Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31
My hypothesis is based on two suggestions about Mark. The first is that he
was the BD and the second is that he was the son of Simon Peter. The latter
suggestion has a long history. In commenting on 1 Peter 5:13 Henry Alford wrote
that Mark was "perhaps the actual son of St. Peter, bearing this name." For
this view he cited Oecumenius and Bengel. According to Swete, ho huios mou in
this verse does not involve spiritual relationship of the kind expressed by
teknon in Paul's letters. In commenting on this verse William Barclay wrote
that "Mark might quite well be literally Peter's son." In the Encyclopedia
Americana F. C. Grant wrote that the reference "would be more natural if the
relationship was physical as well as spiritual." What surprises me is that no one
else to my knowledge has tried connecting these two suggestions.
As a young boy, Mark would have stayed close to his father when away from
Capernaum and thus would have been present at the meal although not initially at
the table. According to Richardson, "It would be the duty of the youngest
member of the group of disciples attached to a rabbi to perform such acts of
menial service as foot-washing."
My most recent SBL paper is posted on my website www.beloveddisciple.net, and
an earlier paper presented at a national SBL meeting is on
www.fourthgospel.com. Go to unpublished papers and click on "M".
George Melick, MA
Drexel University (Retired)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]