If someone said Henry VIII never existed…
what evidence could you point to, to show that he did?
Is Mark’s Gospel reliable?
Can we trust it to give us a
true picture of Jesus?
•
•
To give evidence for the reliability of
Mark’s gospel
To evaluate whether the Mark’s gospel
we have today is reliable.
1. Using a double page of your book, write the 4 column headings (2 headings on each page)
2. Divide each column into 3 equal rows
3. Match the information to what part of your table it should go in
4. Summarise the information onto your own table
5. Evaluate whether each piece of evidence makes Mark reliable or not.
**Which type of evidence convinces you most about the reliability of Mark’s gospel ?
A. Are
Mark’s
Sources
reliable?
Yes
No
Comparing the Yes
and the No, does this
evidence suggest
Mark is reliable or
not? Explain.
B. Is Mark
himself as
reliable as
an author?
C. Does nonChristian
evidence
show Mark
to be
reliable?
D. Do we have the
original version of
Mark’s gospel, or has
it been changed over
time?
1.
Using a double page of your book, write the 4 column
headings (2 headings at the top of each page)
2. Divide each column into 3 rows
3. ON your table, complete the different sections
4. Explain whether each type of evidence supports Mark as
being a reliable writer & why
**Which type of evidence is the most convincing to you
A. Are Mark’s
Sources
personally
why Mark’s
gospel is reliable?
reliable?
YES:
Primary sources ?
(eyewitnesses still alive at the time he is
writing, so he would be found out if
changed things. Also he himself is an
eyewitness to some events, and has
especially good knowledge of Peter’s
point of view
Secondary sources very early
documents, so accurate version of
stories written down, and well known
to all Christians (so he can’t alter
them) (collections of sayings,
Passion narratives, Q source, UR
Markus
NO: eyewitnesses could still have altered
their accounts by the time he wrote or the
secondary sources were written – but then
there would be different versions of the same
story – there aren’t
B. Is Mark himself as an
author reliable?
YES
-
-
-
Originally a local Jew from
Jerusalem who knew the disciples
and may have been present at
some events (Last Supper, Garden)
Knew the stories in original
Aramaic (original version) and
translated them himself into Greek
Travelling companion of Peter (1st
hand eyewitness)
NO: wrote in Rome, AD70, some clumsy
Greek translation, maybe NOT an
eyewitness himself?
C. Does nonChristian
evidence agree
with what Mark
is saying
-
Tacitus
Suetonius
Pliny
D. Have we still
got the original
version of Mark’s
gospel, or has it
been tampered
with?
Even if Mark’s gospel was trustworthy and
accurate at the time of writing….
How do we know if
Mark’s gospel wasn’t
changed by later
Christians ?
Maybe stories about
Jesus got exaggerated
and added on later?
Maybe the real
version of the
gospel has been
lost in time?
•
There are many early copies of the NT, so any changes to any
of the versions would be quickly spotted
•
These copies were made unusually soon after the gospel was
first written (30-300 yrs later)
•
These copies have a 99.5% accuracy to each other – the 0.5%
difference are mostly due to grammar and spelling
differences.
•
None of these differences actually make any difference to
what Christians would believe.
•
The first Christians were warned by the Apostles to be wary
of “different” gospels. So early Christians made sure their
copies were really “Mark’s version”
Is Mark’s gospel reliable?
• Explain why St Mark’s Gospel can be trusted as a source of
information about Jesus?
(3 marks)
• Direct inspiration from God, / eyewitness information /oral
tradition / possible present at Gethsemane / use of Aramaic /
written accounts / with Paul and Barnabas