Re: [John_Lit] Order in John
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
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
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.