Was Papias before our Mark?

[Giuseppe]

Papias says that the Mark of his knowledge was without order.

We know, at contrary, that our Mark has a lot of order, etc.


Why can't this be considered evidence that our Mark came after Papias (and the his Mark)?

Really, I doubt that someone has a serious answer to this question.

[DCHindley]

Papias says that the Mark of his knowledge was without order.

We know, at contrary, that our Mark has a lot of order, etc.


Why can't this be considered evidence that our Mark came after Papias (and the his Mark)?

Really, I doubt that someone has a serious answer to this question.

Since this is coming from me, you can be sure I will not be serious.

15 "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." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

15 "καὶ τοῦθ᾽ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δέ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν. ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς." ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου·

The word is τάξις:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... try=ta/cis

The idea seems to be that Mark heard words and deeds of Jesus in his capacity as a translator ("interpreter") for the apostle Peter, when Peter preached among Greek speakers. Mark was also writing from memory, after the fact. Eusebius claims Papias said that Mark made no attempt to make it into a formal treatise (one of the meanings for the word) on Jesus' life and teachings. Maybe the suggestion was that Mark made notes about what he had interpreted, but there is no suggestion in this language that his account was based on notebooks.

Papias apparently attributes the common material found in the NT gospels of Matthew & Luke (now commonly called "Q") to the apostle Matthew, which as legend had it, was originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew. "Others" interpreted (translated) them into Greek as they were able, and maybe we are to imply that he had in mind the authors of the NT gospels now attributed to Matthew & Luke. The written gospels in his day may not have had formal names, as that would come later when the four gospel collection was published.

If one prefers the two source solution for the three synoptic gospels (A bare account now known as the Gospel according to Mark, and a sayings collection nka "Q"), this simply means that Papias represents the bare account as written by Mark the interpreter of Peter, and the sayings collection was compiled by the apostle Matthew. There is no need to overthink this situation, unless we are dead set on preserving some aspect of early Christian foundation myths treasured like gold, OR debunking them.

DCH

[Giuseppe]

DCH, if I understand you well, you are arguing that our Mark came before Papias. Hence you are assuming two books written "according to Mark" (beyond if one of them was called "according to Mark" only after Papias, being it anonymous before Papias).

But then you should explain why the name of "Mark", already used by Papias to refer to x, was used after Papias to refer to y.

Is not a better solution to assume that our Mark was written as edition of the Mark known by Papias? This scenario alone can explain why the name "Mark" was used for two (apparently) so different books.

[DCHindley]

DCH, if I understand you well, you are arguing that our Mark came before Papias. Hence you are assuming two books written "according to Mark" (beyond if one of them was called "according to Mark" only after Papias, being it anonymous before Papias).

But then you should explain why the name of "Mark", already used by Papias to refer to x, was used after Papias to refer to y.

Is not a better solution to assume that our Mark was written as edition of the Mark known by Papias? This scenario alone can explain why the name "Mark" was used for two (apparently) so different books.

You are correct. I did note, though, that the names of specific men may not have been assigned to the three synoptic gospels at the time Papias wrote. I think he knew of something like the NT gospel of Mark, but perhaps not fully as we know it in the NT.

Since Papias was clearly a generation, maybe two, later than that of the disciples of Jesus and the apostles & evangelists. I'd put the 1st generation 30-60, the second 60-90, third 90-110, but those are not etched in stone. If Trobisch is right (and I do have reasons to doubt his dating), the 4 gospel collection (e) was published along with a collected edition of Paul's letters (p), a collection of the book of Acts of the Apostles along with 1-2 Peter, Jude, 1-3 John (a) and the Apocalypse (r), published somewhere around 150-180 CE. Trobisch thinks the publisher was Polycarp of Smyrna, and Irenaeus, a protege of Polycarp, used only the books in the eapr collections.

DCH

[Giuseppe]

Mmm... False "Pauls" wrote under false name: an already existing name used to refer some already existing writings. So now "Paul" = true Paul + false Pauls.

But why did they use the name "Mark" to refer to y, when the same name "Mark" was already used by Papias to refer to x?

So, in DCH's scenario, now "Mark" is our Mark and not more the Mark meant by Papias.

I think that this problem is not raised if our Mark is simply the edition of the Mark mentioned by Papias.

Something as:

now, "Mark" = Papias's Mark + false Mark.

[Charles Wilson]

The surprise in the diaper is found in places like...oh, I don't know...
The Book of JOHN maybe?

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

This is an astonishing batch of "Just So" arguments, pointed quite narrowly at Mark for the purpose of "explaining" why Mark, and only Mark, is the way it is. "Peter" (and "Simon Peter") are found in John in many places and somehow "Peter" appears to have neglected to mention these separate stories while Mark was around.

Curious, isn't it?

Perhaps we should take "Papias" with a grain of salt. Once again, at the Origins of the Movement, we are faced with people who are "experts" at understanding a book that has few copies extant. This is, it appears, another example of Markan Priority. It is only with Mark that this "Out-of-Order" tendency is in need of explanation.

Better to see that this section of "Papias" was written - whether Papias existed or not - as a Cover for explaining the separation and rewriting of another, different Story. This may imply that there WAS a Story that was "in order", although that argument is perhaps best stated on another day. "From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from Sources, it does not follow that these Source Stories were about "Jesus". "

Papias' "Explanations" were not as helpful as they were supposed to be.

CW