Jesus' Life: Evidence from Outside Our Gospels

[Berserk]

1. THE GOSPEL OF MARK: THE MEMOIR'S OF HIS DAD'S EYWITNESS TESTIMONY
There is good reason to embrace the tradition that Mark contains Peter's memoirs. But I recently realized that there are good grounds for taking this one step further and claiming that this Gospel represents the memoirs of Mark's Dad! Here is the 7-step reasoning process by which I reached that conclusion:

(1) Mark's account of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law implies that Peter was married (1:29-31).

(2) Paul reports that Peter's wife traveled with him on his missionary tours (1 Corinthians 9:5). So Clement of Alexandria's tradition that Peter had children and that Peter's wife accompanied him to Rome, where both were martyred, are probably both true (Clement's Stromateis as quoted in Eusebius, HE 3:30).

(3) Writing from Rome [= "Babylon"], Peter identifies Mark as "my son (1 Peter 5:13)." In view of (1)-(3) above, it seems likely that Peter means that literally and that "my son" is not just a term of endearment for his travel companion Mark.

(4) Papias (c. 60-130 AD) reports that Jesus' disciple, John the Elder, is currently testifying to his knowledge that Mark was Peter's interpreter at Rome and recorded Peter's memoirs of Jesus in his Gospel.
"Papias...says that he had actually heard Aristion and John the Elder. He often quotes them by name and gives their tradition in his writings (Eusebius, HE 3:39)."

(5) Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) lives in Rome and confirms the Roman tradition that Mark's Gospel in fact represents Peter's memoirs (Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 106:3).

(6) The many Latinism in Mark lend added credence to the Gospel of Mark's origin in Rome.

(7) So Mark's Gospel likely preserves his Dad Peter's eyewitness testimony to Jesus' life and teaching.

 

[Berserk]

FURTHER SPECULATION RELATED TO (1)-(7) IN MY PRIOR POST
After his angelic deliverance from prison, Peter heads home, to what I think is the house where his wife Mary and son Mark live:

"As soon as he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose other name was Mark, where many had gathered and were praying (Acts 12:12)."

(1) John Mark is also known simply as "Mark (Acts 15:39)" and many scholars identify him as the Mark who wrote the Gospel.
Peter had a wife and family and even calls Mark "my son" (1 Peter 5:13).

(2) It is natural that the first people Peter would want to notify of his prison escape would be his family. In a patriarchal culture, the reference to "the house of Mary" is shocking because one would expect her husband's name to be mentioned instead. But if that husband was Peter, wouldn't we expect Luke to mention that? Not really because Luke never even bothers to mention that James is Jesus' brother! Peter needed to tell his family that he must flee from Jerusalem and do missionary work elsewhere. So that house could well have been known as "Mary's house until she was able to join him on the mission field.

 

[Berserk]

2. THE NAZARETH TABLET INSCRIPTION

The Nazareth inscription is a tablet from the emperor, warning that the penalty for grave robbing is death. Most scholars date it to the time of Claudius (c. 41 AD). In 1878 it was initially brought to Nazareth, Jesus' home town. If Claudius is indeed the inscription's source. and if it was found near Nazareth, then it would likely be prompted by a Roman belief in the same charge that Jews made against Jesus' disciples: that the disciples stole Jesus' body. If so, these charges likely mean that neither the Jews nor the Romans know why Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. There is scant evidence that the Romans executed ordinary grave robbers. So the death penalty here probably reflects a Roman belief in Christianity as a troublesome cult focused on someone who committed a crime against Rome (e. g. sedition).

Unfortunately, the original locale of the tablet is unknown, but it is brought to officials in Nazareth. So it is probably discovered near there. Still, it seems unlikely Claudius would bother authorizing such a tablet to be written and sent to Palestine, unless a charge of notorious grave robbing had been leveled. Based on the style of lettering, the Decapolis has been proposed as an alternative place of origin. But the Decapolis is a hotbed of early Christianity. So whether it comes from Nazareth or the Decapolis, the tablet indirectly seems to attest the mystery of Jesus' empty tomb.
Of course, the earliest Gospel tradition about Jesus' burial (Mark) identifies a member of the 'Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, as sympathetic to Jesus (though not a disciple!) of Jesus and as gaining permission to bury a prematurely dead Jesus so as not to profane the Sabbath. In short, apologists are overreaching to claim this as proof of the resurrection, but the tablet looms as a relevant artifact possibly alluding to the witness to Jesus' bodily resurrection.