Therefore everything written by Mark in regard to Jesus ministry from chapter 1 on could potentially be tails of his post resurrection exploits. I.E., it could be that Jesus death came first, and after death a dove symbolized Jesus resurrection from death, and his receipt of the spirit of God, whereby he was proclaimed to be the Son of God at his resurrection. Is not the very act of baptism itself symbolic of death followed by resurrection?
This 'out of order' story telling could potentially work for the Gospel of John also. Skip the verse 1-5 addition to chapter 1, and it becomes John the Baptist telling the story of what is effectively his Gospel. His gospel is the story of miracles performed via a resurrected Jesus, now proclaimed to be the Son of God, and born again. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” But Jesus could see the kingdom of God, because he was (at the very onset of the Gospel) born again, as in resurrected from death.
And Mark was also known as John Mark.
Just some random thoughts I woke up with this morning...
Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
Well, I would say that the supposed Papias testimony has nothing to do with this. I put no credence in the Papias statement, which only comes to us from Eusebius, and I think is intended as an apologetic to explain why Mark doesn't follow Matthew. At the time it was believed that Matthew's account was the most definitive.
But, having said that, the rest of what you say has potential merit. I've been thinking that if we take the account in Vision of Isaiah, as well as various other statements and sources that come from the second century, it could make sense to envision a story that begins with the Transfiguration, which would be the entry of Christ into this world, and proceeds to his execution, then he is raised from the dead after three days and proceeds to perform miracles, just as Ascension of Isaiah says that he stayed on earth for a year and a half after his death.
Now, it seems that the length of Jesus' ministry in Mark is less than a year, since only one Passover is mentioned, but about three years in John, so neither line up with the year and a half from Ascension of Isaiah, but they are all fairly close in duration.
But, having said that, the rest of what you say has potential merit. I've been thinking that if we take the account in Vision of Isaiah, as well as various other statements and sources that come from the second century, it could make sense to envision a story that begins with the Transfiguration, which would be the entry of Christ into this world, and proceeds to his execution, then he is raised from the dead after three days and proceeds to perform miracles, just as Ascension of Isaiah says that he stayed on earth for a year and a half after his death.
15. And thus His descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so that it will not be known who He is.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].
17. And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him.
16. And when He hath plundered the angel of death, He will ascend on the third day, [and he will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days].
17. And then many of the righteous will ascend with Him, whose spirits do not receive their garments till the Lord Christ ascend and they ascend with Him.
Now, it seems that the length of Jesus' ministry in Mark is less than a year, since only one Passover is mentioned, but about three years in John, so neither line up with the year and a half from Ascension of Isaiah, but they are all fairly close in duration.
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
Doesn't Paul state that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection? Is it more likely for a mere man, or a resurrected man (who now also just happens to be the son of God) to perform miracles?
Last edited by lsayre on Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
I agree, that does seem to make more sense. I think it is certainly possible to envision such an account. The problem now is the evidence
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
When Papias says that the Gospel of Mark is out of order, does it make any significant difference to the story as to the order of the miracles performed? It seems to imply something well more serious than whether one miracle preceded another, or whether Jesus visited town A before visiting town B, etc... None of this would seemingly matter significantly in the long run. What might however matter significantly enough to be worthy of mention is the order of the resurrection, as to it's coming at the beginning or end of the Gospel.
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
"Scholars disagree on whether ταξις refers to a chronological or literary arrangement. Chronology was a desideratum of historians and Papias may have borrowed the platitude on neither subtracting nor adding falsehood from them … The difficulty with this is that historians rarely chose the term ταξις for chronology. Instead, they preferred χρονος or καιρος for sequential time … Papias probably had a rhetorical arrangement in mind. Rhetoric had a prominent role in education and Hierapolis was home to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus."
Michael Kok, The Gospel on the Margins, pp. 188-189
Michael Kok, The Gospel on the Margins, pp. 188-189
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
But the actual supposed Papias statement doesn't really lend itself to this interpretation.lsayre wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 12:38 pm When Papias says that the Gospel of Mark is out of order, does it make any significant difference to the story as to the order of the miracles performed? It seems to imply something well more serious than whether one miracle preceded another, or whether Jesus visited town A before visiting town B, etc... None of this would seemingly matter significantly in the long run. What might however matter significantly enough to be worthy of mention is the order of the resurrection, as to it's coming at the beginning or end of the Gospel.
as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: 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. 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. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Nothing about this indicates that the ministry of the Lord actually took place after his resurrection. This statement implies that Matthew correctly recorded the ministry of Jesus in Hebrew, and that others interpreted the Hebrew into Greek "as best they could", resulting in some errors. I, and most scholars, take all of this to be a statement of support for the idea that Matthew's Gospel was the original and others that differ from it do so for innocent reasons.
We must keep in mind that all of this really only comes to us from Eusebius; we posses no independent documents or writings of Papias. I don't put much stock in the supposed statements of Papias to begin with, and certainly don't accept attempts to date these specific statements to the early first century, as for example:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
I find it impossible to believe that there would have been anyone around 100 CE who knew both Mark and Matthew and attributed Mark to a hearer of Peter. Mark is obviously anti-Peter. Attempts to attribute Mark to Peter must be quite late and must have really only occurred after the development of the fourfold collection. I don't know what these statements attributed to Papias really are, but their credibility and provenance are so poorly established, I simply cannot treat them as meaningful evidence for anything. I certainly don't think they can be used to establish the dates of any Gospels. Some scholars, for example, want to date these statements to 100 CE and then use them as the earliest witness to the existence of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. That's total rubbish. Papias is essentially hearsay upon hearsay, that comes to us from people who don't know who he was and never knew when he lived.
But at any rate, I don't think the supposed Papias statement can be read in the way that you imply. But as I said, I don't think that's really an issue. I wouldn't worry about the Papias statement. I think there is merit in the idea that the earliest account of a "ministry of Jesus" may have plced his ministry after his resurrection. See my thread on Imagining a Mark engaged with Vision of Isaiah.
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
lsayre --
I don't want to muck up your fine Thread here so plz accept this as an idea:
Of course, "Papias" - if he existed, which I doubt - stated that the Stories are in the wrong order. "Cleansing the Temple", in the Gospels, is all over the place. It's as if there were half-pages of stories and as they were copied, a surrounding transition was written around each one. So with Mark.
I'll invoke "Wilson's Rule" here: "From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from "Source Stories", it does not follow that these "Source Stories" were about "Jesus"."
What Historical Value to be found here is in the rewriting of these "Source Stories" into the tale of the savior-god. "Papias" did not go far enough. The descriptive aspects of Events have been written into a Symbolism that turns Descriptions of Historical Events into Tales of "Jesus" Interacting with People. "The Woman with the Twelve Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter" are examples. These cannot be descriptions of Veridical Events. They have been turned into Tales of a Symbolic Nature.
Interpretation of Symbolism is an acquired taste. Esteemed Poster Neil does not accept the idea of Source Stories as described above. Alternatives multiply. All I am asserting here is that the Apologetix(R) are offering a reason for what appears to be contradictory ordering of events. "Oh, don't worry. The events are jumbled but the facts are all there. Just believe."
We should be able to construct the Source Stories from the "Jumbled Mess".
CW
I don't want to muck up your fine Thread here so plz accept this as an idea:
Of course, "Papias" - if he existed, which I doubt - stated that the Stories are in the wrong order. "Cleansing the Temple", in the Gospels, is all over the place. It's as if there were half-pages of stories and as they were copied, a surrounding transition was written around each one. So with Mark.
I'll invoke "Wilson's Rule" here: "From the fact that the "Jesus Stories" were written from "Source Stories", it does not follow that these "Source Stories" were about "Jesus"."
What Historical Value to be found here is in the rewriting of these "Source Stories" into the tale of the savior-god. "Papias" did not go far enough. The descriptive aspects of Events have been written into a Symbolism that turns Descriptions of Historical Events into Tales of "Jesus" Interacting with People. "The Woman with the Twelve Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter" are examples. These cannot be descriptions of Veridical Events. They have been turned into Tales of a Symbolic Nature.
Interpretation of Symbolism is an acquired taste. Esteemed Poster Neil does not accept the idea of Source Stories as described above. Alternatives multiply. All I am asserting here is that the Apologetix(R) are offering a reason for what appears to be contradictory ordering of events. "Oh, don't worry. The events are jumbled but the facts are all there. Just believe."
We should be able to construct the Source Stories from the "Jumbled Mess".
CW
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
Maybe this can clarify the situation...
From a thread by Ben viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3905Lucian, How to Write History 47-48 (translation slightly modified from K. Kilburn in the Loeb edition, Lucian VI): 47 As to the facts themselves, [the historian] should not assemble them at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, listen to those who tell the more impartial story, those whom one would suppose least likely to subtract from the facts or add to them out of favor or malice. When this happens let him show shrewdness and skill in putting together the more credible story. 48 When he has collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a series of notes [ὑπόμνημα], a body of material as yet with no beauty or continuity [ἀκαλλές ἔτι καὶ ἀδιάρθρωτον]. Then, after arranging them into order [τὴν τάξιν], let him give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, and rhythm.
Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order
Right. Ben has already dealt with this question to my satisfaction.
Here's the way I look at Papias. We can either take what he says at face value (that Mark and Matthew mean the gospels that we know as they existed c. 115 CE) or we can imagine whatever else we like.
Here's the way I look at Papias. We can either take what he says at face value (that Mark and Matthew mean the gospels that we know as they existed c. 115 CE) or we can imagine whatever else we like.