spin

Irenaeus doesn't seem to have any trouble with either Papias or his publication, so Eusebius should be irrelevant. What makes you think that "Papias never existed"?


spin

Ben C Smith

Eusebius took one look at Papias and knew he was a chiliast.

Ben.

spin

Chiliast, bs, what's the difference? :huh:


isnp

Ben C Smith

In practical terms, perhaps not as much as the average chiliast would like to claim.

But Vork implied that Eusebius called Papias an idiot because he knew there was no Papias. I am stating that Eusebius called Papias an idiot because he knew Papias was a chiliast.

What I would like to know, Michael, is what you meant when you said that there was no multi-volume history of the church. Was that a reference to the five books of Papias? If not, what was it? If so, who thinks that what Papias wrote was church history?

Ben.

spin

Yeah, I got that. But I was just sayin', as you noted, that one man's chiliast is another man's bs. I mean, calling someone a chiliast is like sayin' 'e didn't exist, isn't it? You dirty rotten chiliast! Praps, that's what Vork was on about. But maybe not.

Yeah, me too. I mean, umm, I wanna know too.


spin

Ben C Smith

External and internal evidences for an ancient text are two different things, but here is a brief list of correspondences between our external evidence (the tradition that Mark, presumably the John Mark mentioned in Acts, authored the book based on Petrine preaching) and our internal evidence (literary analysis) for the gospel of Mark that I would like to see explained. Internal evidence is marked with the letter A, external evidence with the letter B.

1A. The gospel of Mark is full of Aramaicisms.
1B. Tradition holds that John Mark was a Jew apparently originally from Jerusalem (Acts 12.12).

2A. The gospel of Mark is also full of Latinisms.
2B. Tradition holds that the book was written in Rome (possibly Irenaeus, definitely Clement et alii), or Italy (anti-Marcionite prologue), and Mark is a Latin name.

3A. The gospel of Mark has more stuff per chapter about Peter than any other gospel, including the parts of the gospel of Peter that are extant.
3B. Tradition holds that the book was written based on Petrine preaching (Papias et alii).

4A. The gospel of Mark repeatedly gives us the impression that it is translating into Greek a story that already existed in Hebrew or Aramaic (5.41; 7.11, 34; 15.22, 34; see also 3.22; 10.51; 11.9, 21; 14.36), more so than any other gospel. (Please note that this is not necessarily the same as claiming that the gospel itself was originally written in a Semitic tongue.)
4B. Tradition holds that Mark played the part of interpreter to Peter, who presumably would have spoken native Aramaic.

5A. The gospel of Mark, despite having a lot to say about Peter, has some strong affinities with Pauline thought.
5B. Tradition holds that John Mark was an associate both of Peter and of the apostle Paul.

6A. The gospel of Mark marches alongside those of Matthew and Luke fairly well, but is noticeably out of order compared to the gospel of John (and by noticeably I mean that the ancients noticed it; see Gaius and the alogoi, for example).
6B. Tradition holds that Papias quoted the author of the gospel of John to the effect that the gospel of Mark is out of order.

It seems to me that there are two polar positions one might take on these correspondences, with a series of medial positions between them.

On the one hand, one might argue that the author of the gospel of Mark knew Aramaic, knew Latin, wrote from the Petrine preaching, served as intepreter for Peter, was associated with Paul, and wrote in an order that the author of John did not exactly approve of, and the traditions arose from these circumstances accordingly.

On the other hand, one might argue that some person or persons in the tradition read Mark very carefully and noticed that it was full of Aramaicisms, was full of Latinisms, had a lot to say about Peter, was apparently translating an Aramaic story, had some affinities with Pauline thought, and was written out of order compared to John, and this person or these persons guided the formation of the tradition in order to account for these data.

In between these positions, one could argue that some things were historical and guided the tradition naturally while others were simply noticed in the text and gave rise to the tradition artificially.

Any takers?

Ben.

Malachi151

Ben, here is what I have to say about it:

Mark was a Pauline Christian, who wrote about Peter because Paul and Peter were in conflict and Paul wrote the most about Peter. Mark shows Peter as a fool, because Paul was in disagreement with Peter.

I would say that the writer of Mark did perhaps live in Rome and was a user of the Latin language, but also of course knew Greek and Aramaic. He was probably Jewish and thus knew Aramaic because of his Jewish background.

You say that the instances of "translation" into Greek from Aramaic give the impression that he was translating from some other source into Greek, to which I agree, that other source was the Hebrew scriptures.

It appears to me that the author of Mark perhaps did not use the Septuagint, though the author of Matthew, Luke, and John.

For example, from your list, Mark 7:34:

As for Golgotha, that I don't know about, but all of the other references could have come from the scriptures.

Without a better knowledge of the language, and the ability to search in the earliest texts in the original languages, it's difficult to look for all of the parallels, but certainly, the use of Aramaic can be a part of the parallels.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for your response.

If I understand your position, the following is how you have responded to my six correspondences:

1. The gospel of Mark is full of Aramaicisms, and tradition holds that John Mark was a Jew apparently originally from Jerusalem (Acts 12.12).

Malachi151: He was probably Jewish and thus knew Aramaic because of his Jewish background.

Ben: So did the tradition that John Mark hailed from Jerusalem arise because somebody noticed these Aramaicisms and connected the dots, or did the tradition preserve a genuine tidbit about the author of Mark, or is this correspondence a coincidence?

2. The gospel of Mark is also full of Latinisms, and tradition holds that the book was written in Rome (possibly Irenaeus, definitely Clement et alii), or Italy (anti-Marcionite prologue), and Mark is a Latin name.

Malachi151: I would say that the writer of Mark did perhaps live in Rome and was a user of the Latin language, but also of course knew Greek and Aramaic.

Ben: So did the tradition that the author of Mark wrote in Rome arise because somebody noticed these Latinisms and connected the dots, or did the tradition preserve a genuine tidbit about the author of Mark?

3. The gospel of Mark has more stuff per chapter about Peter than any other gospel, including the parts of the gospel of Peter that are extant, and tradition holds that the book was written based on Petrine preaching (Papias et alii).

Malachi151: Mark shows Peter as a fool, because Paul was in disagreement with Peter.

Ben: Interestingly, one way of translating Papias on this point, as I understand it, is that Mark was the ex-interpreter of Peter.

4. The gospel of Mark repeatedly gives us the impression that it is translating into Greek a story that already existed in Hebrew or Aramaic (5.41; 7.11, 34; 15.22, 34; see also 3.22; 10.51; 11.9, 21; 14.36), more so than any other gospel, and tradition holds that Mark played the part of interpreter to Peter, who presumably would have spoken native Aramaic.

Malachi151: You say that the instances of "translation" into Greek from Aramaic give the impression that he was translating from some other source into Greek, to which I agree, that other source was the Hebrew scriptures.

Ben: Your example of Mark 7.34 works okay, but what about the other examples? I would have to see which OT verses you are saying Mark was translating in each case (to use the term loosely). If it is just a matter of finding the Hebrew word for each translation somewhere in the OT (even gulgoleth appears as the word for skull in the OT occasionally), then there is no methodology; the OT is a big book, full of lots and lots of words.

But, more to the point, did the tradition that the author of Mark was an interpreter arise because somebody noticed these translations, or did the tradition preserve a genuine tidbit about the author of Mark, or is it a coincidence?

5. The gospel of Mark, despite having a lot to say about Peter, has some strong affinities with Pauline thought, and tradition holds that John Mark was an associate both of Peter and of the apostle Paul.

Malachi151: Mark was a Pauline Christian, who wrote about Peter because Paul and Peter were in conflict and Paul wrote the most about Peter. Mark shows Peter as a fool, because Paul was in disagreement with Peter.

Ben: So did the tradition about John Mark associating both with Paul and with Peter arise because somebody noticed how Pauline the gospel of Mark is, or did tradition preserve a genuine tidbit about the author of the gospel of Mark, or is this correspondence a coincidence?

6. The gospel of Mark marches alongside those of Matthew and Luke fairly well, but is noticeably out of order compared to the gospel of John, and tradition holds that Papias quoted the author of the gospel of John to the effect that the gospel of Mark is out of order.

Malachi151: No response.

I think you are quite mistaken here.

Ben.

Malachi151

No idea, but I would suspect that this had to do with simply claims of legitimacy.

I suspect that the Gospel first appeared in Rome and it was known that it first appeared there, if indeed that is the case. I doubt that linguistic analysis was the origin of this claim.

I doubt it. I suspect that this is all just total fantasy and guess work. We already know that Papias, or whoever was writing in the name of Papias, didn't fully understand the reality of the Gospels, hence the reason that they though Matthew was independent of Mark and that Matthew originated in Aramaic. Clearly, that is wrong. Clearly, they were guessing and making stuff up.

I haven't tried to find parallels for all of them, and I may not even be able to even if there are parallels for all of them, but I suspect that this is the case. I suspect that the uses of Aramaic all come from instances where the author is basing a story element on scripture written in Aramaic.

No idea.

Probably either due to the Pauline nature of Mark, and/or simply to tie the tradition together.

Probably. I haven't thought about it. I see no reason why that wouldn't be the case, other than I was unaware that Papias was aware of John. I thought he just knew Matthew and Mark.

Could be. Maybe he used both the Septuagint and also an Aramaic translation.

Maybe he just used the Septuagint and translated into Aramaic for effect?

I think that the use of Psalm 22 makes it clear that this was something that the author of the work was doing for effect. Now, was he using the Septuagint for these verses or an Aramaic version? I don't know, but use of Psalm 22 in the crucifixion scene, I think, clearly undermines your whole argument.

The idea that Aramaic is used in places because he is copying from some Aramaic narrative doesn't make sense. Why would he use it in a few places and not others if the whole narrative source was in Aramaic? Clearly in the passion scene he uses it for effect, and clearly the source in Psalm 22, not some other writing or "historical account".

Ben C Smith

You are pretty noncommittal here for someone who asserts that Papias is just full of it. These correspondences look like a little bit more than a coincidence to me.

A good start. I doubt that kind of linguistic analysis was the basis of very much in antiquity.

But does this not mean that the tradition has preserved at least this much truth? Does this not prompt us to wonder what else of worth it may have preserved?

I do not think Papias was comparing our canonical Matthew with Mark at all. Papias is talking about a work written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The relationship of this lost work to our canonical Matthew is a heavily debated mystery.

But I have no problem with the possibility that Papias was simply wrong about the nature of the gospels. That is a very different question than whether he was wrong about who wrote them, when, and where.

You can know who wrote a book, and even where and when, without understanding a single thing in it.

I do not think anybody made up the bit about Matthew. I suspect that there was indeed a Hebrew or Aramaic text written under the name of Matthew, and that later fathers (after Papias) naturally confused this text with our canonical Matthew, which I believe was artificially given the name Matthew, as well. Confusing two different texts is not making it all up.

When you have hard data to back up your suspicions, give me a call.

For the first possibility, are you aware of anyone in antiquity noticing how Pauline Mark is? For the record, I think that the second possibility is more viable.

Nevertheless, it ought to be considered in conjunction with the other correspondences. Why are these key parts of the tradition finding themselves vindicated by an internal literary study of Mark so often?

That Papias was aware of John comes, not from any direct statement that we have preserved for us in his works, but from certain coincidences between some of his statements and the gospel of John. For example, his list of disciples (Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew), with the exception of Matthew (who does not appear in John, at least under that name), happens to come in the same order as those disciples are mentioned in John; and compare those Papian disciples with the names in John 1.40, 42-43; 21.2.

That is what Craig Evans argues. It is a respectable position.

Pardon? What argument of mine does his use of Psalm 22 undermine? I think you have me confused with somebody else. I tend to think a lot of the passion details were indeed derived from holy writ.

I do not think, nor have I argued, that Mark was copying from an Aramaic narrative. What I have suggested is that he has given us the impression, through his translations, that the story he is telling was originally told in Aramaic. Whether he has done this only for effect or because it was true is a more advanced question.

This kind of question would spoil your theory too, you know, were it the right kind of question to ask. Why would he explicitly refer to the OT in a few places and not others if the whole source for the narrative was the OT?

Truth is, the question itself is misguided. We do not usually have to explain what an author did not do, only what he did do.

Also, English storytellers telling a story that was originally told in Spanish, or at the very least originally happened in Spanish, will use English predominately, of course, but will often include Spanish phrases here and there. Something like this:

On the right we see the Iglesia Magistral (Magistral Cathedral)....
We arrive to Plaza de los Santos Niños (Holy Children Square)....

To give the original Spanish place name (like the original Aramaic name Golgotha in Mark) and then translate it gives us, the readers, the impression that the author (A) knows Spanish and (B) is translating local lore into our own tongue for us. It does not mean that the author is composing in Spanish; to the contrary, actually. What it means is that the author knows the subject matter in its original language, and that the author is used to translating that subject matter.

Ben.