Who Was Mark in the Bible? (Disciple? Gospel Writer? Neither?)

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The figure of Mark in the Bible, otherwise known as Saint Mark, John Mark, or Mark the Evangelist, remains elusive and ambiguous, shrouded in the complexities of ancient naming practices and sparse historical documentation. Who was Mark in the Bible? Was he a disciple of Jesus, a scribe, or perhaps someone altogether different?

In this article, I’ll investigate how Mark is portrayed in the Bible, what later sources said about him, and whether he wrote the Gospel of Mark, according to scholars. By the way, if you’re interested in the Gospel of Mark, take a look at this online course, “Jesus, the Secret Messiah,” offered by Bart Ehrman.

What’s in a Name?

Part of the difficulty of identifying and writing about who Mark was in the Bible is that the name Mark (Latin: Marcus, Greek: Markos), its meaning a reference to the Roman god of war Mars, was one of the most common names in the Roman Empire. There are many famous ancient Romans whose names were Mark. Cicero, the famed statesman, author, and philosopher was named Marcus Tullius Cicero. Second-century emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius was another. Then, there’s Marcus Antonius, better known in English as Mark Antony, politician, general, and romantic partner of Cleopatra.

This means that when we see references to someone named Mark in the New Testament, it’s not always necessarily the same person. The same goes, by the way, for the name John which Mark is given in several Bible verses. John (Hebrew: Yôḥānān, Aramaic: Yuḥanon), meaning “God has been gracious,” was one of the most common male names among Jews, both in Palestine and the diaspora. Think of all the Johns in the New Testament: there is John the Baptist, John the disciple of Jesus, and John of Patmos, who wrote the book of Revelation, among others.

So before I begin looking at who Mark was in the Bible, I want to acknowledge the difficulty of knowing for certain which Mark each verse refers to. Having said that, let’s look at all the references to Mark in the New Testament and see what we can learn about his identity.

Who Was Mark in the Bible?

In the New Testament, there are just nine references to Mark or John Mark, not counting the Gospel of Mark, which I’ll deal with later. These references can help us construct Mark’s identity, as the Bible portrays it. 

Let’s begin with Acts 12:12, where Peter, imprisoned in Jerusalem by King Herod Agrippa for his involvement with the Jesus movement, is miraculously freed by an angel. Finding himself out in the open and, therefore, vulnerable, “he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many had gathered and were praying.” If Mark did live in Jerusalem, he was likely a native of Palestine.

Further on in Acts 12:25, we see that this John Mark gets involved with Paul as a missionary: “Then after completing their mission, Barnabas and Saul [a.k.a. Paul] returned to Jerusalem and brought with them John, whose other name was Mark.” By the way, they took Mark to Antioch, which seems to have been Paul’s base during his missionary journeys.

This association with Paul and Barnabas continues in Acts 13:5: “When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also to assist them.” This John is usually assumed to be the John Mark mentioned in the last chapter.

In verse 13, we are told that Paul and Barnabas “set sail from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia. John, however, left them and returned to Jerusalem.” Why did John Mark do that? Did they send him back? Was he homesick? This verse doesn’t tell us. But in a later chapter of Acts, we read a verse that makes the situation a bit clearer.

In Acts 15, we have the story of the Jerusalem Council, a meeting at which the Jewish Christians decided what would be required of Gentile Christians with respect to the Jewish Law. After that determination was made, a letter was written which Paul and Barnabas delivered to their church at Antioch. But then in Acts 15:36-39, some tension surfaced:

After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Come, let us return and visit the believers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark. But Paul decided not to take with them one who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they parted company; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.

It seems, then, that Paul saw Mark as having deserted him before and, therefore, as untrustworthy. Barnabas, on the other hand, either sees Mark’s departure in a different way or has simply decided to forgive him. It’s important to remember, by the way, that scholars accept that the book of Acts is not entirely reliable as a historical source. In fact, it often disagrees with Paul’s own letters about his life and activities.

The next Mark allusion is found in Colossians 4. Colossians purports to be a letter written by Paul and Timothy to the church in the city of Colossae in modern-day Turkey. While some scholars believe this is an authentic letter of Paul, the majority think it was merely written in Paul’s name at least a couple of decades after his death.

Nevertheless, in Colossians 4:10, “Paul” writes this in his final greetings:

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him.

Again, this letter was probably not written by Paul. However, the author seems to know a tradition about someone named Mark who is apparently believed to be Barnabas’ cousin. If this were true, it might explain why Barnabas was still willing to defend and travel with Mark even though Mark had deserted them earlier. Blood is thicker than water.

We do have one authentic letter of Paul which refers to someone named Mark. In Philemon verse 24 (Philemon has only one chapter), Paul, writing from an unknown location in prison, gives this final greeting to his addressee: “Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.”

This tells us that while someone named Epaphras is also in prison with Paul, the others, including Mark, seem to be friends and/or followers of Paul who visit him. Is this Mark the same Mark mentioned above? Maybe. The problem, as I said earlier, is that Mark was such a common name in the Roman Empire that Paul could easily have known more than one. It’s impossible to know the identity of this Mark for sure.

There are two more mentions of Mark, one from 2 Timothy, another pseudonymous letter written in Paul’s name. At the end of the letter, “Paul” is finishing his epistle by giving instructions to “Timothy,” the supposed addressee. In 4:11, the author says this: “Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful in my ministry.”

Traditionally, it was believed that 2 Timothy was written by Paul from a Roman prison cell as he awaited execution. The author, therefore, asks Timothy to visit him in prison and to bring Mark along. Again, since this is not an authentic letter of Paul, we don’t know what was believed about Mark, but pseudo-Paul seems to find him useful, information which might be based on older traditions about Mark.

The last Mark reference in the Bible is found in 1 Peter 5:13. This is the second letter written by an author claiming to be the apostle Peter but is almost certainly from someone else writing long after Peter’s death. Nevertheless, the author mentions someone named Mark: “Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.”

The reference to Babylon likely means that the letter is written (or claims it is written) from Rome. As in the book of Revelation, Rome was often referred to as Babylon since both empires conquered Israel. The letter is addressed to Christians in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey).

Unfortunately, this instance tells us even less about this particular Mark’s identity. Again, since Mark was such a common name, we can’t know whether this Mark is the same as the John Mark mentioned in Acts, or the Mark mentioned in Acts, 2 Timothy, or Philemon.

Alternatively, he may happen to be another Christian whose name is Mark. Furthermore, since Mark is only mentioned once in an authentic letter of Paul, we can’t know how prominent a place he held within Paul’s circles.

Who was Mark in the Bible? As the above examples show, our biblical evidence for Mark or John Mark is scanty. Even the few verses we have were mostly written in the book of Acts and letters produced in Paul’s name long after the apostle Paul had died. Mark may have been a fellow missionary of Paul’s — Paul might be indicating as much in Philemon — but it’s impossible to be certain.

Given this dearth of information about St. Mark, how did Christians eventually come to believe he had written the earliest Gospel and thus attributed his name to it? By the way, because of this attribution, Mark is often called Mark the Evangelist.

References to Mark Outside the New Testament

In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders notes that scholars have known for over a century that the book we call the Gospel of Mark was originally written anonymously. (Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!) The title “The Gospel According to Mark” or even just “According to Mark” was added later. Furthermore, in his Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity, Delbert Burkett writes that “The Gospel of Mark does not indicate who wrote it, how it originated, or what sources it drew upon.” Tracing the process by which this Gospel was attributed to Mark takes us back to the 2nd century CE.

Our earliest mention of the origins of the Gospel of Mark comes from an early Christian bishop and author named Irenaeus. In his book Against Heresies, around 180 CE, he writes this:

After the deaths [of Peter and Paul] Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the things which Peter had proclaimed.

According to this passage, Mark the Evangelist was actually the “disciple and interpreter of Peter”. Keep in mind, though, that Irenaeus is writing this more than a century after the deaths of Peter and Paul. While he didn’t invent this idea about Mark, he did receive it long after the person’s life. However, we know where Irenaeus probably got this tradition.

In Eusebius’ 4th-century Church history, he quotes from the writings of a bishop named Papias who had died in the early 2nd century and whose writings are lost to us now.

This also the presbyter [Papias] used to say: "Mark, indeed, who became the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, as far as he remembered them, the things said or done by the Lord, but not however in order." For he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor been his personal follower, but at a later stage, as I said, he had followed Peter, who used to adapt the teachings to the needs of the moment, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the oracles of the Lord: so that Mark committed no error in writing certain matters just as he remembered them. For he had only one object in view, namely to leave out nothing of the things which he had heard, and to include no false statement among them.

Papias claims that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and that he got all his information from Peter to write the Gospel of Mark. While it’s probably accurate to say that Mark didn’t know Jesus and was not one of his disciples, there are good reasons to doubt Papias’ version of the composition of the Gospel.

For one thing, Bart Ehrman notes that Mark’s Gospel doesn’t come across as written from Peter’s perspective. On the contrary, Ehrman says that

not only does Peter come off as a bumbling, foot-in-the-mouth, and unfaithful follower of Jesus in Mark (see Mark 8:27-32; 9:5-6; 14:27-31), but there are all sorts of stories — the vast majority — that have nothing to do with Peter or that betray anything like a Petrine voice.

What’s more, Ehrman notes that while Papias says that the Gospel of Mark is a written account of everything Peter remembered about Jesus, that doesn’t seem to be the case. As he writes,  “Our Gospel of Mark takes about two hours to read.  Are we to think that after spending months (years?) with Jesus, Peter had no more than two hours’ worth of memories?”

Finally, Papias may not have been the most accurate of sources. For instance, his story of what ultimately happened to Judas Iscariot after he betrayed Jesus is… hard to believe. He says that as a punishment for his betrayal, Judas’ body bloated up so enormously that “he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself.” In addition, Judas’ genitals apparently emitted worms until he finally burst open and died.

As if that’s not strange enough, Papias says that in his own time, a century after Judas died, the stench of the place where he died was just as strong as when he first expired. None of this seems credible, which is why Ehrman and other scholars ask why we should believe Papias on anything if we can’t believe him on this.

To sum up, while there was a 2nd-century Christian tradition of Mark having written the Gospel of Mark based on Peter’s words, there is little evidence to support this claim. The vast majority of scholars have concluded that it was written anonymously. We will never know who really wrote it.

By the way, if you’re interested in who wrote the Gospels, check out Bart Ehrman’s free webinar Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?  

Conclusion: Who Was Mark in the Bible?

The Gospel of Mark is our earliest written source about Jesus. However, it was written anonymously and only attributed to Mark in the 2nd century. The Bible refers first in the book of Acts to Mark as a young man living in Jerusalem with his mother. He and his mother are part of the Jesus movement and shelter Peter when he is freed from prison. Perhaps this is where the later reputed association between Peter and Mark originated.

Later in Acts, Mark accompanies Paul and Barnabas on some missionary journeys, although he apparently proves himself to be a less-than-committed ally. Barnabas, however, stayed loyal to him in Acts, possibly causing later writers of pseudo-Pauline letters to see Mark as Barnabas’ cousin to explain Barnabas’ loyalty.

One authentic letter of Paul, Philemon, mentions someone named Mark as a friend or follower. However, we have the additional problem that Mark was one of the most common male names in the Roman Empire. While this could be the same Mark referred to in Acts, it could also be a different person.

It was in the 2nd century CE that writers claimed that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and that he, by taking down Peter’s utterances, wrote the Gospel of Mark. This is almost certainly not accurate. First, the Gospel of Mark is anything but comprehensive and is actually the shortest of the four Gospels. If Peter had indeed shared his wealth of information and stories about Jesus, the book would surely have been more exhaustive. Second, Papias proved himself to be an unreliable source on several other matters, making his story about Mark equally dubious.

Ultimately, while there may indeed have been a prominent member of the Jesus movement named Mark, it’s all but impossible for historians to nail down much specific and accurate information about him.