Julian

After much delay, here is my opinion.

After looking at numerous historical references, including references in the NT and fathers, I can find absolutely no reason to believe that the word was ever understood as anything other than oracles or proclamations, possible even sayings. The hermeneutics referred to in Papias mention of Matthew supports this usage but, of course, causes problems in the context or Mark/Peter.

I can see two explanations.

1) The one that I consider reasonable is that Papias, or Eusebius in quoting, made a mistake. We have the weight of every single usage versus this one instance.

2) It would be possible to take a fuzzy approach which would move the usage from the realm of error to the realm of inaccuracy. In other words, Mark wrote down the deeds and words, blah, blah, blah, arrangement of the proclamations of the lord. In the same manner, I can refer to the bible as the words of god, or the sayings of the lord, because it does, indeed, contain those. It has other things besides, but that doesn't make my categorization of the bible incorrect, simply incomprehensive. The gospel of Mark, as know by Papias, could very well contain logia of the lord. It probably also contained deeds, but that doesn't make it any less a logia. I trust you see where I am going with this argument. Even so, I see no way that our Mark could be Papias' Mark mostly because of the vilification of Peter in that particular gospel.

I suspect that it is merely a mistake, a bad word usage. Under no circumstance can we ever consider the term logion to refer to anything other than utterances of some sort. The BDAG, as quoted earlier, contains a large number of references, many of which I looked at, and the meaning stays fairly constant. That entry also refers to a work (Das Matthausevangelium: ein Judenchristliches Evangelium? by Poul Nepper-Christensen) which I do not have access to. It may contain more information specifically relating to Papias.

I agree with Ben on the usage of syntaxis as an arrangement, an ordering, one that doesn't necessarily have to imply a chronological ordering.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Thanks for coming back to this.

I can agree with this, with certain caveats. I wrote:

I am wondering about how you are reading Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.8.1:

They gather their views from sources other than the scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the dominical parables [παραβολας κυριακας], the prophetic words [ρησεις προφητικας], and the apostolic words [λογους αποστολικους], in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order [ταξιν] and the connection of the scriptures, and, so far as in them lies, they dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the dominical oracles [κυριακων λογιων] to their opinions.

For my money, it appears that the dominical oracles lie in parallel with (A) the dominical parables, (B) the prophetic words, and (C) the apostolic words. On the one hand, the oracles (logia) have to be sayings, since they are after all in parallel with parables, words (ρησεις), and more words (λογους). On the other hand, the fact that the dominical logia apparently include apostolic words is another instance of the same phenomenon we saw in Papias, who called semiapostolic (Marcan) words about the Lord (both his words and his deeds) dominical oracles (same phrase as in Irenaeus, who I believe to be cribbing from Papias, even here!).

IOW, if Irenaeus, probably following Papias, can call words about the Lord (apostolic words) the dominical oracles, then why would the dominical oracles have to imply a sayings gospel when Papias uses the term?

I agree this is possible. But, then, where is the mistake? Is it in using the term logia of a text that consists both of words and deeds? If so, then Papias or Eusebius may have made that mistake of Matthew (calling a text of words and deeds logia) as easily as of Mark (calling a text of words and deeds logia). And the mistake must have caught on, since Irenaeus apparently makes it, too.

Same basic response on my part as above; maybe Papias was inaccurate about Matthew, too.

It simply comes down to Papias using the term logia of Mark as well as of Matthew. If he is misusing the word for Mark (whether out of outright error or out of inaccuracy), then he may be misusing the word for Matthew, too.

Again, this is not a positive argument for our canonical Matthew being what Papias is referring to; it is the neutering of an argument that it cannot be.

I think when the average Christian calls the Bible the word(s) of God, he or she is not simply transferring the part (the actual dominical sayings) to the whole (entire gospels, acts, epistles, apocalypse, both testaments, the works); I think he or she is imagining that the entire book was composed by God.

This sounds similar to what spin was saying about contextualization.

Ah, the Joe Wallack argument.

Thing is, I do not think it can stand as it is. I think you need to qualify it, or at least make your assumption(s) clear, because the above statement seems to assume that the patristic attribution of our canonical Mark (at least indirectly) to Peter is not possible. And that is an assumption that is easily disproved. IOW, you need to answer the question: If Irenaeus can attribute our canonical Mark indirectly to Peter, why can Papias not do so? Somebody was the first to do so; why can it not be Papias?

You would also need to reckon with how the fathers habitually read Mark. Some of us moderns tend to read Mark as vilifying Peter; did the ancients read it that way? If you cannot positively answer that question in the affirmative, then I do not see how this criterion can be applied. The next step, after finding a father who thought Mark vilified Peter, would be to ask whether that father still attributed the gospel of Mark to Peter! (That, in fact, is close to my own position; I tend to attribute the gospel of Mark to reminiscences of Petrine preaching, but also to see Mark as critiquing Peter, the term vilifying being too harsh. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.)

There is also the issue of parsimony... two texts about the words and deeds of Jesus attributed to Mark, of all people? I can wonder along with everybody else how similar the version Papias or his elder knew was to our present text of Mark, but I have a little bit of trouble imagining two completely different and unrelated gospel texts being attributed to Mark by the middle of century II, when all those apostles were there to attribute gospels to (and every single one of them, it seems, eventually wrote one ).

Do you agree that, if it is a mistake when used of Mark, it may be a mistake when used Matthew as well?

I hasten to add that, while literary ordering does not have to be chronological, it certainly may be chronological. It may also be topical, I think.

Ben.

Julian

I doesn't have to, but it makes the most sense. Here is an simple (simplistic!?) example from GThomas:

8 And he said, The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!

Is this a narrative about a fisherman and an experience he had? Yes. Is it a saying of the lord, i.e. a logiov? Yes. It would seem that it can be both at the same time. So if Mark records what Peter said about something that the lord did, then we have a narrative within a logiov. Both, in other words. I suspect that the distinction is rather fuzzy. Our problem here, of course, is that Papias says that it was an ordering of the proclamations of the lord, not the oracles of Peter [about the lord]. We require a very exact meaning here because of the sparsity of evidence available to us. We require an exact meaning because of the controversy of the religion and the heightened skepticism of modern society. Papias and Eusebius are very unlikely to have been concerned with such exactitude and would no doubt be surprised at seeing the current discussion.

I could postulate that to an early christian, the deeds of the lord would be unremarkable. Bear with me here. It is the sayings of the lord that matter. That fact that he does miraculous deeds is a matter of course. The deeds simply underscore and prove that he is, indeed, the lord and therefore entitled to make the proclamations that he does, and that they do have the weight that the believer attaches to them. In other words, the deeds are simply an underscore, an obvious side effect, the proof that emphasizes what is truly important: the message. The words, the logia. Just speculation, of course, but not completely insane, I trust.
No need to involve Papias' mention of Matthew, I think, because the term fits there. The term dominical oracles, which is really just fancy talk for oracles belonging to the lord or having to do with the lord, could certainly cover his deeds in the sense of a narrative inside a proclamation. This may be the sense that is used by Papias. But neither we nor Eusebius know what Papias was referring to so we have no way of determining the exact meaning. Since Papias says λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα the text seems to refer to sayings that contain narratives. But since the term historically focuses the weight upon the fact that it is a saying, we must consider an erroneous usage over what the text indicates, IMHO. We simply cannot know for sure in this case and I would not, personally, make a substantial wager on this, either way. Especially since it doesn't really damage my 2nd century gospel theory.
Sure, but again, our exactitude is probably anachronistic.
I guess the pronoun should be taken specifically, not collectively. Thinking that the book was composed by god is an idea that leaves the sphere of rational thought and as such is impervious to discussion and beneath my respect or notice. I think that moderate christians and non-literalists would agree with my take on it, though. I cannot be sure of this, of course. Either way, that is outside the scope of this discussion, as I trust that you understood my meaning.
Not quite, since I don't hold the context to be important for the use of the term. It would certainly be important for proper understanding, but less important in qualifying the use of the term logion.

A quick aside. When I read that "neither a borrower nor a lender be" was a quote by Hamlet, I immediately thought of this quote from the brilliant adaptation of Jane Austen's Emma Clueless:
Anyways, moving right along.
Well, I actually started that thread and made that argument. Joe then took over the thread by posting numerous massive posts.
Skipping the bit about vilifying Peter, I will address this part. You are looking at it all wrong, I think. We are not talking about two texts attributed to Mark. We are talking about one text attributed to Mark mentioned by Papias. Now flash forward a few decades and imagine the fathers holding an anonymous gospel, think "Hmmm, this is anonymous. Let's give it a name. Hey, that Papias guy mentioned some gospel attributed to Mark that we have no idea what is. What provenance! Let's name this one 'According to Mark.'" When the more popular gospels were named, they probably glommed onto some traditional names associated with gospels, Mark's being one of them, probably from Papias. Just saying, it doesn't have to be two texts that coincidentally have the same name.
Of course.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Of course. But if we were to call this parable a lordly saying, we would mean that it was a saying by the Lord, right? Sayings by the Lord make good sayings gospels, like Thomas. But what Papias seems to be calling a lordly saying is a saying about the Lord (sayings by Peter). And sayings about the Lord might make either a sayings gospel or a gospel like Mark or our extant Matthew.

Yes, both. We have a lordly oracle that is actually an oracle about the Lord, not by him.

It sounds like you are agreeing with me here without actually saying so. For, if the distinction is fuzzy, or if the same mistake may have been made about Matthew as with Mark, then the positive argument that Papias is referring to a sayings gospel (in the modern, Thomas kind of sense) evaporates.

I, for one, do not think I require an exact meaning because of either of these things. I just like this tract of history. The disputes over single words and phrases in Tacitus or Thucydides can be just as acute, though usually less publicized.

I think this may have been true of some Christian groups; but I also think it is a mistake to generalize across the board. Other groups seem keenly interested in the deeds.

Well, no more insane than usual, anyway.

Ah! Oracles having to do with the Lord. Oracles about the Lord. That could be canonical Matthew.

(Unless all of this comes down to you expecting, based on what Papias is writing, the actual text to say Peter said that Jesus did or Matthew said that Jesus said. But that is unrealistic. The OT is called the oracles of God, and it is certainly not prefaced in every case with a Moses said that God said or a Daniel said that God did.)

Bingo! And with that the positive argument that Matthew has to be a sayings gospel melts away.

I do not follow you. The η is a coordinating conjunction, not a subordinating conjunction. It means neither sayings that contain stories nor stories that contain sayings. It means sayings or stories.

Okay, but it is certainly within the sphere of rational thought to analyze those whose thought patterns are not quite what we might consider rational. The sane study even the insane, right?

I myself do not think in terms of inspiration. I am reading the texts as historical or literary documents.

Okay, I can see this scenario, which would turn the coincidence of names into an act of convenience.

How do work this scenario when Justin Martyr is factored in (the memoirs of Peter containing the Boanerges detail and the gospels being written by apostles and by their followers)?

Also, I want to point out another little (set of) coincidence(s). Papias or his elder says that Mark interpreted, or translated, for Peter. I agree with those who take this interpretation to be from one language (Aramaic or Hebrew) to another (probably Greek). But there is no other extant gospel text that seems more determined to look like it is translating an originally Aramaic or Hebrew story into Greek than our gospel of Mark. Refer to Mark 5.41; 7.11, 34; 15.22, 34 for actual translations, and to Mark 3.22; 10.51; 11.9, 21; 14.36 for Aramaic or Hebrew words left in situ.

Mark has far more of these indications of translation than any other extant gospel, canonical or otherwise, of which I am aware; Mark consists of words and deeds of the Lord; Mark focuses on Peter proportionally more than any other gospel does; Mark contains more Latinisms than any other gospel (compare where Irenaeus says Mark wrote).

If Papias was writing about some other text and the later fathers latched onto an anonymous gospel to identify with this text, they certainly made a sterling choice.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
This reminds me of the classic scene in Taxi where the Reverend Jim is expressing support for the Revolution in Latka's home country and jumps up on a table, throws his arm straight out and proclaims:

"They'll soon not forget the name of., name of., uhh, uhmm"

Than Alex gives his standard Annoyed with Jim look and says:

"Oh Jim."

Whereupon Jim turns towards Alex with glee, points his straightened arm at Alex and shouts:

"See, it's spreading already!"



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page