The Bishop

This query began because someone made a claim that Nazareth was not mentioned in the earliest texts of Mark. I checked my NA27 and found this was not the case, where Mark mentions Nazareth in chapter 1 for instance, there it is in the Aleph and B texts, only with a slight disagreement with the Majority text as to whether it's spelt Nazareth or Nazaret.

However, there was nothing about papyri at that point, so I shimmied to the appendix listing all the principal codices and papyri used to create the edition. And I realised, glancing down the list that, despite scholarship's general agreement that Mark is the oldest gospel (because it is the shortest gospel, and contains text used by Matthew and Luke), it is very, very poorly represented in any of the earliest papyrus texts that have ever been discovered. Amongst the evangelists, Luke and John appear to have the lion's share, with considerable amounts of Matthew present also. But of fragmentary papyrus scraps dating to the 3rd Century or older, there are none with any Mark on them, and the only papyrus with any significant Mark sections is the Chester Beatty I, P45 from the 3rd Century.

It just seems strange to me that there appears to be so little of this one of the four Gospels in the most ancient documents we have.

Anyone else know anything about this issue, or prepared to comment?

WishboneDawn

I'd heard an alternate though less popular idea that Mark was later then Matthew and Luke and drew from them. I can't remember a source for that at the moment though.

mikem

Perhaps Matthew, Luke and John were more popular? They certianly seem to be more devotional as compared with Mark. Perhaps since Matthew and Luke already contain most of Mark anyway, it was not regarded as essential to have as many copies as for the other longer gospels. Perhaps given the amount of time it would take to copy them by hand, or the cost of materials, the early Xtian scribes economised?

Doug Shaver

That sounds plausible to me.

I think it unlikely we'll ever have enough evidence to do more than speculate.

Julian

Actually, Mark was considerably less popular than the other three gospels and this is why it has poor attestation. It wasn't copied nearly as much. This following sentence is from rough memory so the numbers might be a bit off. Of all the papyrus finds along the Nile, around 20 or so, only one is part of the gospel of Mark, whereas (possibly) three fragments are from the gospel of Peter. As this shows it was even less popular than a non-canonical gospel. As a matter of fact, seeing how it is a viscious attack on the disciples (i.e. the 'pillars' church) I don't understand how it made it into the canon at all.

The lack of attestation is a simple lack of popularity, at least in a climate that favors papyrus.

Julian

judge

Can one really draw the conclusion it was less popular from these few pieces of evidence from one area?

Julian

Yes, but such conclusions are obviously very tentative. It can serve as an indicator when combined with the fact that GMark was less popular in terms of being copied, in terms of direction of harmonization, in terms of quotations, and so on. Because the fairly weak data of papyrus finds is complemented by other evidence we can assign some certianty to it representing some sort of reliable statistical view.

Julian

judge

But is this evidence that is was less popular than anon canonical gospel, i.e. the gospel of Peter? Or the canonical ones?

How does one conclude that Mark was less popular than the gospel of Peter on the basis of harmonisation or quotations?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Julian,

This is a good point. It is simply the unpopularity of Mark that makes it less copied. Here are two other points that I have deduced that may be interest to readers:

Note the statement of Papias:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

If Mark took down exactly what Peter said, then the gospel would have been in the First Person, with Peter being the first person narrator. This is what we get in the Gospel of Peter. We may assume that Papias is actually refering to the Gospel of Peter when he talks about Mark writing it. He is trying to explain why the Gospel of Peter is so jumpy, so he blames it on the scribe Mark.

We may assume that the Gospel we now call the Gospel of Mark was originally called the Gospel of Andrew. He is the brother of Peter in the Gospel and since we already had a Gospel by Peter, one by his brother would be the next best thing. This Gospel of Andrew (now called Mark) simply gave additional information to the Gospel of Peter (called Mark by Papias). There was really not much reason to copy Andrew (now called Mark) and use it as Peter shows superior writing.

It was probably because of its obscurity that Matthew (180?) chose it for the basic structural frame for his Gospel. As I demonstate in my book "the Evolution of Christs and Christianities" (see Evocc.com), Matthew also used an equally obscure 1st century writing probably called the "Sayings of John the Nazarene" to fill out his gospel. The fact that he was using the most obscure material he could find suggests that he had no real historical sources at all at his disposal.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Julian

One can not conclude it on the basis of harmonization or quotations, as far as I know. Since GPeter dropped out early on there is no way to tell for certain how they stacked up. The papyrus argument is a good one but it is very limited and can only take us so far. It is, nonetheless, solid and tangible evidence, a rare occurrence in biblical studies.

Julian