Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

[Stuart]

I don't think Papias existed. Or more accurately the "venerable father" --Παπίας being a fictional aptronym-- is a reference to a long deceased legendary church father (saint) who's "name" was attached to a later tract. The tract is addressing a time when it was accepted that there were multiple gospels, that the patron saints whose names were attached to them, after circulating anonymously for awhile, and had become accepted as not the patron saints assigned to the gospels, but the actual gospel writers. Moreover, it is from a period of time when the authority of the gospels and their origins were contested by competing factions (sects) seeking to control the leadership of the church. This suggests an origin of the tracts sometime late in the 2nd century or even 3rd century. Certainly long after the books were in circulation, and long after any "authors' were around.

We really should separate the legendary characters of the supposed early church fathers from the works that were written in their name, in much the same way we separate the names of the patron saints (apostles and disciples) in whose names the NT books and apocrypha were written. There is no reason to assume that the early church fathers from the same dark era that produced the NT writings were anymore accurate penned names than the contemporary NT works. These venerated fathers claimed posthumous authorship of works for the same reason as the apostolic legends were claimed posthumous authorship of the NT and various acts, to stamp their authority on the pseudo anonymous works to have them accepted.

The author of the Papias work is selling his sects view of the Gospels relative value, but assigning the blessing of an ancient "venerable father."

[DCHindley]

Maybe this can clarify the situation...

Lucian, 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.

From a thread by Ben viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3905

Hard to believe that Ben's post had been made something like 3 years ago, and that there does not appear to be any reaction except Mr. Buckley.

While I agree that the key to the Papias statement about Mark's "Order" (taxis) lies in literary practice, there seems to be ambiguity in the citations themselves, which will require some research. It is not crystal clear to me what these authors meant by their statements.

DCH

[perseusomega9]

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.

Once again, John2 meets a church father he whole-heartedly believes, second-hand even.

[John2]

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.

Once again, John2 meets a church father he whole-heartedly believes, second-hand even.

I certainly think Papias and Hegesippus are great sources and I have no problem with Eusebius' citations of them.

[schillingklaus]

Epictetus is responsible for much of the ethics of the sermon on the mountain.

[lsayre]

If Mark's Gospel was written out of order, why did Matthew and Luke retain the very same order (which sprouts the concept of 'Synoptic') when they copied and embellished it?

[Sinouhe]

If Mark's Gospel was written out of order, why did Matthew and Luke retain the very same order (which sprouts the concept of 'Synoptic') when they copied and embellished it?

Exactly.
Papis isn’t reliable.

[lsayre]

Exactly.
Papis isn’t reliable.

It could be that before Matthew and Luke took up the task(s) of improving upon and correcting Mark, which originally would have existed as a single copy, someone had already rearranged it. Perhaps that someone was Papias. Having seen the disorder (even if none existed, sans that he didn't like it in the order it was written), he would have motif.

[Sinouhe]

Exactly.
Papis isn’t reliable.

It could be that before Matthew and Luke took up the task(s) of improving upon and correcting Mark, which originally would have existed as a single copy, someone had already rearranged it. Perhaps that someone was Papias. Having seen the disorder (even if none existed, sans that he didn't like it in the order it was written), he would have motif.

We had a Papias quotation about Juda’s death.
Not sure if this story can predate the gospel of Matthew. But Papias said he know both Mark and Matthew. And what he told us about both Mark/Matthew + Judas does not coincide with our version of these 2 gospels and Judas. So in my opinion, this is another made up story from Eusebius using Papias as a tool to strengthen the authority of the gospels.

[John2]

Exactly.
Papis isn’t reliable.

It could be that before Matthew and Luke took up the task(s) of improving upon and correcting Mark, which originally would have existed as a single copy, someone had already rearranged it. Perhaps that someone was Papias. Having seen the disorder (even if none existed, sans that he didn't like it in the order it was written), he would have motif.

We had a Papias quotation about Juda’s death.
Not sure if this story can predate the gospel of Matthew. But Papias said he know both Mark and Matthew. And what he told us about both Mark/Matthew + Judas does not coincide with our version of these 2 gospels and Judas.

He also talked to people and that is where he could have gotten the story about Judas.


EH 3.3.39.3-11:

I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered ... If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say ...

And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John ... But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition ...

The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.

So in my opinion, this is another made up story from Eusebius using Papias as a tool to strengthen the authority of the gospels.

But in EH 3.39.12-13 Eusebius says that Papias misunderstood the apostolic accounts and puts him down.

I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.