Papacy in Scripture VII: Peter in the Gospel of Mark
St. Mark
In this post I’m moving first to Mark’s Gospel before looking at any other major books or passages of the NT because the tradition of the early church, following the testimony of Papias (preserved for us by Eusebius) is that Mark’s Gospel is a summary of Peter’s preaching in Rome. What is interesting about this view is that the general contours of Mark’s Gospel follow the general outline of Peter’s preaching recorded in the Book of Acts. If you take a look, for example, at Acts 10:36-43, we see that Peter begins his preaching about Jesus with Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. Of all four Gospels, only Mark begins in this way. Moreover, in 1 Peter 5:13, we find Peter referencing a “Mark” as his travelling companion, both of whom send their greetings from Rome.
The Petrine nature of Mark’s Gospel, although dismissed by most scholars, is noted by Dr. Richard Bauckham. Dr. Bauckham points out that,
Since Matthew’s Gospel has a special interest in Peter…it is very noteworthy that Mark mentions Peter by name considerably more frequently than Matthew does. Furthermore—a point of considerable importance for our argument that Mark’s Gospel claims Peter as its principal eyewitness source—Peter is actually present through a large portion of the narrative….1
In fact, as Dr. Bauckham mentions, when you compare Mark with the other Gospels in terms of length, Mark has a higher frequency of mentioning Peter than any of the other Gospels.2
As examples, Dr. Bauckham mentions that,
…Peter is both the first and the last disciple to be named in the Gospel, encompassing the whole scope of Jesus’ ministry, while Peter is also the most often named disciple in Mark, as well as being named proportionately more often in Mark than in the other Gospels.3
Thus, Dr. Bauckham is led to conclude that Mark is
a Gospel that presents, to a far larger degree than the others, a Petrine perspective on the story of Jesus.4
I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Bauckham’s assertion that Peter alone among the Christians in the early church would have portrayed himself in such a negative light.5
When the First Vatican Council makes its declaration concerning the authority of the pope, it cites texts from the
St. Peter preaching
Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, but not Mark. In fact, that Mark’s Gospel is omitted from Vatican I’s discussion, and that it is considered by many to be the least “Catholic” of the Gospels, is one of the major reasons why the idea that Mark’s Gospel was the first of the four Gospels (known as Markan Priority) became the accepted position among scholars only after the 1870 declaration of papal infallibility, starting in German universities during the Kulturkampf.6 All of this notwithstanding, Mark gives us some insight into Peter’s role in the earliest Christian community gathered around Jesus.
St. Mark
Notice first of all that in Mark’s list of apostles, not only is Peter mentioned first as in all of the others, but Mark specifically tells us that his name was changed to Peter, which in Greek means “rock” (3:16; more on the importance of the name “rock” when we come to Matthew 16:18). When we come to the hinge of Mark’s Gospel, Peter’s confession in Mark 8:27-30, we find absent most of the specific language Jesus employs in the version found in Matthew 16, but we still see Jesus addressing all of His disciples present when He asks the question about His identity. Again, when he turns to them after their initial response about who people say He is, He asks them all in the plural,
“But what about you [plural]?” he asked. “Who do you [plural] say I am?” (NIV).
It is only Peter who answers now. Before, when the disciples answered, Mark doesn’t specify who answered, or how many of them. But now, Mark singles out Peter alone who answered. And, although we don’t find the elaborate detail as in Matthew 16, with Jesus changing Simon’s name to Peter, the event is implied by the very fact that there’s no mention of his name as Simon here, but solely, Peter, Rock. And, moreover, Peter gives the correct answer, “You are the Christ” (8:29, NIV). The rebuke of Peter which follows (8:33) is important, and we’ll discuss it in more detail when we reach it’s parallel in Matthew 16 (in light of Eliakim’s fall in Isaiah 22:25). For now, suffice it to say that Peter recognizes that Jesus is the Christ, but he does not understand what this meant, namely that it entails Jesus’ death. Like the blind man Jesus has to heal twice in the passage immediately preceding this one (8:22-26) it is going to take more than one try for Peter to get it. It’s not until the resurrection that it all falls into place for Peter.
Now, neither Peter, nor any of the popes who follow him, are completely sinless. Peter denies Jesus three times, and Mark’s Gospel
- St. Peter Preaching
does not shy away from this. In fact, one could argue that the depiction of Peter in Mark is more negative than in the other Gospels. This would make sense if Peter stood behind the composition of this text in some way. Notice, however, that in Mark 16:6-8, Peter is again singled out, this time by an angel at Jesus’ empty tomb, telling the women to tell Jesus’ disciples that He is risen and that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Notice how the angel says, “go, tell his disciples and Peter” (16:7). Peter is singled out, which could indicate his role of primacy among the other disciples. None of the other disciples, not John the Beloved Disciple, nor the other male disciples who, unlike John and the women, betrayed Jesus by fleeing, are mentioned, just Peter.
None of this is meant to indicate that a full-blown doctrine of the Catholic papacy is seen already in Mark’s Gospel. What I think a close examination (which I have not done here) of Peter’s role in Mark’s Gospel shows is his role as spokesperson on behalf of the Apostles. We’ll see how the other Gospels emphasize different aspects of this role, and what this role looks like. I hope to show how this role represents a specific office. In light of the full weight of NT evidence we shall discuss in future posts for the central role of St. Peter as the first pope, we can see why his role of spokesman for the disciples in Mark did not need to be more elaborate for the early community; Peter’s authority would have been known to all (as it is to the tax collectors who approach Peter alone among the other disciples present to ask about Jesus’ payment of the Temple tax in Matthew 17:24—-more on this in a later post).
But this emphasis already in Mark should be expected, since Mark highlights that Jesus is not simply the Son of God, but is also the Christ. The idea of a Christ, a Messiah, was most frequently associated with King David, with a Davidic Messiah, a son of David. Mark emphasizes Jesus’ role as the Son of David, the royal Davidic Messiah, especially in places like Mark 10:47-48 (where Jesus’ is called “Son of David”) and 12:35 (where Jesus mentions that the Messiah is viewed as the “Son of David”). As we have seen in previous posts, the Davidic Kingdom (under Solomon) had 12 royal ministers, and was composed (while it was united) of 12 tribes, and included a royal steward representing the king. So too would the restored Davidic Kingdom of the Messiah Jesus, whose 12 apostles in Mark (and the other 3 Gospels) represent the reunification of the 12 tribes of Israel and whose spokesman Peter was to be His royal steward.
In the next post in this series, I want to move to the Apostle Paul’s evidence for the unique authoritative role of Peter in the early church.
Select Bibliography:
Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch. The Gospel of Mark. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001.
Healy, Mary. The Gospel of Mark. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), 126. [↩]
- Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 125, 155 and 161. [↩]
- Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 161. [↩]
- Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 171. [↩]
- Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 178. [↩]
- David Laird Dungan, A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels, Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999); William R. Farmer, “State Interesse and Markan Primacy: 1870-1914,” in Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and William Farmer, 15-49 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). [↩]
Jeff, truly lots of good stuff here – just a couple of critiques. When Papias speaks to origin of the gospels he says Mark is derived from the teachings of Peter, but nothing about “Peter’s preaching in Rome.” (Yes, I know they were together in Rome at one time.) A minor point, yes, but it bears noting. After all, seeing Rome behind every bush or reading Rome “between the lines” is not uncommon among RC writers. Indeed, it is the staple fodder.
Looking ahead, I offer this cautionary observation: Among RC apologists there a kind of irresistible mania that causes them to seize upon any statement about Peter in the Bible or early church and apply it directly to the Roman Bishop. Amazingly, this kind of automatic mental merging of Peter and his purported successors is seen as some kind of valid argument! (Look, he said something nice about Peter! Evidence of the Papacy!) Transferring statements about a known historical personage to a hypothetical to prove it’s existence and legitimacy – marvel of marvels! Read the literature and see if this is not absolutely rampant.
Again, I agree with much of the raw data, but not the overblown conclusions that are in the pipeline . We all agree Peter was the de facto leader and very vocal spokesman of the apostolic band – a kind of representative apostle. But does the NT really present him as the first Pope? In due course, we will find that it does not.
Gentle reader, ask yourself this: Are RC claims really conclusions derived naturally from the text? Or are we being asked to retroactively view all things through the prism of these grandiose claims (the soundness of which is assumed). Are we not being asked to do all interpretation through the lens of an already settled conclusion? Ah, never underestimate humanity’s willingness and knack for making any and all facts support pet paradigms.
Nevertheless, you make a lot of good observations in this article. I had never considered the Mark / Acts parallels. Nice.
Jeff,
In rereading your article I see that your statements regarding Peter’s preaching in Rome were not attributed to Papias, but some other early tradition following him. Just wanted to point out my error. Sorry for the misread. Maybe I should take my own advice and not be so quick to read between the lines. Ha! All the best.
Thanks Josh for all of your comments. Although you are correct that I never intended my comments to imply the Papias excerpt in Eusebius mentioned Mark’s Gospel as a summary of Peter’s preaching in Rome (which you are certainly correct the Papias excerpt never mentions), I have to concede that your instincts were good. I probably would have assumed (incorrectly and lazily) that Papias mentioned something like that in the Eusebius excerpt, which I actually had to double check in light of your comment, since it’s been so long since I’ve referred to Eusebius. Thanks for all of your comments, and your much appreciated attempts to keep us honest.
Hello Jeffrey,
Great job, but does the series end abruptly (ironically like the Gospel of Mark itself)? You keep on referring to “future posts” but more than a year has passed and they haven’t come. It feels anticlimactic.
Blessings,
Victor
Wow, marvelous weblog layout! How lengthy have you ever been blogging for? you make blogging glance easy. The total look of your site is wonderful, let alone the content material!