What did Papias mean when he wrote how Mark did not write "in order" about what Jesus said or did?

Upvote:2

Papias is quoting a first-century Christian Elder in defending the Gospel of Mark against critics. Apparently, already by this time, some were criticizing the Gospel of Mark because it was not considered "orderly".

Orderly compared to what?

The Elder's statement implies a standard against which Mark was being compared. Commonly suggested candidates include:

  • The Gospel of Matthew (the document that overlaps with the Gospel of Mark in content more than any other)
  • The Gospel of Luke
  • Various hypothetical documents have been proposed, including Proto-Mark, Deutero-Mark, another gospel or proto-gospel (note that there is no manuscript or Patristic evidence for these documents--they have been theorized largely in efforts to solve the Synoptic Problem)

Indeed if we compare Mark to either Matthew or Luke, we find that they do not present events consistently in the same order (I suggest reasons for these disagreements in order in my video here).

--

What is an orderly account?

When we see "in order" with Western eyes, we think "chronological order". While this is a possible meaning, it is not a necessary meaning.

  • As noted in the OP's quote from Lucian, an orderly account can simply mean an account that is organized for rhetorical or artistic effect.
  • A document can be ordered by topic (such as the Gospel of Matthew or a modern encyclopedia)
  • A document can be ordered by geography (such as the Gospel of Luke or a modern atlas)
  • A document can be ordered poetically, such as in a chiasmus, a technique common in ancient Jewish writings.

--

How was the Gospel of Mark organized?

Mark presents numerous stories placed together in sequence--in the literature, these stories are called "pericopes". Various theories exist for how Mark chose to order the pericopes, including:

  • Structuring the entire book as a chiasmus
  • Following a blend of the order of the material in Matthew & Luke (as argued by William Farmer)
  • Following the order in which Peter (and/or others) taught the gospel message (e.g. Acts 10:37-42)

--

My own conclusions

My own work on the Synoptic Problem (here and here) leads me to conclude:

  • No hypothetical documents, such as Q, proto-Mark, or Deutero-Mark, are necessary in order to solve the Synoptic Problem
  • The Gospel of Matthew was written first and was the principal text of the Christian movement
  • The Gospel of Luke was written second
  • The Gospel of Mark was written third, much of it was put together from memory, and the material generally alternates between following the order of Matthew & the order of Luke
  • The Elder & Papias are likely addressing the differences between Matthew's order (more well-known) and Mark's order (less well-known), and explaining that the order in Mark is not inappropriate even though it is not consistently the same as Matthew's order. Mark had a different focus & structure in mind. Neither is strictly chronological.

More post

Search Posts

Related post