We do not know the real name of the author of Mark's Gospel, but because the second-century Church Fathers attributed the Gospel to the apostle Mark, we continue to refer to the author as Mark the evangelist.
The gospel now known as the Gospel According to Mark was attributed to Mark later in the second century, although it was originally written anonymously. In spite of this attribution, there is no good reason to believe that John Mark was actually the author of this gospel.
Mark's Gospel was originally written anonymously and remained so until Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor (ca.130), named Mark as the author of the gospel and the 'interpreter' of Peter. The pseudepigraphical second-century First Epistle of Peter (1 Peter) refers to Mark as Peter's son. However, scholars say there is no good reason to believe that Mark was the real author of the Gospel that now bears his name.
A:It is because Mark was a historical person that the second-century Church Fathers attributed the gospel to him. They recognised that the anonymous author could not have been an eyewitness to the events portrayed in the Gospel, and there were few other persons known from the apostolic period to whom they could attribute it.
A:The first gospel to be written is Mark's Gospel, so we should assume that the apostle Mark was the first gospel author. However, the gospels were originally anonymous and only attributed by the Church Fathers to the apostles whose names they now bear, later in the second century. Biblical scholars say there is no good reason to attribute Mark's Gospel to the apostle Mark. This means we do not really know who wrote the first gospel.
Mark W. Karlberg has written: 'Federalism and the Westminster Tradition' 'Gospel Grace'
First century. Established by St Mark, author of the gospel
He wrote the second, the Gospel of Mark.
Saint Mark the Evangelist is the original author of the Gospel of Mark in the bible. He was one of the disciples of Jesus.
There is no extra-biblical proof of the historicity of the disciple. Moreover, the Gospel known to us as the Gospel According to St Mark or St Mark's Gospel does not identify its author, and it was not until the second century that it was finally attributed by the Church Fathers to the Apostle Mark, thus giving this previously anonymous Gospel the name "Gospel According to St Mark". However, there is no real evidence to support that opinion, and considerable evidence to the contrary. The decision of the Church Fathers to attribute the Gospel to the apostle Mark was an admirable, but not necessarily correct one.
The Gospel of Mark was originally written anonymously and only attributed by the Church Fathers to the apostle whose name it now bears later in the second century. There is no good reason to believe that the author was the apostle Mark, but if this was the author, the pseudepigraphical epistle, 1 Peter, says that Mark was the son of Peter.First, it is most unlikely that the author of Mark's Gospel was called Mark, and biblical scholars believe that the author seems not to have been close to anyone who was an eyewitness to the events that his gospel portrays. Second, if the Church Fathers were correct in attributing the epistle to Mark, he may have known Paul, but would not have met Jesus. 1 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter and therefore can not be relied on as evidence that Mark was even related to Peter.
AnswerIt is known that the authors of Mathew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel relied on Mark's Gospel for their information about the life and mission of Jesus. Whenever they agree with Mark, the text is almost identical in the Greek language. Also, the "Missing Block" proves that the author of Luke knew nothing about Jesus apart from what he found in Mark. Both Matthew and Luke also relied on a hypothetical 'Q' document, also written in Greek, for many of the sayings and parables attributed to Jesus.The link between John's Gospel and Mark is less direct. The author of this Gospel drew mainly from Luke's Gospel, often changing or reversing material form Luke, thus relying indirectly on Mark's Gospel. He also used some material directly from Mark, so both gospels must have been known to him.