion. This is not about money.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, September 12, 2026
The Good Shepard Discourse---John 10 (dramatized here in a clip from the Chosen)
You need to know this, or you will fail
Yours truly suspects that China is behind a good deal of the trouble in our society right now, and that we'd better wise up fast, or we're finished.
If the following doesn't convince, then read my prior posts. If those don't convince you, then you must already be brain-dead from post-modernist thinking. That post-modernist thinking came from SOMEWHERE, and it fits the communist plan like a hand in a glove.
Western societies are self-destructing because of this post-modernism. Who wants to get rid of Western civilization? it doesn't take long to figure out who, where, and why of that one. That is, if you're brain is still working.
So I asked AI about something. Yes, that sounds like something that Mindplicit says is a no-no, but I disagree with MindPlicit on this one. It is a time-saver. If I had to look this up myself, it would take a lot longer, and I might not even find it. So, here's the question:
Question:
There is a quote that I would like to chase down, but I'm not certain of its source. I suspect that it was Mas-Tse Tung who once said that political power flows from the point of a gun. Is this true? If not, then who said it?
Answer:
You are correct in your attribution. The phrase "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Chinese: 枪杆子里面出政权; pinyin: Qiānggǎnzi lǐmiàn chū zhèngquán) was indeed coined by Mao Zedong.
He first utilized this principle during an emergency meeting of the Chinese Communist Party on August 7, 1927, at the onset of the Chinese Civil War. Following the Nationalist government's "White Terror," which decimated the ranks of the CCP, Mao argued that the party could no longer rely on political maneuvering alone. To survive, the CCP needed to establish "revolutionary base areas" and develop its own military force.
Mao famously reiterated this in his November 6, 1938, speech at the 6th Plenary Session of the 6th Central Committee, stating: "Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
This concept was later popularized globally through his Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, cementing the idea as a foundational tenet of Maoist strategy, which emphasizes the necessity of armed struggle and military control to achieve and maintain revolutionary political authority.
Comment:
The evidence points to a series of moves of CHINA to take over the world, in my opinion. To do so, the so-called classless society has out capitalist the capitalists!
In other words, they use our strengths against us. And we have allowed ourselves to become too stupid to perceive their wickedness, and defend ourselves.
This is a warning that I hope will not go unheeded. I'm sure of this. In the stupidity quandrant, the communists are acting like thieves. They are acting in their own self-interest. We in the West are acting like complete dumb-asses, thanks to something that they've planted ( and dissidents have admitted to of a plot to DEMORIALIZE the West). I think part of that is post-modernism.
If the following doesn't convince, then read my prior posts. If those don't convince you, then you must already be brain-dead from post-modernist thinking. That post-modernist thinking came from SOMEWHERE, and it fits the communist plan like a hand in a glove.
Western societies are self-destructing because of this post-modernism. Who wants to get rid of Western civilization? it doesn't take long to figure out who, where, and why of that one. That is, if you're brain is still working.
So I asked AI about something. Yes, that sounds like something that Mindplicit says is a no-no, but I disagree with MindPlicit on this one. It is a time-saver. If I had to look this up myself, it would take a lot longer, and I might not even find it. So, here's the question:
Question:
There is a quote that I would like to chase down, but I'm not certain of its source. I suspect that it was Mas-Tse Tung who once said that political power flows from the point of a gun. Is this true? If not, then who said it?
Answer:
You are correct in your attribution. The phrase "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" (Chinese: 枪杆子里面出政权; pinyin: Qiānggǎnzi lǐmiàn chū zhèngquán) was indeed coined by Mao Zedong.
He first utilized this principle during an emergency meeting of the Chinese Communist Party on August 7, 1927, at the onset of the Chinese Civil War. Following the Nationalist government's "White Terror," which decimated the ranks of the CCP, Mao argued that the party could no longer rely on political maneuvering alone. To survive, the CCP needed to establish "revolutionary base areas" and develop its own military force.
Mao famously reiterated this in his November 6, 1938, speech at the 6th Plenary Session of the 6th Central Committee, stating: "Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party."
This concept was later popularized globally through his Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung, cementing the idea as a foundational tenet of Maoist strategy, which emphasizes the necessity of armed struggle and military control to achieve and maintain revolutionary political authority.
Comment:
The evidence points to a series of moves of CHINA to take over the world, in my opinion. To do so, the so-called classless society has out capitalist the capitalists!
In other words, they use our strengths against us. And we have allowed ourselves to become too stupid to perceive their wickedness, and defend ourselves.
This is a warning that I hope will not go unheeded. I'm sure of this. In the stupidity quandrant, the communists are acting like thieves. They are acting in their own self-interest. We in the West are acting like complete dumb-asses, thanks to something that they've planted ( and dissidents have admitted to of a plot to DEMORIALIZE the West). I think part of that is post-modernism.
If this doesn't make you blood boil, maybe the post-modernists have made you stupid too
This post goes with the others made previously. If the USA dies off, it will be because of this kind of thing, which to me appears to be yet another case of STUPIDITY.
The term of STUPIDITY is being generous, because the alternative is TREASON. What's the difference in this case? In this case, TREASON would mean that the person(s) responsible did it knowingly and maliciously, whereas the STUPIDITY case would mean that the person(s) responsible did it because they were .... STUPID.
Watch this video, and know this --- THORIUM is not a useless element. It is quite valuable, and could be powering our world this very day if another STUPID decision wasn't made to forego that option.
Know also that THORIUM is found where rare earths are found. Also, that rare earths are not rare. That CHINA obained the patents from General Motors because of a STUPID decision made by those who were supposed to be protecting our national secuity interests.
Of course, I knew these details. I even mentioned to a coal plant executive when he rode with me on an Uber ride when I was still in Houston. He didn't know what I was talking about. That is to say, there is more energy value in the coal ash than in the coal itself. That's because the coal ash has THORIUM in it.
Obviously, a coal mining executive is not stupid. Just ignorant, perhaps. Only ignorant because for whatever reason, this facts are not being taught in our schools and universities.
But it was definitely known by SOME, and they've been trying to put out the message, but evidently the post-modernist thinking has blunted their brain-power. They refuse to check things out, and end up making STUPID decisions like this.
This country doesn't have the luxury of being StuPID any longer. Any more false steps like this, like putting a SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST government in place, will be the end of this country.
Trump is the one president that we've had in a long time ( as long as I've been around which is over 70 years) that is taking care of this country. If people insist upon being STUPID, and listening to the news media ( which isn't loyal to America at all) and the ACADEMICS, who are steeped in Marxist thought IVY TOWER BULLSHIT; this country WILL PAY DEARLY for it.
Patriots be advised. Watch this, and ask yourself if it makes you angry. If it doesn't, then maybe you're just as stupid as the rest.
Harsh words indeed. But necessary.
The term of STUPIDITY is being generous, because the alternative is TREASON. What's the difference in this case? In this case, TREASON would mean that the person(s) responsible did it knowingly and maliciously, whereas the STUPIDITY case would mean that the person(s) responsible did it because they were .... STUPID.
Watch this video, and know this --- THORIUM is not a useless element. It is quite valuable, and could be powering our world this very day if another STUPID decision wasn't made to forego that option.
Know also that THORIUM is found where rare earths are found. Also, that rare earths are not rare. That CHINA obained the patents from General Motors because of a STUPID decision made by those who were supposed to be protecting our national secuity interests.
Of course, I knew these details. I even mentioned to a coal plant executive when he rode with me on an Uber ride when I was still in Houston. He didn't know what I was talking about. That is to say, there is more energy value in the coal ash than in the coal itself. That's because the coal ash has THORIUM in it.
Obviously, a coal mining executive is not stupid. Just ignorant, perhaps. Only ignorant because for whatever reason, this facts are not being taught in our schools and universities.
But it was definitely known by SOME, and they've been trying to put out the message, but evidently the post-modernist thinking has blunted their brain-power. They refuse to check things out, and end up making STUPID decisions like this.
This country doesn't have the luxury of being StuPID any longer. Any more false steps like this, like putting a SOCIALIST or COMMUNIST government in place, will be the end of this country.
Trump is the one president that we've had in a long time ( as long as I've been around which is over 70 years) that is taking care of this country. If people insist upon being STUPID, and listening to the news media ( which isn't loyal to America at all) and the ACADEMICS, who are steeped in Marxist thought IVY TOWER BULLSHIT; this country WILL PAY DEARLY for it.
Patriots be advised. Watch this, and ask yourself if it makes you angry. If it doesn't, then maybe you're just as stupid as the rest.
Harsh words indeed. But necessary.
Friday, September 11, 2026
The End of Critical Thinking
The video leaves out post-modernist "philosophy". But what he has here is plenty enough. Bottom line: Don't leave your brain at the door. The "collective" wants you to be stupid, on the premise that stupidity is power, I suppose. No it isn't. A mob is really just a helpless beast. A single man can stop a mob. Mark Twain wrote about it ( Colonel Sherburn's address). Should you trust what Mark Twain said? Or what anybody says? If yes, then why?
You've got liberals accusing others of fascism, but act more fascist than Hitler's Brownshirts. The Brownshirts were a thougtless mob. Is that what you truly want?
You've got liberals accusing others of fascism, but act more fascist than Hitler's Brownshirts. The Brownshirts were a thougtless mob. Is that what you truly want?
Election "bomb" in Germany
Wait a minute! Didn't the UK do a thing called "Brexit"? What the heck is going on over there???
Talarico Pastor: ‘People in This Church’ Wish Would-Be Trump Assassin ‘Had Been More Successful’
Talarico is a fake. He's as fake as fake can be. It isn't any Chrisitan church to say that they're agnostic or atheistic. What kind of people would say that? What kind of pastor would say that? Certainly not any Christian one.
Incidentally, he promotes murder for what exactly? Differences of opinion? These Talafreakos claim to be caring people, but they advocate cold-blooded murder. Talarico is a liar and a fake. That is true of all commies. The whole idea is to defraud on the road to power. They are insane.
Update:
Get a load of this!
Gotta love it...
Thursday, September 10, 2026
Who is Mark, as the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament
Note: I became curious about this, so I asked AI. Here's what it said:
**Mark the Evangelist** (also known as **John Mark**) is the traditional author of the **Gospel of Mark**, the shortest and earliest of the four New Testament Gospels. He was not one of the twelve Apostles but served as a companion to **Peter** and **Paul**, with early church tradition (such as the writings of Papias) asserting that his gospel recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life.
Key details about his identity and role include:
* **Biblical Identity**: Mentioned in the Book of Acts as the son of a woman named Mary whose house served as a gathering place for early Christians. He traveled with **Barnabas** and **Paul** on missionary journeys but initially left them, later reconciling and becoming a trusted associate of Paul in his later years.
* **Authorship Tradition**: While the Gospel itself is anonymous, early church fathers unanimously attributed it to Mark, describing him as Peter’s interpreter or scribe who wrote down Peter’s preaching, likely in **Rome** around **60–70 CE**.
* **Theological Focus**: Mark’s narrative emphasizes Jesus as the **Servant** and **Son of God**, focusing heavily on Jesus’ actions, miracles, and suffering rather than his teachings or genealogy, tailored for a **Gentile** audience, particularly Roman believers.
## Evidence Supporting Mark's Authorship
The evidence falls into two categories: **external** (early church tradition) and **internal** (clues within the text). The scholarly consensus is that the tradition is early and unanimous, though not beyond debate.
### External Evidence
The strongest evidence comes from a chain of early patristic witnesses:
- **Papias of Hierapolis** (c. 120 CE), preserved by Eusebius, is the earliest testimony: *"Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord."* This is the foundational claim that Mark was Peter's scribe.
- **Irenaeus of Lyons** (*Against Heresies* 3.1.1, c. 180 CE) confirms: *"after their death [Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."*
- The **Muratorian Canon** (c. 170 CE), **Clement of Alexandria**, **Tertullian**, **Origen**, and **Jerome** all affirm the same attribution. The tradition is geographically widespread (Asia Minor, Rome, Alexandria, Lyons) and **unanimous** — no ancient source names a different author.
- **1 Peter 5:13** references "Mark my son" in Babylon (Rome), corroborating a close Peter–Mark relationship in the capital. - The earliest Greek manuscripts (e.g., P⁴⁵, 3rd century) carry the title "According to Mark."
### Internal Evidence (Textual Clues)
The Gospel itself is anonymous, but several features are *consistent* with the tradition:
- **Aramaic words glossed in Greek** (e.g., *Talitha kum* in 5:41, *Ephphatha* in 7:34, *Boanerges* in 3:17) — fitting for a bilingual interpreter mediating between Peter's Aramaic and a Greek-speaking audience.
- **Concise, rapid narrative style** with short sentences and the frequent use of *euthys* ("immediately") — consistent with a scribe capturing oral preaching rather than composing a literary work.
- **Explanations of Jewish customs** for Gentile readers (e.g., hand-washing in 7:3–4) — pointing to a non-Jewish, likely Roman, audience. - **References to people "known to you"** (Mark 15:21, Simon of Cyrene's sons Alexander and Rufus) — suggesting the author wrote to a community with personal connections to events described.
### Scholarly Caveats
- The attribution is **late** relative to composition: if Mark was written ~70 CE, Papias's testimony comes ~50 years later. - The Gospel **never names its author** internally. - Some critical scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman) argue that earlier writers who quote Mark (like Justin Martyr, c. 150 CE) do **not** name its author, and that the first to clearly link "Mark" to *this specific text* is Irenaeus.
- Papias's description of Mark's account as "not in order" has led some to question whether he is referring to the canonical Gospel at all. - The author is best described by neutral scholarship as "a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian who lived outside Palestine" — a description that fits John Mark but is not exclusive to him.
In short: the evidence is **early, unanimous, and geographically broad**, but it rests on second- and third-century tradition rather than a first-century self-identification. Most scholars regard the tradition as **probable but not certain**.
## Mark and Peter: A Father-Son Relationship
Their relationship developed in stages, moving from acquaintance to deep spiritual kinship:
**Jerusalem (c. 44 CE).** The earliest point of contact is **Acts 12:12**, where Peter, having been miraculously freed from Herod's prison, goes directly to the house of **Mary**, Mark's mother — a known gathering place for the early Jerusalem church. This is where the relationship almost certainly began: Peter took refuge in Mark's family home.
**Rome (early 60s CE).** The relationship deepened when Mark accompanied Peter to Rome. There, Mark served as Peter's **interpreter** (*hermēneutēs*) — translating Peter's Aramaic preaching into Greek for a predominantly Gentile Roman audience. They were together during Peter's imprisonment in Rome.
**Spiritual Father and Son.** The clearest statement of their bond is **1 Peter 5:13**, where Peter, writing from "Babylon" (Rome), sends greetings through *"my son Mark."* This is not merely a formal title — it signals that Peter was Mark's spiritual father, likely the one who brought him to faith. The relationship is analogous to a parent and child in the faith.
**The Gospel as Peter's Memoir.** The tradition (Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others) is that Mark **wrote down what Peter preached** about Jesus — effectively producing a written record of Peter's eyewitness testimony. Papias's key statement:
> *"Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter."*
**Internal traces in the Gospel.** Mark's Gospel is distinctive in its treatment of Peter: he is named **26 times** (far more than in the other Gospels relative to their length), his **denial of Jesus** is recounted in vivid detail (Mark 14:66–72), and his **failings** are emphasized — features consistent with Peter's own candid, self-deprecating testimony being the source.
In summary: Mark was **Peter's spiritual son, interpreter, and scribe** — a close companion in Rome who committed to writing what Peter had seen and heard from Jesus.
## Reliability of Papias's Account of Mark
The assessment is genuinely contested. Here's the landscape:
### Grounds for Trust
- **Early date.** Papias wrote c. 120–130 CE — within one generation of the events. He claims to have heard directly from "the Elder John" (a disciple of Jesus) and Aristion, placing him in the second generation after the apostles.
- **Unflattering details argue against fabrication.** Papias notes that Mark was *not* an eyewitness, that he wrote "not in order," and that he was merely Peter's interpreter. If someone were inventing a pedigree, they would attribute the Gospel to an apostle directly, not to a scribe who got the sequence wrong. - **No competing tradition.** No early source names a different author for this Gospel. The unanimity of the tradition (Papias → Irenaeus → Clement → Jerome) is notable.
- **Irenaeus's endorsement.** Irenaeus (c. 180) calls Papias "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp," vouching for his proximity to apostolic sources.
### Grounds for Doubt
- **Mediated and fragmentary transmission.** We have no original text. Everything survives in quotations by Eusebius (c. 325) and Irenaeus — a gap of 100–200 years. Eusebius, who calls Papias "a man of very little intelligence" (in the context of his millennialism), may have paraphrased or selected quotes to suit his own agenda.
- **Track record on other claims.** Papias's account of Judas's death is widely regarded as mythologized. His claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew contradicts our Greek Gospel. When his claims *can* be checked, they often fail. - **Third- or fourth-hand information.** Papias heard from "elders" who knew disciples — a chain of oral transmission, not direct observation. - **Identity of the text.** Some scholars question whether Papias is referring to *our* canonical Gospel of Mark at all, or to a different, now-lost work by someone named Mark.
- **Modern critical consensus.** As Mary Ann Tolbert puts it, the statement "should not be given much weight" — the Gospel is better explained by internal features (an anonymous, educated Greek-speaking author writing for a Gentile audience) than by the Petrine tradition.
### Where Scholarship Splits
| Position | Key proponents | Core claim | |----------|---------------|------------| | **Credible core** | Bauckham, Gundry, Carlson (2021) | The Petrine connection is early, specific, and resistant to fabrication; the unflattering details are a hallmark of truthfulness. | | **Probable but unproven** | Most mainstream NT scholarship | The tradition is early and unanimous, making Mark-as-author *likely*, but the Petrine source detail is not demonstrable and may be apologetic embellishment. | | **Unreliable** | Ehrman, Casey, Vridar contributors | Papias's other claims are wrong; the Petrine link is a later legend designed to give an anonymous Gospel apostolic authority. |
### Bottom Line
The **attribution to a person named Mark** is broadly accepted even by critical scholars — it is too early and too unanimous to dismiss. The **Petrine source detail** (that Mark wrote down *Peter's* preaching) is where the real dispute lies. It is plausible and consistent with the text, but it rests on a single early testimony filtered through later transmitters, and no first-century document independently confirms it. The honest summary: **probable, not proven.**
Comment:
Polycarp is mentioned in the text, so I asked ther following question:
who is polycarp
**Polycarp** (c. 69–155 AD) was a **bishop of Smyrna** and a pivotal **Apostolic Father** in early Christianity, renowned as a direct **disciple of the Apostle John**. He is celebrated for his steadfast defense of orthodox Christian teachings against **Gnosticism** and for preserving the apostolic traditions passed down from Jesus’s original followers.
His historical significance is defined by several key factors: * **Literary Contributions**: He is the author of the **Letter to the Philippians**, one of the earliest surviving Christian writings outside the New Testament, which heavily cites Pauline epistles and reinforces apostolic doctrine. * **Martyrdom**: At age 86, Polycarp was executed by the Roman Empire for refusing to renounce his faith; his **Martyrdom** is one of the earliest and most influential accounts of Christian martyrdom, noted for his miraculous preservation from burning before he was stabbed to death. * **Ecclesiastical Leadership**: He served as a bridge between the apostolic age and the patristic era, mentoring figures like **Irenaeus** and engaging in significant debates, such as the controversy over the date of Easter with the Bishop of Rome.
He is venerated as a **saint** in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, with his feast day observed on **February 23**, and he is recognized as the patron saint of those suffering from earaches and dysentery.
**Mark the Evangelist** (also known as **John Mark**) is the traditional author of the **Gospel of Mark**, the shortest and earliest of the four New Testament Gospels. He was not one of the twelve Apostles but served as a companion to **Peter** and **Paul**, with early church tradition (such as the writings of Papias) asserting that his gospel recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life.
Key details about his identity and role include:
* **Biblical Identity**: Mentioned in the Book of Acts as the son of a woman named Mary whose house served as a gathering place for early Christians. He traveled with **Barnabas** and **Paul** on missionary journeys but initially left them, later reconciling and becoming a trusted associate of Paul in his later years.
* **Authorship Tradition**: While the Gospel itself is anonymous, early church fathers unanimously attributed it to Mark, describing him as Peter’s interpreter or scribe who wrote down Peter’s preaching, likely in **Rome** around **60–70 CE**.
* **Theological Focus**: Mark’s narrative emphasizes Jesus as the **Servant** and **Son of God**, focusing heavily on Jesus’ actions, miracles, and suffering rather than his teachings or genealogy, tailored for a **Gentile** audience, particularly Roman believers.
## Evidence Supporting Mark's Authorship
The evidence falls into two categories: **external** (early church tradition) and **internal** (clues within the text). The scholarly consensus is that the tradition is early and unanimous, though not beyond debate.
### External Evidence
The strongest evidence comes from a chain of early patristic witnesses:
- **Papias of Hierapolis** (c. 120 CE), preserved by Eusebius, is the earliest testimony: *"Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord."* This is the foundational claim that Mark was Peter's scribe.
- **Irenaeus of Lyons** (*Against Heresies* 3.1.1, c. 180 CE) confirms: *"after their death [Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."*
- The **Muratorian Canon** (c. 170 CE), **Clement of Alexandria**, **Tertullian**, **Origen**, and **Jerome** all affirm the same attribution. The tradition is geographically widespread (Asia Minor, Rome, Alexandria, Lyons) and **unanimous** — no ancient source names a different author.
- **1 Peter 5:13** references "Mark my son" in Babylon (Rome), corroborating a close Peter–Mark relationship in the capital. - The earliest Greek manuscripts (e.g., P⁴⁵, 3rd century) carry the title "According to Mark."
### Internal Evidence (Textual Clues)
The Gospel itself is anonymous, but several features are *consistent* with the tradition:
- **Aramaic words glossed in Greek** (e.g., *Talitha kum* in 5:41, *Ephphatha* in 7:34, *Boanerges* in 3:17) — fitting for a bilingual interpreter mediating between Peter's Aramaic and a Greek-speaking audience.
- **Concise, rapid narrative style** with short sentences and the frequent use of *euthys* ("immediately") — consistent with a scribe capturing oral preaching rather than composing a literary work.
- **Explanations of Jewish customs** for Gentile readers (e.g., hand-washing in 7:3–4) — pointing to a non-Jewish, likely Roman, audience. - **References to people "known to you"** (Mark 15:21, Simon of Cyrene's sons Alexander and Rufus) — suggesting the author wrote to a community with personal connections to events described.
### Scholarly Caveats
- The attribution is **late** relative to composition: if Mark was written ~70 CE, Papias's testimony comes ~50 years later. - The Gospel **never names its author** internally. - Some critical scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman) argue that earlier writers who quote Mark (like Justin Martyr, c. 150 CE) do **not** name its author, and that the first to clearly link "Mark" to *this specific text* is Irenaeus.
- Papias's description of Mark's account as "not in order" has led some to question whether he is referring to the canonical Gospel at all. - The author is best described by neutral scholarship as "a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian who lived outside Palestine" — a description that fits John Mark but is not exclusive to him.
In short: the evidence is **early, unanimous, and geographically broad**, but it rests on second- and third-century tradition rather than a first-century self-identification. Most scholars regard the tradition as **probable but not certain**.
## Mark and Peter: A Father-Son Relationship
Their relationship developed in stages, moving from acquaintance to deep spiritual kinship:
**Jerusalem (c. 44 CE).** The earliest point of contact is **Acts 12:12**, where Peter, having been miraculously freed from Herod's prison, goes directly to the house of **Mary**, Mark's mother — a known gathering place for the early Jerusalem church. This is where the relationship almost certainly began: Peter took refuge in Mark's family home.
**Rome (early 60s CE).** The relationship deepened when Mark accompanied Peter to Rome. There, Mark served as Peter's **interpreter** (*hermēneutēs*) — translating Peter's Aramaic preaching into Greek for a predominantly Gentile Roman audience. They were together during Peter's imprisonment in Rome.
**Spiritual Father and Son.** The clearest statement of their bond is **1 Peter 5:13**, where Peter, writing from "Babylon" (Rome), sends greetings through *"my son Mark."* This is not merely a formal title — it signals that Peter was Mark's spiritual father, likely the one who brought him to faith. The relationship is analogous to a parent and child in the faith.
**The Gospel as Peter's Memoir.** The tradition (Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others) is that Mark **wrote down what Peter preached** about Jesus — effectively producing a written record of Peter's eyewitness testimony. Papias's key statement:
> *"Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter."*
**Internal traces in the Gospel.** Mark's Gospel is distinctive in its treatment of Peter: he is named **26 times** (far more than in the other Gospels relative to their length), his **denial of Jesus** is recounted in vivid detail (Mark 14:66–72), and his **failings** are emphasized — features consistent with Peter's own candid, self-deprecating testimony being the source.
In summary: Mark was **Peter's spiritual son, interpreter, and scribe** — a close companion in Rome who committed to writing what Peter had seen and heard from Jesus.
## Reliability of Papias's Account of Mark
The assessment is genuinely contested. Here's the landscape:
### Grounds for Trust
- **Early date.** Papias wrote c. 120–130 CE — within one generation of the events. He claims to have heard directly from "the Elder John" (a disciple of Jesus) and Aristion, placing him in the second generation after the apostles.
- **Unflattering details argue against fabrication.** Papias notes that Mark was *not* an eyewitness, that he wrote "not in order," and that he was merely Peter's interpreter. If someone were inventing a pedigree, they would attribute the Gospel to an apostle directly, not to a scribe who got the sequence wrong. - **No competing tradition.** No early source names a different author for this Gospel. The unanimity of the tradition (Papias → Irenaeus → Clement → Jerome) is notable.
- **Irenaeus's endorsement.** Irenaeus (c. 180) calls Papias "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp," vouching for his proximity to apostolic sources.
### Grounds for Doubt
- **Mediated and fragmentary transmission.** We have no original text. Everything survives in quotations by Eusebius (c. 325) and Irenaeus — a gap of 100–200 years. Eusebius, who calls Papias "a man of very little intelligence" (in the context of his millennialism), may have paraphrased or selected quotes to suit his own agenda.
- **Track record on other claims.** Papias's account of Judas's death is widely regarded as mythologized. His claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew contradicts our Greek Gospel. When his claims *can* be checked, they often fail. - **Third- or fourth-hand information.** Papias heard from "elders" who knew disciples — a chain of oral transmission, not direct observation. - **Identity of the text.** Some scholars question whether Papias is referring to *our* canonical Gospel of Mark at all, or to a different, now-lost work by someone named Mark.
- **Modern critical consensus.** As Mary Ann Tolbert puts it, the statement "should not be given much weight" — the Gospel is better explained by internal features (an anonymous, educated Greek-speaking author writing for a Gentile audience) than by the Petrine tradition.
### Where Scholarship Splits
| Position | Key proponents | Core claim | |----------|---------------|------------| | **Credible core** | Bauckham, Gundry, Carlson (2021) | The Petrine connection is early, specific, and resistant to fabrication; the unflattering details are a hallmark of truthfulness. | | **Probable but unproven** | Most mainstream NT scholarship | The tradition is early and unanimous, making Mark-as-author *likely*, but the Petrine source detail is not demonstrable and may be apologetic embellishment. | | **Unreliable** | Ehrman, Casey, Vridar contributors | Papias's other claims are wrong; the Petrine link is a later legend designed to give an anonymous Gospel apostolic authority. |
### Bottom Line
The **attribution to a person named Mark** is broadly accepted even by critical scholars — it is too early and too unanimous to dismiss. The **Petrine source detail** (that Mark wrote down *Peter's* preaching) is where the real dispute lies. It is plausible and consistent with the text, but it rests on a single early testimony filtered through later transmitters, and no first-century document independently confirms it. The honest summary: **probable, not proven.**
Comment:
Polycarp is mentioned in the text, so I asked ther following question:
who is polycarp
**Polycarp** (c. 69–155 AD) was a **bishop of Smyrna** and a pivotal **Apostolic Father** in early Christianity, renowned as a direct **disciple of the Apostle John**. He is celebrated for his steadfast defense of orthodox Christian teachings against **Gnosticism** and for preserving the apostolic traditions passed down from Jesus’s original followers.
His historical significance is defined by several key factors: * **Literary Contributions**: He is the author of the **Letter to the Philippians**, one of the earliest surviving Christian writings outside the New Testament, which heavily cites Pauline epistles and reinforces apostolic doctrine. * **Martyrdom**: At age 86, Polycarp was executed by the Roman Empire for refusing to renounce his faith; his **Martyrdom** is one of the earliest and most influential accounts of Christian martyrdom, noted for his miraculous preservation from burning before he was stabbed to death. * **Ecclesiastical Leadership**: He served as a bridge between the apostolic age and the patristic era, mentoring figures like **Irenaeus** and engaging in significant debates, such as the controversy over the date of Easter with the Bishop of Rome.
He is venerated as a **saint** in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, with his feast day observed on **February 23**, and he is recognized as the patron saint of those suffering from earaches and dysentery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)