FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-08-2005, 07:23 PM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default 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.......
  • A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

    B And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"

    C And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.

    D And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

    D And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

    C And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;

    B and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

    A 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.

...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
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 04:08 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

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
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 05:16 AM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
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
Ah. Right. That one's much better.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 08:26 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
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.
I'm having trouble reconciling this explanation of Papias's account with other information. From Paul and GMk itself, Peter was married; from a plain reading of 1 Pet 5:13, Mark was Peter's son. Leaving Paul aside (along with questions of the degree to which Papias knew the epistles of Paul), it seems Papias could have inferred from 1 Pet that Mark was Peter's son, with corroboration of Peter's marriage in GMk. And yet, Papias does not allude to the relationship that seems most easily inferred from GMk and 1 Pet, a relation that - it seems to me - would strengthen the authority of GMk. It suggests to me that GMk came to Papias with the Mark/Peter tradition already attached. I suppose two Marks is another possibility, as would be the possibility that Papias didn't consider the Mark of 1 Pet as Peter's literal son.

Regards,

V.
Vivisector is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 11:27 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisector
I suppose two Marks is another possibility, as would be the possibility that Papias didn't consider the Mark of 1 Pet as Peter's literal son.
The last possibility is the most plausible. Paul also referred to Timothy
as his son (1 Cor. 4:17).
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 01:04 PM   #6
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
The last possibility is the most plausible. Paul also referred to Timothy
as his son (1 Cor. 4:17).
Do we know that Paul didn't have any sons?
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 01:48 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Do we know that Paul didn't have any sons?
We don't know. We don't know if he was married or not, but Eusebius assumes that he was. And according to various sections of the NT, Peter a/k/a Cephas was married.

From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter 30:1, quoted by Origin here:

Quote:
ST. PETER was a married apostle, and the traditions of his wife which connect her married life with Rome itself render it most surprising that those who claim to be St. Peter's successors should denounce the marriage of the clergy as if it were crime. The touching story, borrowed from Clement of Alexandria, is related by Eusebius. "And will they," says Clement, "reject even the apostles? Peter and Philip, indeed, had children; Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. to husbands; and Paul does not demur, in a certain Epistle, to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his ministry the better." Of St. Peter and his wife, Eusebius subjoins, "Such was the marriage of these blessed ones, and such was their perfect affection."
Eusebius here refers to 1 Corinthians 9:5
Quote:
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife [Young's Literal Translation has "a sister -- a wife"] along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?
which is a bit ambiguous as to whether Paul actually has a wife.

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.
Toto is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 01:55 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Wink 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
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 02:05 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Do we know that Paul didn't have any sons?
Assuming you mean literal (i.e. biological) sons, it's hard to tell from the little evidence we have. Of marginal relevance, 1 Cor. 7:8 indicates that Paul was unmarried when he wrote that. Nevertheless, the full passage in 1 Cor. 4, including verse 15 "I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel," establishes the existence of the metaphorical use of such kinship terms.
S.C.Carlson is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 02:09 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv
Robert Price has called into question the very existence of Papais.
Is this on-line anywhere?

Stephen
S.C.Carlson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:14 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.