Cretinist

How does Papias' statements apologize for the lack of material? Unless Peter never told Mark about the virgin birth, there is no way Mark could have "...took especial care not to omit anything he had heard." Unless of course, he thought it wasn't true and took especial care "..not to put anything fictitious into.." his Gospel, hehe.

I suppose Papias' statements could be read as an apologetic for GMk in light of the growing popularity of GMt and GLk, but I'm still not convinced. Papias' description of GMk is just too off-base.

Vinnie

When Papias actually describes the work itself, he is describing something that clearly is not GMk.

Papias appears to be discussing a short work not given in order with poor that lacks material.

He goes out of his way to argue that Mark neither ommitted or added anything and that the faulty order is explainable as Mark represent Peter's varied preachings as different situations necessitated it.

Mark is short, has poor order, ommitted a lot of material, and added a lot of fiction. Mark looks exactly like the text Papias describes if you ask me. The notion that GMark stems from Petrine preaching has more potential than you let on. As it now stands the Gospel certainly is not reflective of accurate, eyewitness reminiscing.

Inventing Apostolic authorship certainly fits any early Christian document nicely (which is why it was widely done), but this doesn't mean anything. When Papias actually describes the work itself, he is describing something that clearly is not GMk.

We already mentioned this 2d century practice. Gundry, however, argues that Papias writes shortly after Mark was written (no more than 40 years contrasted with other views which posit about 70 years). He also argues the tradition predates him and goes back to the Elder whom Gundry identifies as the apostle John himself. It is the apostle John, in Gundry's eyes, who gives the information to Papias.

Yeah but Papias statements fit Mark. He didn't view the miracles in Mark as something an eyewitness like Peter would never report as we do. Papias merely attempts to apologize for a few shortcommngs as they are perceived in this Gospel. All of these problems describe the text of Mark accurately. There is no need to posit another, hitherto unknown text of Mark when we have this one right here.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Mark wrote down "what he remembered".

Conession that Mark is incomplete in comparison to other accounts?

Mark did not write "in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ."

Did Papias know Luke 1 and its critique of Mark? Luke is writing an orderly account. Luke adds a great deal of material to Mark as did Matthew.

"""For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.""""

Papias admits the text of Mark comes not from an eyewitness.

""""""accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], """""

Peter preaching varies. Papias is coping with the fact that Mark does not prevent a systematic and orderly account. It consists of isolated incidents strung together like beeds on a string,

"""""but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. """""

Mark cnanot be faulted for the poor order since Peter didn't give the narrative but only accomadated his preaching as the audiences required it.

""""""""Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them."""""""

In other words, despite all the perceived problems and shortcomings of this work, Mark is still cool.

"""""""For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard,""""""

Did Mark take special care or jist list all that he remembered? Are these compatible or do they crate friction

"""and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. """

Papias also spells out for his readers the accuracy of Mark. It comes from Peter's sporadic preaching anf Mark didn't add falsehood to it.

When I read Papias' statement I see the whole thing as an apologetic for an unnown text named Mark which fits the Gospel of Mark quite well.

Matthew also took up Mark and added a bunch of stuff to it and so did Luke but Luke in his prologue states many had undertaken an attempt to write up accounts but noted his will be "orderly". This appears to critique the "order" of Mark which Papias we find defending the poor order and sproadic nature of a unknown text named Mark.

Vinnie

Cretinist

I disagree, though your reading of it certainly is intriguing, even if it has to be read into the text. For one, (unless you respond in another post), I don't see how an apology for lack of material can be read into it. How could it be? Secondly, it is not obvious to me that early Christians reading GMk in light of GLk and GMt would describe GMK as un-orderly and with "no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings." Would they need that excuse to harmonize the accounts, a la modern fundies? Possibly, but it would help if you would cite some examples from the Gospels.

Cretinist

Mark wrote down everything he remembered from Peter’s preaching and forgot the virgin birth? Yeah right. If this is supposed to be an apology for lack of material in Mark, it is an incredibly bad one. I think it counts against your reading of Papias.

He would certainly have to on your reading, which would basically make Papias a terminus ad quem for both GLk and GMk. Otherwise, you’d have to depend on Christians inventing this apologetic to harmonize just Matthew and Mark, which would make your reading that much weaker.

Again, though, your reading is quite interesting, and isn’t one I had considered before.

Vinnie

I agree your VB exmaple is a good counter but Peter didn't forget the virgin birth in this scenario. The times that Mark was with Peter he heard Peter's preaching which was accomodated to the needs of Peter's audience at hand. Mark wrote as he remembered, in no order. This fits exactly with Papias' statement. It is possibly material just like this with which Papias had to defend against. Overall his defense of Mark is not very good from my perspective (its easier to say Mark didn't know of the virginal conception) but it clearly has excuses and apologetical overtones when I read it.

Vinnie

spin

Why do we get the idea that the man with the Roman name, Mark, wrote in Rome (as seen in the explanations to Romans)? How does that reflect what Pap was talking about?


spin

Vinnie

I also add that millions and billions of Christians including those like Irenaues in the second century in antiquity have all been fine with Mark not mentioning the virginal conception of Jesus. So I do not think we can look at this from our modern perspective and expect it to create an extra special problem in the second century (as your objection does). Before the canon became official is possibly when internal Christian attacks occured on works and needs to defend texts apparent apostolic deficiencies would be needed.

So the probative value of your objection appears to be minimal at best.

Off to work now, shall not be back with a flood of posts to later

Vinnie

Vinnie

Provenance is dififcult. I'll throw out some comments and quotes later. Where is that Hieryopolis (sorry for the bad spelling--in a hurry) place where Papias is said to have been bishop of?

Vinnie

spin

Hieropolis is not an uncommon name, but I got this online for Papias: "close to Laodicea and Colossae in the valley of the Lycus in Phrygia".



spin