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.) 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).

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.


spin

Ben C Smith

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.

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.

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

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Why, when Eusebius wrote in Greek?

For the last time, my post was not about the order of the gospels.

Ben.

aa5874

Of course it was about the order of the gospels.

But, I have shown you your own posts where you implied that the author of Mark had some rough draft and was the first stage in the ancient book process.




It is patently obvious that once you consider that gMark was a rough draft and first in the stage of the book process and that gMatthew and gLuke were last in that process, that you are dealing with the order of the writings of the Gospels.

And again, no church writer called gMark a rough draft that was first in the ancient book process.

According to Eusebius in Church History, the process ([b]published books) placed gMatthew first, gMark second, gLuke third, and gJohn last.

Ben C Smith

I have explained repeatedly that the order of the gospels is not what I meant by ancient book process and rough (or first) draft in my original post. You have no excuse for continuing to act as if I was writing about the order of the gospels in my original post. That subject is closed AFAIAC.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

For those who may be confused by this exchange....

Ancient book process is my own term for the distinction between a υπομνημα and a συνταξις. The ancient process of producing a literary work was to start with a υπομνημα and then develop it into a συνταξις. The υπομνημα, therefore, is the first step of this process, and the συνταξις is the last. Lucian is clear about this in How To Write History 48:

When [the author] has collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a series of notes [υπομνημα], a body of material as yet with no beauty or continuity; then, after arranging them into order [ταξιν], let him give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, and rhythm.

Note the order:

1. υπομνημα.
2. (συν)ταξις.

The υπομνημα is the first step, according to Lucian, in composing or producing a literary work. Thus, when Eusebius calls Mark a υπομνημα, he is saying that the gospel of Mark was distributed after only its first step of composition or production. (I do not know any church father who claims that the gospel of Mark ever made it to the level of συνταξις.)

Ben.

aa5874

But your response is even more absurd. You are implying that the author did actually get information from some person or some other source, and that the information was not in order, had no beauty, was not enhanced with charms, figure, and rhythm.

But this speculation is baseless. There is absolutely no way you can even produce a single piece of evidence at all, anywhere to show how or in what manner the author of gMark came to write what is called the gospel according to Mark.

You have failed to realise that gMark may have been the result of mutilation of a source that originally had order, beauty, and enhanced with charms, figure and rythm.

How do you expect the church writers to know about "your own term of the ancient book process"?

Eusebius knows nothing about your process and placed gMatthew first, gMark second, Luke third and gJohn last.

Ben C Smith

What I am doing is quoting Lucian and noting that Lucian and Eusebius use the same word.

And nonexistent.

I do not. I expect the reader of my original post either to understand the term or to have read the page I linked to that went through what I was calling the ancient book process. (Glancing at that link would have made clear that, whatever I was calling the ancient book process, it was not anything to do with the order in which the canonical gospels were produced.)

That is indeed how Eusebius places the gospels chronologically. And that has nothing to do with the ancient book process I was describing.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I suspect the confusion is restricted to your interlocutor. I also suspect that this is a permanent condition though whether it is inherent or willful continues to be in question.

Grasping the difference between the relative order in which certain versions of a story were written and the point in the process of writing a particular version was at when distributed requires the ability to recognize nuance in the language of your explanation as well as a refusal to settle for simplistic "solutions".

spin

I think Ben C.'s dichotomy (and that of Eusebius's Papias) regarding Mark and the other synoptics is completely wrong. Mark is not simply collected materials of the life of Jesus needing ordering. The text is quite organized in itself, showing quite a degree of oversight in the ordering of its materials. It is described well by Ben C.'s citation from Lucian: "then, after arranging them [the source materials] into order, let him give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, and rhythm."


spin