Bible Review

Later tradition suggests Peter knew Mark, too; according to the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, a second-century church leader named Papias claimed that Peter dictated at least parts of the gospel account to the evangelist.

Church tradition conflates the Beloved Disciple with both John the Evangelist and the apostle John.

Scholars believe that both Luke and Matthew, in writing their gospels, drew on the Gospel of Mark and a now-lost collection of Jesus’ sayings called Q (from the German Quelle, meaning “source”).

See James F. Strange and Hershel Shanks, “Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1982.

See James Finegan, “The Death and Burial of St. Peter,” Biblical Archaeology Review, December 1976; and Julie Skurdenis, “City of the Dead,” Archaeology Odyssey, March/April 2001.

See Victor Hurowitz, “From Storm God to Abstract Being,” BR 14:05.

The choice of languages has also raised some eyebrows. Whereas Aramaic was commonly spoken in first-century Palestine, Latin was not. Pilate and the other Romans would more likely have spoken Greek, the lingua franca of the eastern Roman empire.

See “Jesus in Italy,” BAR 29:01.

By the 13th century, the Acts of the Pilte and a second-century account of the Harrowing of Hell had been linked together under the title the Gospel of Nicodemus. See Heidi Hornick and Mikeal Parsons, “The Harrowing of Hell,” BR 19:03.

See Robin M. Jensen, “Witnessing the Divine: The Magi in Art,” BR 17:06.