Vorkosigan

More Papias from the Fragments page at CCEL:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-43.htm

Papias says he has stuff handed down from Judas, and knows how Judas died. But Judas is a character Mark invented out of Pauline tradition and the Old Testament.

Papias is a fictional invention of someone.

More Papias fun:

Sure. Papias knows the daughters of Philip from Acts who prophesy. Though in Acts they are clearly fictional.

This is second century fiction. Inventing meetings with famous figures of the past is a convention of Greek historical fiction parodied by Lucian in the opening section of A True History and aped by the inventor of Papias.

The real question here is why anyone pays the slightest attention to this. "Computer! Show them the historical documents!"

Michael

spin

And if Mark had been sourced from Peter and we are to accept the testimony of the other gospels WhereTF is the resurrection?? (And I note our JW mentions this.) What's the biggest part of the gospel story, if it's not the resurrection of the saviour guy? -- yet it's just not there in Mark. So much for it coming from Peter. And so much for Vinnie's slavish acceptance of this Papias pap.


spin

aa5874

Gamera, even the dead saints came out of their graves when Jesus was resurrected, according to Matthew, I don't think Peter had anything to brag about.

rlogan

I know! I know!!

The resurrection was so famous there was no need to mention it.

Also we have the criterion of embarassment championed by Vinnie. The Portrayal of Peter is so bad that Mark MUST have come from Peter as a true account.


Constructing a house of cards like this is pretty odd when the general questions about Mark - his lack of geographic knowledge and other mistakes made, the language - point to authorship removed in place and time and send us looking in different basic directions.

Vorkosigan

ROFL. I laughed so hard, I almost had an NDE. Whatever Papias is, it is pretty obvious it's not a reliable source for anything, except maybe second century fiction conventions.

Michael

Ben C Smith

Mark is Pauline, of course. And it is Petrine, of course. This is not either/or. Interestingly, John Mark in the book of Acts is both a Pauline and a Petrine associate.

I think (for a completely different set of reasons) that Mark did originally have a resurrection appearance, in Galilee, to Peter especially (as Mark 16.7 hints), but also to others.

Michael himself has given reasons to suppose that Mark did not originally end at 16.8, but his historical commentary on Mark is down right now for some reason. (I hope this is only a temporary situation.)

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
The other thing that is still bothering me is the Impossible (Supernatural) consideration and how that leads to whatever Papias heard. Since as of now (and until your next article) you agree with me that the Impossible is Impossible, consider that "Mark's" Jesus could not have done the Impossible. Therefore, Peter could not have Witnessed the Impossible. Mark's Gospel though consists of Jesus primarily doing the Impossible (at least when he's doing something).

Now it is Possible that Peter could have still been behind an Impossible Jesus Gospel even though he didn't Witness the Impossible but this is Unlikely. Usually a real Witness will present mainly History. Therefore, it's exponentially more likely that the Tradition that reached Papias regarding what Peter was responsible for was primarily a Possible writing. Q fits this description much better than "Mark" since it is the opposite of "Mark" in the Possible/Impossible category.

"Mark" than would be a Reaction to Q, from someone not limited by Historical memory but instead guided by Imagination arguing that Jesus was Impossible and not Possible. Indeed, the clear teaching in "Mark" that Peter was not in any way a witness to the resurrection is completely consistent with the observation that per Peter's Q no resurrection is mentioned. Also Peter is depicted in "Mark" as valuing the Teaching/Healing of Jesus and not understanding or believing the Impossible actions of Jesus = exactly what Q showed.

Further confirmation comes from our earliest known Christian author Paul who Explicitly informs us that his understanding of Jesus comes from his Imagination and not the Historical witness of others who he is in competition with.

This is the biggest problem with Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship right now, an officially Neutral position on the Impossible when in fact it is the most Objective of all considerations and the only one that is 100% certain.




Joseph

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

Vorkosigan

Yes. I think that appearance is reworked and is now Jn 21. But the objection still holds -- Peter did not place himself at the tomb in Mark. Why not? The answer is obvious.

Now at www.michaelturton.com. My host disappeared without warning, losing me many years of Google ranking. But I SHALL RETURN!.

Michael

Ben C Smith

While the answer seems less than obvious, it may be because Peter never went to the tomb, despite what Luke and John have.

Thanks for the new link to your site. I guess I have some link updating to do on my site, then.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Vinnie,

It seems to me that your first three points are essentially variations of the same point (ie small suspect pool) and I'm not sure how you establish that it is, in fact, so small as to allow easy identification. As Kirby points out at Early Christian Writings:

The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

In addition, the author of Luke tells us:

"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us..."(Lk1:1, KJV)

Did the NAB scholars or the author of Luke "needlessly multiply texts"?

Where does Papias indicate or even suggest that what he is referring to is a narrative? His comments seem to me to offer support for nothing beyond a disordered collection of Peter's teachings on Jesus based on his secretary's recollections.

If the "lost text" Papias referenced was incorporated into canonical Mark, doesn't this concern about multiple attibutions vanish?

If it was believed that Peter's secretary had written down from memory some of Peter's teachings on Jesus and had collected them into a single text but without any care for chronology and that this text was one of the sources used in the creation of canonical Mark, I think this would be another example of such an instance.

It seems to me that attributing the Gospel to Peter's secretary is a win-win for the early Christians. It provides the appearance of a continuous tradition from the feet of Jesus and a scapegoat for any problems in the text.

In addition to being patently false, I don't think this is the sort of exaggerated rhetoric does anything beneficial for your essay.

That Papias' Mark was a source text incorporated into canonical Mark seems to me to be a reasonable explanation that addresses the evidence better than your "undeniable" conclusion.