jakejonesiv

Hi Roger,

Fascinating observations as always. What is your dating of Papias?

Jake

jakejonesiv

Vinnie’s dating is based on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue is complicated by the likelihood that canonical Mark is a late redaction of urMark. UrMark would have lacked the "great omission" material in Luke, and contained the name of the woman who anointed Jesus that has been suppressed in, for example. Indeed, I suspect that urMark was of heretical origin, perhaps the gospel of Basilides.

The Christology of GMark is not Pauline (i.e. docetic as in Phil 2:6-11), and it is not proto-orthodox (incarnation). It instead corresponds to Basilides, an early Alexandrian Gnostic. Basilides was an Adoptionist, and this is the Christology of Mark. Jesus evading the cross and Simon of Cyrene being crucified instead is also agreeable with Basilides. See Irenaeus, AH. 1.24.4.

Basilides taught that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in the place of Jesus, while Jesus stands by and laughs. The Gospel of Mark can be used to support that doctrine. Simon is forced to carry the cross (Mark 14:21). After that, it is pronouns all the way through the crucifixtion.
21. They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene
...
22. Then they brought him to the place Golgotha
...
24. And they crucified him

The proto-orthodox had their history of the gospel of Mark according to Papias, whereby GMark is supposed to have been written by Mark, a disciple of Peter. Eusebius places Mark in Alexandria, H.E. 2.16.1; 2.24.1. However, it is quite interesting that the Gnostics had a parallel but different origin of Mark point by point. Origen mentions the Gospel of Basilides. Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of Peter.

The first gospel was urMarkus. UrLucas was simply urMark plus most of the "Quelle" material. There is no need to suggest that "Quelle" was a document or that a community is implied. Marcion's Evangelion would be derived from urLucas, a minor redaction. Canonical Matthew and Canonical Luke would then be derived from Marcion's Gospel and the respective Sondergut (and Mark). Somewhere between 150 and 180 CE.

No doubt, this solution is also too simplified. Even Tertullian couldn't keep straight what was supposed to be in GMatthew and GLuke.

Also, I have left out the heretical gospels (such as GPeter, Gospel to the Hebrews) that deserve consideration to early origin as the catholic gospels. During the second century the gospels were much too fluid and even in the process of creation. I suspect that the transmission, redaction, and corruption of gospels before we reach the extant texts are much more complex than any simplified source theory can explain.

Additionally, there was a tendency to harmonize that would, after the fact, seem to indicate common origin of originally dissimilar material. Even after we reach the extant manuscripts, we can discern a harmonization tendency in gospel transmission. How much of this went on before the extant record? Quite a bit if Justin Martyr is any indication. He never refers to any gospel by the names given a generation later by Irenaeus; he always called them by the catch-all "Memoir's of the Apostles." He seems to quote from a
strange brew harmonization that includes material that was later found in the canonical gospels, mixed in with heretical material.

It should be remembered that all four of the canonical gospels were in the hands of the heretics before the proto-orthodox appropriated them.

There is no adequate evidence for the existence of the fourfold Gospel before Irenaeus, ca. 185 CE. Irenaeus admits that the four gospels have authority because various heretics used them previously. Matthew by the Ebionites. Luke came from Marcion. Mark by the
Separatists (i.e. Adoptionists such as Basilides). John came from Valentinus (or the Apelleans if Roger Parvus is correct). Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. Book 3, chapter 11, sections 7 and 8. There is no record that anyone had so much as heard of any gospel authored by Luke before Irenaeus.

Jake Jones IV

Vinnie

If my usage was incorrect I would but since Irenaeus calls him a companion of Polycarp, hearer of John and an ancient or early man a date some time in the first half of the second century is necessary. The terminus ad quem on the basis of Irenaeus is most certainly not 180 or 185 C.E. It is about where I placed it. The 30's or possibly the 40's if you want to assume Papias lived to 80 and wrote on his death bed.

Vinnie

Vinnie

In a bit of editorial fatigue Luke evinces knowledge of the Bethsaida section. When coupled with a probable disdain for the doublets in Mark the omission is understandable. I had evaluated Mark's textual integrity here but have redone this recently and found Koester's analysis to be a bit weaker. Here is how i responded in something I am working on in regards to the gospel of Mark:

Vinnie

aa5874

The epistles being questioned or under scrutiny cannot be the external attestation of themselves. 1st Corinthians cannot be an external attestation when it was in possession of the Church.

The Church writers claimed some character called Paul wrote 13 episles, yet it has been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul to write letters.

It must be obvious that the Church writers did not really know who wrote the letters or wanted to fool their audience into thinking that only one person wrote all the letters.

Once it is admitted that there were more than one person using the name Paul, then there are two fundamental position.

1.Paul wrote some.

2.Paul wrote none.

Now, there is no external corroborative source for Paul.

Vinnie

Except for the person or people who wrote in Paul's name, the actual documentary evidence (the extant Pauline epistles with autobiographical details), Acts of the Apostles and a host of late first and early 2d century sources (e.g. Ignatius, Clement) along with a host of other considerations. But I suppose, naturally, Ignatius was forged and Clement dates to 140 along with Acts, in your view,

At any rate, they all corroborate the historical Paul and scholars are confident he wrote 7-10 of the New Testament letters attributed to him, with several of them being possible conflations along with the potential for numerous lost ones. Not to mention collections of Paul's letters in the early second century.

You are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

In the link you provided, you state "Furthermore, it should be noted that Matthew and Luke may have had different versions of the text of Mark itself. Luke may have had a version of Mark lacking the Bethsaida section of Mark which he does not reproduce (Mark 6:45-8:26). Luke 9:17 is the same as Mark 6:44 while Luke 9:19 is the same as Mark 8:27. Luke may have had a version of Mark that had accidentally lost a few pages. However, some scholars believe there are enough peculiarities in the text which differentiate this section from the rest of Mark."

I agree with you backing away from the editorial faitgue angle, and that that this section should be distinguished from the rest of Mark. Indeed, it contains most of the geographical errors in GMark.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Vinnie,

No. The terminus ad quem is not determined by evaluating what the external source said (which may or may not be factually wrong), but when the source was written.

Best,
Jake

jakejonesiv

If that is true why did Papias not know of a single Pauline epistle? Why did Justin not know of a single Pauline epistle? Why did the author of Acts not mention a single Pauline epistle? Whay did 1 Clement and Ignatius show sure knowldge of only 1 Corinthians? :huh:

There is something very wrong with the traditional time line.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Let us remember that Eusebius was not an unbiased reporter of history. He had a bias and an agenda. It is stated at the beginning of “Ecclesiastical History.”

“It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own;” EH 1.1.1

Thus he produces the “testimony of Papias” which is at best the “gossip of Papias” if not outright Eusebian fabrication. Papias’ gossip concerning the Gospel of Mark is tenuous. We don’t have any copies of the alleged books by Papias, only the quotation by Eusebius E.H. 3.39.1ff. (Irenaeus AH 5.33.4 does not mention the Gospel of Mark in connection with Papias).

The Gossip of Papias is most similar to the “Friend of a Friend” transmission of urban legends.

Peter -> Mark -> John the Elder -> Ariston? -> Papias -> Eusebius

I still don't know why Ariston is in the list!