spin

Hey, I didn't know Vincent Price was that old.


spin

jakejonesiv

Ah, I see the game now. Whoever reiterates his position last, in enough different threads, wins!
Silly me. :wave:

Vinnie

Views can be overturned. I am a bona fide meliorist. If someone merely asserted that it ws inconcievable that the world was the center of the universe X thousand years ago what do you think the status quo would have done? Probably laughed at them.

Do you know how people ignore the misses and focus on the hits in thus convincing themselves cold readers work? Well, your example about the masses and a geocentric verse are doing this, only the exact opposite. The vast majority of your information is gleaned and obtained from others. Your knowledge, the definition of knowledge, how to obtain knowledge, that you are not dreaming, etc. etc. etc. is all gleaned from experiences with others around you. The majority could be wrong in everything, but woe for you are dependent upon that majority. No man is an island.

Of those people who did not believe in Mark, it is irrelevant. That 1 in 6 people believe in it and it is well within the confined of logical possibilit at least grants it conceivability. That it is not a supernatural detail also helps as we well know that many people do actually write books.

Some people think it acceptable to hand wave and dismiss claims of Marcan authorship. That is being uncritical. We do not know that Mark did not write Mark and views arguing this based on the text are often pervaded by non sequiturs. For example, there is a geography booboo, therefore Mark did not write it. It might lessen the probability but the mere fact that natives of a land often Make geographical mistakes is another. I've done this myself.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

I have a question about the text.

What references do we have to Papias's testimony on the authorship of the gospels that

1. Are not known to us through Eusubius
2. Are thought to predate Eusubius ?

Jake

Vinnie

Esuebius quotes Irenaeus and then goes on to (in his mind) correct him. That is the first reference. Others, in my estimation occur after Papias. In my paper, click on the link at the top (the word Papais is a link) and goes to a page with most or all of the references.

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

I think you have misapprehended my position then. My position was that Irenaeus had no reason to claim the gospel of Mark for orthodoxy when Justin Martyr had already attributed it to Peter. How does taking the gospel away from Peter and giving it to Mark save this gospel for orthodoxy in the manner that you suggested?

For the sake of argument? If you have anything in favor of the memoirs of Christ here, by all means....

Again, I think you have misread me. Justin is not direct evidence for Mark having written this text. He is direct evidence for this text being connected to Peter, which is part of what I am talking about from Papias.

When did I do that?? The conclusion that I drew there was that Justin probably knew some names. I did not say which names, though of course Peter is one of them.

(Boanerges?)

Correct! It helps identify the text that Justin attributes to Peter.

Here is (some of) the evidence we are trying to explain:

1. Papias says that Mark wrote a gospel based on Peter.
2. The manuscripts attribute the gospel with the Boanerges detail to Mark.
3. Justin Martyr attributes a gospel memoir with the Boanerges detail to Peter.

I just do not see anything left for Irenaeus to do here, except to say that this happened in Rome.

No, I am demonstrating that the testimony of Papias was written prior to Justin. If Papias wrote that Mark was the author and that he based his text on his remembrances of what Peter said, it is very easy to imagine Justin (and others) attributing this gospel to Peter himself. But if Justin is the first to attribute this gospel, and he attributed it to Peter already, who would take it away from Peter, yet still regard it as authoritative?

This is direction of development I am talking about. Your direction is possible, of course. I just do not see it as likely.

This statement is understandable if you read me as saying that Justin was direct evidence for Mark as author.

This is evidence that Basilides learned from a disciple of Peter, just as Papias is evidence that Mark learned from Peter. But what the combination of Papias and Justin gives us is a connection of Mark with a particular text. What are you going to use to connect Basilides, or Glaucias for that matter, with a particular text?

That is debatable, though I am predisposed to agree.

I see nothing in Mark to even hint at such a thing.

Come, now. All we have to do is actually read the text to see that this statement is false. In Mark 15.34 it is Jesus (by name) crying out from the cross (see verse 36). In 15.37 it is Jesus (by name) who expires. And in 15.41 those same pronouns are used to describe the fellow who walked around in Galilee. In 15.43 Joseph asks for the body of Jesus, not of Simon.

Remind me what the catholic storyline is, and I will tell you.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

We have nobody before Eusebius who specifically attributes this information to Papias.

What we do have, however, is Victorinus of Pettau, who writes in 4.4 of his commentary on the apocalypse of John:

Marcus, interpres Petri, ea quae in munere docebat commemoratus conscripsit, sed non ordine, et incipit prophetiae verbo per Esaiam praenuntiato.

Mark, the interpreter of Peter, having remembered the things that he taught in his duty wrote it down, but not in order, and began with the word of prophecy announced beforehand through Isaiah.

This statement is clearly connected with the Papian attribution (interpreter of Peter, remembered, not in order) and predates Eusebius. Moreover, it is very unlikely that Eusebius knew this text by Victorinus, since his knowledge of Latin literature was so small. Andrew Carriker exhaustively lists all the books known to have been in the library at Caesarea based on the works of Origen and Eusebius in The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, and Victorinus is not to be found.

This means that the Papian comment, at least in this form, predates Eusebius. And it is interesting that Victorinus was a chiliast, just like Papias, and is known from other Papian fragments to have known the work of Papias.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie!

I think that above, you meant "Others, in my estimation occur after Eusebius." is that right.

Thanks for the reference. I found it! External Evidence: Papias . Stephen C. Carlson did a fantastic job, didn't he?

Here is a summary of the texts.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1-7,14-17 (c. 325)
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.2 (c. 325)
Epitome (Codex Baroccianus 142) of Philip of Side, Ecclesiastical History (5th cen.)
Interpolation (Codex Coislinianus 305) in George the "Sinner," Chronicon (9th cen.)
Jerome, Illustrious Lives 18 (c. 400)
An Old Latin Prolog to John from Codex vaticanus Reg. lat. 14 (9th cen.)

Jake

Gamera

It's more likely this is a bust of Vincent Price than Thucydides. Are you really this naive?

Gamera

See my post below: why do you assume Thucydides was a contemporary of Pericles. Oh, he tells us in a mss was copied 1500 years after he allegedly wrote.

Now, before joining spin and criticising Iranaeus, go back and tell us the quality of the evidence that leads you to conclude that Thucydides was a contemporary of Pericles.

It's appaling the double standard the detractors use.