HKB
things as he had remembered them. For he had one care--that he should not leave out anything of the things that he had heard, or represent anything among them falsely."
=(2) Antiquity of the Papian Tradition.=--It will be observed that Papias is here represented as quoting from "the presbyter." Probably, however, it is only the first sentence that is quoted; the rest seems to be an explanation by Papias himself. By "presbyter," or "elder," Papias means not an officer in the Church, but a man of an older generation. The tradition is therefore very ancient. Papias himself lived in the former half of the second century; a man of a still older generation would probably have acquired his information about Mark well before A. D. 100. Such information is not to be lightly rejected.
(3) Mark an Interpreter of Peter.--According to the presbyter, Mark was an "interpreter" of Peter. If the word be taken strictly it means that Mark translated the words of Peter from one language into another--probably from Aramaic into Greek. On the whole, however, it is not probable, in view of linguistic conditions in Palestine and in the Church, that Peter would be unable to speak Greek. Perhaps, then, the sentence means that Mark was merely the mediator, in a general sense, of Peter's preaching. He presented the teaching of Peter to those who had not had the opportunity of hearing it themselves. Perhaps the meaning is that he had done so formerly by word of mouth. Perhaps, however, it is rather the Gospel itself that is referred to. By writing the Gospel Mark became an interpreter or mediator of the preaching of Peter.
At any rate, whatever meaning be given to the word "interpreter," the general sense of the sentence--especially when taken in connection with the following explanation by Papias is fairly clear. Mark derived the information for his Gospel not from personal acquaintance with the earthly Jesus, but from association with Peter.
(4) Mark Not Written "In Order."--The presbyter said further that although Mark wrote accurately what he heard from Peter, he did not succeed in giving "in order" an account of the things that Jesus did and said. Evidently the historical incompleteness, the lack of uninterrupted sequence, of the Gospel of Mark is here in view.
But by what standard is the Gospel judged? It can hardly be by the standard of Matthew, for Matthew pays even less attention to temporal sequence than Mark does. The order in Luke also is by no means in all respects more strictly chronological than that in Mark. Only one standard satisfies the requirements of the presbyter's words--the standard provided by the teaching of John. John was the great leader of the Church of Asia Minor. His teaching naturally formed the standard of authority in that region. Perhaps at the time when the presbyter expressed his judgment on Mark the Gospel of John had already been written, so that one Gospel could be compared with the other; perhaps, however, it was merely the oral teaching of John, afterwards embodied in the Gospel, which afforded the basis of comparison. The Gospel of John alone provides something like a chronological framework of the public ministry of Jesus: John alone mentions the early Judean ministry; John alone narrates the successive visits of Jesus to the feasts in Jerusalem. If, as is possible, "the presbyter" of Papias was none other than John himself, then of course the whole matter becomes especially plain. John knew that there were important omissions in the Gospel of Mark; he probably observed, for example, that that Gospel if taken alone might readily create the impression that the ministry of Jesus lasted only one year instead of three or four. No doubt he corrected this impression in his oral teaching; certainly he corrects it in his Gospel. In commending the Gospel of Mark, John would naturally call attention to its chronological incompleteness.