Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by GakuseiDon »

For background, here is Eusebius's reference to Papias in his Church History Book 3:
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPN ... 497_696002

I've highlighted some interesting comments about Papias made by Eusebius below.

Chapter XXXVI. Ignatius and His Epistles.

1 At that time Polycarp,344 a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.

2 And at the same time Papias,345 bishop of the parish of Hierapolis,346 became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
...
Chapter XXXIX. The Writings of Papias.

1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord.377 Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him,378 in the following words:379 "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenaeus.

2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.380

3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations381 whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver383 the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing from the truth itself.

4 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 Aristion385 and the presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books387 would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him.388 The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John's.389 It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John390

7 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. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8 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.

9 That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated.391 But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time392 one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

10 The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said."393

11 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.394

12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.395 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.

13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding,396 as one can see from his discourses. but it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Iranaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.397

14 Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15 "This also the presbyter398 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.399 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 16 by Papias concerning Mark. 16But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by DCHindley »

Following up on Eusebius representation of Papias as asserting that Mark wrote tghe Preachings of Peter but without "order" τάξις:

From LSJ Lexicon:

(τάξις , εως, Ion. ιος, ἡ, (τάσσω)
A. arranging, arrangement:
I. in military sense:
1. drawing up in rank and file, order or disposition of an army, Th.5.68 (init.), 7.5, etc.; τὰ ἀμφὶ τάξεις rules for it, tactics, X.An.2.1.7; “τ. καὶ ἀντίταξις” Phld.Piet.12.
2. battle array, order of battle, “κατὰ τάξιν” Hdt.8.86; “ἐν τάξει” Th.4.72, etc.; ἐς τάξιν καθίστασθαι, ἀνάγειν, ib.93, Ar.Av.400 (anap.); ἵνα μὴ διασπασθείη ἡ τ. Th.5.70; of ships, “ἀποπλῶσαι ἐκ τῆς τάξιος” Hdt.6.14.
3. a single rank or line of soldiers, ἐπὶ τάξιας ὀλίγας γίγνεσθαι to be drawn up a few lines deep, ib.111, cf. 9.31; “ἐλύθησαν αἱ τ. τῶν Περσῶν” Pl.La.191c.
4. body of soldiers, A.Pers.298, S.OC1311; esp. at Athens, the quota of infantry furnished by each φυλή (cf. “ταξίαρχος” 11), Lys.16.16; but freq. of smaller bodies, company, X.An. 1.2.16, 6.5.11, etc.; ἱππέων τ. ib.1.8.21; so of ships, squadron, A.Pers.380: generally, band, company, φιλία γὰρ ἥδε τ., of the chorus, Id.Pr.128 (lyr.); “ἐμφανίσας μοι ἐν ᾗ ἔσομαι τάξει” PCair.Zen. 409.6 (iii B.C.).
b. esp. a contingent of 128 men, Ascl.Tact.2.8, Arr.Tact.10.2, Ael.Tact.9.3.
c. in late Gr., membership of the militia palatina (cf. ταξεώτης), Lib.Or.27.17.
5. post or place in the line of battle, ἀξιεύμεθα ταύτης τῆς τ. Hdt.9.26, cf. 27; “ἐν τῇ τ. εἶχε ἑωυτόν” Id.1.82; μένειν ἐν τῇ ἑωυτοῦ τ. Id.3.158; “τ. φυλάξων” E.Rh. 664; “ἡ τ. φυλακτέα” X.Cyr.5.3.43; “ᾗ ἕκαστος τὴν τ. εἶχεν” Id.An. 4.3.29; “τῆς πρώτης τ. τεταγμένος” Lys.14.11, cf. Th.5.68 (fin.); ἐκλιπόντας τὴν τ. Hdt.5.75, cf. 9.21; λείπειν τὴν τ. And.1.74, Pl.Ap. 29a, D.13.34, 15.32, Aeschin.3.159, etc.; “παραχωρεῖν τῆς τάξεως” D.3.36, etc.; but ἡγεμὼν ἔξω τάξεων officer on the unattached list, Arch.Pap.3.188, cf. Sammelb.599, OGI69 (Coptos); so οἱ ἔξω τάξεως staff-officers, aides-de-camp, D.S.19.22.
II. generally, arrangement, order, “ἡμερῶν τ. εἰς μηνῶν περιόδους” Pl.Lg.809d; ἡ τῶν ὅλων τ. X.Cyr.8.7.22; disposition, “τῆς ψυχῆς” Gorg.Hel.14: Rhet., disposition, opp. λέξις, Arist.Rh.1414a29; “ἡ τ. τοῦ λόγου” Aeschin.3.205, cf. D.18.2, Sor.1.18, Gal.Libr.Ord.1; ὕστερον τῇ τ. D.3.15, cf. Gal.6.68, 16.533; ἐν τ. εἶναι, = μένειν, Pl.Tht.153e; “τ. καὶ ἠρεμία” Arist.EE1218a23; “εἰ τὰ γυμνάσια ἔχοι τὴν τ. ἐνταῦθα” Id.Pol.1331a37; difft. from θέσις or mere position, Id.Ph.188a24, Thphr.Sens. 60 (θέσεως τ. Gal.6.194; τ. θέσεως is dub. l. in 16.709); ἡ κατὰ τ. τινὰ βασιλεία, opp. ἀόριστος τυραννίς, Arist.Rh.1366a2; καὶ τοῦτο κατὰ τ., ἕως . . and so on, until . . , Sor.2.62.
2. order, regularity, “εἰς τ. ἄγειν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας” Pl.Ti.30a; “τ. καὶ κόσμος” Id.Grg.504a; οὔτε νόμος οὔτε τ. Id.Lg.875c, cf. R.587a; “τ. περιόδου” Epicur.Ep.2p.42U.; “διὰ τάξεως γίγνεσθαι” Pl.Lg.780a; τάξιν ἔχειν to be regular, Thphr. HP3.9.6; ἐν τάξει in an orderly manner, Pl.Lg.637e; so “τάξει” SIG741.12 (Nysa, i B.C., rendering of Lat. ordine).
3. ordinance, “κατὰ τὴν τ. τοῦ νόμου” Pl.Lg.925b; παρὰ τὴν τοῦ νομοθέτου τ. Id.Plt. 305c, etc.
b. prescription, τὴν τοῦ λυσιτελοῦντος τοῖς σώμασι ποιεῖσθαι τ. Id.Plt.294e; recipe, cj. in PHolm.2.2.
4. τ. τοῦ φόρου assessment of tribute, X.Ath.3.5, cf. IG12.63.2, al.; τῶν ὀφειλημάτων περὶ τῆς πράξεως ib.57.13, cf. Lex ap.D.24.45; τ. τῆς ὑδρείας a ration of water, Pl.Lg.844b.
5. political order, constitution, τ. Κρητική, Λακωνική, etc., Arist.Pol.1271b40, cf. Ath.3.1, al.
III. metaph. from 1.5, post, rank, position, station, “ὑπὸ χθόνα τάξιν ἔχουσα” A.Eu. 396 (lyr.); ἡ τῶν ἀκοντιζόντων τ. Antipho 3.2.7; ἰδία τοῦ βίου τ. Isoc. 6.2; ἀνὴρ τῆς πρώτης τ. CIG2767.4 (Aphrodisias); οἰκέτου τ. D.18.258, cf. PGnom.43, 196 (ii A.D.), Mitteis Chr.372 v 18 (ii A.D.); “τ. ἔχοντος ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ” Sammelb.6674.10 (ii A.D.); ἐν τῇ Θετταλῶν τάξει ranging herself with the T., D.18.63; ἐν ἐχθροῦ τ. as an enemy, Id.20.81, etc.; ἐν ἐπηρείας τάξει by way of insult, Id.18.13; ἀδύνατον εἶχεν τ. occupied an impossible position, i.e. was unthinkable, Hyp.(?) Oxy.1607.60; τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἑλόμενον τάξιν πολιτεύεσθαι championship of your cause, D.18.138, cf. Ep.3.15; ἐγὼ τὴν τῆς εὐνοίας τ. . . οὐκ ἔλιπον post of patriotism, Id.18.173.
IV. order, class of men, X.Mem. 2.1.7; function, D.13.19.
2. list, register, ὅπως ταγῇ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἐν τῇ τῶν τετελευτηκότων τ. Sammelb.7359.15, cf. 7404.6, PSI9.1064.38, 10.1141.10 (all ii A.D.); “ἡ τ. τῶν κατοχίμων” PTeb.318.21 (ii A.D.); “τ. λαογράφων” PLond.2.182b2 (ii A.D.).
3. account, “ἰδίας τάξεως” POxy.61.8 (iii A.D.), cf. PLond.3.1107.26,30 (iii A.D.).
4. payment, ib.966.3 (iv A.D., cf. Arch.Pap.4.533).
5. category of land, κατοικικὴ τ. BGU379.12 (i A.D.), cf. Wilcken Chr.341.15 (ii A.D.), etc.
V. reduction of hernia by manipulation, Gal.14.781.
VI. degree of heating power in drugs, Id.11.571,787, cf. Gorg.Hel. 14.
VII. treatise, ἐν τῇ ὑστέρᾳ τ. Ps.-Democr. ap. Zos.Alch.p.153 B.
VIII. fixed point of time, term, “κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἢ κατά τινα ἄλλην τ. ἢ χρόνον” Arist.Pol.1261a34; end (or perh. date fixed for the end), “μέχρι τάξεως αὐτῆς τῆς τρύγης” Sammelb.5810.15 (iv A.D.).

My feeling is that Papias is critical that there was no literary finesse in Mark's words (meaning #II above), or that Mark had failed to indicate the (proper) sequence of events (meaning #VIII above). At least this is what Eusebius says Papias says, but I half suspect that Eusebius put some spin on the ball himself when he tells the story, considering the "dimwit" allusion. :cheeky:

If others can find evidence for a different view of the use of the term as we find it here, please speak up.

Presently I am working on an approach that looks at the technical terms used to describe the creative literary process in this era (oohhh! another #VIII!). It will eventually touch on the nature of the early Christian accounts about Jesus in various gospels. In other words, what did *they* (folks of that era) mean by "memoirs of the apostles," or whatever other terms they may have employed. What were these note-books into which folks like Papias and Hegesippus (or even Clement of Alexandria) recorded details of their conversations? :scratch:

DCH
John2
Posts: 4630
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by John2 »

My feeling is that Papias is critical that there was no literary finesse in Mark's words (meaning #II above), or that Mark had failed to indicate the (proper) sequence of events (meaning #VIII above). At least this is what Eusebius says Papias says ...

I don't get the sense that Papias is being critical of Mark at all, including the "not in order" part, since it's in keeping with literary practice of time (as per Ben's thread linked to above) and with Peter's preaching style. And even if "not in order" is meant to be negative, it is outweighed by Papias' (or his source's) defense of the value of Mark.


EH 3.39.15:

"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.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by Secret Alias »

If we take for granted that ALL the gospels that followed Mark's gospel (leaving aside the question of what 'the gospel of Mark' meant to Papias) were attempts to correct the order of Mark we have to ask ourselves:

1. were all of these attempts INDEPENDENT of Papias's testimony
or
2. did someone come along, read what Papias wrote about Matthew and Mark, and got the idea that by adding 'a gospel of Luke' 'a gospel of John' etc that Matthew's actions wouldn't seem so arbitrary.

The reason I bring this up is that I don't think antiquity was any different than to day insofar as it would have been troublesome to hear that Person X wrote an account about something and then Person Y came along and appropriated Person's X's account CHANGED IT and then didn't even Person X as his source. I am not saying that it didn't happen. But the ancients would have seen X and Y as being at odds with one another.

The Samaritans and the Jews are an example of this. One of them clearly had the original Torah. The fact that 2 different Torahs end up being produced was connected with a sectarian dispute.

To that end, by adding Luke and John into the mix Matthew doesn't seem to be at odds with Mark. I think we can infer that Tertullian's testimony about Marcion and the reading of Galatians (in whatever form it existed originally) as being related to the dispute between Mark and Matthew. Even though the Marcionites speak only in terms of 'Paul' and 'Peter and James' and Papias speaks about 'Mark' and 'Matthew's' 'Hebrew' gospels, in light of a complete lack of related testimony it seems reasonable to suggest that the one report is related to the other.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by Sinouhe »

John2 wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 2:44 pm
Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 4:22 am
lsayre wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:49 am
Sinouhe wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:39 am 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.
Eusebius recounted some wacky stories like the letter from Jesus, the Pilate's suicide or the meeting between Peter and Philo. So I tend to be very suspicious of what Eusebius says.
lsayre
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by lsayre »

Maciej wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:30 am "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
It doesn't matter in the least as to what a million scholars and/or historians think with regard to 'order'. All that matters is what someone we have come to call Mark thought.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by Secret Alias »

The testimony of Papias has to do with the changes from Mark's gospel (not our canonical text of the name) which DID NOT develop passages from Jewish prophetic logia and Matthew's (not our canonical "Matthew") which did.
Secret Alias
Posts: 21151
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by Secret Alias »

The thing is that as researchers we unconsciously want evidence to 'fit' our interests. So Papias is hailed an 'important source' not merely for his antiquity but the fact that he is reported to have been interested in eyewitnesses rather than mere documents. Scholars like that because it makes them feel like he is 'getting close' to the real Jesus. But this is a misleading interpretation of Papias's place in early Christianity. The reason Mark didn't have the right 'taxis' is not because Papias was interested in history but the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Papias wasn't REALLY approaching the 'Jesus problem' in the way modern scholars want him to. They just 'cheat' and cobble together bits and pieces about what is said about Papias to make it fit the desired narrative - viz. that there was a historical Jesus and early Church Fathers were like 'us' seeking him out. The reality is that Church Fathers of the orthodox tradition were like those crackpots who think that 911 was predicted in Isaiah. That's the lordly logia and the way that Irenaeus and Tertullian seemed to have used to terminology likely learning it from Papias himself. Maybe if we paid scholars more they wouldn't cheat so much.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by Jax »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 3:53 pm The thing is that as researchers we unconsciously want evidence to 'fit' our interests. So Papias is hailed an 'important source' not merely for his antiquity but the fact that he is reported to have been interested in eyewitnesses rather than mere documents. Scholars like that because it makes them feel like he is 'getting close' to the real Jesus. But this is a misleading interpretation of Papias's place in early Christianity. The reason Mark didn't have the right 'taxis' is not because Papias was interested in history but the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. Papias wasn't REALLY approaching the 'Jesus problem' in the way modern scholars want him to. They just 'cheat' and cobble together bits and pieces about what is said about Papias to make it fit the desired narrative - viz. that there was a historical Jesus and early Church Fathers were like 'us' seeking him out. The reality is that Church Fathers of the orthodox tradition were like those crackpots who think that 911 was predicted in Isaiah. That's the lordly logia and the way that Irenaeus and Tertullian seemed to have used to terminology likely learning it from Papias himself. Maybe if we paid scholars more they wouldn't cheat so much.
I don't know about paying them more as opposed to just recruiting more actual historians to become interested in this subject. Right now it is dominated by people interested in following a historical Jesus of the Gospels path, not people interested in actual history. IMO.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

Post by Jax »

^ That seems to be changing though.
Post Reply