Who is John Mark?

[davidmartin]

wasn't Aristion credited with one of the longer Mark endings?
it seems reasonable to think him and presbyter John were later church leaders who never actually followed Jesus during his life
and to further credit this John with the authorship of 1 John, which totally reads like a later church leader than someone that was a disciple
the Gospel of John does read like that in places with some familiarity coming through

this doesn't mean there wasn't a path going back to the original church or original Jesus just that it wasn't as the early church tried to make it look, all neat and approved. they had a huge interest in doing this with all the variant other strands claiming to represent Jesus. I long since seen this approach as better for believing in a historical Jesus as it affirms some central inspiration behind them that started it and doesn't require any belief in the official early church narratives

[John2]

And if anyone should chance to come along who had followed the elders, I was inquiring as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, say.

Again, I don't know Greek, and I'm struggling with your understanding of "which things," but to judge from this translation I get the sense that Papias is saying that he had asked anyone "who had followed the elders" two things, what the dead followers of Jesus had said and what the still living followers of Jesus were saying (and I've seen some other scholars who seem to understand it this way). Can you explain for me in a dumbed down way why "which things" has to mean which things Aristion and John the elder were saying only about "what Andrew or what Peter" etc. had said? Can it really not mean which things Aristion and John were saying about Jesus? Isn't that the sense of EH 3.3.9.3?

He {Papias] says: But 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, 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 deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.

[John2]

wasn't Aristion credited with one of the longer Mark endings?

I've gathered that the long ending is ascribed to an Ariston and not Aristion, but I suppose it could be the same person. And I figure if this is so then it could at least point to Aristion being someone with enough clout to feel free to tinker with Mark at a fairly early stage (and which in turn became the dominant ending) and that a disciple of Jesus could fit the bill.

[Ethan]

John (Ἰω άννης) is the Hebraic form of Διογενής 'Diogenes' from Διός ἐγέννησε 'begotten of Zeus' cf. Διογεννής

Marcus Diogenes (praenomen + cognomen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_(disambiguation)

[John2]

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.

I'm not certain and could be totally wrong, of course (and if so, that's fine), but this is the sense I'm getting.

[Ethan]

The work of Eusebius was published in 1544 and the so-called Greek original is fragmentary, so another case of a pseudepigrapha inventing strings of fictional characters, such as Papias, Polycarp, Marcion and Ignatius along with the fictional Popes, whom are probably medieval pedophile monks predating themselves.

Phoney history.

[Charles Wilson]

Acts 15: 36 - 41 (RSV):

[36] And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Come, let us return and visit the brethren in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark.
[38] But Paul thought best not to take with them one who had withdrawn from them in Pamphyl'ia, and had not gone with them to the work.
[39] And there arose a sharp contention, so that they separated from each other; Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus,
[40] but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
[41] And he went through Syria and Cili'cia, strengthening the churches.

Hello everyone --

I may be Channeling my Inner Giuseppe here so I ask for your forgiveness at the start. In fact, I should reproduce this chapter and go through the entire thing with "Paul" as "Mucianus" material. Mucianus spent time in a Type of Exile in Lycia under Claudius and so on. There is some nice stuff to look at in this light.

Let's keep this more to the point of the OP. Look at our ol' Friend and Poster Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities, ISBN-10: 1413497918 ISBN-13: 978-1413497915, p. 149:

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking without spices and John needs the stone placed in front of the tomb so that Mary can see it missing. There is one explanation for such enormous lapses and for the pieces in Mark fitting so well into John. Originally the two texts were one and contained both bits of important information. We may deduce that Mark was literally cutting out the text of a manuscript to create his new manuscript. Whoever published John must have had the very same manuscript with the holes Mark had left in it..."

This may be Historical Reference.

[37] And Barnabas wanted to take with them John called Mark

So, Bar-n-Abba[s] wants to take John called Mark. I don't think that this is Diatessaron material but mebbe our Resident Expert Secret Alias might see something. The language is interesting - as it always is. Eventually, Barnabbas takes Mark (v. 39). That is, this is describing the Time Frame when the Original Story was split into Mark and John. Also, with Jay's thesis here, the Empty Tomb Motif is also being generated at this time. It MUST be there in some Form since "Spices-Without-Rock" and "Rock-Without-Spices" are separate between Mark and John. The Empty Tomb Motif still awaits Matthew and Luke so the Editorial Board still has Work to do.

I haven't been able to generate a Contradiction yet but that is for another day.

[40] but Paul chose Silas and departed, being commended by the brethren to the grace of the Lord.
Mucianus was a very busy...ummm...man at this time.

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

Well, that explains the two different verbs. What explains the two identical (and repeated) "disciples of the Lord" phrases?

I don't know if this answers your question, but Holding (who I came across recently and had to track down again) puts it this way:

When Papias writes that those who had been in attendance on the elders provided him with what Andrew [etc.] "had said," he clearly implies that these disciples were no longer saying these things at the time Papias spoke with those who had been in attendance on the elders. Hence .. these disciples were already dead, allowing Papias only to know what they "had said." However, in the case of the other two disciples (John and Aristion), Papias was able to find out what they "were saying." That is, at the time Papias spoke with the attendees of the elders, these two disciples were still alive. Hence, the two groups of disciples are distinguished by the fact that the seven were dead when Papias was collecting information, whereas John and Aristion were still alive.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2XHys ... ys&f=false

Well, this again would explain the two different verbs (in two different tenses), but says nothing about why there are two separate "disciple" phrases when one would do.

I don't know Greek so I have to take your word regarding the meaning of "which things," but just out of curiosity, is it possible this statement could have the sense of and "which things"?

There are easy ways to express the conjunction "and" in Greek, and none of them appears at this point of the sentence. The sense is that Papias is interested in what Andrew and company said (past tense), and that what they said is what Aristion and the Elder John are saying (present tense). An analogy might be that I am interested in "the things which my grandfather said, which my father relates." This is, taken most naturally, not the same thing as being interested in "the things which my grandfather said and also the things which my father relates."

In your fourth question in the link you gave above you ask;

The addition of the phrase (at least to the History of the Church and possibly also to copies of Papias) is easy to explain once one realizes that eventually Papias was viewed in the church as having personally heard and seen the apostle John. Since these lines seem to imply that he heard only the elder John (at one remove, at least, in my judgment, but the Christian fathers like Eusebius had a way of cutting out middlemen), it was useful to insert the second "disciples of the Lord" phrase as a way of emphasizing either that both Johns were disciples anyway or (more likely) that both Johns were the same John.

This would make sense, but if this was the case then why doesn't the phrase appear in the other versions you mention?

Because that is how textual streams work: often insertions are made in one textual stream but not in another. Few ancients had access to all of the textual streams at once; they could affect only what they could get their hands on, and there were language barriers (such as between Greek and Syriac, for instance).

But in any event, since Papias wrote in Greek, shouldn't the Greek version of this passage take precedence over the other versions? And don't most of the Greek versions have the second "disciples of the Lord" phrase?

Because we are completely reliant upon what Eusebius wrote for Papias' words in this case, no, it does not logically matter in the slightest that Papias wrote in Greek. All that matters is that the Greek/Latin and the Syriac/Armenian of Eusebius form two different textual streams in this case, one of which has the second "disciples of the Lord" phrase and the other of which lacks it. Jerome's Latin, dependent upon Eusebius, ensures that the phrase is early, but the Syriac version of Eusebius is early, too (one manuscript dates to AD 462, and is by far our earliest copy of Eusebius' Church History), so we cannot decide the question on the basis of the relative dating of the two streams. Internal indications will have to suffice.

wasn't Aristion credited with one of the longer Mark endings?

The Armenian manuscript Etchmiadsin 229 (= Matenadaran 2374) has a note between Mark 16.8 and 16.9, "of Ariston the Elder." It seems quite possible to me that Aristion is the originator of the material currently found in the longer ending of Mark; that Papias quoted him by name for that material; that a scribe added it to Mark at some point; and that an Armenian scribe later compared what Papias had quoted from Aristion to the contents of the longer ending, deducing that it came from Aristion. But this scenario has to remain a speculation.

Again, I don't know Greek, and I'm struggling with your understanding of "which things," but to judge from this translation I get the sense that Papias is saying that he had asked anyone "who had followed the elders" two things, what the dead followers of Jesus had said and what the still living followers of Jesus were saying (and I've seen some other scholars who seem to understand it this way).

The quotation definitely tells us that Papias asked passersby what Andrew and Peter and company said (past tense). It does not say that Papias asked passersby what Aristion and John the Elder are saying (present tense).

Can you explain for me in a dumbed down way why "which things" has to mean which things Aristion and John the elder were saying only about "what Andrew or what Peter" etc. had said? Can it really not mean which things Aristion and John were saying about Jesus? Isn't that the sense of EH 3.39.3?

The things which Aristion and John the Elder are saying are in the form of a relative pronoun (translated "which") whose antecedent is what Andrew and Peter said and so on. That is, "what Andrew and Peter said" equals "the things which Aristion and John the Elder are saying." The progression is that Papias asked what the first seven men said, which things Aristion and John the Elder are saying. It is not that Papias asked what the first seven men said, and also asked what Aristion and John the Elder are saying.

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?

As for Papias, that he distinguishes between Andrew and Peter and the other five as deceased, on the one hand, and Aristion and John the Elder as contemporaries, on the other, is clear enough. But that is not the only distinction he seems to be making. In other words, Papias using two different verb tenses of the two different subgroups (first five, last two) is irrelevant. We agree on that point. My (additional) point is that the second "disciples of the Lord" is needlessly repetitious, that Papias never even claims to have asked what Aristion and John the Elder said or were saying (and, if they were disciples of Jesus, why not?), and that the second "disciples of the Lord" is missing from the Syriac/Armenian textual stream.

[John2]

I want to add one more thing before I call it a day (and mull over what Ben says above). Regardless of whether or not John the presbyter was a disciple of Jesus, Papias still got his information about Mark being a follower of Peter from other people who at least claimed to have known or been followers of Jesus' disciples, and since I date Papias c. 100 CE I don't see that as being out of the realm of possibility. In other words, we don't really need John the presbyter to have been a disciple of Jesus in order for Papias' information to have any merit.

And while Papias isn't as close as we would like, he is (at least in my view) as close as it gets outside of the NT, and what he says about Mark being a follower of Peter seems in keeping with what the NT says about John Mark to me.

[davidmartin]

I want to add one more thing before I call it a day (and mull over what Ben says above). Regardless of whether or not John the presbyter was a disciple of Jesus, Papias still got his information about Mark being a follower of Peter from other people who at least claimed to have known or been followers of Jesus' disciples, and since I date Papias c. 100 CE I don't see that as being out of the realm of possibility. In other words, we don't really need John the presbyter to have been a disciple of Jesus in order for Papias' information to have any merit.

And while Papias isn't as close as we would like, he is (at least in my view) as close as it gets outside of the NT, and what he says about Mark being a follower of Peter seems in keeping with what the NT says about John Mark to me

I agree, Papias's merit is based on the time period he was around in in and of itself!
And he gives a rare window into earlier times wish we had the rest of his stuff

One interesting thing about Aristion being the source for that Mark ending...
let's say he was, that gives the impression that in his day (what year IS this??? 90-110 is the ball park yes?)
well it means, at this stage it was still possible to put out new versions of the NT gospels.. but late enough that these didn't gain complete acceptance!
So in Mark's case it means Mark without the longer endings was standard enough to resist the newer longer endings even in Aristions day
I'm not saying mods didn't get accepted later, but it points to a well defined standard edition of Mark being around before say 90-100
This is evidence for Mark being already popular before, say 90-100 or so

I recon that in the 2nd century the church only had limited ability to change the gospel texts, and by 3rd century not much at all