Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 05-15-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Since we know nothing of the author or his purposes, or his audience, one's imagination can run wild. Is there anything more to say about this?

I recall reading a fairly compelling argument here that Mark was considered out of order compared to John which seems to have been favored by the same Fathers who offered the description.

Can't find it, though.

Not sure which post(s) or which argument(s) you are recalling specifically, but there are several reasons to think that Papias knew the Johannine tradition:

1. Papias knows of (and obviously appreciates) a certain presbyter John, disciple of the Lord; this reminds one of a certain beloved disciple in a certain gospel named John.
2. Look at the disciples that Papias names, according to Eusebius, as sources for dominical tradition: Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, Aristion, John the elder. Now look at the disciples that the gospel of John presents in chapter 1: Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip. And in chapter 21: Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (unnamed, but surely James and John), and two unnamed disciples (corresponding to, but not necessarily identical to, Aristion and John the elder?). Also note that the only names that do not match are Matthew and Nathanael, which appear to mean much the same thing etymologically (Nathanael is gift of God; Matthew is gift of Yahweh).
3. Papias lived in Hierapolis; many sources place the disciple John (it is not always clear whether it is John the elder or John the son of Zebedee, or whether the two are the same man) in Ephesus. Both are in Asia Minor, and very close to one another.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 05-15-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

I don't know if John the disciple of the Lord actually had anything to do with gJohn, and from Papias, we can't tell, since John the Presbyter seems to be someone else, contemporary with Papias.

From Papias we can tell that John the disciple of the Lord is John the elder; and I think we can also tell that John the elder, the disciple of the Lord, is not the same as the John who is listed with Peter and Matthew.

(This all gets very confusing, and it is vital to keep the actual terminology from Papias straight; Papias writes of Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord. So, for Papias, the elder John is a disciple of the Lord. The other John, the one listed with the first seven, must also be a disciple of the Lord, and is probably John of Zebedee, but he must also not be the one called John the elder.)

Quote:

I'm willing to believe that Mark got his material from someone called Peter, though in that case Peter was relating many of the the same things that were contained in the presbyter's Traditions.

I am not actually going that far at this stage. I think we certainly have to understand what Papias is saying, but so far, for the purposes of this discussion, it may be the case that Papias is simply wrong and that Peter had nothing whatsoever to do with the Marcan traditions.

Ben.

spin · 05-15-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't know why "note" is given as the translation. ("[N]ote" trivializes this Mark into a small effort, which isn't the case as we have it today.)

I agree that note does not fully convey the meaning. This is why it is never, ever wise to base sweeping judgments on the English translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Check LXX Ezra 6:2 where it means "(public) record". The noun suggests a chronicle and the person who kept it a chronicler (see for example 2 Sam 8:16).

It can also mean a memoir or a set of speeches. The main point here is that it was intended in antiquity to be worked up into something more literary at some point.

Quote:

Couldn't the distinction between syntaxis and upomnhma be one describing the type of effort? Papias's Mark got the data down and the others arranged it somehow.

Yes, that is very close to what I see as the (or at least a) distinction between those terms.

The distinction is a post hoc one supplied by Eusebius's Papias. It may merely be an attempt to justify why two other gospels were written. We have no way of testing its relevance.

spin

Ben C Smith · 05-15-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The distinction is a post hoc one supplied by Eusebius's Papias. It may merely be an attempt to justify why two other gospels were written. We have no way of testing its relevance.

Giving up already? Well, all right, you can go back to base camp and take a load off while the rest of us have a go at the summit, but be a good chap, will you, and keep the coffee hot for us, okay?

Cheers.

Ben.

the_cave · 05-15-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Also note that the only names that do not match are Matthew and Nathanael, which appear to mean much the same thing etymologically (Nathanael is gift of God; Matthew is gift of Yahweh).

Though note also that Jonathan also means "gift of Yahweh", being basically the same name as Nathanael (with a Jo- prefix instead of an -el suffix.) Although there aren't any Jonathans in early Christian literature (to my knowledge; please tell me if I'm wrong), I've often wondered if the name was sometimes equated with John (i.e. Yochanan). So "Nathanael" would be another "John". This is pretty speculative however and I don't know the likelihood.

spin · 05-15-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The distinction is a post hoc one supplied by Eusebius's Papias. It may merely be an attempt to justify why two other gospels were written. We have no way of testing its relevance.

Giving up already? Well, all right, you can go back to base camp and take a load off while the rest of us have a go at the summit, but be a good chap, will you, and keep the coffee hot for us, okay?

You seem to be pushing something not based on anything conceivably considered primary source material. What is the point of my continuing? Let me cut and paste this point: "We have no way of testing its relevance."

spin

aa5874 · 05-15-2009, 08:00 PM

Acts 12 resolves the matter very easily. There were was John the brother of James and another John called Mark.

Acts 12:1-2 -

Quote:

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Acts 12:12 -

Quote:

And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.