Ben C Smith

I think Mark and Matthew tie for first mention (by Papias), and that Papias is actually referring to something a bit different when he refers to Matthew; so Mark either ties or wins.

As for popularity, no question, Matthew skyrocketed while Mark foundered somewhat. There are too many potential reasons for this to single out only one as the cause:

1. Mark lacked birth narratives.
2. Mark had adoptionistic leanings (as we saw in the baptismal narrative).
3. Mark was shorter, less complete, especially as regards the teachings.
4. Mark lacked resurrection appearances (this shortage was, of course, explicitly noticed and remedied in the spurious longer ending).

In fact, I suspect that the only thing that kept Mark going, as it were, was its early and close association with the apostle Peter.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Since he was long dead before any of our accredited institutions existed, that seems to be appropriate.

OK. I think it tends to dilute the import of actually finishing one's degree, though.

If they are paid to be an historian despite not having their PhD, I would have to say they were "actual historians". I didn't realize that was possible and, again, think it tends to take away from those who did complete all their work.

It seems to me my use of the term indicated I was using it in that way.

OK

If they are getting paid for their knowledge of history, I would tend to say "yes".

My thinking is that one would want to go with the more specific expertise rather than the general description. I know in my general field of psychology, few simply describe themselves as "psychologist" when it is a question of their area of expertise. You get "Clinician", "Experimental", and "School" specifications. I assume other professional fields tend to do the same. Why wouldn't you?

I was thinking it was a sign that this thread was in its death throes.

You really think this tangent has legs? I would be surprised if the interest goes beyond the two of us. We could always go PM. I feel like we should be in a bar, though.

Who better than the person who earned the degree?

I wouldn't say that was an analogous situation given the rather significant differences between the consequences of an incorrect identification.

Amaleq13

Crossan is who I had in mind as well but I couldn't find it in any of his books that I own.

IIRC, it seemed to relate to the priesthood of Josephus' time. Wouldn't they have had a particular issue with the notion of John offering a baptism of repentance?

Ben C Smith

I own only The Historical Jesus and The Birth of Christianity. But I do not have access to either of them at the moment. I am thinking the discussion is to be found in the former, but not necessarily in part 3; probably part 2.

That is exactly the issue. If all one has to do to receive forgiveness for sins is to get dunked in a river, what happens to the sacrificial system?

My only issue is this, and I do not think Crossan discusses it (again going on memory alone): If Josephus simply disagrees with John the baptist on this matter, why not just say so? Why does he try to spare John from being mistaken? Why not simply say that he baptized to forgive sins, but it was not a good idea to do so?

Ben.

Amaleq13

I know it isn't in the latter. I've got the former, though, so I'll look again when I get home.

That matches my memory as well. IIRC, he just offers a possible reason and moves on.

aa5874

But, where do you find any credible information that Peter had a close associate named Mak who wrote a gospel according to the re-collection of Peter?

Based on Eusebius in "Church History", "Mark" had already written his gospel according to the re-collection of "Peter" while Philo of Alexandria was alive, sometime around the middle of the 1st century, and not around 70 CE or later.

And Mark is only named an as author around one hunded and thirty years after Philo , for the first time, in "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, written in the late 2nd century.

"Church History" 2.6 I suspect that "Mark" did not write any Gospel.

Ben C Smith

[QUOTE=aa5874;5330501]I did not claim here that Peter or Mark had anything actually to do with the gospel. I claimed that Papias associated Peter with the gospel very early on.

Ben.

Gamera

I think this is further evidence of how much in flux Judaism was in the first century. Much of what we think of as first-century Judaism is a retrojection from what Judaism later became, and in no small measure Judaism took the later form that it did, due to the growing influence of Christianity.

Solitary Man

So is the title historian dependent on the time period in which a person lives?

For historical studies, it's not the biggest deal. You should never stop working on it, but time constraints, etc. I'm sure you understand. It's different than a medical doctor.

It's different than an MD. Not only is it possible, it was, if I understand correctly, at one time common.

Quod videtur non semper est quod est.

Sure you would, but historical studies is the general field, like psychology is the general field. I know of very few people who study history as history, and usually we just call them philosophers.

I'm always up for that.

Heh, so its a matter of degrees (no pun intended).

Ok...so pun intended.

Amaleq13

In the context of what historians participate in BC&H, yes. When you start time trawling characters in from the past, all bets are off and new rules have to developed.

I did not know that.

What is "videtur"?

Then, I would include any of the specialities on the list.

As always with anyone who makes the journey to The Last Frontier, the first round is on me. :thumbs: