Who is John Mark?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by perseusomega9 »

2 Peter 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Acts, pastoral stratum in Paul, anti-dcoetic/gnostic/valentinian/markionite tendencies, I'd say they had no trouble making big changes in the mid second century
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:39 pm
John2 wrote: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:28 pm And one last question before my head explodes (since I need to mull over Ben's link more). Does what Eusebius say in EH 3.39.7 really negate the possibility that Aristion and John were apostles?
And Papias now being explained confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, and says that he was an earwitness of Aristion and of the elder John. At least he mentions them by their name often and gives their traditions in his writings
To judge from this translation, it seems to me that this is the same thing Papias seems to be saying about Aristion and John the elder being disciples of Jesus (if it's not an interpolation), that he heard things about Jesus from people who knew followers of Jesus who were dead (Andrew and Peter, etc.), and that he also heard things from people who knew followers of Jesus who were still living (Aristion and John the elder), though Eusebius assumes here that because Papias often mentions Aristion and John by name that he had heard directly from them. In other words, I'm not getting the impression that Aristion and John weren't apostles, but rather that unlike the dead apostles, Papias (in Eusebius' mistaken view) had heard from Aristion and John directly.
What does Papias say that even remotely suggests, besides the disputed phrase itself, that John the Elder and Aristion were followers of Jesus?

Using the term "apostles" here can be confusing, since Papias himself does not use this term in this context. For Eusebius nothing could be clearer than that Aristion and John the Elder are not apostles. Eusebius calls them followers of the apostles; he also says that Papias "by no means reveals himself to have been either an earwitness or an eyewitness of the holy apostles," thus absolutely excluding Aristion and John the Elder from the company of the apostles (at least in Eusebius' estimation), since (as you say) Eusebius assumes that Papias heard directly from the two of them; and, finally, he avers that Papias numbers John the Elder "away from the number of the apostles."

So the real question is whether Eusebius still thought of Aristion and the Elder John as disciples of Jesus, even if they were not apostles. And my observation is that Eusebius betrays zero knowledge of any statement in Papias that these two men were disciples of Jesus. Am I wrong? Does he evince some knowledge of the disputed phrase in some way I am not catching?

Yeah, I forgot about EH 3.39.2:

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.

That pretty much kills it, unless there is a distinction between apostles and disciples in Christianity, and I gather that there is but I've never quite understood it. I would guess that apostles were "sent out" (as the name suggests) and disciples thought Jesus was cool but they weren't "sent out" to preach about him. But then, is Peter an apostle, or a disciple, or both? is James (the "brother of the Lord") an apostle, or a disciple, or both, or neither? Were the people who "came from James" to check up on Paul in Galatians apostles or disciples (or neither)?

So that question ties in with John the presbyter being called (at least in some texts) a disciple. Though I want to look into it more, I will give you this argument, since you make a good case and know Greek, but if you will allow John being called a disciple for a moment, could that explain why Eusebius says that Papias says he was not "a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles"? Could a "friend" of an apostle be a disciple of Jesus (if there is some kind of distinction between "apostle" and "disciple")?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:02 pmSo that question ties in with John the presbyter being called (at least in some texts) a disciple. Though I want to look into it more, I will give you this argument, since you make a good case and know Greek, but if you will allow John being called a disciple for a moment, could that explain why Eusebius says that Papias says he was not "a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles"? Could a "friend" of an apostle be a disciple of Jesus (if there is some kind of distinction between "apostle" and "disciple")?
Well, on the one hand, there is a distinction between a disciple and an apostle, and Eusebius makes it somewhere (book 1 of the History of the Church, IIRC, but I am busy with other stuff right now). On the other hand, Eusebius also says somewhere that there were more apostles than just the twelve. So 3.39.2 is not a direct and immediate proof of my claim; my argument is (necessarily) more subtle than that.

Like I said, the term "apostle" is not the thing to focus on in this context, since it is not the term that Papias himself uses. My main thing is the Eusebius seems to be placing a buffer in between the apostles who saw Jesus himself and the friends or followers of those apostles. To call Aristion and John the Elder "friends" or "followers of the apostles" in a context in which they, too, were direct disciples of Jesus would be disingenuous. And maybe Eusebius is exactly that! But, in this case, I prefer to view his words in conjunction with the other internal indicators (the repetitiveness of the second phrase, the lack of it in the Syriac/Armenian text, the applicability of the interrogative pronouns only to the first seven men, and the lack of discussion of Aristion and John the Elder being disciples of the Lord in their own right).
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:08 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:02 pmSo that question ties in with John the presbyter being called (at least in some texts) a disciple. Though I want to look into it more, I will give you this argument, since you make a good case and know Greek, but if you will allow John being called a disciple for a moment, could that explain why Eusebius says that Papias says he was not "a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles"? Could a "friend" of an apostle be a disciple of Jesus (if there is some kind of distinction between "apostle" and "disciple")?
Well, on the one hand, there is a distinction between a disciple and an apostle, and Eusebius makes it somewhere (book 1 of the Church History, IIRC, but I am busy with other stuff right now). On the other hand, Eusebius also says somewhere that there were more apostles than just the twelve. So 3.39.2 is not a direct and immediate proof of my claim; my argument is (necessarily) more subtle than that.

Like I said, the term "apostle" is not the thing to focus on in this context, since it is not the term that Papias himself uses. My main thing is the Eusebius seems to be placing a buffer in between the apostles who saw Jesus himself and the friends or followers of those apostles. To call Aristion and John the Elder "friends" or "followers of the apostles" in a context in which they, too, were direct disciples of Jesus would be disingenuous. And maybe Eusebius is exactly that! But, in this case, I prefer to view his words in conjunction with the other internal indicators (the repetitiveness of the second phrase, the lack of it in the Syriac/Armenian text, the applicability of the interrogative pronouns only to the first seven men, and the lack of discussion of Aristion and John the Elder being disciples of the Lord in their own right).

Alright then, but wouldn't a "friend" or a "follower" of the apostles be their contemporary, and thus, even if John the presbyter was not a disciple of Jesus, he could have at least been alive during Jesus' time (or shortly thereafter)?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:08 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:02 pmSo that question ties in with John the presbyter being called (at least in some texts) a disciple. Though I want to look into it more, I will give you this argument, since you make a good case and know Greek, but if you will allow John being called a disciple for a moment, could that explain why Eusebius says that Papias says he was not "a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles"? Could a "friend" of an apostle be a disciple of Jesus (if there is some kind of distinction between "apostle" and "disciple")?
Well, on the one hand, there is a distinction between a disciple and an apostle, and Eusebius makes it somewhere (book 1 of the Church History, IIRC, but I am busy with other stuff right now). On the other hand, Eusebius also says somewhere that there were more apostles than just the twelve. So 3.39.2 is not a direct and immediate proof of my claim; my argument is (necessarily) more subtle than that.

Like I said, the term "apostle" is not the thing to focus on in this context, since it is not the term that Papias himself uses. My main thing is the Eusebius seems to be placing a buffer in between the apostles who saw Jesus himself and the friends or followers of those apostles. To call Aristion and John the Elder "friends" or "followers of the apostles" in a context in which they, too, were direct disciples of Jesus would be disingenuous. And maybe Eusebius is exactly that! But, in this case, I prefer to view his words in conjunction with the other internal indicators (the repetitiveness of the second phrase, the lack of it in the Syriac/Armenian text, the applicability of the interrogative pronouns only to the first seven men, and the lack of discussion of Aristion and John the Elder being disciples of the Lord in their own right).

Alright then, but wouldn't a "friend" or a "follower" of the apostles be their contemporary, and thus, even if John the presbyter was not a disciple of Jesus, he could have at least been alive during Jesus' time (or shortly thereafter)?
Hypothetically, yes. If all you are wanting is John the Elder to be in a position to know about the composition of the gospel of Mark, then I doubt there is anything to stand in your way; the whole issue is something of a black box, since being in a position to know does not mean that he did know, nor does it mean that, if he knew, he was willing to tell the truth about it. My only contention on that linked thread is that Papias did not call Aristion or the Elder John "disciples of the Lord." How things are interpreted beyond that is still up in the air for me.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:59 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:08 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:02 pmSo that question ties in with John the presbyter being called (at least in some texts) a disciple. Though I want to look into it more, I will give you this argument, since you make a good case and know Greek, but if you will allow John being called a disciple for a moment, could that explain why Eusebius says that Papias says he was not "a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles"? Could a "friend" of an apostle be a disciple of Jesus (if there is some kind of distinction between "apostle" and "disciple")?
Well, on the one hand, there is a distinction between a disciple and an apostle, and Eusebius makes it somewhere (book 1 of the Church History, IIRC, but I am busy with other stuff right now). On the other hand, Eusebius also says somewhere that there were more apostles than just the twelve. So 3.39.2 is not a direct and immediate proof of my claim; my argument is (necessarily) more subtle than that.

Like I said, the term "apostle" is not the thing to focus on in this context, since it is not the term that Papias himself uses. My main thing is the Eusebius seems to be placing a buffer in between the apostles who saw Jesus himself and the friends or followers of those apostles. To call Aristion and John the Elder "friends" or "followers of the apostles" in a context in which they, too, were direct disciples of Jesus would be disingenuous. And maybe Eusebius is exactly that! But, in this case, I prefer to view his words in conjunction with the other internal indicators (the repetitiveness of the second phrase, the lack of it in the Syriac/Armenian text, the applicability of the interrogative pronouns only to the first seven men, and the lack of discussion of Aristion and John the Elder being disciples of the Lord in their own right).

Alright then, but wouldn't a "friend" or a "follower" of the apostles be their contemporary, and thus, even if John the presbyter was not a disciple of Jesus, he could have at least been alive during Jesus' time (or shortly thereafter)?
Hypothetically, yes. If all you are wanting is John the Elder to be in a position to know about the composition of the gospel of Mark, then I doubt there is anything to stand in your way; the whole issue is something of a black box, since being in a position to know does not mean that he did know, nor does it mean that, if he knew, he was willing to tell the truth about it. My only contention on that linked thread is that Papias did not call Aristion or the Elder John "disciples of the Lord." How things are interpreted beyond that is still up in the air for me.

Well then, I could live with or without Papias' second "disciple of the Lord" phrase, at least with respect to what he says he heard about the gospel of Mark (though you make a great case for it being an interpolation). It might affect the idea that John the presbyter was the pillar John though (which I've been leaning towards), but maybe not.

So as far as I'm concerned, I think Papias and the author of Acts (which I date c. 95 CE and suspect was written by Paul's patron Epaphroditus) were in a position to know something about the author of the gospel of Mark and John Mark (whether they are the same person or not).
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:55 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:59 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:43 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:08 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:02 pmSo that question ties in with John the presbyter being called (at least in some texts) a disciple. Though I want to look into it more, I will give you this argument, since you make a good case and know Greek, but if you will allow John being called a disciple for a moment, could that explain why Eusebius says that Papias says he was not "a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles"? Could a "friend" of an apostle be a disciple of Jesus (if there is some kind of distinction between "apostle" and "disciple")?
Well, on the one hand, there is a distinction between a disciple and an apostle, and Eusebius makes it somewhere (book 1 of the Church History, IIRC, but I am busy with other stuff right now). On the other hand, Eusebius also says somewhere that there were more apostles than just the twelve. So 3.39.2 is not a direct and immediate proof of my claim; my argument is (necessarily) more subtle than that.

Like I said, the term "apostle" is not the thing to focus on in this context, since it is not the term that Papias himself uses. My main thing is the Eusebius seems to be placing a buffer in between the apostles who saw Jesus himself and the friends or followers of those apostles. To call Aristion and John the Elder "friends" or "followers of the apostles" in a context in which they, too, were direct disciples of Jesus would be disingenuous. And maybe Eusebius is exactly that! But, in this case, I prefer to view his words in conjunction with the other internal indicators (the repetitiveness of the second phrase, the lack of it in the Syriac/Armenian text, the applicability of the interrogative pronouns only to the first seven men, and the lack of discussion of Aristion and John the Elder being disciples of the Lord in their own right).

Alright then, but wouldn't a "friend" or a "follower" of the apostles be their contemporary, and thus, even if John the presbyter was not a disciple of Jesus, he could have at least been alive during Jesus' time (or shortly thereafter)?
Hypothetically, yes. If all you are wanting is John the Elder to be in a position to know about the composition of the gospel of Mark, then I doubt there is anything to stand in your way; the whole issue is something of a black box, since being in a position to know does not mean that he did know, nor does it mean that, if he knew, he was willing to tell the truth about it. My only contention on that linked thread is that Papias did not call Aristion or the Elder John "disciples of the Lord." How things are interpreted beyond that is still up in the air for me.

Well then, I could live with or without Papias' second "disciple of the Lord" phrase, at least with respect to what he says he heard about the gospel of Mark (though you make a great case for it being an interpolation). It might affect the idea that John the presbyter was the pillar John though (which I've been leaning towards), but maybe not.

So as far as I'm concerned, I think Papias and the author of Acts (which I date c. 95 CE and suspect was written by Paul's patron Epaphroditus) were in a position to know something about the author of the gospel of Mark and John Mark (whether they are the same person or not).
Kunigunde puts together an interesting sequence concerning (John) Mark:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:37 amThe following is more or less my POV and I think that you start much too late.
The battle over a certain Mark: Robbing Paul to pay Petersources
First layer: A certain Mark is in the Pauline campPhilemon 1:24, Colossians 4:10, 2 Timothy 4:11
Second layer: Paul and a certain John Mark are at loggerheadsActs 15:36-41
Third layer: A certain Mark is in the Petrine camp as a beloved son1 Peter 5:13
Fourth layer: Mark is in the Petrine camp, his Gospel was written correctly, but not in orderPapias
Fifths layer: A text, probably GMark, is called the memoir of PeterJustin Martyr
Sixth layer: Mark is in the Petrine camp, his Gospel was written after the deaths of Paul and PeterIrenaeus

I myself would reverse her second and third layers, preferring to think of Acts as already harmonizing Peter and Paul and in the process explaining away any conflict as trivial personal matters rather than as doctrinal issues.

Also, I have laid out my "best case scenario" for the connection between John Mark and the gospel of Mark before. I am not (yet?) convinced of my own work in that regard, but I always want to lay out the best possible case against which to argue (or by which to be persuaded).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by John2 »

So what do have then? I think Papias and Acts line up, in that both mention someone named Mark who had a close relationship with Peter. And Acts says that its Mark had a falling out with Paul and followed Barnabas, and Paul says that Barnabas had sided with Peter in Antioch and mentions someone named Mark in Philemon 1:24 and describes him as a "fellow worker," while Acts describes its Mark as having once helped Paul in his "work" (and I wonder if both use the same word for "work"/"worker"). And as Hengel noted, the gospel of Mark gives Peter a special status and mentions him more than any other disciple.

And I forgot that 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) 5:13 mentions a Mark and calls him his "son," which I gather denotes a special relationship.

And while I suppose it can be argued that Papias' sources deduced that the gospel of Mark was written by a follower of Peter because of these references in the NT, as David put it upthread, "Papias's merit is based on the time period he was around in in and of itself" (which I date c. 100 CE).

So ... I think Acts' John Mark and Papias' Mark could be real and the same person (even if the accounts of him in Acts are spin).
Last edited by John2 on Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:46 pm So what do have then? I think Papias and Acts line up, in that both mention someone named Mark who had a close relationship with Peter. And Acts says that its Mark had a falling out with Paul and followed Barnabas, and Paul says that Barnabas had sided with Peter in Antioch and mentions someone named Mark in Philemon 1:24 and describes him as a "fellow worker," while Acts describes its Mark as having once helped Paul in his "work" (and I wonder if both use the same word for "work"/"worker"). And as Hengel noted, the gospel of Mark gives Peter a special status and mentions him more than any other disciple.

And I forgot that 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) 5:13 mentions a Mark and calls him his "son," which I gather denotes a special relationship.

And while I suppose it can be argued that Papias' sources deduced that the gospel of Mark was written by a follower of Peter because these references in the NT, as David put it upthread, "Papias's merit is based on the time period he was around in in and of itself" (which I date c. 100 CE).

So ... I think Acts' John Mark and Papias' Mark could be real and the same person (even if the accounts of him in Acts are spin).
The gospel of Mark also comes across as having Pauline elements but being about (Jesus as viewed by) Peter.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Who is John Mark?

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:53 pm
John2 wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:46 pm So what do have then? I think Papias and Acts line up, in that both mention someone named Mark who had a close relationship with Peter. And Acts says that its Mark had a falling out with Paul and followed Barnabas, and Paul says that Barnabas had sided with Peter in Antioch and mentions someone named Mark in Philemon 1:24 and describes him as a "fellow worker," while Acts describes its Mark as having once helped Paul in his "work" (and I wonder if both use the same word for "work"/"worker"). And as Hengel noted, the gospel of Mark gives Peter a special status and mentions him more than any other disciple.

And I forgot that 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) 5:13 mentions a Mark and calls him his "son," which I gather denotes a special relationship.

And while I suppose it can be argued that Papias' sources deduced that the gospel of Mark was written by a follower of Peter because these references in the NT, as David put it upthread, "Papias's merit is based on the time period he was around in in and of itself" (which I date c. 100 CE).

So ... I think Acts' John Mark and Papias' Mark could be real and the same person (even if the accounts of him in Acts are spin).
The gospel of Mark also comes across as having Pauline elements but being about (Jesus as viewed by) Peter.

And that fits too, if its author had once followed Paul. And in my view Peter belonged to the Nazarene faction of Jewish Christianity, which reproved but accepted Paul, and that fits the gospel of Mark too, since it has Pauline elements but presents Jesus as being pro-Torah like the Nazarenes. So I'm on board with the idea that the Mark in Papias, Acts, Paul and 1 Peter was real and the same person and that he wrote the gospel of Mark.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply