Did Mark Ever Meet Jesus?

The evidence does not establish with certainty that Mark personally met Jesus, but it leaves open that possibility. Mark the Evangelist is traditionally identified as John Mark, whose mother owned a house in Jerusalem that served as a meeting place for Jesus’ followers. If John Mark lived in Jerusalem during Jesus’ ministry, he may have seen or heard Jesus on some occasions, but the New Testament does not explicitly identify him as an eyewitness.

The strongest traditional explanation for Mark’s Gospel is not that Mark himself witnessed every event, but that he recorded the teachings, observations, and reminiscences of the apostle Peter. Peter was one of the original Apostles, an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, and Mark was known as his companion and interpreter. Thus, even if Mark did not personally meet Jesus, his Gospel could still preserve eyewitness testimony through Peter.

Who Was Mark?

Mark was much younger than the other writers. His mother was a prominent follower of Jesus Christ. Acts 12:12 tells us that her house in Jerusalem was used as a meeting place for other disciples. From this verse we also learn that her son’s full name is John Mark.

Mark was also a follower of Jesus Christ but would likely have been in his teens when the Lord was in Jerusalem. He may have seen and listened to the Savior on occasion. After the Resurrection, as the Savior’s message was beginning to be spread, Mark traveled with the Apostle Paul.

He then accompanied the Apostle Peter to Rome and stayed by him while he was in prison. Mark is known as Peter’s interpreter, both in speech and in writing. As a fisherman from Galilee, Peter may not have spoken Greek fluently, so Mark interpreted for him.

In his book, Mark wrote down the observations and memories of Peter, one of the original Apostles. Mark’s book reflects Peter’s interest in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles.

What Does the New Testament Say About John Mark?

Mark the Evangelist traditionally has been identified as John Mark, who is named for the first time in Acts 12:12, when Peter visits the house of his mother. John Mark thus may have lived in Jerusalem and witnessed many of the events of Christ’s ministry.

Acts does not say that John Mark was one of Jesus’ disciples during the public ministry, nor does it explicitly describe him as an eyewitness. It does, however, place him within the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem and connect him closely with Peter.

His mother’s house was used as a meeting place for other disciples, which means that John Mark belonged to a household closely connected with the first followers of Jesus. This setting makes personal contact with members of the early Christian movement possible, but it does not by itself prove that Mark met Jesus before the crucifixion.

Was Mark One of the Unnamed People in the Gospels?

Mark’s case is less clear. Many have identified Mark with one of the unnamed figures in the Gospels, such as the man who runs away without his clothing on the night Jesus was arrested (Mk 14:51-52) or the man carrying water to the house where the Last Supper was held (Mk 14:13).

If these identifications are accurate, then Mark was an eyewitness to at least some of the events recorded in the Gospels, but it is difficult to be certain because the individuals are not named.

The Gospel of Mark says that, when Jesus was arrested, “a certain young man” followed him, but when the authorities tried to seize him, he left his linen cloth and fled naked. Some interpreters have suggested that this unusually personal detail may be a discreet reference to the evangelist himself.

Another proposed identification connects Mark with the unnamed man carrying a water jar who directed Jesus’ disciples to the place prepared for the Passover. This interpretation also remains uncertain because the passage does not name the man.

These theories cannot demonstrate that Mark met Jesus, but they show why some readers have considered the possibility that the Gospel contains autobiographical traces. The argument depends on identifying unnamed figures with John Mark, and the text itself does not make that identification explicit.

Was Mark’s Gospel Based on Peter’s Eyewitness Testimony?

Yet it was not his own possible status as eyewitness that gave Mark’s Gospel most of its weight in the early Church. It was Mark’s role as a companion of Peter (1 Pt 5:13), and his Gospel was held to record the teachings and reminiscences of Peter-who was not only an eyewitness but also the man to whom Christ entrusted the Church (Mt 16:18).

After the Resurrection, Mark traveled with the Apostle Paul and later accompanied Peter to Rome. The early Christian tradition therefore connected Mark directly with an apostle who had followed Jesus throughout his ministry.

Mark is known as Peter’s interpreter, both in speech and in writing. As a fisherman from Galilee, Peter may not have spoken Greek fluently, so Mark interpreted for him. In his book, Mark wrote down the observations and memories of Peter, one of the original Apostles.

This tradition answers the historical question in an important way. The reliability of Mark’s Gospel does not depend entirely on Mark having personally seen every event. A close companion of an eyewitness could preserve and organize that eyewitness’s testimony.

Mark’s book reflects Peter’s interest in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles. The Gospel’s emphasis and presentation are therefore consistent with the idea that Mark transmitted Peter’s preaching to a wider audience.

What Does the Early Attribution to Mark Mean?

There’s no good evidence the Gospels were originally anonymous, with attributions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John coming many years later. In fact, the weight of the manuscript and historical evidence points in the other direction.

First, while the Gospels don’t include the author’s name within the body of the text, that doesn’t mean they were originally anonymous. In fact, New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole, who’s done some really great research on this, shows that early Greek manuscripts all include titles attributing them to either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

As scholar Brant Pitre puts it, there’s absolutely no manuscript evidence to support the claim that originally the Gospels had no titles. Second, the early church fathers are also unanimous in attributing the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-and no one else.

If the Gospels started out anonymous and then were copied and circulated and recopied and copied again and circulated for decades around the Roman Empire-from Judea to Rome to Egypt to France-then here’s the question: How did the scribes and early church fathers conspire to unanimously attribute all the Gospels with the exact same four names?

No confusion. No disagreement. No alternatives. That’s not how anonymous documents behave. Just compare this with the book of Hebrews, which is genuinely anonymous. Notice how there was lots of debate about its authorship then, just as there is today.

That’s what we should expect if a writing is truly, originally anonymous. The stable attribution to Mark does not prove that Mark personally met Jesus, but it does show that the early church associated the Gospel with a specific person rather than treating it as an anonymous composition.

Why Would the Gospel Be Attributed to Mark?

Third, let’s imagine for the sake of the argument that the Gospels were originally anonymous, but, much later on, Christians conspired to deceive the masses by falsely attributing them just to give them more authority.

Okay. Why choose names like Mark and Luke? If you’re making stuff up, wouldn’t you pick eyewitnesses like Peter or Thomas or even Jesus himself? In fact, that’s precisely what the writers of the apocryphal gospels do.

So, no, Caleb, the most likely conclusion is that the attributions of authorship are as original as the Gospels themselves. The attribution to Mark is especially relevant because Mark was not one of the Twelve Apostles and was not generally presented as a major eyewitness figure.

If someone wanted to invent an apostolic author, Peter, Thomas, or another member of the Twelve would have been a more obvious choice. The traditional attribution to Mark therefore fits the early claim that the Gospel came through a companion and interpreter of Peter rather than through Peter himself.

Does the Gospel of Mark Claim to Be Written by an Eyewitness?

They also don’t read like eyewitness accounts and don’t even claim to have been written by the disciples. The Gospel of Mark does not contain a direct statement saying, “I, Mark, personally witnessed these events.”

That absence matters when answering the question precisely. The Gospel of Mark does not give enough information to establish that its author personally met Jesus. At the same time, the absence of an explicit autobiographical claim does not prove that Mark never encountered him.

The Gospel may have been written by someone who knew Jesus personally, by someone who knew the apostles, or by someone who transmitted the testimony of an eyewitness. The text itself must therefore be considered together with the early attribution and the tradition connecting Mark with Peter.

How Does Mark Compare with Matthew, Luke, and John?

The Gospels provide accounts of numerous things that Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry. They are the principal sources of historical evidence for our knowledge of his life. But how did the Evangelists themselves come by this evidence?

In some cases, the evangelists were eyewitnesses to the events they recorded. The Gospel of Matthew is historically attributed to the tax collector Matthew Levi, who was one of the immediate followers of Jesus and who witnessed the events of his ministry.

Even more clearly, the Gospel of John expressly claims to be written by an eyewitness-the “beloved disciple”-who at the end of the Gospel is described as “the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things” (Jn 21:24).

Luke’s case is different. He implies that he was an eyewitness to many of the events of Acts by using the pronoun we in certain passages (e.g., “And when he [Paul] had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia”; Acts 16:10).

But he appears to be a gentile (Col 4:10-14), and it is unlikely any gentiles were eyewitnesses to much of Jesus’ ministry. Thus, in the introduction to his Gospel, Luke refers to the traditions concerning Jesus being “delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.”

He is not claiming to have been an eyewitness himself but to have based his account on a careful study-“having followed all things closely for some time past”-of what the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word reported.

So the Gospels seem to contain a mix of materials. Some of the events recorded were witnessed firsthand by the Evangelists themselves, but some of them were not.

What Does Luke’s Method Tell Us About Mark?

Luke reports that already in his day “many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us.” It is therefore quite possible that he took some of the material in his Gospel from one or more of these written narratives.

From very early times, it was noted that Matthew and Mark share certain similarities with Luke, leading the three to be referred to as the “synoptic” Gospels (from Greek roots meaning “to view together”) because they paint a common portrait of Jesus’ ministry.

A theory that became very popular in the 20th century, known as the “two-source hypothesis,” claims to identify two of the sources Luke drew upon. One was the Gospel of Mark, and the other was a possibly written, possibly oral source called Q (from the German word Quelle, “source”).

Q was said to contain material found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. It was claimed that Matthew used the same two sources, and scholars sometimes claimed that Q may have been a set of notes Matthew himself took on Jesus’ sayings during his ministry.

Despite the recent popularity of the two-source hypothesis, rival views deserve serious consideration. You don’t need to propose Q if Luke simply used Matthew as a source-or vice versa.

And you can explain the similarities between Mark and the other synoptics if Mark wrote later and was drawing on and abridging Matthew and Luke. There are therefore several possible explanations of how the synoptics may relate to each other, and one or another may be drawing upon a fellow Evangelist.

In particular, Luke may be, since he acknowledges prior written narratives. This illustrates why the existence of shared material does not by itself determine whether Mark personally met Jesus. A Gospel can preserve earlier testimony through written narratives, oral traditions, or direct contact with eyewitnesses.

Could Mark Have Been Present in Jerusalem?

Mark’s mother was a prominent follower of Jesus Christ, and her house in Jerusalem was used as a meeting place for other disciples. If John Mark lived in that household during Jesus’ ministry, he may have had opportunities to encounter Jesus or hear reports from those who had followed him.

Mark was also a follower of Jesus Christ but would likely have been in his teens when the Lord was in Jerusalem. He may have seen and listened to the Savior on occasion.

The wording is cautious. It does not say that Mark certainly saw Jesus, only that he may have done so. It also does not say that he was present at a specific miracle, teaching, trial, or resurrection appearance.

The proposed identification of Mark as the unnamed young man at Jesus’ arrest would provide a more direct answer, because that young man would have been physically present during the final events of Jesus’ life. Yet the identification remains conjectural because the Gospel does not name him.

How Did Early Christians Understand Mark’s Gospel?

Yet it was not his own possible status as eyewitness that gave Mark’s Gospel most of its weight in the early Church. It was Mark’s role as a companion of Peter (1 Pt 5:13), and his Gospel was held to record the teachings and reminiscences of Peter-who was not only an eyewitness but also the man to whom Christ entrusted the Church (Mt 16:18).

The early Christian understanding therefore focused on the chain of testimony: Jesus was witnessed by the apostles, Peter taught and remembered what he had seen, and Mark preserved Peter’s teachings and reminiscences in written form.

This model does not require Mark to have been one of the Twelve. It also does not require him to have been present at every event. It explains why a Gospel associated with Mark could carry apostolic authority while still being distinguished from the Gospels traditionally attributed to Matthew and John.

What Does “Eyewitness Testimony” Mean in This Context?

They believe we have good reason to think that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony or close companions of eyewitnesses.

This distinction is important. A written account can be based on eyewitness testimony even when its author was not an eyewitness to every event. Luke explicitly describes this kind of process, and the traditional account of Mark describes him as a close companion and interpreter of Peter.

In some cases it seems possible to identify a particular individual as the source behind an Evangelist’s account. Consider the material in the first two chapters of Luke, the “infancy narrative” that records Jesus’ birth and childhood.

It has long been noted that Luke’s infancy narrative focuses on Mary, in contrast to Matthew’s infancy narrative, which focuses on Joseph. Indeed, Luke’s narrative includes one event-the Annunciation-for which Mary is the only known eyewitness.

Could the Blessed Mother herself thus be a source for Luke’s Gospel? Did the beloved physician perhaps even interview her about Jesus’ birth and childhood? The text of Luke does not tell us, but it does strongly point to Mary as a source for the infancy narrative.

This example shows how an Evangelist could obtain information from a person who personally witnessed an event. The same general method could explain how Mark preserved Peter’s recollections even if Mark himself had not met Jesus.

Do Named Individuals Reveal the Sources Behind the Gospels?

Many times the Gospels refer to anonymous individuals. For example, often the people Jesus heals are not given names. They are simply “a leper” or “a paralyzed man” or “a man with a withered hand.”

But other times people in the Gospels are given names, even though these are minor figures: Jairus, Bartimaeus, Simon of Cyrene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, Salome, Cleopas.

What accounts for this difference? Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony explores the idea that in some cases the reason that an individual is named is because that individual was the eyewitness whose testimony is being recounted.

This could mean either that the Evangelist interviewed the person in question, or that he was known to the Evangelist as someone who continued to bear witness to what he had seen to the early Christian community.

That could explain, for example, the curious fact that, at the end of Luke (24:13-33), two disciplines on the road to Emmaus meet Jesus, but we are only told the name of one of them: Cleopas.

We are never told the name of the other. Why? The other disciple remains anonymous possibly because Cleopas was the source of this account. He was the eyewitnesses Luke knew to have been involved in the incident.

Luke may have interviewed him personally, or Cleopas may simply have continued in later years to recount what happened to him and Luke came to know of it. Either way, by naming Cleopas, Luke identifies an eyewitness source.

The minor named figures thus played a significant function for the first readers of the Gospels. Though otherwise unknown to us today, they were known in the early Christian community. By naming them as witnesses to various events, the Evangelists imply to their readers that these persons could confirm what the Gospel said about them.

For example, Mark 15:21 states that, during the Passion, Simon of Cyrene was coming in from the country and was forced to carry Jesus’ cross. It identifies this Simon as “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

The latter two were clearly known to Mark’s audience (presumably in Rome), because they are not otherwise identified. One of Mark’s readers could go to Alexander or Rufus and say, “Did your father really carry Jesus’ cross?” “Oh, yes,” the son would be expected to reply. “He talked about it all the time.”

We can conclude, then, that the inclusion of minor, named individuals in the Gospels is one way the Evangelists validated their accounts to readers.

Does Mark’s Gospel Preserve Details from the Early Community?

Mark’s reference to Alexander and Rufus illustrates how the Gospel could rely on people known to its first audience. The account does not identify Mark as a direct eyewitness, but it presents details that could be checked against members of the early Christian community.

The same principle may apply to other named people and locations in Mark. Such details could function as points of contact between the written Gospel and living people who had knowledge of the events described.

This does not prove that every detail was independently verified, but it helps explain why the Gospel’s historical value need not depend on Mark having personally witnessed Jesus’ ministry.

Why Are Some People in the Passion Narratives Anonymous?

Some Gospel figures go unnamed carries interesting implications. Certain people in the Passion narratives play significant roles but remain anonymous.

These include the man who allowed Jesus and his disciples to eat the Passover at his house (Mt 26:17-18), the woman who anoints Jesus (Mt 26:6-13, Mk 14:3-9), and the disciple who cuts off the ear of the high priest’s servant during Jesus’ arrest (Mt 26:51, Mk 14:47, Lk 22:50).

Any of these individuals could have faced trouble from the authorities (either the local Jewish ones or the imperial Roman ones) if their identities were known. The first gave shelter to a perceived revolutionary; the second could be perceived as anointing him for his revolutionary, messianic role; and the third committed a violent crime while trying to prevent his arrest.

Thus some scholars (e.g., H. B. Swete, Gerd Theissen, and Richard Bauckham) have suggested the reason these people go unnamed is that they needed protective anonymity.

The early Christian community would have known who they were, but the synoptic Evangelists were reluctant to set their names down in writing. Interestingly, John does name two of these individuals.

The woman who anointed Jesus appears to be Mary, the sister of Lazarus (Jn 12:2-11), and the disciple who cut off the ear is identified as Peter himself (Jn 18:10).

Why does John feel at liberty to name them? It may be that the danger had passed. We have strong reason to think that John’s Gospel was written after Peter’s death (Jn 21:18-19).

The authorities already had taken Peter (he was crucified upside down at Rome around A.D. 67), so his identity as the sword-wielder no longer needed to be protected.

If protective anonymity is why these figures are unnamed in the synoptic Gospels, then that fact indicates that the synoptics were written quite early, when the individuals were still alive and facing possible harm had they been named in writing.

John’s Gospel-as the product of an eyewitness-was also written early (probably by A.D. 70 since it does not record the destruction of the Temple), but the others were written earlier still.

These observations concern the dating and sources of the Gospels rather than Mark’s personal contact with Jesus. They nevertheless show why anonymity, naming, and the preservation of personal details can matter when assessing how the Gospel traditions developed.

Could Mark Have Learned Directly from Peter?

Mark’s role as Peter’s companion provides the clearest historical route by which he could have obtained information about Jesus. Peter was present during Jesus’ calling of the disciples, public teaching, miracles, transfiguration, final meal, arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection appearances.

Peter was not only an eyewitness but also the man to whom Christ entrusted the Church (Mt 16:18). Mark’s association with Peter would therefore have connected him with one of the central witnesses to Jesus’ life.

Mark is known as Peter’s interpreter, both in speech and in writing. As a fisherman from Galilee, Peter may not have spoken Greek fluently, so Mark interpreted for him.

Whether Mark translated Peter’s preaching orally, organized it for written presentation, or did both cannot be established from the Gospel itself. The tradition nevertheless places Mark close to Peter’s testimony rather than presenting him as an isolated writer inventing an account long after the events.

Were the Gospels Written Too Late for Eyewitness Testimony?

They were written decades after Jesus’ death. The earliest Gospel that we have in the New Testament is the Gospel of Mark, and it was probably written around 70 of the Common Era.

Yes, the Gospels were written decades later. So what? That’s still within the lifetime of people who could have known, remembered, and testified about Jesus.

My grandma died three decades ago. I was a witness to her life and could testify about her. So, merely being written decades later doesn’t automatically rule out eyewitness testimony.

In any case, we see numerous indicators pointing to the facts that the Gospels were written early, when eyewitnesses were still alive, and that the Evangelists give enough information about their sources to allow early readers to validate what they recorded about the life of Christ.

Today, of course, we cannot consult these original witnesses, but the way the Evangelists point to them still provides credibility, with reasons to value the historical testimony offered by and in the Gospels.

If Mark was a teenager during Jesus’ ministry, a Gospel written around 70 of the Common Era would have been produced during the lifetime of many people who had personally known Jesus. Mark’s own possible age and the survival of Peter’s associates would have allowed the tradition to remain connected to the first generation.

What Do the Gospels Say About Their Sources?

The Gospel of John literally ends by saying, “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). That sounds pretty eyewitnessy, doesn’t it?

Also, Luke opens his Gospel by saying he investigated everything carefully and wrote it out so that you may know the exact truth about the things that you’ve been taught. Again, that sounds like someone trying to get the details right, even though Luke wasn’t an eyewitness himself.

Mark’s Gospel does not contain a comparable explicit statement about its author. Its connection to eyewitness testimony is instead made through the early tradition that Mark recorded Peter’s preaching and memories.

The difference between the four Gospels is therefore significant. John presents an eyewitness claim, Luke describes careful investigation of eyewitness traditions, Matthew is traditionally attributed to an apostle, and Mark is traditionally connected with Peter.

Did Paul Meet the Risen Jesus?

Paul’s letters weren’t written by someone who had met Jesus. Paul, by his own admission, had never met Jesus.

Wrong again. Paul explicitly claims to have seen the risen Jesus. While defending his apostleship to the Corinthians, Paul writes, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

In fact, Paul anchors his authority as an apostle to his encounter with Jesus. And of course, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul lists Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances and includes himself.

Paul’s case is different from Mark’s because Paul did not claim to have followed Jesus during his earthly ministry. His claim concerned an encounter with the risen Jesus after the crucifixion.

And even that great narrative we have about Saul encountering the risen Christ on the road to Damascus is something that the author of Luke-Acts-the same author wrote both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts-it’s something that he invented for the narrative.

Paul never makes a mention of that. And, surely, if he had encountered the risen Christ, he would have mentioned it.

The question of Paul’s Damascus experience is separate from the question of whether Mark met Jesus during Jesus’ earthly life. Paul’s letters nevertheless show that early Christian testimony included claims of direct encounters with the risen Christ.

What About the Other New Testament Authors?

All of the other epistles in the Bible are later, and the book of Revelation is later. None of those authors had ever met Jesus.

Again, these are just assertions. No argument. No evidence. Just trust me, bro. I could just as easily claim that Peter, John, James, and Jude did know Jesus and wrote these epistles.

My point is, what is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The authorship of the other New Testament writings requires separate analysis and should not be used as a shortcut for deciding whether Mark personally met Jesus.

The New Testament itself identifies the first four books as the Gospels and presents the later writings as Acts, letters, and Revelation. After the four Gospels, the book of Acts records the events following the Ascension of the Savior.

Most scholars agree that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles. Nearly all the rest of the books in the New Testament are letters, or epistles. Paul wrote most of these, but also included are letters written by James, Peter, John, and Jude.

The book of Revelation, written by John, concludes the collection we now call the New Testament. These writings do not change the specific evidence concerning John Mark, Peter, and the Gospel of Mark.

How Were the Four Gospels Preserved?

Right after the Lord’s death and Resurrection and for many years afterward, each of the books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was a separate item, written on a separate scroll and copied over and over.

The individual books weren’t put together into the New Testament until several hundred years after they were written. This explains John’s warning in Revelation 22:18: “If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”

Some people have interpreted this to mean that no other scriptures could be revealed after the book of Revelation, which in modern times is the last book of the Bible. But John was most likely warning people not to add anything to his writing only in the book of Revelation.

Eventually the four Gospels were joined with other valuable writings such as the letters that Paul and others wrote. Other original Apostles also wrote things that were copied repeatedly. Remnants of these writings survive, but it is difficult to determine which are authentic.

When the New Testament was gathered into a single book, these writings were not included. The separate circulation of the Gospels helps explain why the titles and authorship traditions became important as individual works moved among different Christian communities.

What Is Unique About Mark’s Gospel?

A wonderful help to use when studying the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is found in the Bible Dictionary, after “Gospels.” The Harmony of the Gospels is a chart that tells where in each book a teaching or an incident in the life of Jesus Christ is told.

You get a more in-depth understanding of events or parables when you read about them everywhere they are written. Try looking up the baptism of Jesus. You will see that it is mentioned in all four Gospels.

But Jesus’s appearance to Thomas, for instance, is found only in John. John has the most unique material in his book. About 90 percent of the information in the book of John is not in the other three Gospels.

Mark’s book has the least unique material: only 7 percent. This means that Mark’s Gospel often overlaps with the other Synoptic Gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, while still presenting its own arrangement and emphasis.

The amount of unique material does not demonstrate whether Mark met Jesus. It does, however, fit the possibility that Mark preserved and organized traditions shared within the early Christian community, including material associated with Peter.

What Can Be Said with Confidence?

The evidence does not justify the confident statement that Mark certainly met Jesus, because no surviving text explicitly identifies John Mark as an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Nor does the evidence justify the confident statement that Mark certainly never met Jesus. John Mark may have lived in Jerusalem, may have been a teenager during Jesus’ ministry, and may have seen and listened to Jesus on occasion.

The traditional identification of Mark with the unnamed young man at Jesus’ arrest remains possible but uncertain because the individual is not named. The strongest established connection is Mark’s relationship with Peter and the early Christian belief that Mark recorded Peter’s teachings and reminiscences.

Thus the most careful answer is that Mark may have met Jesus, but the historical case cannot prove it. Mark’s Gospel can nevertheless be connected to an eyewitness of Jesus through Peter, making the question of Mark’s personal encounter distinct from the question of whether his Gospel preserves eyewitness testimony.

All right. That’s enough for now. Let me end where I think Caleb and I would agree. You shouldn’t trust someone just because they’re wearing a fancy stole or standing behind a pulpit. Go investigate these claims for yourself, and see where the evidence leads.

tags: #did #mark #ever #meet #jesus