Sure. But Papias suggests no such thing. He specifically says that Mark wrote from memory, which does not sound like an attempt to explain the gospel of Peter. In fact, the gospel of Peter, presenting itself as a first person account by Peter himself, is pretty much the least likely gospel Papias could have in mind. Pretty much any anonymous gospel text (like Mark itself, or Matthew or John or whatever) could at least hypothetically be passed off as Marcan memories of Petrine preachiing... but not the gospel of Peter! It claims to have been written by Peter himself, not by an erstwhile follower from memory.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 5:27 pmIsn't there one tradition [not in Papias of course] that Mark took notes from what Peter recited to him? I can't remember.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:47 pmI mean: why would Papias tell us that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching from memory to create a gospel that is written in the first person as if by Peter himself (the gospel of Peter)? To introduce Mark (the person, not the gospel) is superfluous and even downright weird in that scenario: is Papias suggesting that Mark wrote as if he were Peter?
Agreed!Again, I'm not suggesting that either a Mark or a Peter wrote this. It's only important if Papias thought that.
This is Irenaeus, who has a lot of incentive to minimize the number of connections between Jesus and his own generation. Nearly all of the church fathers after Papias claimed that Papias heard from the apostle John himself; you could give a dozen or more such testimonies. What I am interested in is what Papias himself claimed, because he appears to have claimed no such thing. He does not even claim, according to the quotation, to have heard John the Elder directly.
And this is Eusebius. The problem here is that this is his interpretation of the except he has just quoted from Papias, and in that excerpt Papias makes no such claim! You are reading (and believing) the hype men but not examining Papias' quotation itself.
I agree there is a connection there.That Gospel of Peter is linked to the Asiatic traditions of John.
I also agree that the gospel of Peter (probably) contains early traditions.
What simply cannot be is that it is the text intended by Papias (or by the Elder). It just does not fit the description.
He says it contains things said and done by the Lord. That could easily be Mark. He says it was "out of order." Compared to the Asiatic tradition, it is out of order. I am not saying that it absolutely is our Mark, but by the description it sure could be.And that the Gospel he refers to as Mark is not our Mark because of certain features described therein.
I agree. (Well, not as vehemently, but still: I agree.) I am not comparing Papias and John, per se. I am comparing Papias and the Asiatic traditions.But Papias does not know of John, so any comparisons between his Mark and John is off the table. That's not happening.
Agreed.So when Papias said, "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ.", it is not because he knows of a Gospel John....