Ben C Smith

For whatever it may be worth, I personally suspect that the gospel of Mark was not written for widespread dissemination. The lines of evidence are as follows:

1. Mark retains, where the other gospels do not, the names of the sons of one of the main participants in the narrative (Alexander and Rufus, sons of Simon of Cyrene). It seems unlikely that Mark could have expected Christians abroad to know who these people were; rather, Mark appears to be writing for a specific and limited readership who might be expected to understand this reference.

2. Papias claims that Mark did not write up his work as an ordered συνταξις, but rather wrote not in order. In ancient book publication this basically means that Mark wrote a rough draft, not a final draft.

3. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes between the gospels of Matthew and Luke (those with genealogies) and the gospel of Mark on grounds that I think Stephen Carlson has convincingly elucidated; Clement says that the former were published openly (προγεγραφθαι) while the latter was written as a note (υπομνημα) by special request of a few hearers of Peter; this is one of the Greek terms for the rough draft stage of an ancient book. Note that this agrees with Papias.

Even if one does not credit the fathers with any valid tradition (numbers 2 and 3 above) concerning the actual provenance of the gospels, they seem to indicate that they regard Mark as the first stage (notes, narrower dissemination among acquaintances) of the ancient book process and Matthew and Luke as the last (published book, broader distribution). Observation of the gospels themselves (even beyond number 1 above) might be seen as justifying this judgment; for example, Mark has retained numerous foreign (Latin and Aramaic or Hebrew) words and turns of speech that Matthew and especially Luke have excised.

Ben.

aa5874

Once it is admitted that the supposed Papias claimed the author of so-called Mark did not write in order, then it is obvious that Papias knew some other gospel that had another order, established as the correct order, and it must be obvious that the other the gospel with the correct order preceded gMark.


It is completely erroneous to claim gMark was considered the first to have been written. The church writers regardless of their order of Gospels did not ever place gMark as first at all.

Against Heresies 3.1 by Irenaeus
Tertullian Against Marcion 4
Church History 6.17.3-6 by Eusebius Church History 6.14.5-6 by Eusebius. Cmement placed gMatthew and gLuke before gMark.


It is clear that the church writers are claiming that gMatthew preceeded gMark or that gMark was not first to be written.

Ben C Smith

This is a logical fallacy. Papias may also have considered the second (or third, or fourth, or tenth) gospel written to have (finally) gotten the order right compared to the gospels that came before it. I think X is correct does not necessarily mean I think X was written first.

I do not recall writing anything about Mark being first in the post you referenced. (I think you may be confusing my talk of first stage with the issue of which gospel came first compared to the other gospels. That Mark was written as a first stage document, or rough draft, does not mean that Mark was written before other documents that were polished enough to be final drafts.)

(Just for the sake of clarity — and I am not going to get sidetracked on this issue on this thread — I do happen to think that the gospel of Mark preceded those of Matthew and Luke; however, that is not what is at issue in my post; rather, what is at stake is whether the gospel of Mark was intended to be widely or universally distributed; I am suggesting that it was not.)

Did you read the link to the essay by Carlson that I provided? Carlson argues that Clement was not doing this in the portion of text that Eusebius quoted.

Ben.

aa5874

You are absolutely illogical with your statement. The church writers have not placed gMark as the first written gospel ever and some of these writers it is claimed used Papias to help them to develop the order of the written gospels.

Irenaeus it is claimed used Papias and did not place gMark first.

Eusebius used Papias or Irenaeus and did not place gMark first.

But, I cannot recall any evidence or information anywhere in the NT and in the church writings where it was ever claimed the author of Mark had a rough draft before gMatthew was written.

You may have just made that up.

Where do you get your stories about the author of Mark?

From your imagination!

Your suggestion has no value as evidence. You have only produce imaginative infornation to support your suggestion.

But look at the passage by Eusebius in Church History. Why do you need some-one else to tell what is not true at all.

Church History 6.14.5-6 by Eusebius. Clement placed gMatthew and gLuke before gMark.

This is absolutely clear. The gospel according to Mark was never ever placed first bt the church writers.

Ben C Smith

This does not mean that Papias did not place the gospel of Mark first. (Nor does it mean that he did.) This is a non sequitur.

The claim I was making was that the author of Mark produced what readers considered to be a rough draft. I was not claiming in my original post, the one to which you responded, that the author of Mark did this before Matthew.

No, you misunderstood.

It is clear in this English translation, which is exactly what Carlson is arguing is not correct. Eusebius did not write in English; he wrote in Greek. And I have no intention of getting into a debate over the original Greek with someone who pretends (s)he knows what is being argued based solely on the very English translation that is under dispute.

Ben.

aa5874

So, you do not have any argument or any point at all. As I said you just seem to make stuff up. You claimed that the author of Mark may have some rough draft that preceded gMatthew, now you don't know.

You are not making any sense at all.

But look at your own post. Why are you denying that you implied the author of Mark was first to write his gospel.
There is no information any where in the NT or the church writings that the readers of Mark considered his gospel to be a rough draft.


It is not only in Eusebius that the English translation is clear, the English translations are also clear in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome and others, both Greek and Latin writers, where gMark was never ever placed first by the church writers.

Ben C Smith

That was not my claim. My claim, again, was that at least some of the fathers thought of Mark as a υπομνημα, not as a συνταξις.

Because I did not, in the post you were replying to, imply the author of Mark was first to write his gospel. You apparently misunderstood the first in first draft.

Translation: You read these writings in English translation and do not find the term rough draft (or first draft). My apologies for using English words to try to convey the sense of the original Greek for readers on this board who do not know Greek. No good deed will go unpunished.

The information I am trying to convey is that at least some of the church fathers thought of Mark as a υπομνημα, not as a συνταξις.

You are absolutely correct that these church fathers did not place Mark first in order. And that is absolutely irrelevant to my point that at least some of those fathers thought of Mark as a υπομνημα, not as a συνταξις.

Ben.

aa5874

Don't you undersand Greek? Well just translate those Greeks words υπομνημα and συνταξις, to English so everyone can follow your English translations.

But you were claiming that the supposed rough draft that you imagine was first. The post is there for everyone to see. Look at it one more time.

You are very clear. Mark was considered the first stage of the ancient book process, Matthew and Luke last.

So what are you saying now? Are saying Mark was not actually first, but was at some other stage of the ancient book process?

You don't know what you are saying or perhaps you are saying too much things that you can't remember.



Why do you think that I do not know any Greek?

Now, just tell me which church writer of antiquity used υπομνημα with reference to gMark.

Please quote the passage and where it can be found.

Ben C Smith

I did translate them, and you misunderstood them. In English.

No, I did not claim that; I claimed that Mark was written as a υπομνημα; I also rendered this Greek word into English, but you misunderstood the point of that.

Yes, that is very clear. And it does not place Mark in chronological relation to Matthew and Luke. So far as that statement is concerned, Mark could have written his υπομνημα either before or after Matthew and Luke. Or between them. That statement has to do with the nature of Mark at its distribution (was it υπομνημα or was it συνταξις?), not with when it was written or distributed compared to Matthew and Luke.

No, I am saying that Mark, whenever it was written, was regarded (at least by some) as a υπομνημα, which is the first stage of an ancient book, not as a συνταξις, which is the last. The adjectives first and last have nothing to do with date of composition in this context; they have to do with the state of composition of a text. Noting that a book by author A was published in its rough draft form tells us nothing about when that book was published compared to books by authors B and C.

(For example, Suetonius reports Cicero as remarking that Caesar wrote his Memoirs as a commentarius, which is a Latin equivalent to the Greek υπομνημα, but did such a bang-up job of it that nobody ever saw fit to go back and bring the text up to the next step of composition.)

:rolling:

Eusebius.

History of the Church 2.15.1-2.

I actually attributed the use of this word to Clement of Alexandria in my original post, and there are indeed some who would attribute this entire section to Clement, but I am not one of them. So I hereby correct my original post to read that Eusebius called Mark a υπομνημα:

Τοσουτον δ επελαμψεν ταις των ακροατων του Πετρου διανοιαις ευσεβειας φεγγος, ως μη τη εις απαξ ικανως εχειν αρκεισθαι ακοη μηδε τη αγραφω του θειου κηρυγματος διδασκαλια, παρακλησεσιν δε παντοιαις Μαρκον, ου το ευαγγελιον φερεται, ακολουθον οντα Πετρου, λιπαρησαι ως αν και δια γραφης υπομνημα της δια λογου παραδοθεισης αυτοις καταλειψοι διδασκαλιας, μη προτερον τε ανειναι η κατεργασαθαι τον ανδρα, και ταυτη αιτιους γενεσθαι της του λεγομενου κατα Μαρκον ευαγγελιου γραφης. γνοντα δε το πραχθεν φασι τον αποστολον αποκαλυψαντος αυτω του πνευματος, ησθηναι τη των ανδρων προθυμια κυρωσαι τε την γραφην εις εντευξιν ταις εκκλησιας.

It is, however, still Clement who applies προγεγραφθαι to Matthew and Luke but not to Mark. And it is still the case that Mark was seen at least by some as a υπομνημα.

Ben.

aa5874

Now, look at Eusebius in English.

Church History 6.17.3-6 by Eusebius
That is the order in English.

You have another order in Greek?