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

Re: [John_Lit] Order in John

Expand Messages
  • Ken Durkin
    ... From: Ken Durkin To: Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 6 1:10 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- 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 2 of 28 , Jun 7 7:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 28 , Jun 8 1:22 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- 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.