jakejonesiv

Hi Stephen,

I don't think so.
Here is the quote from The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

It's a bummer that Price's treatment of Papias is not on-line. I have a couple of issues with the part quoted from Price, though.

There are two papyri manuscripts of Irenaeus as old as Eusebius, however: P.Oxy 405 (second/third cen.) and P.Jen.Inv. 18+21 (third/fourth cen.). Granted, neither of the fragmentary MSS happens to include AH 5.33 that explicitly mentions Papias, but an early fourth century genesis of the reference to Papias has enormous logistical difficulties considering that it is found in the Latin and Armenian versions which are independent of each other.

Another difficultly is that the testimony on Mark that Eusebius quoted as coming from Papias had already been partially plagiarized by Victorinus of Pettau (d. 304 or earlier).

Vivisector

Maybe he was his son - and his "brother" - and his "fellow worker!" Seriously, though, does Paul's metaphorical (as I assume it to be) use of "son" necessarily imply that the author of 1 Pet would have used the term metaphorically as well? And if the author of 1 Pet had meant to imply that Mark was Peter's biological son, how else would he have referred to him if not as his son?

Regards,

V.

Vivisector

Based strictly on what was reported, perhaps Price is engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

Not so striking at all, considering that scattered quotes are all that remain of many ancient works, and even less so considering that Papias was regarded as a millenarist and of modest intellectual prowess.

Aside from S.C. Carlson's contribution on manuscripts, I'm not sure what principle Price is applying here. It seems to be that if:

1. Author A attributes a quote to Author B, and
2. Author B's work is lost except for scattered, preserved quotes, and
3. The earliest preserved manuscript of Author A predates those of other authors who quoted Author B, then
4. Author B never existed and
5. Author A fabricated the quote and attributed it to Author B.

This doesn't seem very "reasonable" to me.

V.

Notsri

Take note that Acts 16:1 says Timothy's father was a Gentile. Evidently Paul was not his biological father.

Notsri

S.C.Carlson

The point about the Paul/Timothy parallel is that the metaphorical usage was in use (for Paul/Timothy, cf. 1 Tim. 1:2 "To Timothy my true son in the faith"). It does not force the author of 1 Pet to mean that Mark was Peter's biological son, but it makes more likely than if there were no evidence of a metaphorical usage at all. More to the point, however, is how a second-century Christian such as Papias would have understood it, regardless of what the author of 1 Pet meant by it.

Also, there is no filial reference in the Papias testimonium on Mark; rather, Mark is referred to as Peter's "former interpreter." Since mentioning a familial relationship in place of or in addition to Mark former employment would have strengthened Papias's apologia, Papias's silence here is more compatible with his understanding of 1 Pet 5:13 as metaphorical rather than biological.

If the author of 1 Pet 5:13 had written "my son according to the flesh," then I think that even second-century Christians would have understood it in biological terms.

Vivisector

I agree with all the above.

I agree again. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier suggestion; I thought it was that, (a) Papias knew of GMk and its attribution to Mark, but there was no tradition of a connection to Peter, (b) Papias knew from 1 Pet of the Mark/Peter association, leading to (c) Papias's deduction that Mark served as Peter's interpreter. My suggestion was that - and I read you as concurring - Papias would have mentioned the biological relationship if he had understood 1 Pet to mean a biological son. Since it appears that he did not, it suggests to me that there was another (outside 1 Pet) tradition of a Mark/Peter connection in circulation and/or Papias would not have interpreted the "son" of 1 Pet in the usual sense.

It certainly would have been nice if the ancient writers had clarified things, perhaps using terms such as "my biological, flesh and blood son, whose mother I physically impregnated" and "my son only in the figurative sense, but not my biological, flesh and blood son descended from physical relations with his mother." :banghead:

Regards,

V.

jakejonesiv

I don't find the idea that Eusebius would fabricate something to be incredible. Philosopher Jay has gathered a strong argument that he was a master forger. But Price's remarks are a bit more nuanced than that.

We simply have a chain of transmission in which each link is weak. This is sufficient cause to treat any conclusions based on the statements attributed to Papias with caution.

Eusebius wrote that Papias allegedly wrote that Prester John allegedly said that Mark allegedly wrote about what Peter allegedly said about what Jesus allegedly did.

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

My view is more like: (a) Papias knew of a Gospel according to Mark and believed its attribution to a "Mark"; (b) Papias believed from the "presbyter" that this Mark was a former interpreter of Peter; (c) Papias knew of 1 Pet and believed its attribution to Peter; (d) Papias was the one who explicitly identified the Mark in 1 Pet 5:13 with the Mark of the Gospel attributed to him (understanding "son" metaphorically).

Though conceivably possible, I tend to doubt that (1) the presbyter himself connected 1 Pet 5:13 with the Gospel according to Mark or (2) Papias explicitly identified the Babylon in 1 Pet 5:13 with Rome.

That's fine. There's a tradition of a Mark/Peter connection in Acts too, but it is unclear to me what Papias had specifically made of it (if he even knew of Acts) or whether that is the tradition you're thinking of.

Stephen

Diogenes the Cynic

Is it possible that Papias knew or heard of an anonymous Gospel which the Presbyter attributed to an (unnamed) secretetary/interpreter of Peter and that Papias merely inferred that author's name was Mark from 1 Peter?

(That is, could he have inferred that "my son, Mark" was Peter's secretary and therfore the author of the Gospel. I realize this entails both inferences)