After reviewing the external and internal evidence, I believe it may be too speculative to peer behind the anonymity of the evangelist. The tradition of the evangelist as Peter’s interpreter was used by the Elder John and Papias to apologize for Mark’s lack of order and the rest of the patristic tradition was content to repeat the tradition from Papias. I am not opposed to the idea that some traditions in the Gospel originated with Peter or the original circle of disciples, but there is nothing explicit in the Gospel itself that Peter himself played a direct role behind the composition of Mark (e.g., unlike, say, John 21:24 explicitly describing the role of the Beloved Disciple, thus scholars reach for subtle clues about how much Peter statistically appears or alleged inclusios), not to mention Mark paints a little bit of an ambivalent portrait of Peter and the disciples (I don’t agree with those who interpret Mark as completely polemical without noting positive features of the disciples, but I do think Mark was at least somewhat critical). Some parallels with Paul are impressive and I do not rule out the possibility of some indirect influence, such as the focus on the cross or the noun euangelion, but the non-overlaps ought not be overlooked such as on pre-existence or wisdom christology, Son of Man, Adam-Christ typology (the wild beasts seem to be on Satan’s side in the wilderness scene rather than Jesus as a new Adam recreating an Edenic paradise), ”in-Christ” mysticism, the “righteousness of God”, justification by faith, kata sarka/kata pneuma, spiritual gifts, etc. Since from some of the discussion in this series that some see me as unduly skeptical, I want to conclude on a theological note. One does not reject the canonical authority of the gospels even if one does not hold to the later ascriptions to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. In fact, one positive thing is that the evangelist can step out of Peter or Paul’s shadow and have his or her own distinctive theological contribution to the canon be recognized. In fact, there is something to learn from an evangelist not interested in self-aggrandizement and purposefully not disclosing his or her identity, because all that mattered to the author is encapsulated in the opening line: “the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”
Mike, you write:
“The tradition of the evangelist as Peter’s interpreter was used by the Elder John and Papias to apologize for Mark’s lack of order”
Check that. I’m thinking the apology for ‘lack of order’ only makes critical sense if the tradition of Peter’s influence was not in dispute at the time of Papias and elder John. Why apologize for lack of order if there is no apostolic sponsorship behind the gospel? Or why ‘tack-on’ apostolic sponsorship to explain lack of order? Neither makes sense from a pure critical perspective.
I mentioned in an earlier comment an idea which I think gives a better explanation for an early tradition that contains (1) lack of order and (2) apostolic sponsorship – it all makes sense if it was well-known that Peter was dead before the gospel was completed, and ‘Mark’ was left without a final editor of authority in Rome. And I say ‘better explanation’ because it is simpler, erases the need for an apology by Elder John, and is not wholly unattested by other traditions.
Thanks for your continued interaction in these posts. Your argument that it was known that Peter was the authority behind the Gospel of Mark but that he had died before its final composition explains why it seemed to lack “order” is plausible enough. I just think alternatively it could be the case that this Gospel was facing criticism such as being too short or incomplete or lacking order, and to save it they appealed to apostolic authority. I guess it depends how one judges the strength of the internal evidence either way.
OK I understand your argument better. But I think the ‘criticism’ of Mark by fellow Christians was probably more immediate and possibly no longer an issue by the time of elder John.
Since I differ from your judgment against a Roman provenance for Mark, I have a strong position to argue that this early gospel in fact represented a great shock to the churches in Palestine when they received it. Who would argue that the ‘owner’ of the Matthew sources which we now find in Matt. 1-2 and 5-7 would not feel justified to attempt a complete re-write of Mark which included such traditions?
Therefore I count among the objectives or aims or agendas of the author of Matthew an actual full-scale replacement of Mark as the gospel of the Church. And I think the later gospel shows the marks of an honorable approach to such a project – in that its compiler includes a version of everything from the earlier text that was not either offensive or known to contradict his own material.
I would even go as far as to suggest that the original Matthew gospel may have included (to bolster its own authority) the full text of Mark as an appendix (and this of course would explain why the earlier gospel now ‘follows’ the later and longer gospel.
If my interpretations seem far-fetched, they are at least not in contradiction with any external evidence and I think they measure up well against equally creative theories based on an utter rejection of the external evidences.