Sure. But Papias suggests no such thing. He specifically says that Mark wrote from memory, which does not sound like an attempt to explain the gospel of Peter. In fact, the gospel of Peter, presenting itself as a first person account by Peter himself, is pretty much the least likely gospel Papias could have in mind. Pretty much any anonymous gospel text (like Mark itself, or Matthew or John or whatever) could at least hypothetically be passed off as Marcan memories of Petrine preachiing... but not the gospel of Peter! It claims to have been written by Peter himself, not by an erstwhile follower from memory.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 5:27 pmIsn't there one tradition [not in Papias of course] that Mark took notes from what Peter recited to him? I can't remember.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Mar 15, 2020 3:47 pm I mean: why would Papias tell us that Mark wrote down Peter's preaching from memory to create a gospel that is written in the first person as if by Peter himself (the gospel of Peter)? To introduce Mark (the person, not the gospel) is superfluous and even downright weird in that scenario: is Papias suggesting that Mark wrote as if he were Peter?
Agreed!Again, I'm not suggesting that either a Mark or a Peter wrote this. It's only important if Papias thought that.
This is Irenaeus, who has a lot of incentive to minimize the number of connections between Jesus and his own generation. Nearly all of the church fathers after Papias claimed that Papias heard from the apostle John himself; you could give a dozen or more such testimonies. What I am interested in is what Papias himself claimed, because he appears to have claimed no such thing. He does not even claim, according to the quotation, to have heard John the Elder directly.As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man. [Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. And he added, saying, Now these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor, says he, not believing, and asking, 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord.' the Lord said, 'They shall see who shall come to them.' These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: 'And the wolf shall lie, down with the lamb,' etc. Isaiah 11:6 ff..]
And this is Eusebius. The problem here is that this is his interpretation of the except he has just quoted from Papias, and in that excerpt Papias makes no such claim! You are reading (and believing) the hype men but not examining Papias' quotation itself.[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. .... He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John.
I agree there is a connection there.That Gospel of Peter is linked to the Asiatic traditions of John.
I also agree that the gospel of Peter (probably) contains early traditions.
What simply cannot be is that it is the text intended by Papias (or by the Elder). It just does not fit the description.
He says it contains things said and done by the Lord. That could easily be Mark. He says it was "out of order." Compared to the Asiatic tradition, it is out of order. I am not saying that it absolutely is our Mark, but by the description it sure could be.And that the Gospel he refers to as Mark is not our Mark because of certain features described therein.
I agree. (Well, not as vehemently, but still: I agree.) I am not comparing Papias and John, per se. I am comparing Papias and the Asiatic traditions.But Papias does not know of John, so any comparisons between his Mark and John is off the table. That's not happening.
Agreed.So when Papias said, "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.", it is not because he knows of a Gospel John....