Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:09 am

So Eusebius about what Papias says about Mark:
Chapter 15. 1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son. 1 Peter 5:13
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm

So Papias is claiming not this chain in the tradition:

Peter --(1)--> Mark --(2)--> elders -(3)---> Papias

...but this:

Mark ----(1)--> elders--(2)--> Papias

...with Peter knowing about (1) ''by revelation''.

...since Peter ''learned'' what Mark had done not directly by Mark himself, but ''by revelation of the Spirit''!

Why did Papias claim so? Because, according to the Catholic tradition, already ''Matthew'' had to be the First Gospel in absolute terms, so Papias couldn't invent a direct link between Mark and Peter (in order to make Mark an authoritative gospel by inventing a direct connection with Peter) because otherwise he would have obscured the Matthew's priority, putting himself against an already established tradition of the Matthean priority. Therefore the solution was given by the guy named Mark in 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.

Since there Peter doesn't say that this Mark was his secretary nor assistant (pace Ben's evident harmonizations), then Papias invented the story that Peter came to know about the Gospel of Mark not directly by Mark but ''by revelation''. In this case Matthew's priority is saved, and Mark can come after Matthew.

So the link between Mark and Peter has any air of being an invention of Papias. Hence the his ''elders'', pace Ben, never existed.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:11 am

1) You don't realize the my point:

If we can't believe to Papias when he says, probably via his "elders", that a gospel was known by Peter only by revelation and not by knowing really before his author, then equally we can't believe to Papias when he talks about presumed "elders" living before him.

2) the two claims can't be mutually exclusive since they come both from the "elders" of Papias. Yourself have said that here we are talking about the tradition reported by Papias, not about the tradition of Papias.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:13 am

Ben, where is the your post? I was answering to it in my previous post.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5419
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:23 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:13 am
Ben, where is the your post? I was answering to it in my previous post.
I deleted it virtually immediately. I noticed I had misphrased something, went back to correct it, and then decided that my first instinct about getting embroiled in this topic with you again, expressed in the first sentence of the post, was better followed than ignored. Carry on.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:26 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:23 am
, expressed in the first sentence of the post
ok, but are you alluding here to the first sentence of the your post, true, not of the my post?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5419
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:30 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:26 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:23 am
, expressed in the first sentence of the post
ok, but are you alluding here to the first sentence of the your post, true, not of the my post?
Yes. The first sentence of my post.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1534
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:09 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 9:09 am
So Eusebius about what Papias says about Mark:
Chapter 15. 1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.
2. And they say that Peter — when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done — was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so does Marcus my son. 1 Peter 5:13
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm
This seems to be a harmonization by Eusebius of Papias and other sources such as Clement of Alexandria.

Papias according to Eusebius said
This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not 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 hearers, 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.
Andrew Criddle

Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:17 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:09 am


This seems to be a harmonization by Eusebius of Papias and other sources such as Clement of Alexandria.
Andrew Criddle
That was similar to the post of Ben then removed by him. So I report simply the my answer to Ben, again:

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:11 am
1) You don't realize the my point:

If we can't believe to Papias when he says, probably via his "elders", that a gospel was known by Peter only by revelation and not by knowing really before his author, then equally we can't believe to Papias when he talks about presumed "elders" living before him.

2) the two claims can't be mutually exclusive since they come both from the "elders" of Papias. Yourself have said that here we are talking about the tradition reported by Papias, not about the tradition of Papias.
The contradictions given by the ''elders'' of Papias remember me the ''elders'' of Susanna, I may use the following biblical episode from Daniel 13:
50 So all the people hurried back. And the rest of the[a] elders said to him, “Come, sit among us and inform us, for God has given you the standing of an elder.” 51 Daniel said to them, “Separate them far from each other, and I will examine them.”
52 When they were separated from each other, he summoned one of them and said to him, “You old relic of wicked days, your sins have now come home, which you have committed in the past, 53 pronouncing unjust judgments, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, though the Lord said, ‘You shall not put an innocent and righteous person to death.’ 54 Now then, if you really saw this woman, tell me this: Under what tree did you see them being intimate with each other?” He answered, “Under a mastic tree.” 55 And Daniel said, “Very well! This lie has cost you your head, for the angel of God has received the sentence from God and will immediately cut you in two.”
56 Then, putting him to one side, he ordered them to bring the other. And he said to him, “You offspring of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has beguiled you and lust has perverted your heart. 57 This is how you have been treating the daughters of Israel, and they were intimate with you through fear; but a daughter of Judah would not tolerate your wickedness. 58 Now then, tell me: Under what tree did you catch them being intimate with each other?” He answered, “Under an evergreen oak.” 59 Daniel said to him, “Very well! This lie has cost you also your head, for the angel of God is waiting with his sword to split[e] you in two, so as to destroy you both.”
60 Then the whole assembly raised a great shout and blessed God, who saves those who hope in him. 61 And they took action against the two elders, because out of their own mouths Daniel had convicted them of bearing false witness; they did to them as they had wickedly planned to do to their neighbor.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:23 am

And how can you accuse Eusebius himself, and not the ''elders'' of Papias, of the presumed ''harmonization'' ? Why should Eusebius be credible when he talks about Papias in a point, and the same Eusebius should be not credible when he reports the Papias's words in another point ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 3887
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Papias doesn't claim a DIRECT link between Mark and Peter

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:30 am

In addition to this, another strange anomaly is that the ''elders'' said that Peter conceded (by revelation, but let's assume, for sake of discussion, that he did so after having known directly GMark from Mark) the diffusion of Mark, even if according to Peter this gospel was without the his preferred order of events.

It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

This concession by Peter is surely not expected, under the hypothesis that he hallowed Mark the writing of a Gospel. Hence, it is per se improbable that Peter knew Mark (or that the author of Gospel was named really ''Mark'').
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply