einniv

I'm hoping someone can provide a further reference work that discusses this possibility but I read about the idea from Robert Price. The reconstruction of The Preaching of Peter I have is from Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk). The Preaching of Peter was incorporated in to Clementine Homilies and Price has pulled it back out.

The dating seems to be fine if we use the most common datings for all the relevant materials. Its reliance on Matthew pushes it back a bit but still within accepted ranges for the work itself and for Papias.

Its big advantage is that it better matches what Papias said!

So Peter didn't use a regular narrative and Mark wrote that down 'not in order'. That is exactly how the The Preaching of Peter reads. Even though it has to be reconstructed it is clear that most of the preaching within in it stands on its own and was never connected in narrative form. It is in preaching form.

Our Mark, of course, is very much a narrative. Some have tried to say the "not in order" part is referring to what modern scholars see in Mark. For example Jesus leaving a town just to reenter it soon after. This notion of Papias sitting there doing modern scholarly analysis on Mark seems pretty silly to me. He had seen it , not owned it , or studied it extensively. In addition it completely ignores that fact that it says Peter was not using a narrative form, so how can a narrative Gospel be the super duper amazingly accurate (paraphrase of course ) retelling of Peter's non-narrative preaching?

Hmm.. Well if he is stringing it all together in a narrative framework then surely he is adding stuff of his own.

Of course decades later , later church fathers and writers had mistaken Papias' comments to refer to their (and our) Mark but this doesn't really seem all that unlikely.

einniv

Since no one has anything to add here yet, I thought I would mention that Price relies on a previous work which I will pass along when I get home and am able to look it up.

Ben C Smith

Just for the sake of clarity, the document sometimes thought to lie behind the Clementine literature is usually called the Kerygmata Petrou in order to distinguish it from the Preaching of Peter known to Clement of Alexandria.

How does the Price version of this hypothetical text differ from the ANF version?

The Kerygmata Petrou is usually dated to late century II or later, is it not? Or is the Early Christian Writings dating a quirk?

The Papias fragment asserts that Mark used his memories of Petrine preaching to write down what what had been said or done by the Lord. How well, in your opinion, does the description things either said or done by the Lord line up with the Kerygmata Petrou?

Ben.