hatsoff

You see it as a "complete failure" because you already have your own preconceived notions. You weren't convinced then, so you obviously aren't now. I'm sorry, but I cannot help that. If you want to drag up something from that thread, though (as you are about to), I'd be happy to respond.

He talks about what Peter remembered, as quoted by Eusebius. That seems like more than a little resemblance.

Mark does appear to be in chronological order, if you take it without external evidence. Fortunately, this is not a vacuum. We do have external evidence.

andrewcriddle

Papias is presumably expressing his belief that the order of events in what he calls Mark is not to be regarded as chronological.

This could mean that his Mark was very different from canonical Mark but IMO it is more likely that he knew some other chronological framework for the life of Jesus which differed from that of Mark . Very possibly a chronology similar to that of John's Gospel, or alternatively Papias may have been trying to account for differences in the order of events between Mark and Matthew and/or Luke.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

You don't know me well enough to judge the basis for my conclusions so I'll thank you to keep your unsubstantiated assumptions to yourself. FYI, they were formed after considering the evidence and continue to be open to new evidence and sound arguments. I see your efforts as complete failures because of the concessions you made. Unless we are to redefine "failure", I don't see how I am mistaken.

On the contrary, I am completely convinced of your failure by your admission that you were unable to show that either of the two statements Papias makes about "Mark" are true of the canonical test. The other thread was on the same topic so it is disingenuous, again, to suggest ("drag up") that it was not. The links should be sufficient for anyone interested enough to be able to judge for themselves whether you are continuing to make assertions you have acknowledged you cannot support. I believe the vernacular is "Your mouth is writing checks your ass can’t cash."

Except that you've already admitted that "Peter's prominence" in the story is something we would expect from any attempt by any author so it cannot be said to make the identification of any specific individual more likely. Have you come upon new information since you made this admission or are you now pretending it never happened?

More relevant to your assertion, you have no evidence that, contrary to all appearances, canonical Mark is somehow out of order. Therefore, you have no basis for your assertion that Papias' description resembles canonical Mark and certainly nothing sufficient to allow you to call a recognition of the absence of any resemblance "silly".

Amaleq13

Could you specify what order of events in Matthew (since that is the only other author/text mentioned by Papias) you think motivated him to conclude that Mark's are out of order?

Didymus

I'm not sure what "almost definitely" means , but the answer to those two questions is not necessarily the same. There are HJ theorists and mainstream Christian bible scholars alike who believe Mark and Matthew were written in the late first century and that John and Luke were written in the early second century.

There is plenty of evidence - Ignatius of Antioch, Tacitus, possibly pre-redaction Josephus - that by the beginning of the second century, there was a growing belief in a Gospel-like historical Jesus. Whether that belief was based on written gospels is not absolutely certain, but the case for a purely oral tradition - no written gospels - at the turn of the 2nd century is an upstream swim against a lot of scholarship. By 105-115, Ignatius was preaching a Matthean theology and insisting that Jesus was a real human being, born of Mary, etc. It seems it highly unlikely that Ignatius and other HJ Christians at that late date were working entirely from Paul plus word-of-mouth.

Regardless, even if the conventional wisdom is right and Mark was written in 70 and Matthew later in the century, there is much to support the case for a mythical Jesus. Late dating of the gospels enhances the MJ case to some degree, but it isn't crucial.

Didymus

hatsoff

Those concessions were important, and indeed I did learn some new things while participating in that thread. As you should see, I too have an open mind about things. However, you'll notice I never conceded that Papias' description bears little or no resemblance to GMark. I don't see how you can consider my argument as a "complete failure."

Papias tells us that Mark wrote down "related the sayings [and] deeds of Christ"--exactly what constitutes a Gospel. The only question here is, was Mark's Gospel the same as canonical Mark? Well, if you recall, that quote is handed down to us by Eusebius (who obviously had a larger body of Papias' work from which to draw). He is very clear that Papias was indeed talking about canonical Mark--"Mark, the author of the Gospel." Justin Martyr confirms the Mark-Peter connection in his Dialogue with Trypho (106.3), and Irenaeus again a bit later. Regardless of whether these sources are accurate in linking Mark to Peter, it is very clear they are writing about GMark. Frankly, it seems very, very silly to think otherwise, acquainted with the full body of evidence or not.

The evidence is there for anyone to see.

No, that is not what I said or implied. Peter's prominence is only something we'd expect if Peter had a hand in Mark's writings. However, this thread is not about authorship, but date.

It makes it a heck of a lot more likely.

It never did happen. In my very last post of that thread, I answered your question about this issue. You had said, "the 'internal evidence' is Peter's prominence, correct?" I replied, simply, "Yes." I'm not sure how you can misread that.

The evidence is this: Papias says so. Moreover, it is not chronologically consistent with other Gospel traditions.

I don't see how you can possibly believe that.

EDIT: Earlier I was a bit flippent, and made a "preconceived notions" comment. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend.

Amaleq13

Conceding your inability to establish either of the two points necessary for the claim is a tacit concession of the claim, itself. That you do not explicitly make this final concession does not eliminate the obvious implication. That you continue to have faith in Papias despite your inability to support his description also does not eliminate the obvious implication.

I don't see how else it can be described. You admitted that you could not show Mark to be out of order as described by Papias and you admitted that "Peter's prominence" does not make it more likely that someone close to Peter wrote the story. That you hold out hope that somehow, someday canonical Mark will be shown to be out of order changes nothing. That you now deny conceding what you clearly did concede also changes nothing.

Eusebius' beliefs about Papias do not constitute evidence for the claim any more than yours do.

They repeat the claim but mere repetition does not constitute evidence supporting the claim. All you have here is evidence of second century beliefs about the authorship of the text. Faith in the church fathers of the second century is not evidence that their beliefs are reliable.

It might be clear they are writing about canonical Mark but, as we have seen from your argument and a rational consideration of the evidence, it is not clear that the same is true of Papias. You were certainly unable to show it. In addition, it is foolish to ignore the absurd story Papias also relates about the death of Judas. When a source provides several pieces of information and one of them appears to be wholly unreliable, the remaining claims must, at the least, fall under a cloud of suspicion.

To consider Papias reliable despite all of above and with no credible counter-arguments is the only "silly" position in this entire discussion.

Wow. I had hoped the links would be sufficient but denying what you have clearly said is a bad move in a world with cut & paste. I will place in bold the most relevant portions:

That is the exact opposite of what you said before as should be painfully clear to you. What new evidence have you discovered in the intervening hours to completely reverse your position?

I think you neglected to scroll down to the end of that post because what I pasted above is what followed.

Papias also says that Judas bloated up with guilt and got squished by a chariot. Do you believe that as well?

More importantly, a claim is not evidence. It is something that requires evidence to be considered credible.

Please explain how this makes Papias' claim more reliable?

Reading comprehension has always been a strength of mine.

Apology accepted and I'll be looking forward to more in the future.

hatsoff

What two points?

Not exactly. I admitted that there is little internal evidence that Mark is out of order.

No, I certainly did not. In any case, even if I had said that, I would have been mistaken. Peter's prominence does make it more likely, regardless of whatever anyone said on these forums.

I hope what? Where are you getting this nonsense?

For the sake of argument, let's say I did concede what you say (and I most certainly did not). How does that change the facts of this issue?

They don't? You don't think a scholar with access to an abundance of Papias' work would be well-suited to determine the context of Papias' discussion? I have to disagree.

Yes, it does. Justin may have been drawing from Papias, but, again, he would have had more to work with than today's surviving fragments.

True. And I think that evidence is strong. In any case, this is about dating the works, not the identities of the authors.

Their beliefs are not reliable, individually. It is the collective that makes the most difference.

Yes, it is. You've dismissed the internal evidence (Peter's prominence), which you should not have done. You've also dismissed Eusebius' notes, which again you should not have done. You've dismissed Justin's and Irenaeus' writings, which again you should not have done. Why do you keep throwing out evidence?

I've shown it; you simply haven't accepted it.

I have not ignored that. You're right insofar as the testimony of early Christians is inherently suspect. That doesn't mean you should dismiss them outright, as you apparently have done.

I didn't say his works are reliable. Heck, I didn't even say they were necessarily convincing. But they are very strong.

You have misunderstood my statement: "I must say I can't accept either claim as more likely than the other." The "claims" to which I was referring were (1) your contension that GMark was not written with Peter's direct involvement and (2) Papias' (and others') claim that Peter was directly involved. I can't say which scenario is more likely, because I don't have enough evidence, and/or because I have not had enough time to mull over what evidence exists.

What I didn't say is that I thought Peter's prominence was meaningless, or that I found Papias', Justin's, Irenaeus' and Eusebius' claims likely to be untrue. I didn't say that I thought Papias' description failed to match GMark.

It is an adendum to an earlier statement, yes, but it is not a concession to every single point discussed earlier.

I have not reversed my position--although if I had, that wouldn't change the facts of the case. I still cannot say that it is likely or unlikely Peter had direct involvement in the composition of Mark. Nor have I reversed my position on the evidence--that is, Peter's prominence or the writings of ancient church fathers and Eusebius.

There is one point for which I have altered my stance: In that other thread, I mentioned that the chronology of John is only relevant from a Christian perspective. That was an error; John's contradictions with GMark do indeed add evidence to Papias' chronology claim. It is weaker evidence from a non-Christian perspective, but not completely irrelevant.

No.

Yes, it is.

Sure. And Papias' claim is indeed strengthened by other evidence, internal and external.

John's chronological disagreements with Mark are explained by Papias' claim, and vice versa. Each piece of evidence compliments the other.

Amaleq13

The same two points I've been referring to throughout. I'm referring, of course, to the two things Papias says about Mark. Remember? The two things you were unable to show are true of canonical Mark. 1) Who wrote it and 2) The order of the stories

From the other thread:
and later:

Is somebody else posting with your account? You seem to be having a difficult time keeping track of your claims because neither of those statements suggests you are able to show Mark is out of order and both suggest you are not.

Well, unless somebody else was posting with your account, it is clear that you did. Can you explain now what you could not explain then? If Peter was a prominent disciple of Jesus, why wouldn't we expect any author, regardless of their relationship with Peter, to feature him prominently?

If you can't, then you have no rational basis to claim that "Peter's prominence" makes it more likely the story was written by Peter's secretary.

This is basic logic, my hatless amigo.

It seemed to be implied by your statement I quoted above. You acknowledged that canonical Mark appears to be in chronological order but suggested that we can't be sure it represents "what actually transpired". That suggests there might exist some currently undiscovered evidence that will someday provide you the support you require. Are you saying your reliance on Papias is not even based on that slender thread of hope? This brings new depth to the term "unsubstantiated".

Unless someone else is using your account, there is no question that you did write the quotes attributed to you. At the very least, it means you have no rational basis for claiming the observation that canonical Mark bears no resemblance to Papias' description is "silly". I will let anyone interested enough to read this reach their own conclusions about any additional implications of your varying claims.

If you don't understand the connection between Papias' reliability, which you have failed to establish, and arguing against 1st century authorship of the Gospels, then "yikes".

No. Beliefs are not evidence of anything but the beliefs of the individual unless they are also supported by evidence.

He might but having the evidence upon which such a determination was made would be necessary to establish his reliability. It seems foolish to ignore the stated purpose of the scholar. Is he attempting to provide a historical survey of Papias' claims and the evidence supporting them or is he trying to prove that the beliefs of his church can be traced back to Jesus?

Obviously not since you are not just relying on the repetition of the claims but also on the unsubstantiated assumption that Justin had more information available to him than he shares.

So the number of people holding a belief makes the belief more reliable?

Are you familiar with the most common logical fallacies?

Claims are evidence? If I claim I have a fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you will consider that evidence that I do? Claims require evidence to be established as credible.

I have not "dismissed" it, I've explained why it cannot be used to support any specific claim of authorship. The first time I offered this explanation, you appeared to understand it. Now, I'm not so sure.

What notes? The ones you assumed, without evidence, existed? It is entirely rational to dismiss unsubstantiated assumptions.

They offer nothing to suggest that Papias' claims are reliable and you've offered nothing to suggest otherwise.

I've thrown out nothing that, by any rational standard, constitutes evidence of Papias' reliability.

I'm more than happy to let anyone interested enough to read your posts reach their own conclusion on that one.

Given the amount of time I've spent trying to explain to you exactly why I do not consider Papias reliable, your comment above is entirely disingenuous. I have clearly not dismissed anything "outright" and you know it.

Then why would you rely on him?

On the contrary, that is exactly what I understood you to be saying. I have to question, however, whether you fully understand what you are saying. If you cannot say which scenario is more likely, you cannot continue to assert that one of them is more likely. That should be self-evident. Yet you have continued to make that assertion and even do so in this same freaking post!!!

I'm starting to wonder if it is possible to engage you in a rational discussion.

Right, you just failed to show otherwise with any rational argument.

Apparently that includes yourself because you have continued to assert the opposite in this same post!!

:rolling:

Why not?

With regard to the internal evidence (ie Peter's prominence) you've asserted that it does and does not make it more likely that Peter was directly involved. With regard to the external evidence, you've made it clear that a significant part of that "evidence" is comprised of your unsubstantiated assumption that there existed more evidence than was shared by the individuals.

I am completely satisfied that I cannot rely on your ability to rationally judge evidence.

This would be a great argument if Papias had mentioned a version of the story that was written by John. Since he didn't, you are again relying on an unsubstantiated assumption for your conclusion.

hatsoff

This is getting ridiculous. I can't believe you can misunderstand so much of what I've posted. Are you just joking around or what?

I had prepared a lengthy rebuttal, but I rather think I should focus on one issue, lest we get sidetracked too far. It is as follows:

Right, nobody knows for sure. That doesn't mean that nothing is out of order, or that particular inconsistencies don't suggest it.

Right, nothing is certain, here. But Papias' claim, internal evidence (Mark 2:23-3:6) and conflicts with John all point to chronological inconsistency in GMark. Together these three points make a strong case, though not proof. Moreover, even without the internal and Johannine evidence, Papias' claim is unverifyable--in other words, something which is superfluous and irrelevant.

I did write those things, but they do not mean what you believe them to.

We have a problem, here. Let me go back and make some quotes...

Amaleq13: "Except that you've already admitted that 'Peter's prominence' in the story is something we would expect from any attempt by any author."

This is the point of contension. Did I admit this? You say yes, I say...

hatsoff: "No, that is not what I said or implied. Peter's prominence is only something we'd expect if Peter had a hand in Mark's writings."

...which by the way is not 100% true, but for the sake of simplicity I've ignored a few obscure exceptions. In any case, you respond thusly...

Amaleq13: "Wow. I had hoped the links would be sufficient but denying what you have clearly said is a bad move in a world with cut & paste. I will place in bold the most relevant portions."

...and you proceed to quote me from the other thread...

hatsoff: "On further reflection, I must say I can't accept either claim as more likely than the other."

...you quote me here because you apparently think it's tantamount to saying "'Peter's prominence' in the story is something we would expect from any attempt by any author," as alleged earlier. So, I expand on that statement in order to disabuse you of that notion...

hatsoff: "The 'claims' to which I was referring were (1) your contension that GMark was not written with Peter's direct involvement and (2) Papias' (and others') claim that Peter was directly involved."

...in other words, nothing about Peter's prominence in GMark. Now you respond...

Amaleq13: "That is exactly what I understood you to be saying."

...do you see what's wrong, here? We started with Peter's prominence, and ended with Peter's involvement--two separate (albeit related) issues.

Likewise.