How do We Know Papias referred to Mark and not some other text?

by Vincent Sapone

I have argued elsewhere that Papias’ reference dates to c.105 AD [+/- 5 years]. This will serve as a background presupposition in this article but it is not necessary for most of these arguments to be valid. So how can we know that Papias was referring to canonical Mark when relaying the traditions of the elder...

 

[1] Mark was written early. Therefore, Mark is a very likely candidate as only an early work will suffice (1st century texts). We only know of a few possible works that could fit the bill (our four gospels and potentially a sayings source or some lost and unknown source).

[2] Occam's Razor also must be taken into consideration. Are we going to needlessly multiply texts? In essence, denying that Papias’ Mark is canonical Mark is to invent a narrative Q. This is similar to the first point and this one speaks volumes as how many other Gospels can we suggest as an alternative? As a side note, it is interesting to see Jesus mythicists claim Papias does not refer to canonical Mark. It is very peculiar that a Jesus mythicist would needlessly multiply first century texts delineating a historical Jesus.

[3] How many texts are we willing to claim were attributed to a non-eyewitness such as Mark? Irenaeus (c. 180) apparently attributed canonical Mark to Mark and Papias (c.105) attributed some lost text to Mark. In some instances a good explanation as to why Mark might have been listed over Peter can be given. If it was known Peter did not write or could not write, or if a Gospel had existed for years anonymously, it would make little sense to say, 'Hay, this is Peter's gospel." Rather, the next best thing would be to attribute it to a close companion of Peter. However, it is hard to argue this since Papias dates too early and his tradition is received. At any rate, multiplying the number of instances a minor figure such as Mark is falsely claimed to have written a gospel is stretching things.

[4] Justin Martyr c. 150 made a passing remark to the Memoirs of Peter. Whether or not this is an exact reference to this written text is at least debatable according to some scholars. There is some evidence that Justin knew of the text of Mark but there is only one clear reference to this in his surviving literature. In Dialogue With Trypho (106.3), Justin wrote the following:

"It is said that he [Jesus or Christ] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his Memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means 'sons of thunder' . . .

The joint name 'Boanerges, suns of thunder' occurs in Mark 3:17 and there alone in the New Testament. That Justin is also speaking of a written text makes it more probable he was referring to the Gospel of Mark. Does Justin connect this Gospel with Peter? E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies do not think so: "Justin May attribute a passage in Mark to Peter's Memoirs. What is not certain, however, is the referent of 'his' in the phrase 'his Memoirs': does it mean Peter's Memoirs or the Memoirs about Jesus? There is no certain answer, but it is at least possible that Justin has connected the Gospel of Mark with Papias' statement about Mark, writing a gospel on the basis of Peter's preaching." SSG p. 12

On the other hand, Helmut Koester thinks Justin does: "His Memoirs" in this text must mean "Peter's Memoirs" (not "Christ's Memoirs"). This can only be a reference to the Gospel of Mark which was connected with Peter in the presbyter tradition that is also quoted by Papias of Hierapolis and by Clement of Alexandria." ACG p. 274

[5] Irenaeus c. 180 (when he wrote, not when he was born!) made this connection of the text of Mark to Peter. Fortunately, Irenaeus also quotes Mark so we know for certain it is ours. Irenaeus also claims in his youth (autobiographical-contemporary primary data) to have seen Polycarp who was teaching. Polycarp was a contemporary of Papias and thus a line of transmission between Papias and Irenaeus is possible. It should also be noted that Irenaeus knew of Papias’ works and even made specific mention to something found in his fourth book:

"And these things Papias, who has been a hearer of John and a colleague of Polycarp, an early man, corroborates in writing in the fourth of his books. For there were five books that he composed."

Thus, Irenaeus own view that Mark was the memoirs of Peter may stem ultimately from Papian and tradition and there are grounds for supposing Irenaeus is in a better position to know which text Papias referred to as being written by Mark since he probably had access to the content of Papias’ works. Thus, someone who knew of Papias and his works, who had contact with at least one of his companions has connected Petrine authority behind the Papian tradition with the gospel of Mark.

[6] Clement of Alexandria, writing towards the end of the second century also made this connection. The Gospel according to Mark110 had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.

 

[7] Eusebius also points out this connection the clearest. He quotes the specific statement by Papias claiming Petrine authority for the text written by Mark. It should also be noted that Eusebius heaps scorn upon Papias.

[8] Irenaeus references these works as does Eusebius (who quotes several portions). But what is interesting is that Eusebius says, “And in his own writing he also hands down other accounts of the aforementioned Aristion of the words of the Lord and the traditions of the presbyter John, to which we refer those truly interested.” Even in his day these works could be accessed it would appear. This makes it more likely Irenaeus was familiar with them and if the Mark referenced by Papias was not our Mark, this might have been easily known—especially to Eusebius who quotes several parts of Papias' works. Thus, we can conclude that some of the early Church actually had the works of Papias available to them and would know where his citations came from (assuming he quoted Mark in his works).

[9] Add to all this that Papias’ "apologetic defenses" fit the gospel of Mark perfectly and there can be little doubt. Implicit in Papias statements are apologies for the text of Mark. Here is the text of Papias [note the text formatting]

And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.

• Bold – Papias is sure to mention Mark’s accuracy several times here.
• Underline Mark lacks order, writes via memory from anecdotal teachings, not systematic dictation.
• Italicized – Papias is sure to mention Mark is writing from his memory as best as he could remember. Again, not direct dictation from Peter.

Papias is basically saying, “Yes I know it doesn’t look like a direct account from Peter but that is because it did not have the luxury of Peter’s verbal plenary inspiration. Mark simply wrote what he remembered but not in order of Peter’s anecdotal teaching.” Papias is sure to explain the lack of order in Mark’s gospel, its lack of systematic arrangement and its omission of lots of material.

[10] We have slight evidence of another person criticizing the lack of "order" in Mark. EP Sanders and Margaret Davies write, "Luke, who seems to have used Mark, stated that he followed all things 'accurately' and that he would write an 'orderly account' (Luke 1:3), thus implicitly criticizing his sources. Conceivably Papias knew this criticism and wanted to defend Mark against it." SSG p. 11

Whether or not the latter is true is irrelevant as we see that an author who used Mark, might have critiqued its "lack of order". Paradoxically, the order of Mark's account is actually followed by Luke. But we fall victim to anachronism is we think our understanding of "orderly" was equivalent to the mind of a first century writer. Orderly might mean theologically or thematically. It may be more about stylistic changes than chronological ones. While it cannot be denied that two separate authors found Mark's overall order useful shortly after its composition, it also cannot be denied that they added too, omitted from, edited and altered significant chunks of material in Mark as they saw fit. It would not be incorrect to suggest that Matthew and Luke both expanded and "updated" or "corrected" the text of Mark. It appears that similarly, The Gospel of the Nazoreans may have "updated" Matthew [see Cameron p. 96 the Other Gospels].

 

The Most Likely Candidate:

Papias’ defenses raise significant questions: If Mark lacks order and significant material, to what ordered and more larger gospel is it speaking about? Most scholars date at least 2 or 3 canonical gospels to before 105 and these are our primary sources to look at as the backdrop of this claim—without needlessly multiplying hitherto unknown Gospels. All of these gospels are larger than Mark (contain more material) and John appears so diverse from Mark in my view, that it can be ruled out as a possible comparative backdrop. I think Papias either had Matthew or Luke in mind (or both) when mentioning this and though the reference is problematic, that he mentions Matthew a few lines later is weighty.

That Papias' Mark was our canonical Mark is undeniable....