Vinnie

http://www.vincentsapone.com/writings/papias.html

In this article, utilizing the research of Gundry, Yarbrough and several other scholars, I point out the complete paucity of evidence for dating Papias as late as 130 A.D. and the numerous lines of evidence establishing a date at just at the beginning of the second century.

Question: Would such an early dating of Papias and his attestation of Mark have any impact on Jesus mythicism?


Vinnie

Malachi151

Not really, since most or many mythicists fully agree that "Mark" was written between 66 and 80 CE.

Vinnie

How about Papias' five treatises on the oracles of the Lord that he connects with apostolic traditions? He represents far more sources than two written gospels and shows us how things might have progressed from Jesus --> Original Followers --> Second Generation.

Surely this does not bode well for a non-historical Jesus, since this work is being dated 30-60 years earlier than is commonly suggested. I think its impact would be substantial for mythicism and force a lot of revision. My goal in writing this had nothing to do with mythcism, however. Its part of a larger study on the gospels, especially Mark. I figured I would toss it out there.

Vinnie

jeremyp

You write
Sorry, it's not really relevant to your question, but I was wondering what the evidence is that leads us to connect the current Gospel of Mark with the document to which Papias refers.

Diogenes the Cynic

I second this question. I see no reason at all to assume that Papias was referring to Canonical Mark, and multiple reasons to assume that he was not.

Malachi151

Seeing as how it is near universally agreed that Papias was wrong, in that he said Matthew was written first and in Aramaic, something now totally rejected, there isn't much weight put into his claims.

S.C.Carlson

Papias doesn't say that Matthew was written first.

Stephen

jgibson000

Not is it absolutely clear that he says Matthew was written in Aramaic.

Jeffrey

Diogenes the Cynic

Papias says that Matthew's logia was written in Hebrew. Irenaeus says it was written by the Hebrews "in their own dialect," which might refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic. It's not entirely clear that either Papias or Ireneaus would have understood the distinction between those two languages.

In any case, Canonical Matthew is a manifestly Greek composition, which is one of the marks against identifying it as being the work to which Papais was referring, but I'm pretty sure he never said if it was written before whatever composition he was attributing to a secretary of Peter's named Mark (which I don't believe was Canonical Mark).

Malachi151

Yes true, but he implied that his was a first hand account, as he said that Mark's was a second hand account and "out of order", while not saying these things about Matthew.