Galen, Concerning His Own Books, prologue: Why the many read my [books] as their own, you yourself know the reason, most excellent [κράτιστε] Bassus. For they were given to friends and disciples without inscription [χωρίς ἐπιγραφής], as nothing was for publication [οὐδὲν πρὸς ἔκδοσιν], but were made for those who requested [δεηθεῖσιν] to have notes [ὑπομνήματα] of what they heard. So, when some of them died, those with them who had them and were pleased [ἀρεσθέντες] with them began to read [ἀναγινῶσκον] them as their own. [....] ...having shared [κοινωνησάντων] them traveled to their own fatherland and, after passing some time, some here and others there began to make them into lectures [ἐπιδείξεις]. In time, after they were all exposed, many inscribed [ἐπεγράψαντο] my name on the repossessed [text]. And, having found that they differed from all the others, they carried them to me, encouraging me to rectify them. So since, as I said, they were not for publication [οὐ πρὸς ἔκδοσιν], but were according to the habit and the need [ἔξιν τε καὶ χρείαν] of those who requested [τῶν δεηθέντων] them, it was likely at any rate that some be stretched out and others pressed together, and the interpretation [ἑρμενείαν] and teaching [διδασκαλίαν] of the theorems should be either complete [τελείαν] or lacking [ἐλλιπή]. It was clear, at any rate, that those written from the things that were spoken [τοῖς εἰρημένοις] would not have the completion of the teaching, nor would have been examined accurately [διηκριβωμένον], as they neither requested [δεομένων] nor were able to learn [μανθάνειν] all things accurately [ἀκριβώς] before having some habit [ἔξιν] in the essentials. These kinds of books [βιβλία] some who came before me wrote up as outlines [ὑποτυπώσεις], just as some wrote sketches [ὑπογραφάς]. And others wrote introductions [εἰσαγωγάς] or synopses [συνόψεις] or guides [ὑφηγήσεις].
Both of these passages, one by Lucian and one by Galen, involve the first step of ancient book dissemination: the "notes" or "memoirs" stage. Lucian tells us that "a series of notes" (ὑπόμνημα) has yet to be put into "order" (τὴν τάξιν); Galen tells us that "notes" (ὑπομνήματα), which are "not (necessarily) for publication" (οὐ πρὸς ἔκδοσιν), may be distributed according to "the habit and the need" (ἔξιν τε καὶ χρείαν) "of those who have requested" (τῶν δεηθέντων) them.
These descriptions of "notes" or "memoirs" are immediately reminiscent of how Papias (or his elder) and Clement of Alexandria describe the composition of the gospel of Mark:
Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.5-7: 5 And again in the same books [the Outlines] Clement sets the tradition of the earliest elders concerning the order [περὶ τῆς τάξεως] of the gospels, in this way: 6 He says that those of the gospels having the genealogies were forepublished [προγεγράφθαι], but that the gospel according to Mark had this economy: While Peter was preaching the word publicly in Rome and speaking out the gospel by the spirit, those who were present, who were many [τοὺς παρόντας, πολλοὺς ὄντας], called upon [παρακαλέσαι] Mark, as having followed him from far back and remembering what was said [μεμνημένον τῶν λεχθέντων], to write up the things that were said, and having made the gospel he gave it out to those who had requested it [μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ]. 7 When Peter came to know, he neither directly prevented nor encouraged it. But John, last of all, knowing that the bodily facts had been made clear in the gospels, urged by friends, borne by the spirit of God, made a spiritual gospel. So much for Clement.
Papias makes the point that the gospel of Mark wrote accurately enough, but "not, however, in order" (οὐ μέντοι τάξει); and Mark wrote "to the needs" (πρὸς τὰς χρείας) of those listening to Peter. Clement says that Mark "gave out" copies of the gospel "to those requesting it" (μεταδοῦναι τοῖς δεομένοις αὐτοῦ). Another version of this Clementine trope is available earlier in Eusebius, and a third version is available from Cassiodorus:
From the Latin translation of Clement by Cassiodorus, Adumbrationes on 1 Peter 5.13: Marcus, Petri sectator, praedicante Petro evangelium palam Romae coram quibusdam Caesareanis equitibus et multa Christi testimonia proferente, petitus ab eis ut possent quae dicebantur memoriae commendare, scripsit ex his quae a Petro dicta sunt evangelium quod secundum Marcum vocitatur, sicut Lucas quoque actus apostolorum stilo exsecutus agnoscitur [an emendation for agnosceret] et Pauli ad Hebraeos interpretatus epistolam. / Mark, follower of Peter, while Peter was preaching the gospel openly at Rome before certain Caesarean knights and proferring many testimonies of Christ, was petitioned by them that they might be able to commit what things were being said to memory, and wrote from these things that were said by Peter the gospel which is called according to Mark, just as Luke is recognized by the style both to have written the Acts of the Apostles and to have translated the epistle of Paul to the Hebrews.
The differences between these treatments of Mark's gospel are intriguing, but are beside my point for the purposes of this thread. For I am not seeking to press either Papias or Clement for genuine historical details about the origins of our second canonical gospel; rather, what impresses me is that both seem to recognize the gospel of Mark as an example of "notes" or "memoirs" — the first stage of ancient book publication. Also, both assume a didactic setting for the gospel, similar to the one which lies behind Galen's discussion of his own books. Both Papias (or his elder) and Clement, in other words, regard Mark as the kind of text which served as a first step toward a polished work, but which was itself not yet at that stage; the kind of text which was intended to be edited and published later, either by the author himself or herself or by others; the kind of text which was susceptible to being circulated in many different versions, each differing from the others.
Papias (or his elder) seems to be saying that, despite Mark belonging to this initial stage of composition, he actually wrote "accurately" (ἀκριβῶς) — recall how Galen writes that texts at this stage have not necessarily been "examined accurately" (διηκριβωμένον) yet. This comes across to me as a bit of apologetic on behalf of Mark, but overall both Papias and Clement agree that the gospel of Mark is the kind of text which belongs to the "notes" or "memoirs" stage of composition.
Ireneaus has a different take:
It seems evident that Irenaeus is structuring things so that the apostles (Matthew, Peter, and Paul) are ministering first, and then their followers (Luke and Mark) are writing gospels afterward. John, an apostle, writes last, but he is always a wild card. With him as the great exception, apostolic tradents precede nonapostolic tradents in this scenario. Irenaeus may be writing under the influence of something like what we find in Justin Martyr here:
What matters most for my purposes here is that Irenaeus is using the language of tradition, not the language of ancient book production and dissemination. Strictly speaking, his account is able to be perfectly harmonized with those of Papias and Clement, since there is nothing preventing a period of Mark being "notes" (Clement, Papias) from preceding a moment at which Mark was officially published (Irenaeus). But, once again, justifying the historical details of the church fathers' accounts is beyond my purview here.
What Galen describes as having happened to his books, the ones which he passed out to people who made the request of him, according to their needs, sounds like chaos. He avers that the various copies thus distributed did not agree with each other. Doubtless he was constantly updating the lecture material which found its way into these "notes," and even if he did not his listeners always could for themselves. Books could even be bootlegged in antiquity, according to Quintilian (refer to that other thead of mine, linked above).
If Papias and Clement agree on the kind of text that our gospel of Mark is, then what does that mean for us? On the one hand, it does not prove that Mark was indeed that kind of text (maybe Papias and Clement are wrong; maybe Papias is not even referring to "our" Mark), nor that what happened to Galen's books also happened to Mark; on the other hand, it really does leave those options open and available. There ought to be no presumption on our parts that this sort of thing cannot have happened to Mark, at least not without serious argument against it, especially in an environment in which changes to the text may be motivated by strong theological or doctrinal views.
In my view, the gospel of Mark shows signs all over it of at least a somewhat variegated (at times haphazard) editorial process. Sometimes I get the feeling that the resistance I encounter to this notion is born of an anachronistic idea of how books are or ought to be published. This thread is a statement as to why I think that the idea that Mark was published in a clean, easy way is an assumption, not a necessary conclusion.
Ben.