Luke records the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus. Very little of their childhood is mentioned with, Jesus, the titular character of the entire story, having only three incidents included. When Jesus was born, he was placed in the feeding rack for the Passover lamb in the only available room in Joseph's house, likely because it was the Feast of Trumpets and the Census had brought his family to the same town at the same time. Jesus' other infant story is when he is presented at the temple for purification where his parents offer two birds, offered if you're poor. Jesus is named between this time, at his circumcision, the name the angel instructed. Zechariah was also told to name his child and after John is named, it it just said that he grew up.
Aside from this, Jesus, as a "pais" is mentioned in Luke as well. He is called a child (with some translations of this word being servant) and said to be about 12. This word "pais" for child will come up again. This is when Jesus is at the Temple and he stays behind after Passover because he says that he must be there. Then Jesus grows up.
A few other children are mentioned in the NT but they're typically not important to the story as a whole. They show up and then we don't see them again. Or do we? There may be one that is seen a few times throughout the Gospels over the course of the few years of Jesus' ministry. Because children were not given names, side from the above exceptions because they are adults in the story later too, it's hard to determine if any of the children are known to the early Christian community.
Some traditions give a name to Jairus' daughter.
In Mark 5, she is introduced by Jairus as his "thygatrion" meaning little daughter. Before Jesus can arrive at the house, someone informs Jairus that his "thygatēr" daughter is dead. When Jesus sees the people brought to weep he says that the "paidion" child is only asleep. Jesus takes the father and mother of the "paidiou" child('s) with his disciples that followed to the room where the "padiou" child was. Jesus takes the hand of the "padiou" child and says "Talitha, koum" and then this is said, to have a translation of little girl "Korasion" I say to you, arise. Lastly, Mark again uses "korasion" to say that the girl got up and he says that she was twelve years old.
Luke 8 first introduces the girl from the words of Jairus as his "thygatēr" meaning daughter. Luke says that she was about twelve years old, to identify her as little daughter. The one that comes to tell them of the news of the death calls her Jairus' "thygatēr" daughter. Jesus continues to the house with the father and mother of the "padios" child and the three disciples that followed. When Jesus enters the house and sees the weepers, he says that "apethanen" she is not dead. Luke also records that Jesus takes her hand but Luke records that Jesus says "Pais" child, arise.
The girl is never actually given a name. She is just a child and this might be the reason the NT authors don't include her name. We can see this come up again with another use of "pais" for another character that isn't given a name and doesn't show up again later as an adult.
Pais has, as I said before, been translated to 'servant' in some cases. While there is no way of identifying if the person in Matthew 12 is a child, it does seem plausible considering that these healing stories follow the same formula. Someone comes to Jesus on behalf of an ill child that is dying for healing. Other people, that are adults, are either visited on passing or taken to Jesus for healing. The "pais" in Matthew 12 is not given a name though and they don't show up again.
Where do I think Mark fits into all of this? There is another child that shows up and two 'young men' that make an appearance. I think that one of them is Mark as a child and then a young man.
The first young man that I'll talk about is probably only about 15-20. In Matthew 19, this person is called "neaniskos" young man. At first, Matthew simply says that "heis" one came to him/Jesus, though some translations use the word man. Following this, Matthew has the person, called "neaniskos" young man, reply to Jesus that he has kept all these things/the commandments. This ends with the "neaniskos" young man going away grieving.
Mark 10 and Luke 18 do not seem to identify this person as a young man. Instead, they simply say they are a certain person or a ruler but the person themselves says that they have kept the commandments from their youth. This doesn't define the word that Matthew uses though as Matthew could be mistaking the youth comment for the person being young.
The word "neaniskos" young man is used for another character that only seems to make a one time appearance. I will argue, however, that this character is making a second appearance in this moment and that their ambiguity identifies them as a child, as we would consider them, at the time. Though the term could be applied to a young adult this will actually be helpful to my case. The word itself is used a number of times and has been thought to identify anyone under the age of 40 yet I don't think the support for this is very strong. They are over the age of being called "Pais" child though.
In Mark 14, this is a somewhat random comment about a "neaniskos" young man that had been following Jesus, who was arrested, and Peter, who was following Jesus. Mark calls them a certain young man. He doesn't name them though. This person appears here, has a moment where they are following Jesus at his arrest, and then they slip away naked. But why doesn't the author identify them by name? Other have suspected that this is the author talking about themselves and I'm inclined to agree. This is over three years into Jesus' ministry and not everyone that he encountered is named but to include this as a particular character that the readers should know seems fitting to me to be the author themselves.
But then who is the author? Who is Mark? Why are they there?
To put the conclusion forward, Mark is Peter's son.
Right before the feeding of the 5000 in Mark 6, Jesus had sent out the 12 without provisions so that they would be relying on God to provide for them. This meant that they would go to a town and if the people did not take them in, house them while they were there, and feed them, that they were to leave because those people did not care for the word of God or to care for the servants of God. So when the group returned, they had not had a chance to eat, they were being surrounded by a great crowd, and then Jesus says that they should go away to a solitary place.
Peter, as we would find out in Mark 1, has a mother-in-law and this means that he was married. This would also suggest a high probability of Peter having a child already when he follows Jesus. I don't see anything in the Gospels about Peter's wife directly and I can only assume that his child is mentioned indirectly. The child would likely not be old enough to journey with him at the beginning of Jesus' ministry but if what I'm about to put forth is true, then by the end, he would have been old enough to attend the last supper with Jesus. At least once, when Jesus is at home, and this is probably Peter's house, there is a child there that is addressed but not named, sat by Jesus.
Going back to the feeding of the 5000 in Mark 6, we read that they were seen trying to go away to a desolate place but the people from all the surrounding towns, who were waiting for them, ran to the place to meet them. One of these towns would have been where Peter and Andrew were from. When it becomes late, the disciples ask Jesus to send them away so that they my buy themselves something to eat but Jesus tells them to give the crowds something to eat. Mark 6:37 is Jesus giving the instructions of "You give them something to eat." to his disciples. The disciples ask if they should buy bread the worth of 200 denarii. Jesus continues with asking how many loaves they have and that they should go and see. They shouldn't have any food with them. They had just come back from their mission and left without being able to eat. This didn't stop Jesus from telling them to use their own food to feed the crowd but first they need to check what food they have. Mark says "and when they had found out" meaning that they did an inventory check and found that they had five loaves and two fish with them. But where did this food come from?
This is where the Gospel of John is helpful in giving us information that the author of Mark, or perhaps Peter avoids. In John 6:8, Andrew, the brother of Peter, says that there is a "paidarion" little boy with them that has five loaves and two fish. Jesus' instructions were for the disciples to use their own food to feed the crowd not for them to steal food from children in the crowd. Without getting too deep into the significance of the crowd itself, where you can find a strong case for it consisting of only adult men that are divided into military units, there is no reason to suggest that the boy is from the crowd but rather from among the disciples themselves. While they are still called a child and this would mean that they are not a disciple themselves, they are probably there, with the food, to feed the disciples because they're a family member. I suggest that this is Peter's son, Mark, the author of the Gospel that neither Peter nor Mark mention by name in the Gospel itself. John is also familiar with not naming the child, who would at his time be known, but rather can be hinting at identifying them by way of Andrew, the brother of Peter, being the one to say there is a little boy there with the food, the food that is there's to feed the crowd.
None of this is saying that this is Peter's son or that this child is Mark. I can only present the case as it appears to me. I don't pretend that this is enough but rather I think it's interesting enough to consider these moments all being good clues as to what is intended or hinted at by the authors. This isn't over though. There is more to say about Mark himself. Something much more solid.
1 Peter 5 concludes with the name of the writer of the letter, regarded by Peter as a faithful brother, Silvanus, She who is in Babylon, and "Markos, ho huios mou" Mark, my son. Looking at "huios" son, this is a word for a biological son. Unlike what Paul uses for Timothy in 1 Corinthians 4, when he says that he sent Timothy to them, who is his beloved "teknon" child, Peter is saying that Mark is indeed his son. Given the case set by others of there only being one John who is also called Mark, we should look at this person as being Peter's son. Mark who traveled with Paul, Mark that is part of the Circumcision party, Mark the cousin of Barnabas, Mark the son of Mary who lives in Jerusalem at the time of Acts 12.
In Acts 12, Peter has been arrested by King Herod Agrippa I in Jerusalem and it was planned to bring him out to the people after the Passover but he was instead freed by an angel of the Lord. On realizing that he was free, Peter went to a random house of a woman named Mary where some people where praying for Peter because reasons. Well, that would be fine except that the servant girl named Rhoda recognized Peter by his very voice. Peter ran to this home out of all places that he could have gone, including leaving the town. Peter, a married man, ran to the home of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark. The people there were praying for Peter because they knew him. I believe that this was his home in Jerusalem, that he had moved here, and this this Mary is his wife connecting, once again, Mark to being his Son. It could also be said, that while 1 Peter is being written, Peter lives in Rome and so the She in Babylon is his wife that he himself never names. Remember that it is Luke that names Mary and only when Mark would be an adult is he named. Mark is old enough to journey on his own with Paul and his cousin and return to Jerusalem on his own too. He can still be called a son (Luke 7:11-17 shows a widow's son being the provider of her house being raised by Jesus) and be an adult in Acts 12. He's mentioned here probably because he is known and older in the story itself of Acts that was written years after the Gospel that Luke writes.
Mark, as I believe, is Peter's son, who saw Jesus whenever he was at their home, and witnessed the feeding of the 5000. He knew his father's Gospel and recorded it early because his father's life was under constant threat. He was Peter's interpreter, not translator, suggesting that the was the one that either wrote it down or acted it out as it was being preached by Peter.
UPDATE
It would appear that there was more to learn about the transmission of information. While I remain skeptical of the information, origin point and accuracy, it does seem that Mark was know to be with Peter for a while and said to have left his written work when they departed. The departed mention could be talking about a time when they left a community. Being that Peter is said to have stayed in Jerusalem for 12 years after the resurrection before departing, it would seem to fit that this is when Mark passes down the written form of the Gospel that Peter preached.
I also find it interesting that the Gospel of Mark calls a place "home" a few times. This is in reference to Jesus being at "home" and generally thought to be Peter's home. I see it as more evidence that Mark is calling this place his home.
No comments:
Post a Comment