John Mark and the Fourth Gospel

Solely from my reading of the Fourth Gospel, I have become convinced that the author was likely based primarily in Jerusalem, affluent, well-connected, and possibly of a priestly family. And oddly enough, there is among the earliest known Christian community someone who not only fits this description but is also named John. I speak, of course, of John Mark. Consider the following.

1) It's often been observed that the Gospel of John is more focused upon Jerusalem than the Galilee. This fits well with the report that John Mark's mother owns a home in Jerusalem.

2) It's also been observed that the Fourth Gospel tends to focus upon persons with greater affluence and influence. This would be consistent with the report that John Mark's mother not only owned a home in Jerusalem, but that it was large enough to become a primary base of operations for the Christian movement.

3) The Beloved Disciple is known to the household of the high priest. If the Beloved Disciple is to be identified with the author of the Fourth Gospel, this would again fit well with the indications that John Mark comes from a relatively affluent family in Jerusalem.

4) If the John Mark of Acts is to be identified with the Mark of Col. 4:10, then we can conclude that he was Barnabas' cousin—and given that Acts identifies Barnabas was a Levite, it opens the very real possibility that John Mark too was of priestly background. This would fit well with the Beloved Disciple's familiarity with the high priest's household, as well as the oft-noted interest that the Fourth Gospel displays in the temple, the festivals, etc.

5) Within Acts, John Mark is thrice called "John, who is also called Mark," twice called simply "John," and once called simply "Mark." Since early Christians tended to conflate figures with the same name, it is altogether plausible that aspects of John Mark's career became conflated with those of other persons named respectively "John" and "Mark." This has at least two corollaries for our purposes, which we will call 5a and 5b.

5a) We have to reckon with the possibility that the John Mark of Acts, the Mark of the Pauline corpus, the Mark of the Petrine corpus, and the Mark to whom the Gospel of Mark is attributed represent as many as four different historical persons (this obviously calls into question the potential relevance of the relationship between the Mark of Col. 4:10 and Barnabas, although it does not exclude the possibility that John Mark is in view here). That is to say, it is entirely plausible that John Mark wrote the Gospel of John, and yet another known or unknown Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark.

5b) The tendency to conflate figures with the same name can also readily account for how a gospel written by John Mark ended up attributed to John, son of Zebedee.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that John Mark wrote the Gospel of John. That having been said, if John Mark wasn't already associated with the Gospel of Mark, he'd probably be one of the most obvious candidates for the Fourth Evangelist.

(Note that Pierson Parker put forward an argument for John Mark as the author of the Fourth Gospel some sixty years ago. It is not without problems however, perhaps most notably that he accepts without argument that the Mark(s) of the Pauline and Petrine corpora are to be identified with the John Mark of Acts. This identification might be well and good, but the possibility that we are dealing with up to three different men here needs to be considered).

Comments