Vinnie

Very valid points but a red herring in regards to what I originally wrote to spin. Spin said, "The gospel of Mark, which shows no special point of view reflecting the perceptions of a specific disciple, cannot be considered to be derived from Peter as described by the Papias report." I am not advocating a fallacy ad populum. I am pointing out that it can be considered, has been considered, and is considered by billions of people throughout history--and this includes numerous critical scholars throughout history. We can accuse them grinding ideological axes, not knowing any better and what not, but none of that is my concern. It is prima facie incorrect to simply state something conceived to be the case by millions of people, well within the realms of logical possibility, advocated still by numerous critical scholars, is inconceivable.

Spin is simply uncritically assuming the Peter --to Mark exact dictation verbal plenary model is the only one available. Papias, our earliest comment on Mark shows this is not the case with the gospel.

If I wanted to defend Marcan priority to the hilt I would have posted an article on it. I am working through all the gospel attestations now from Irenaeus back in other articles. But spin's method is correct. One of the better ways to determine authorship is to look at the gospel material itself. But then this opens up a whole form-critical nightmare...

Then there is the thesis that John mark was amalgamated with the other Mark who wrote this gospel. Unfortunately, this seems likely until Papias dates around the turn of the century and is passing down material from an Elder (meaning it goes back further). Then there is also the view that Mark reflected the basic gist of apostolic preaching from the likes of Peter...not the trees but the forest.

My point is that Papias tradition on Mark has to be taken seriously. The earlier dating of Papias and his five treatises on the oracles of the Lord obtained through eyewitnesses aslo has to be recollected with.

Papius is also used as a staple to show how strong oral tradition was in the mid 2d century. This is shown to not be the case as Papias dates earlier and his comment about preferring the living voice is Greco-Roman Rhetoric (see Gamble, BREC). He did, after all, write his own five books and mention two gospels and two epistles....


Inside Papias' statement is an apology for the lack of order in Mark and an omission of material. Most scholars date at least 2 or 3 canonical gospels to before 105 and these arre our primary sources to look at as the backdrop of this claim. If Mark lacks order and significant material, to what ordered and more larger gospel is it speaking about. It also does not look like direct dictation from Peter, thus a third apologetic in Papias is identified. Hende his comments about Mark writing as he remembered, and not in order and this indicating no specific plannign and dictation to him by Peter how it should be written.

The writing of Mark after Peter's death also makes sense with the dwindling eschatology. It started being realized that the return of Jesus was far less imminent than initially anticipated... (I have outlined a fourfold progression of this belief from the Fisrt thru Fourth stratum in the past starting with Paul ending with the redaction oh John and 2 Peter....

This is what I meant when I said Papias' comments fit Mark perfectly. The exact interpretation of an "orderly acount" can go unresolved at this point.

There is absolutely no room for doubting that Papias refers to canonical Mark. Absolutely none on historical grounds and every reason to accept this. Only ideological grudges to intacanonical texts on the contrary...

Vinnie

Vinnie

"Were they contemporaries or not?"

The death of papias is unknown. Anwhere from 105 -140 I would say--favoring the lower end. Personally, I think Papias might have died before most critical scholars think he wrote...

Both Eusebius and Irenaeus had knowledge of Papias' works--and possibly access to them. Irenaeus speaks of them and Eusebius quotes from them directly. Not to mention Papias' literary activity dates far too early to refer to Marcions truncated Gospel of Luke. The answer is no.

No. Papias only receives passing mention in both sources and Eusebius heaps scorn upon him. He also references his written works.

Are this questions anything more than different manifestations of the same skeptic boogeyman?

Vinnie

spin

We note from Vinnie's gay abandonment of any defence of Matthew that he's putting all his eggs in the one basket case of Mark.

I don't say that Mark wasn't derived from Peter, but that it cannot be considered to be derived from it: there are no overt signs of such derivation. The footwork is up to you or anyone else who might want to validate the claim.

Given the state of Matthew and the lack of support from Mark, the views reported of Papias don't seem at all convincing.

We are not doing history by popularity contest. Vain appeals are just that. You have to do your legwork rather than depend on others' opinions.

Wrong, Vincent. I don't have to assume anything. There is no sign of any connection with special knowledge from Peter, so all I have to do is say: demonstrate the claim. You can't assume that because Eusebius quotes some stuff attributed to a Papias that it must be true. You've still got to do some validation of the claim, rather than assume it until proven otherwise. You can't build on what you can't demonstrate at all.

Another point I have argued and will argue at length with anyone interested is the probability that Mark was written in an Italic (area) Latin context. The evidence is rather strong. If it was then the claims of Papias regarding Mark fall apart.

All you have to do is validate the witnessing to Papias. Does it have any substance or not? How useful is a first reference to a person which is supposed to be 75 years after the death of the figure while the first claims of material written by the figure is a century later? We gotta do history with decent sources, Vin. You can't pick up a text apparently cited by someone in the fourth century and say it must be historical. You don't really know that Papias was much more than a name to Irenaeus.

The dating doesn't work, unless you assume that the information is by necessity tenable and accurate.

Not only did G'Kar read the book of G'Quan, he wrote his own book as well.


spin

TedM

For Ben Here's the surrounding text in Against Heresies:


It seems pretty clear that Irenaes believed Jesus had taught for some 10+ years before being crucified. So, the speculations in my prior post are invalid.

I don't see the grounds for claiming as mountainman seemed to that Papias didn't believe Jesus was crucified, and simply died at an advanced age in the bosom of his family.

It does seem odd to me that Irenaeas would have believed what he did about the length of Jesus' ministry given his alleged connections to the oral tradition, as well as his knowledge of the gospels of his day. Can anyone shed some more light on this?

ted

Vinnie

Your figures are way off. The date of Papias is for literary activity, not death.

Papias wrote in c.105AD
Irenaeus wrote in c.180Ad

Papias, presumably did not die immediately after finishing his last verse and Irenaeus presumably did not write at the age of seven.



Irenaeus says he knew polycarp in his youth and Polycarp dies some time around c. 160 (I forget the exact number) thus Ireneaus must have known him before then.

There is not that much time separating Papias from Irenaeus. A generation at best and we have an intermediary figure connecting them. We also have the actual written documents procuded by Papias that both Irenaeus and Eusebius referenced (and the latter quoted several times).

Irenaeus gives us reliable information as to when Papias can be dated. In itself it would be less strong than when coupled with the other 8 arguments or so that I raised.

Papias wrote c. 105.

Vinnie


Secondly,

Casper

Haha!

No, these were serious questions from someone interested in Marcion. And I thank you for you responses as well.

I take it that you are of the opinion Marcion redacted a version of gLuke in or around 120CE, that is fine, but I have always supposed Papias and Marcion to be semi-contemporary. Papias' "elderly Jesus" seems to be neither Pauline nor Petrine, and I wonder if it represents yet a third school of thought, or what? Like perhaps this "elderly jesus " scenario is an anti-marcionite scree, criticised later but not so harshly as Marcion was, considering it ultimately refuted Marcion's position. I'm just fishing for opinions in this area, and mention of Papias piqued my interest.

spin

Stop nitpicking, Vinnie. The important thing was when he was supposed to have written, so this little quibble doesn't change anything. 75 years between the time given to Papias's efforts and those of Irenaeus.

Get off it.

Fifty years or so according to you before you start trying to finesse a few cards. However, the only indications we have are the date for Irenaeus writin (180 CE) and the time you supply for the work of Papias (105 CE). You can't really do any better than shoot in the dark (or guess what's between the lines).

You have reports of what people claim to have been Papias's works, mainly our friend Eusebius.

On what grounds do you claim it's reliable?

If I say Freddy Schmertz wrote during the time of Ben Jonson, when Elizabeth was queen, in the century before the English Revolution, when the Globe Theatre was in operation, before Shakespeare wrote his will, when Thomas Nashe wrote his pamphlets, when Seneca's plays were popular in London, and that he knew Will Kempe and Richard Burbage, does that help you see that Freddy Schmertz must have been a real person?

You can believe what you want, Vinnie.


spin

Gamera

Vinnie, thank you for this interesting thread. It's very useful for my research.

I was wondering what your opinion is about the content of the reference to Papias as it relates to how he claims Peter transmitted the narrative to Mark and how Mark processed it. It's hard to tell if Irenaeus or Papias is speaking here, given Iranaeus preoccupation with apostolic transmission. But what I find fascinating is the frankness of the characterization of the process

First, the author indicates that Peter "accomodates" the narrative and sayings to his audience, meaning I can only assume that he redacted it, shaped it, reconfigured it. Something we all know now happens in the transmission of any narrative, but which is a remarkable acknowledgment for Irenaeus/Papias at the time and suggests the sophistication of their understanding of the narrative process.

Second, the author says Mark "interpreted" Peter and reorganized the narratives and sayings he got from Peter.

Again this shows a remarkably modern understanding of what we now knows always happens in the transmissions of texts/oral stories.

I'm curious if this perception by Papias/Irenaeus in any way supports or detracts from your thesis about the early transmission of mss, or the Jesus' mythicists' claims.

Again, thanks for your interesting articles.


Papias wrote, "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." [Eusebius, Church History, 3.39]

Ben C Smith

There are some who like to presume that Peter inspired or dictated the gospel of Mark, and ask for the other side to disprove this presumption. There are others who like to presume that Peter had absolutely nothing to do with the gospel of Mark, and ask for the other side to disprove this presumption.

Where does the truth lie?

In the middle, of course (and as usual). Presume neither of these, and ask what set of events best explains the evidence that we have.

For me, the following are key questions in this regard:

1. If the elder (or Papias) is trying to attack the gospel of Mark in any way, why does he attach it to the apostle Peter?
2. If the elder (or Papias) is trying to defend the gospel of Mark as a Petrine document, why does he assign it to Mark and attach it to Peter so loosely, as a mere reminiscence of what Peter had said?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

The entire passage is available in translation from the CCEL.

I think Irenaeus is stretching John 8.57 for all it is worth and more.

More than that. Look at the logic of the progression:

1. Elders testified that John had delivered this tradition.
2. He remained until the times of Trajan.
3. Some [of these elders] saw, not only John, but also other apostles.

It just makes no sense for the he in the middle element to be Jesus. It is John, of course.

I do not think so. Not with the way Irenaeus uses John 8.57.

Ben.