Vinnie

I'm still working on my Mark project. Tackling Papias. Anyone want to take a crack at some of these.

Dating Papias on GMark

Formerly, the majority of specialists tended to view Papias' statement[1] as stemming from ca 130 C.E. but Robert Gundry, Mark A Comment on His Apology for the Cross, writes that "a consensus seems to be developing that Papias wrote earlier by a quarter century or more, i.e. in the first decade of the second century." [2] The date of this tradition would be earlier still since Papias attributes this knowledge to the elder.


Gundry lists Ten reasons in favor of an earlier dating for Papias:


1.Gundry, "Eusebius leads us to the early date by saying that Papias became famous during the time of Polycarp and Ignatius, with whom he associates Clement of Rome (H.E. 3.36.1-2; 3.39.1). Polycarp did not die till the middle of the second century; but Ignatius died ca. 107 and Clement ca 100. Eusebius's discussion of Papias's writings comes right at this point, i.e. before Trajan's persecution, which started ca. 110 and which Eusebius does not describe till Book 4 of his Ecclesiastical History whereas the fragments of Papias appear in Book 3." [3]

2. It has been pointed out, Gundry goes on, "Eusebius's Chronicon puts together and in order the Apostle John, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius and assigns the date 100 to this entry." [4]

3. Irenaeus who wrote ca. 180 C.E. states that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John and was an ancient man (Haer. 5.334; cf. Eus. H.E. 3.39.1, 13). Gundry also puts forth arguments that the elder John is the actually an apostle Jonh and therefore, Papias must have been written early as point six suggest the present tense of "are saying".

4. The failure of Eusebius and Irenaeus to quote Papias against Gnosticism is most easily explained by having Papias say nothing about it because he wrote before it became a serious threat, i.e. before 110. [5]

5. The Papian fragments exhibit a general similarity to the epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius which were written early. [6]

6. Gundry writes, "U. H. J. Kortner (Papias 225-26) agrees that Papias's polemics fit an early rather than later date and adds that it is easier to think of an early date for Papias's making inquiry of those who had heard "the elders" (Eus. H.E. 3.39.3-4), but it is hard to think of the Elder John and Aniston as still alive towad the middle of the second century. The present tense of yeyovoiv "are saying", implies that they are still alive when Papias writes, however." [7]

7. It is also difficult to belive that Papias wrote ca. 130 c.e. or later and also had personal acquantice with the daughters of Philip the apsotle in the middle of the first century (Eus. H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Acts 21:8-9).

8. Gundry, "Papias's use of "the Lord's disciples" and of "the elders" instead of "the apostles" for the guarantors of orthodoxy further favors an early date, i.e. a date befoe "the apostles" developed such a connotation."[8]

9. Papias' lack of great attention to Johannine writings also favors an earlier date, i.e. a date before those writings commanded such attention.

10. Finally, it has been noted that in the Papian fragment on Mark, there is a large number of semitisms which favors that the tradition of the Elder is early, and therefore, more likely to be reliable.[9]

Collectively it is argued that these point to a date of c. 101-108 for Papias' statement on the Gospel of Mark. This provided very early external attestation of the Gospel of Mark and we must also note that Papias states his tradition comes from an elder meaning it must pre-date him some. Thus, the attribution that John Mark wrote GMark is pushed into the late first century and so is the terminus ad quem by Papias external reference alone.

Gundry also puts forth interesting arguments that the elder John was an or the apostle John.

Vinnie

spin

Tangible church history chimes in with Justin Martyr in the middle of the 2nd century. We meet Polycarp in this period as well with a famous meeting with Marcion during the bishopry of Anicetus (155-166).

In another thread I briefly look at the dating of Ignatius and Polycarp and find them both dating to the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Any dependence on early dating regarding both Polycarp and Ignatius is highly suspect, ie one has to justify early datings for both men before one can build upon the datings, as the conventional datings cannot hold.

We then have to face the implications of the development of the mechanism of apostolic tradition, aimed at excluding the activities of people such as Marcion and Valentinus, who could not claim connection with the apostles. Irenaeus is a proponent of the apostolic tradition hence he cites links between people who more recently belonged to the orthodoxy he saw and the apostles. It is therefore hard to take such reports at face value because of their polemic implication. One "good thinking" churchmen latch onto such traditions they are passed on to later churchmen. This is not very useful to historical analyses.


spin

Vinnie

I agree with that. As I wrote in my own partial response:

Iren says Papias was an ancient man and hearer of John. Eusebius seems to distinguish between two Johns. Gundry has him do so out of polemic. He writes, "Eusebius can accept this standpoint [Papias was "the hearer of John"] only because he distinguishes between the Apostle John and the Elder John (H.E. 3.39.5-6); otherwise he could not heap scorn on Papias as a non hearer of any apostle and on the Book of Revelation as an unapostolic document (H.E. 3.39.2, 8-14). . . . We need to keep in mind that Eusebius had an axe to grind concerning the Book of Revelation." [11]

. . . .

This is by no means clear, however in that we are dealing with second hand citations of long lost texts. We also note that Eusebius had an axe to grind with Revelation but we cannot view Iren. as an objective reporter. He was defending texts against competing views as many works in the 2d century were traced back to apostolic figures which means he had as much motivation for his comments as did Eusebius. It may also turn out after evaluating the texts themselves that all the second century attributions of Gospel authorship are flatly incorrect. Thus naively accepting the statements of Papias or Eusebies or Irenaeus on Papias is a dubious endeavor.

Vinnie

Vinnie

In another thread I briefly look at the dating of Ignatius and Polycarp and find them both dating to the beginning of the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Any dependence on early dating regarding both Polycarp and Ignatius is highly suspect, ie one has to justify early datings for both men before one can build upon the datings, as the conventional datings cannot hold.

Which thread and do you dialogue with any scholars on the issue (e.g. Schoedel)? Schoedel is supposed to be one of the betetr recent defense of Ignatius' authenticity but I'm not sure I want to shell out $40 for a commentry on Ignatius. Ignatius is important though so it may be worth it in the long run.

Vinnie

spin

In the Tatian thread. This is what I posted to Layman (#79)"


spin

CX

Can we be certain that the GMk Papias is referring to has an relation to canonical GMk? We certainly cannot with respect to his "GMt" reference.

Cretinist

Here is what Papias says about GMk:

GMk is merely the recording of what Peter told Mark, with no regular narrative or exact order? Is Papias even talking about GMk?

As Robert Price said, GMk is no one's table talk. It is not obvious that Papias' statements refer to GMk (or that his statements about Matthew are about GMt, for that matter). For all we know, Papias could be talking about a completely different document. Thus, the dating of Papias can in no way act as a terminus ad quem for GMk, not until it is established that Papias is even talking about GMk.

Vinnie

Can we be certain that the GMk Papias is referring to has an relation to canonical GMk? We certainly cannot with respect to his "GMt" reference.

Yeah, that whole translated from Aramaic thing seems mucho problematic.

I don't think Papias on Mark is regularly disputed. Justin (just a few years later), Irenaues and Eusebius all seem dependent upon Papias for the attribution of Mark's Gospel. They are not independent witnesses but fall back on Papias testimony IIRC.

Presumably, these figures would have knowledge of and or access to Papias' works which we do not and they also appear to have had the same text of Mark in mind.

Two evangelsits using Mark (supplementing and correcting?) it also bespeaks of its general popularity and Papias' apologetical concerns actually fit the text of Mark nicely (not in order the fault memory stuff).

I don't see any reason to dispute that Papias' Mark is what we know as the Gospel of Mark. Now that is barring textual critical issues with the Gospel of Mark.

Vinnie

Cretinist

Papias may be the earliest literary reference we have to GMk being written by a John Mark (which would explain why they all fall back on him), but that doesn't mean Papias is talking about the same document.

The hell? Inventing Apostolic authorship certainly fits any early Christian document nicely (which is why it was widely done), but this doesn't mean anything. When Papias actually describes the work itself, he is describing something that clearly is not GMk.

As I see it, the most likely scenario is that there was a less popular document that also was attributed to Mark that Papias was familiar with. At the same time or a little bit later (or earlier even), GMk also got attributed to John Mark. People looking for information on how GMK was created would look for information on the author, and Papias' statements are certainly vague enough to allow Christians to believe he is talking about GMk.

We already know this was the situation with his statements on GMt, so this clearly isn't an unlikely scenario. It also explains his description of GMk nicely, which makes absolutely no sense if he really is talking about GMk.

Vinnie

I just reread justin. The first clear cut case is Iren. Justin's uage might imply Petrine authority of GMark but it is by no means clear if he is referring to the memoirs of Jesus or the memoirs of Peter (aka GMark) in Dialogue with Trypho. Justin also refers to the memoirs of the apostles but this itself is ambiguous.

Consequently then, there is no certaintly as to what book Papias was acually referring to. I think Justin's reference being weakened weakens the case overall.

Though Luke states he is writing an "orderly account" and two works apparantly (M and Lk) critique Mark's account. Thus Papias' apologies for the un-order and lack of material (Matthean and Lucan sayings material) still fits nicely with the popularity and extant form of this text and the two works that critiqued it. But the first definitive proof comes, if Papias wrote at the beginning of the second century, around 70 years later.

Its interesting that Justin, as far as I know, uses the Gospels extensively but never quotes them by name.

Vinnie