Changes

*"Mark was his surname, but the Gospel authors went by their first name, and his was John"

*"Mark was his surname, but the Gospel authors went by their first name, and his was John"

**Firstly, the Gospels were technically anonymous. Secondly, the Gospel of Mark in the primary sense was likely written for the Romans, so it makes sense that his Roman name would be attributed, and also to avoid ambiguity with Apostle John. Thirdly, I'm not familiar with the other Gospel writers having surnames in the same sense John Mark did, if at all.

**Firstly, the Gospels were technically anonymous. Secondly, the Gospel of Mark in the primary sense was likely written for the Romans, so it makes sense that his Roman name would be attributed, and also to avoid ambiguity with Apostle John when all four Gospels were known. Thirdly, I'm not familiar with the other Gospel writers having surnames in the same sense John Mark did, if at all.

*"Luke refers to John Mark disparagingly, yet Luke copied extensively in the Gospel of Luke from the Gospel of Mark"

*"Luke refers to John Mark disparagingly, yet Luke copied extensively in the Gospel of Luke from the Gospel of Mark"

**This is an interesting argument, though how is Luke's referencing of John Mark in Acts actually "disparaging"?

**This is an interesting argument, though how is Luke's referencing of John Mark in Acts actually "disparaging"?