Mark is believed by many to have based his account on the testimony of Peter.  However, much modern critical scholarship maintains that the internal evidence ‘hardly suggests, far less supports’ the traditional attribution. (Telford, A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation).  This is unduly sceptical, to say the least.

The usual starting point is Papias (c.AD 60-130), who cites the ‘elder’ John:

‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ.’

Writing in Rome in the middle of the 2nd century AD, Justin Martyr writes:-

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter, and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’ ”

Now, Justin always refers to the Gospels as ‘memoirs’, and the only Gospel which refers to the sons of Zebedee as ‘Boanerges’ (‘sons of thunder’) is Mark’s (Mk 3:17).  Therefore, if by ‘his memoirs’ Justin means ‘Peter’s memoirs’ (and not ‘Jesus’ memoirs’) then we have clear evidence that Mark’s Gospel is, in effect ‘Peter’s Gospel’.

(See the relevant article by N. Perrin in DJG, 2nd ed).

Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) notes that in Mark’s portrayal of Peter, there is no indication of his later pre-eminent role, such as we find in Matt 16:13-19; Luke 22:31-32; and John 21:4-19.  This fact suggests that the future pre-eminence of Peter among the apostles does not explain his prominence in Mark’s Gospel.  This prominence can best be explained by the hypothesis that Peter’s preaching was one of the sources (quite possibly the main source) for Mark’s Gospel.

Some critics have doubted that Peter’s testimony could lie behind Mark’s Gospel on the ground that Mark includes so few personal reminiscences of Peter.  Peter is always aligned with the other disciples, never appears alone with Jesus, and is rarely spoken to individually by him.  But, says Bauckham, we should not think of an aged Peter reminiscing to Mark about his time with Jesus.  Rather, we should think of an apostle fulfilling his commission to preach the gospel, re-telling the stories of Jesus that he had been telling throughout his life as an apostle.  We should also bear in mind the role of Mark, who has clearly been quite selective in choosing material for this, the shortest Gospel.

Under close examination, Mark’s Gospel shows the viewpoint of someone close to Peter. Compared with the other Gospel writers, Mark is more inclined to play down or overlook some of the foolish things Peter did. In the story of Jesus walking on the water, Mark, like John but unlike Matthew, neglects to tell us that Peter tried the same feat and fell in. (Mt 14:25-31; Mk 6:45-51; Jn 6:16-21) In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter inflicted one minor casualty in a swashbuckling but ineffectual attempt to defend Jesus with a sword. He tried to split Malchus’s head, but cut off his ear instead. Mark, like the other Synoptic writers but unlike John, leaves the perpetrator of this deed unnamed. (Mt 26:51; Mk 14:47; Lk 22:50; Jn 18:10) Mark, like Luke but unlike Matthew, attaches a weak excuse for the stupid irrelevancies blurted by Peter during the Transfiguration. (Mt 17:4; Mk 9:6; Lk 9:33) When Jesus on one occasion desired to know who touched His garment, Peter rebuked Him by pointing out that He was surrounded by people. (Lk 8:45) Mark, the only writer besides Luke to record the insolent reply, assigns it to the disciples collectively. (Mk 5:31)

Professor Helen Bond reads Mark as a specimen of Greco-Roman biography.  She cites Thomas Hägg to the effect that:

‘[Mark’s] lack of intimate details relating to Jesus, his lack of references to sources, his lack of specifics relating to time and place would all have been within the acceptable boundaries of the biographical genre, and would not have seemed particularly surprising to his audience…’

It has sometimes been claimed that Mark’s negative portrayal of Peter counts against Peter as a source for this Gospel.  In response, Bond points out that the picture of Peter is realistically complex (at one time misunderstanding Jesus; at another time on the mountaintop with him).  Morover, the picture of Peter is subserviant to that of Jesus: Peter’s weaknesses show up the true character of Jesus, and may also serve underscore to the early readers and hearers the difficulties of discipleship.

Bond adds that it would have been usual for oral history to be turned into written history roughly forty years after the event (due to the deaths of the original eyewitnesses).  This would accord well with the commonly-accepted date for the writing of Mark’s Gospel (around AD70).

Paul Barnett (The Importance of Peter in Early Christianity, ch. 16) states that early Christian writers were unanimous in attributing Mark’s Gospel to the direct influence of Peter.  These writers include:

‘Papias in Asia Minor (c.120), Justin Martyr in Rome (c.150), Irenaeus in Gaul (c.180) and Clement in Alexandria (c.180).’

Papias says that Mark ‘followed’ Peter.  Their father-son relationship could have begun during Peter’s years of leadership in Jerusalem (33-42).  Mark would have had ample opportunity to write down notes of Peter’s oral testimony concerning Jesus Christ.  In the 50s we find Peter traveling from Antioch to Corinth and finally to Rome, and it is possible that Mark accompanied him.  Certainly, in the early sixties, Mark is with the aging apostle in Rome (1 Pet).

The double name – John Mark – identifies him both as a Jew and as a Greek or Roman.  Such a double name usually indicates a person of some wealth and education.  Mark’s Gospel (says Barnett) is written in correct Greek, but uses many Aramaic expressions whis the author translates accurately.

As for the role of Peter in Mark’s Gospel:

(a) He is the first (Mk 1:16) and last disciple (Mk 16:7) named.  This inclusio suggests (according to Bauckham) suggests that Peter is being identified as the key witness to the events recorded in the Gospel.

(b) Peter is named much more frequently in this Gospel (33 times) than any of the other disciples (James and John are mentioned 9 times, but usually with Peter).

(c) Why the negative portrayal of Peter in this Gospel?  Writes Barnett:

‘He did not understand and openly opposed Jesus’ vision of the Messiah, was crassly materialistic regarding the transfiguration, resentful about the cost of following Jesus, dismissive on the Mount of Olives about even the possibility of denying Jesus, prone to sleepiness in Gethsemane while his Master was struggling with the prospect of the cup of suffering, weak in the presence of the high priest’s servants when he committed apostasy. In particular this gospel highlights starkly the contrast between the bold ‘confessor’ at Caesarea Philippi and the weak man in the high priest’s courtyard.’

Whereas most lives of saints are hagiographic, Mark’s portrayal of Peter is not.  We may suppose that this is due to Peter himself.  But why? –

‘One answer may be to encourage believers who were fragile like Peter to be encouraged to press on in the faith. Another and related reason may have been to point to the present Peter as an example of one who, with time, did become ‘rock’-like. Was it an ongoing sense of shame about his superficiality? Yet another may have been to emphasize Jesus’ nobility in contrast to Peter’s own weakness of character.’

(I am reminded, in this context, of Paul’s claim to be ‘the least of all the saints’ and the ‘chief of sinners’.)

Barnett notes the following consistent details within Mark’s Gospel:

(a) Mark’s narrative is politically coherent.  The threat posed by Herod the Tetrarch and his ‘Herodian’ faction helps to explain Jesus’ many withdrawals from Galilee.

(b) Mark’s Gospel contains many vivid descriptions.  These often include ‘trivial’ details which tend to support their authenticity.  Take, for example, Mark 1:32f –

‘That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. And the whole city was gathered together about the door.’ (RSV)

This seems to reflect the memory of an eyewitness.

(c) Mark gives prominence to Jesus’ emotions, as in Mk 1:40-43 –

‘And a leper came to him beseeching him, and kneeling said to him . . . Moved with pity he . . . touched him . . . And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once . . .’ (RSV)

(d) Mark notes that Jesus ‘looked around’ on a number of dramatic occasions (Mk 3:5; 3:34; 5:32; 10:23; 11:11).  Again, these suggest eyewitness touches, well explained by Mark having received them directly from Peter.

(e) Mark (much more than Matthew and Luke) refers to Jesus and the disciples as ‘they’, followed by a singular verb or pronoun referring to Jesus alone.  See, for example, Mk 5:1f; 8:22; 14:32.  This ‘they…he’ construction may well have originated in Peter’s ‘we…they’ oral testimony.

Barnett observes that there are two types of ‘gospel’ referred to in the NT: the oral gospel, mentioned frequently in Acts, and the written gospel (see Mk 1:1).  We may suppose that Mark’s Gospel is the written version of Peter’s oral gospel.  Peter was the leading figure in the early church, whose testimony is recorded by Mark (with Matthew and Luke highly dependent on Mark’s record).

Mark’s Gospel may have taken shape over man years.  In its final form it is usually dated around AD65 or later.  However, 1 Corinthians (AD55) and Romans (AD57) seem to contain allusions to Mark’s Gospel.  It may be that earlier versions of that Gospel werein circulation before its text arrived in the form we have it today.

Martin Kahler famously described Mark’s Gospel as ‘a passion narrative with an extended introduction’.  The ‘extended introduction’ (chs 1-10) is centred on Galilee, covers several years of ministry, and mainly comprises shorts units; whereas the ‘passion narrative’ (chs 11-16) is focused on Jerusalem, covers just a few days, and consists of longer, more integrated units.  This latter section is also more precise with regard to time, place and people.  It is quite possible that the composition of this section pre-dates that of chs 1-10 and may go back to the 40s.  If so, they would be the first teaching that the early church committed to writing.

Various Roman elements have been detected in Mark’s Gospel, supporting the theory that it was comleted in Rome:

(a) Latinisms include terms related the military (legion, praetorium), the courts (speculator, flagellare) and commerce (denarius).

(b) Some Greek terms are explained by Latin ones (‘two copper coins which make a quadrans’; ‘the palace, that is, the praetorium’).

(c) Whereas Jesus reckoned on three watches of the night, Mark uses the Roman category of four watches.  This Roman system may be reflected in the structure of Mark’s passion narrative:

‘Jesus shared Passover with the disciples in the evening; the hour of betrayal may have been at midnight, the denial at cockcrow, and the meeting with Pilate in the morning.’

(d) Mark’s Gospel climaxes with the confession of faith by a Roman centurion.

As for the dissemination of Mark’s Gospel, the words ‘Let the reader understand’ confirm that it was intended to be read out aloud to congregations.  Those congregations would have known that Peter had died and that his message was now being passed on in writing.  Indeed, it was intended to be read ‘in the whole world’.

It was, however, ‘a deeply subversive, anti-Roman text’:

‘His opening reference to ‘Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ parodied Roman belief that the Caesar was ‘the son of god’. Mark’s use of the word ‘gospel’ to denote the character of his book was also pointed. The Romans used the word ‘gospel’ for ‘good news’ about the emperor’s military achievements.32 Mark’s climax, a Roman centurion confessing a crucified man to be the Son of God, was a pointed mockery of invincible Roman might that destroyed its enemies by crucifying them. Mark was saying that the true ruler of land and sea was not the Roman Caesar but the Crucified One who had been resurrected as Lord.’

Since his message was for the whole world, it is likely that Mark arranged for copies of his Gospel to be dessimmated throughout the world.  In due course, copies fell into the hands of Matthew and Luke, and they, knowing that it came with Peter’s authority, made liberal use of it in their own Gospels.