Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
03-08-2005, 07:23 PM | #1 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Explanation for the Papias attribution of Mark to Peter??
I got to thinking -- a bad habit when you have 40,000 chinese characters awaiting translation -- and revisited Mk 16:2-8 to see if I could create a chiasm. The problem is that 16:8 cannot possibly be the end of the gospel, because there is no A' bracket involving geographical location/ movement to balance the A bracket.......
...so, with cheerful disregard for good methodology, I leapt over to the Gospel of Peter to borrow the last line. It doesn't really work -- there's no transition there between B' and A', and the C' and B' brackets are doublets that suggest they originally might have been the center of the chiasm -- but while I was rooting around in Gospel of Peter, I realized that if Mark had originally written an ending that resembled GPeter, the legend of his connection to Mark might have its roots there. Here's the last section of GPeter: "(58) It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (59) But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and grieving, and although everyone was mourning because of what had happened, each departed for his own house. (60) But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew took our nets and went out to the sea. And with us was Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord [. . .]" Imagine if early versions of Mark had a sudden shift to the first person at that point, with Peter as the narrator (GPeter almost certainly knows the Synoptics). Then the legend of Mark's connection to Peter originated as an etiological myth to explain why the "I" suddenly cropped out in the now-vanished ending. Just a suggestion. Vorkosigan |
03-09-2005, 04:08 AM | #2 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
|
One problem IMO is that Papias (as distinct from later forms of the tradition) does not IIUC claim that Mark wrote his Gospel as Peter's secreatary, but that he composed it himself on the basis of what he remembered of what Peter used to say.
A simpler non-historical explanation IMO is that a/ for whatever reason Papias believed the Gospel was by Mark. b/ Papias knew the 1st epistle of Peter (as apparently claimed by Eusebius book 2 chapter 15) which mentions Mark as apparently on Peter's team (chapter 5:13) and he deduced from a/ and b/ that Peter was Mark's source of information. Andrew Criddle |
03-09-2005, 05:16 AM | #3 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2005, 08:26 AM | #4 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 415
|
Quote:
Regards, V. |
|
03-09-2005, 11:27 AM | #5 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
as his son (1 Cor. 4:17). |
|
03-09-2005, 01:04 PM | #6 | |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2005, 01:48 PM | #7 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Quote:
From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter 30:1, quoted by Origin here: Quote:
Quote:
If Paul were a Pharisee, which I tend to doubt, he would have been obligated to marry and procreate, and he very well might have had a son. (But would he have given him a Roman name like Markus?) N.T. Wright argues that Paul must have been married because he was a Pharisee, but that when he converted to Christianity, he and his wife parted ways for one reason or another, and that Paul then devoted himself to his ministry. |
|||
03-09-2005, 01:55 PM | #8 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
|
Heresay
According to Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1ff cf Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 5.33.4, Mark wrote based on Peter's eyewitness testimony. Then we have Mark by tradition to Prester John. Whoever he was, Iraneus and Eusebius cannot agree to his identity. Papias then listens to Ariston, allegedly one of the seventy disciples sent out by Jesus.
Papias then wrote a book (or a volume in "five books"), but there are no extant copies. Then Iraneus and Eusebius read this book, and it is only on their reports that we have any extant record. Robert Price has called into question the very existence of Papias. Even if Papias existed, how can we independantly judge his credibility? And if Papias is deemed to be truthful, how do we know that the fabulous Prester John and Ariston weren't inveterate liars? :down: If Papias was really not very intelligent (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13) maybe he was a sucker for tall tales. I don't see how the words attributed to Papias can be viewed with any degree of confidence. Jake Jones IV |
03-09-2005, 02:05 PM | #9 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
|
|
03-09-2005, 02:09 PM | #10 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
|
Quote:
Stephen |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|