Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] Order in John

Expand Messages
  • Ken Durkin
    ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
    Message 1 of 28 , May 28, 2000
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John



      > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
      > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
      > that part that gives me the difficulties.

      For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, the only way to
      deal with this "testimony" is to suggest Papias is confused. For example,
      it's possible he was confused over the apostle Philip and the Philip of AA
      21.

      Ken Durkin
    • Ken Durkin
      ... From: Ken Durkin To: Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 6, 2000
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Ken Durkin <ind.fin.choices@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
        > To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
        > Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM
        > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John
        >
        >
        >
        > > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
        > > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
        > > that part that gives me the difficulties.
        >
        > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, the only way to
        > deal with this "testimony" is to suggest Papias is confused. For example,
        > it's possible he was confused over the apostle Philip and the Philip of AA
        > 21.
        >
        > Ken Durkin

        I've given this more thought. Regarding Papias' testimony, I've never been
        convinced that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter.
        Kümmel (Intro to NT) used to sum up my thoughts on this: "The tradition that
        Mark was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable." From the
        extant words of Papias there is no reason to relate them to the Second
        Gospel. We can conclude that there is a tradition that a companion of Peter
        was a writer, and what he wrote was possibly in a different order from other
        written traditions. The insistence that he neither heard the Lord nor
        followed him is the part that gives me difficulties. Perhaps this is one way
        of saying Mark was not an apostle.

        Ken Durkin
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... Let me quote Papias s statement: 15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered,
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 7, 2000
          At 09:10 AM 6/6/00 +0100, Ken Durkin wrote:
          >> ----- Original Message -----
          >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
          >> > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
          >> > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
          >> > that part that gives me the difficulties.
          >
          >I've given this more thought. Regarding Papias' testimony, I've never been
          >convinced that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter.
          >Kümmel (Intro to NT) used to sum up my thoughts on this: "The tradition that
          >Mark was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable." From the
          >extant words of Papias there is no reason to relate them to the Second
          >Gospel. We can conclude that there is a tradition that a companion of Peter
          >was a writer, and what he wrote was possibly in a different order from other
          >written traditions. The insistence that he neither heard the Lord nor
          >followed him is the part that gives me difficulties. Perhaps this is one way
          >of saying Mark was not an apostle.

          Let me quote Papias's statement:

          15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter's
          interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order,
          about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard
          the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who as necessary
          would make his teachings but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's
          reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled.
          For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.

          Could this statement refer to the Second Gospel? We may infer from
          Papias's three defenses of Mark, three characteristics of this gospel.

          1. Mark's lack of order was due to writing down Peter's disconnected
          anecdotes. This implies that the gospel was criticized for its order.
          I have just listened to the Second Gospel on tape, and my strongest
          impression is that the gospel is episodic without a strong narrative
          order, except for the occasional intercalation. Although I haven't
          listened to John on tape, my recollection is that its narrative flow
          is clearer (e.g. this is the first sign that Jesus did).

          2. Mark's purpose was not to omit what he heard. This defense implies
          that the gospel was criticized for missing material. The Second Gospel
          is the shortest of the four and arguably lacks a lot material Christians
          have found most interesting (e.g. Sermon on the Mount, resurrection
          appearances, etc.).

          3. Mark's purpose as not to falsify what he heard. This defense implies
          that the gospel was criticized for relating the same incidents differently.
          Although this charge could be laid at any of the synoptics because they
          share much material in common, the 4G has much less material in common
          with the others.

          Therefore, I find the best understanding of Papias's defense is a
          defense of the Second Gospel, which Papias' clearly associates with
          Mark. It is easy to fault Papias because it is equally hard to see
          how the Second Gospel is Petrine and therefore call into question
          this identification. However, if we look closely at the presbyter's
          statement, we notice that the presbyter only states that someone
          named Mark had been Peter's interpreter and wrote a gospel. There
          is nothing in the presbyter's statement that the relationship between
          Peter and Mark was close (in fact, it is not uncommon for ex-employee
          to be "disgruntled") nor that Mark wrote closely with Peter or even
          when Peter was still alive. Whether the subject matter of Mark came
          from Peter is merely an inference that Papias drew from the presbyter's
          statement and is difficult to credit. Interestingly, Papias does not
          even go far to express whether Peter was still alive when Mark wrote
          what "he" (Peter? Mark?) remembered. Thus, I find the supposition
          "that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter" to be
          unsupported by Papias's testimony.

          What I conclude from Papias's testimony is that the tradition that
          Mark wrote the Second Gospel is early, extending as back to this
          presbyter, who flourished at least in the last decade of the first
          century. This presbyter was named John, and there is good reason
          to connect him first with 2, 3 John, then with 1 John, and finally
          with (the final form of) the 4G (see Hengel for the argument).

          Since the presbyter talks about Mark as if Mark was another person,
          it is difficult to identify John Mark as the same person as the
          Fourth Evangelist. Even Pierson Parker, who made a case for this
          identification, conceded he couldn't explain Papias's testimony.

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • Ken Durkin
          ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 8, 2000
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:26 AM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


            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. [From http://www.newadvent.org/fathers ]

            We have to be careful that the discussion is about 4G and not 2G, but it is
            relevant since we are looking at John Mark as the authority behind 4G and
            tradition has linked him to 2G. I note your reasons. I see it differently.

            "Not to omit anything he had heard" indicates the inclusion of material
            which is different and disputed.

            "not to put anything fictitious into statements" in relation to "narrative
            of the Lord's sayings" indicates long discourses of Jesus.

            "not in exact order" indicates a different order from the accepted order,
            and I cannot help but think accepted order is Synoptic order.

            Papias is making excuses for Mark's written testimony being different from
            the accepted pattern, and he explains this by saying he neither heard nor
            followed the Lord.

            <the Second Gospel, which Papias' clearly associates with
            Mark>

            If all we had were the words of Papias to identify authority behind one of
            the four gospels, there is nothing to suggest a clear link with 2G.

            Ken Durkin
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.