The Staphylus Episode. Nonnus and the Secret Gospel of Mark. K Spanoudakis. Nonnus of Panopolis in Context II: Poetry, Religion, and Society, 216-251, 2017.

-
Link here

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Papias on Mark's Gospel Terence Y. Mullins Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 14, No. 4 (Dec., 1960), pp. 216-224 (9 pages)

-
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1582193?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν The Papias fragments quoted by Eusebius contain the statement that "Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing a few things (ἔνια) as he remembered them. The strangeness of the word ἔνια at this place has not altogether escaped the attention of the interpreters. Both Westcott and Zahn sensed that its presence is incongruous with the usual interpretation of the passage. Westcott tried to explain it in this manner, "The Gospel of St Mark is not a complete Life of Christ, but simply a memoir of 'some events' in it. It is not a chronological biography, but simply a collection of facts which  seemed suited to the wants of a particular audience.  St Mark had no personal acquaintance with the events which he recorded to enable h
Read more

Papias and Clement and Mark's Two Gospels Terence Y. Mullins Vigiliae Christianae Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1976), pp. 189-192 (4 pages)

-
With the publication of the letter by Clement of Alexandria which Morton Smith discovered in the back of an early book/ the witness of Papias to Mark's Gospel has been somewhat clarified. I have shown that Papias, in the phrase where he actually defends Mark's writing, does not defend Mark against the charge of not writing an orderly account, but defends him against the charge that he should not have written "a few things as he remembered them".2 And this has to mean that he did not write many things from memory. Furthermore, the opening statement of Papias' testimony to Mark's Gospel may be interpreted as saying that Mark translated what Peter wrote. Putting this interpretation of the opening statement together with the necessary interpretation of Papias' defense of Mark produced an interpretation of Papias as saying that Mark translated what Peter had written and then, later, added a few things to that translation.3 That was as far as I could go at t
Read more