Ben C Smith

I accept that it is not the issue for you. But it seems to be an issue for Joe Wallack.

I understand that this is what you are saying. If it was what Joe was saying, too, then yes, I misunderstood him. But he also wrote...:

...which leads me to believe (especially with his backward allusion to Irenaeus) that his Mark is our canonical Mark all the way through his statement. I was answering his statement, not yours.

Actually, I do not conclude that Papias was talking about our canonical Matthew. The jury is still out for me, but right now I am leaning against it.

As for Mark, yes, I think that Papias was referring to (at least some recension of) our canonical Mark. I have written up in sketchy note form somewhere an argument to that effect, and will eventually flesh it out to put it up on my website.

I hasten to add that I do not think we have much way of knowing exactly how closely what Papias had would match our present Mark. Which ending did his copy have (he may know the longer ending, but was it attached to his copy of Mark or was it separate?)? Did his copy contain the Bethsaida section? How did it start (Mark 1.1 often being suspected as a scribal addition or modification)? Did it contain those stories that our Mark contains but Matthew and Luke lack? A couple of years ago I would have had another question here: Was it (related to) the secret gospel of Mark? Fortunately, that one has a pretty solid negative answer.

Please see my PM to you.

Ben.

aa5874

This is strange, Marcion is essentially of the same faith, a Christian, his narrative varied, which should be acceptable based on the previous statement, yet Marcion is viewed as a heretic.

It appears to me that the author of Adversus Macionem is not concerned about a true and proper account of events, that is, any statement made about the Christ is acceptable provided that it fits with the author's interpretation of 'faith'.


But the same author wrote, "It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies....."

And today it is almost certain that the names of the Gospels were invented.

Adversus Marcionem, "It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies....."

JoeWallack

Jeo:
I tell you the Truth, I Am curious how much longer this Thread can go before someone quotes the offending quote:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

"15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark."


Jeo:
Let's keep in mind that this isn't actually what Papias wrote and it's not actually what Eusebius wrote that Papias wrote. It's what Orthodox Christian Clergy wrote in English from what Orthodox Christian Clergy wrote from non-English copies of what Eusebius wrote that Papias wrote. So it's Likely that what Papias originally wrote is less supportive of Christian Assertian than the English translation above.

Even so, the quote above appears to me to be more likely to refer to Q than "Mark":

1) "wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ"

2) "Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers"

3) "no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses"

4) "so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them"

Doesn't sound like a complete. chronological Narrative, does it? It makes much better sense as Q. Jesus was a Wisdom teacher and after he died Peter orally preserved Jesus' teachings. Mark was Peter's Greek translator and after Peter died Mark wrote what he remembered Peter said about Jesus and his teachings. The emphasis was on Jesus' teachings and Life and not Jesus' supposed passion and death. Nothing Impossible is required.

Under this scenario than Papias really is referring to a writing that Peter was responsible for and that was written by someone named Mark. It's just not the Gospel "Mark". It explains why the Gospel "Mark" was attributed the name "Mark". Because Subsequent Christianity Misidentified a primarily Sayings writing by a Mark, who was the interpreter of Peter, as the Gospel "Mark".

So I Am not doubting that Papias received a Tradition that a Mark wrote based on Peter. In fact, I am asserting it!


Jeo:
God, have you just been reading JP Holding? How in the world is your claim that most ancient books also have no Internal evidence for authorship any kind of defense against my observation that "Mark" has no Internal evidence for authorship? All you are doing is Confirming my observation and not disputing it. Lack of Internal evidence of authorship in ancient writings is your Problem and not your solution.

And why would anyone making a theological statement want to identify themselves anyway? Paul?:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
who was declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; [even] Jesus Christ our Lord,
through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name`s sake;
among whom are ye also called [to be] Jesus Christ`s:
To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called [to be] saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."


Jeo:
Exactly! It's intrin[sic]ly so Unlikely to attribute a Gospel to an Interpreter rather than a Head disciple that it must be Likely. I'm surprised there was no Gospel attributed to "Luke's" Acting coach or James' cat, "ischism".


Jeo:
I'm referring to when "Mark" was Named (second century) and not when it was written (first century). [understatement] The Gospel of Peter is somewhat more favorable towards Peter than "Mark", yes?[/understatement].
Thus it would have been more natural to have the Name "Peter" bestowed on it earlier. If, at the time Christianity was ready to name "MarK', there already was a popular Gospel named "Peter", that would be a reason not to create another Peter, right?



Jeorpheus

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

angela2

This is an interesting thread. It goes to great scholarly lengths to disprove something that most educated Christians don't assert in the first place.

Any thoughts on why that is so?

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

Could this mean the "memoirs of Jesus," as in the Roberts-Donaldson translation?

Thanks,
Jake

pob14

I see. Thank you.

Ben C Smith

Good question.

I sincerely doubt it. For one thing, the nearest noun is Peter, not Jesus. (This is not a lock, since the antecedent can sometimes skip a noun.) For another, the standard practice in Justin Martyr is to call these writings the memoirs of the apostles, not the memoirs of Jesus or of Christ, which to my knowledge never occurs, and right in this passage Peter is identified as one of the apostles. In fact, a perfect opportunity to call them the memoirs of Jesus occurs in Dialogue 100.4, but Justin instead calls them the memoirs of his apostles.

IIRC, Bernard Orchard has a good discussion of the issue in The Order of the Synoptics.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

You think that the statements about Mark in Papias refer to Q?

You would have to present a case to that effect, one that deals with the century and a half of scholarship that associates Q, if anything, with the logia.

I could not disagree more. But first things first.

If you are addressing this to me, the answer is no.

If you are addressing this to God, the answer is no idea.

It is my contention that we have better attestation for Mark as author of our second canonical gospel than we do for Tacitus as author of the Annals.

I suspect the author of our second gospel identified himself in the title of the work.

Ben.

Amaleq13

According to Ben's recent post, that is somewhat of a misleading statement since Justin appears to attribute a "memoir" to Peter.

Ben C Smith

Justin knows even more than that. He writes in Dialogue 103.8:

For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by his apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that his sweat fell down like drops of blood while he was praying, and saying: If it be possible, let this cup pass.

His usual practice is simply to call these texts the memoirs of the apostles; here we learn that he knows they were not all actually composed by apostles, and it is interesting that we learn this precisely in conjunction with a detail (the bloody sweat) found only in (many manuscripts of) the gospel of Luke, who was not, according to tradition, an apostle.

Ben.