Chris Weimer

If you don't know what's out of order, then what evidence do you have that any of it is? Seems like an argument by faith here.

hatsoff

1) Papias says so.
2) Mark 2:23-3:6 is extremely suspicious
3) GMark is not chronologically consistent with GJohn.

However, I'm not saying that GMark necessarily *is* out-of-order. It does, however, seem to be.

Chris Weimer

Papias says that Mark wrote down the speeches of Peter. The current gospel of Mark is no where near there. I don't see anything wrong with the Markan passage? And GMark is copied by both Matthew and Luke with the order being kept - doesn't really sound like something they would do if it was written out of order. And for the large part, Mark is fairly consisten with John. The places it would have to contradict John would be where it wouldn't make entirely too much sense in the Markan sequence.

Amaleq13

Agreed but I refuse to give up hope in you.

Regarding whether Mark is out of order:
This would obviously include you so you were contradicting yourself when you later denied you had admitted you could not show Mark to be out of order. The general, all-inclusive statement obviously applies to any specific individual including yourself. According to logic, admitting the former constitutes an admission of the latter. The assertion that no one can lick their own elbow logically includes myself so making that assertion is the same as saying I can't do it. Get it?

If it is unverifiable, then it cannot be considered reliable and it cannot be argued as resembling canonical Mark. One Papias point down. You are making progress, young Jedi.

Now let's try to clear up your confusion with regard to Papias' authorship claim.

I think if we consistently use the same terms, your error will become obvious to you. Whether the error was in the way you chose to write your claim or your understanding of the implications of your claim is something only you can determine.

The phrase "Peter had a hand in Mark's writing" is clearly synonymous with "Peter's direct involvement". You understand that, right? They are saying the same thing. To say that Peter had a hand in the writing is to say that Peter was directly involved.

Your assertion clearly connects the two in an exclusively contingent manner so that if Peter is prominent in the story, then Peter was directly involved in the writing. According to your "only", there can be no other explanation for Peter's prominence in the story. Peter's prominence in the story requires that Peter was directly involved in the writing. IOW, whether it was your intention or not, your assertion clearly equates the two statements. If we have one, we have the other.

Now let's go on to your most recent claim and how it relates to your asserted direct connection between Peter's prominence in the story and Peter's direct involvement in the writing of the story.

Here you are indicating that you can not say whether Peter's direct involvement is likely or not even though Peter is prominent in the story. Do you see the contradiction now?

Your first statement indicates that Peter's prominence in the story requires Peter's direct involvement.

Your second statement indicates that Peter's prominence in the story does not require Peter's direct involvement.

As I said, you have contradicted yourself.

I am hopeful that it is clear by now that, since your conclusion of Peter's direct involvement results from Peter's prominence that any reference of yours to the former necessarily entails a reference to the latter.

As I have already pointed out, of course, the claim is without merit regardless of any contradictory statements you've made. We would expect Peter's prominence in the story regardless of the author because every source of information we have indicates Peter was actually prominent from the very beginning of the movement.

By this reasoning, we should conclude that Peter had a hand in the writing of Paul's letters since he, too, depicts Peter as prominent.

The asserted connection simply has no merit because there is no reason to accept the exclusive contingent relationship that is claimed.

darstec

Actually if you want to be strictly truthful you have to realize that Papias said NOTHING. The Papias fragments that get dragged into these discussions are not from Papias. The truth is that Eusebius says that Papias says.... That is not the same thing. And Eusebius already admitted it was ok to lie if it promotes the faith.

for all we know, everything that Eusebius quotes from Papias came from Eusebius' imagination. And another thing that falls under the same misguided sense of scholarship is that most of them (and therefore participants on this forum) quote the early church fathers as though we know what they actually wrote. The problem with that is that the vast majority of the early church writers' works we have do not go back further than the 10th century. That leaves 700 to 800 years for such works to be altered.

hatsoff

Wrong. We'd only "expect" Peter's prominence if we had some reason to do so. Papias' claim is such a reason. That does not however, mean that Peter's direct involvement is the only explanation for prominence of his character in GMark. That is just an absurd assumption on your part, especially considering I have clearly stated the opposite numerous times.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

That is true.

hatsoff

That's true, and it weakens the evidence--and part of why the details (Peter's involvement, Mark's authorship, etc.) remain unknown.

hatsoff

Here's what Eusebius says (this is where we get Papias' comments):

"But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. It is in the following words: 'This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his heareers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.'"

I don't see anything there about Peter's "speeches." Do you have another source?

Mark seems to have put the stories in 2:23-3:6 side by side not because they were in chronological order, but because they both dealt with the same subject (the Sabbath).

True, but it's not implausible.

Sure. Papias never said Mark wrote down the events at random, just that they weren't in perfect order.

Amaleq13

As I've explained repeatedly, we already have a reason to expect Peter to be depicted prominently in the story (ie Paul) so Papias' claim provides us nothing we didn't already have.

You have made statements that appear to support both positions, whether that was your intention or not, and that was my point, whether you admit it or not.

I cannot be blamed for your sloppy writing. If you don't mean to say that "Peter's prominence is only something we'd expect if Peter had a hand in Mark's writings.", then don't write it and don't argue as though you believe it.

Great! That eliminates any notion that Peter's prominence in the story supports the reliability of Papias' second claim. The fact that Peter is prominent in the story tells us absolutely nothing about the identity of the author and does absolutely nothing to suggest that the author knew Peter.

I think we've eliminated every argument you've offered in support of Papias' reliability, despite the fact that you insist you do not necessarily consider him reliable (you might want to clarify that position as well), so I'm unclear exactly why you continue to respond as though you still consider Papias a reliable source for identifying Mark's author as Peter's secretary.

Could you explain, please? Given that, in the earlier thread and in response to the fact that the majority of scholars hold the opposite view as yourself, you acknowledged this suggested your view might be wrong, I'm wondering what exactly it would take for you to accept that as true?

We have no evidence that canonical Mark is out of order and we have no evidence that canonical Mark is a composite of Peter's personal recollections as written by his secretary , so upon what basis do you characterize the observation that canonical Mark bears no resemblance to Papias' description as "silly"?

andrewcriddle

There is a reasonable amount of rearrangement in the early part of Matthew compared with Mark.

Eg Mark 2:23 - 3:6 (plucking ears of grain and healing withered hand both on Sabbath) corresponds to Matthew 12:1-14.
While Mark 4:35 - 5:43 (various miracles) corresponds to Matthew 8:23-34 and 9:18-26; with Matthew 9:1-17 roughly corresponding to Mark 2:1-22 .

Andrew Criddle