Mark and Acts

So once again I have to disagree with a designation Dr. Sexson gave to one of the books of the New Testament. He said that The Acts of the Apostles should be classified as an epistle, and not as history.

While the book does carry similarities to a letter (namely the existence of a recipient) it is not written as an epistle. It opens with the Luke (the author) talking about his first book (Luke), which implies this is his second book. In addition, the work is presented more as a history than writing to any group or individual. The Epistles all contain references to specific events or issues the church or person receiving the letter has to deal with, while Acts comes out in a very factual style, not aimed for one specific group.

And now a brief note on Mark.

The description of Mark as parataxic fits with the earliest tradition of the Gospel. Prior to any attempt to discover who/when/where the Gospels 'really' were written, Christians passed down traditional views of authorship. These include that the Gospels were written in the order in which they appear in the New Testament, as well as that they were written by those after whom they were named.

Mark is traditionally held to have been written by a young man named John Mark, who appears in the Acts of the Apostles. It is said he was with Peter while the latter was preaching in Rome, and he recorded the Gospel as Peter gave it. Thus the book comes down in an oral style, as it was taken from an oral presentation.