Why Mark had to be called Mark

[John T]

Mark my words ...

Sadly, (but not at all surprisingly) once again you missed the Mark.

[MrMacSon]

Mark my words ...

Sadly, (but not at all surprisingly) once again you missed the Mark.

That was tongue in cheek. And somewhat of a hat-tip to these -

Pay attention to what I say, as in 'Mark my words, that man is not to be trusted'.

This admonition first appeared in Miles Coverdale's 1535 translation of the Bible (Isaiah 28:23).

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/mark+my+words

Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale of Isaiah 28:33 -

'Take heed, and hear my voice, ponder and mark my words well.'

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/Isaiah/28/23

[Giuseppe]

so you have the problem of the surprising Silence, in 1 Peter, about the Gospel Jesus of the Gospel of Mark.

My hypothesis doesn't suffer about that problem.

What "silence"? "Gospel Jesus" is all through 1 Peter. Numerous references are made to Jesus' suffering and abuse, his having led a sinless life, his death on a cross "in the flesh", his resurrection. The author of 1 Peter also presents Jesus as having been the fulfillment of the "stone laid in Zion" (i.e. Jerusalem) prophecy of Isaiah.

I mean not only silence in a mythicist sense (about any Gospel Jesus) but silence about the specific Mark's Jesus.

The simple possibility that Papias based his "info" on 1 Peter is sufficient to ignore any further Papias's claim about gMark.

[Giuseppe]

1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.

I see it just as likely that 1 Peter was aware of the Papias tradition (either directly from Papias or from a shared source) and used this in as an attempted deceptive verisimilitude to give his epistle the appearance of authenticity.

Eusebius tells us that Papias was familiar with 1 Peter (in Ecclesiastical History 2.15.2; 3.39.17).

[Ben C. Smith]

1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.

Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.

I see it just as likely that 1 Peter was aware of the Papias tradition (either directly from Papias or from a shared source) and used this in as an attempted deceptive verisimilitude to give his epistle the appearance of authenticity.

Eusebius tells us that Papias was familiar with 1 Peter (in Ecclesiastical History 2.15.2; 3.39.17).

If we take Eusebius seriously here (as I tend to do), then you are right: 1 Peter cannot be relying on Papias. However, Papias attributes the tradition to "the elder." So "the elder" > Papias and "the elder" > 1 Peter are still a perfectly possible combination. This is often what is meant by a "Papias tradition." Not "the tradition stemming from Papias" but rather "the tradition known to Papias."

[Giuseppe]

If we take Eusebius seriously here (as I tend to do), then you are right: 1 Peter cannot be relying on Papias. However, Papias attributes the tradition to "the elder." So "the elder" > Papias and "the elder" > 1 Peter are still a perfectly possible combination. This is often what is meant by a "Papias tradition." Not "the tradition stemming from Papias" but rather "the tradition known to Papias."

The problem with the your view is still the fact that 1 Peter doesn't show himself to be based on any tradition about a Mark ''secretary'' of Peter. Mark is only called ''my son'' by ''Peter'' in the epistle. So you can't use 1 Peter as evidence of all that legend (reported by Papias) about a Mark assistant of Peter etc. Not more than you can use a person X named by Paul in the epistle Y as evidence that X was eo ipso a ''secretary'' of Paul.

[Ethan]

Mark Antony was popular in Judea , It is he whom made Herod a King and thus the name became
popular in his household, they were given the Latin names "Marcus Julius".

Philo had a nephew called Marcus Julius Alexander , so they all had Roman names, even though they
are classified as "Jews" but they were Punic merchants. Marcus, Malachi, Mercury and Melqart
are from Merx*

Mark's Gospel alludes to wine-making and the merchants (Marks) sell the wine around the Mediterranean.

Christianity don't have any authentic history, they rely on forgeries, Act, Letters, Justin Martyr, Papias, Ignatius Polycarp
and all the other fake church fathers that they keep reiterating.

[Ben C. Smith]

If we take Eusebius seriously here (as I tend to do), then you are right: 1 Peter cannot be relying on Papias. However, Papias attributes the tradition to "the elder." So "the elder" > Papias and "the elder" > 1 Peter are still a perfectly possible combination. This is often what is meant by a "Papias tradition." Not "the tradition stemming from Papias" but rather "the tradition known to Papias."

The problem with the your view is still the fact that 1 Peter doesn't show himself to be based on any tradition about a Mark ''secretary'' of Peter. Mark is only called ''my son'' by ''Peter'' in the epistle. So you can't use 1 Peter as evidence of all that legend (reported by Papias) about a Mark assistant of Peter etc. Not more than you can use a person X named by Paul in the epistle Y as evidence that X was eo ipso a ''secretary'' of Paul.

"Secretary," no. "Assistant" or "associate," yes. And nobody is (yet) defending the entire legend, or even necessarily any part of it. Maybe "the elder" made it up. I am talking about the stemma of the tradition: how did it develop? Validating or invalidating that tradition is a different matter.

[John2]

Guiseppe wrote:

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.

Interesting thread. While I have no way of proving it, my take on 1 Peter is that it is genuine. I see it as being sent by Peter via Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12), the same Silvanus Paul mentions in 2 Cor. 1:19 and 1 Thes. 1:1, and that the Mark mentioned in 5:13 is the Mark Papias mentions as writing the gospel of Mark. I've yet to see anything in 1 Peter or the gospel of Mark to dissuade me of at least the possibility of this.

I think Papias would have known of this tradition/information via living and learning from people in Asia Minor rather than deducing it from 1 Peter.

[Ben C. Smith]

Guiseppe wrote:

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.

Interesting thread. While I have no way of proving it, my take on 1 Peter is that it is genuine.

If there is no proof, then why is this your take? Is there at least some evidence for it?

I think Papias would have known of this tradition/information via living and learning from people in Asia Minor rather than deducing it from 1 Peter.

At least one of those people being "the elder," correct?