Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-02-2005, 02:27 PM

"ta logia tou Kuriou" means "The words of the Lord."

I see no reason not to take it at face value that Irenaeus pereceived Papias' statement to refer to a collection of words/sayings/utterances specifically attributed to Jesus.

The Gospels of Thomas and inferred sayings tradition of Q would both indicate that sayings gospels did, in fact, exist and they seem to have existed before narrative gospels.

In any case, the question of what Papias precisely meant by "logia" is rather a minor point. There are far greater problems for Matthean authorship than that one.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-02-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

He does, but his critics discount his examples for one reason or another. I think that his critics also fail to point out an example of a clearly first person narrative that never identifies its author or uses "I" but that slips from first person plural into the third person randomly.

It is not accurate to say that Vernon Robbins "has shown" that the we passages are mere literary devices. For one thing, he is doing literary criticism, not historical reconstruction. He has strongly suggested that the "we" passages are a literary device meant to create a sense of excitement and drama. If he is wrong, the next most probable explanation is that parts of an unrelated diary of a sea voyage were spliced into Acts.

The most unlikely explanation of the "we passages" is that they reflect an eyewitness who wanted to leave a vague hint of his presence, but who never identifies himself in a way that would actually lend authenticity to his document, who uses "we" but never speaks of "I" or explains how he knows what he knows. The prologue of Acts indicates that the author consulted "many sources" but not that he or she was recounting an actual experience.

I agree with all of this. I should have said that "Robbins makes a strong case," rather than stating categorically that he had proved it.

I also agree that even if Robbins is wrong it does not open the door for the authenticity of Lucan tradition.

judge · 03-02-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic,

Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

How do you know it shows no signs of translation from Aramaic?

andrewcriddle · 03-02-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The first gospel written is Mark. Mark is not by tradition an eyewitness account but 2nd century tradition casts him as a secretary of the Apostle Peter who haphazardly wrote down everything Peter said in no particular order.

The basis for this tradition stems from a single claim by Papias who said (c. 130 CE) that he got the information from John the Presbyter (not to be confused with John the Apostle). That's it. That's the entire case for Mark as a secretary of Peter.

Now let's examine the credibility of this claim.
.................................................. .................
Fifth, the book could not have been written during the lifetime of Peter. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which means that Peter was dead (at least by Christian tradition) when the book was written.
.................................................. ...........
In 130 CE some guy said he heard from another guy that the author was a secretary of Peter's.

I have two reservations here

a/ Papias as quoted by Eusebius is not our only 2nd century source for Mark writing his Gospel on the basis of Peter's teaching. Irenaeus has a similar account and Clement of Alexandria a rather more divergent one.

I'll quote all 3 to show similarities and differences.
Papias

Quote:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Irenaeus

Quote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Clement according to Eusebius

Quote:

He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:-Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, in as much as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter's knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged

I doubt if Clement and Irenaeus are both derived from Papias there are too many differences between them. My guess would be that Irenaeus is based on Papias and Clement is making use of an independent tradition derived from the 'Elders'.

If I'm right then an association between Peter and Mark can be traced back in some form to before Papias.

b/ The implication of Papias is that Mark wrote his Gospel from memory after Peter was unavailable probably dead. This implication is made explicit in Irenaeus if departure EXODON means death which it almost certainly does. The claim in Clement that Peter knew about Mark writing the gospel and acquiesced in it at least as a fait accompli is probably a secondary modification of the original account.

Hence in the earliest version Mark writes his gospel some time maybe a few years after Peter's death, which would be quite compatible with a date around 70 CE.

(I agree that the non-Petrine nature of Mark is a problem for any link between Peter and the gospel of Mark.)

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-02-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion?

How do you know it shows no signs of translation from Aramaic?

I can read Greek for one thing, and it's virtually the universal consenus of scholars for another.

judge · 03-02-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I can read Greek for one thing, .

OK, fair enough. But can i ask, what evidence did you consider to arrive at your conclusion?

What particular facts led you to conclude it shows no signs of translation?

What signs would you expect?

Thanks

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-02-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I have two reservations here

a/ Papias as quoted by Eusebius is not our only 2nd century source for Mark writing his Gospel on the basis of Peter's teaching. Irenaeus has a similar account and Clement of Alexandria a rather more divergent one.

I'll quote all 3 to show similarities and differences.
Papias
Irenaeus
Clement according to Eusebius

I doubt if Clement and Irenaeus are both derived from Papias there are too many differences between them. My guess would be that Irenaeus is based on Papias and Clement is making use of an independent tradition derived from the 'Elders'.

If I'm right then an association between Peter and Mark can be traced back in some form to before Papias.

b/ The implication of Papias is that Mark wrote his Gospel from memory after Peter was unavailable probably dead. This implication is made explicit in Irenaeus if departure EXODON means death which it almost certainly does. The claim in Clement that Peter knew about Mark writing the gospel and acquiesced in it at least as a fait accompli is probably a secondary modification of the original account.

Hence in the earliest version Mark writes his gospel some time maybe a few years after Peter's death, which would be quite compatible with a date around 70 CE.

(I agree that the non-Petrine nature of Mark is a problem for any link between Peter and the gospel of Mark.)

Andrew Criddle

We know that Irenaeus knew Papias. I also don't see any necessary contradiction. Papias implies that Mark wrote down Peter's words as he said them but not neccesarily that these raw transcripts were (in Irenaeus' mind) ipso facto the Gospel According to Mark. Irenaeus and Clement both say that Mark wrote the Gospel after Peter was dead. I see no reason to believe that Irenaeus didn't get his info from Papias and just add one minor detail. I also don't see any reason to believe that Clement didn't get his info from Irenaeus. He says pretty much exactly the same thing with a little added detail.

The legend grows more detailed from Papias to Clement. That's only to be expected from legends.

Respectfully, I really don't see any evidence for a Marcan authorship tradition prior to or definitively independent of Papias (via Eusebius).

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-02-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

OK, fair enough. But can i ask, what evidence did you consider to arrive at your conclusion?

What particular facts led you to conclude it shows no signs of translation?

What signs would you expect?

Thanks

Idioms and expressions which don't make sense in Greek. I also look for Greek expressions which only make sense in Greek and would not have been translated from Aramaic.

I really don't want to derail this into another Peshitta thread, though, so I will just note your objection to my declaration of Greek composition for Mark and say again that there is near universal scholarly agreement that Mark is a Greek composition.

Even if you could prove that GMark was translated from Aramaic (which I don't believe you can) it still wouldn't overcome the problems for a Mark-Peter connection. which is what I'm trying to argue against.

Peter Kirby · 03-02-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I should have said that "Robbins makes a strong case," rather than stating categorically that he had proved it.

But he does not. I have shown that and so has Chris Price.

best,
Peter Kirby

PhilVaz · 03-02-2005, 03:25 PM

2. The Gospels contain numerous and irreconcilable contradictions between themselves.
3. The Gospels contain numerous factual errors, including geographical, historical and legal errors.
4. Some parts of the Gospels are demonstrable fictions.

Go ahead and do numbers 2, 3, 4. I have no rebuttal to 1. This could be a little project for me to try to answer this for my apologetics site. But I don't have enough information at the moment. I guess it comes down to whether you want to accept Papias, Irenaeus, etc and the later tradition or not. Please list the contradictions, geographical, historical, legal errors and fictions you have.

Phil P

03-02-2005, 03:25 PM	#20
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	go to 2, 3, 4 2. The Gospels contain numerous and irreconcilable contradictions between themselves. 3. The Gospels contain numerous factual errors, including geographical, historical and legal errors. 4. Some parts of the Gospels are demonstrable fictions. Go ahead and do numbers 2, 3, 4. I have no rebuttal to 1. This could be a little project for me to try to answer this for my apologetics site. But I don't have enough information at the moment. I guess it comes down to whether you want to accept Papias, Irenaeus, etc and the later tradition or not. Please list the contradictions, geographical, historical, legal errors and fictions you have. Phil P

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2005, 02:27 PM	#11
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	"ta logia tou Kuriou" means "The words of the Lord." I see no reason not to take it at face value that Irenaeus pereceived Papias' statement to refer to a collection of words/sayings/utterances specifically attributed to Jesus. The Gospels of Thomas and inferred sayings tradition of Q would both indicate that sayings gospels did, in fact, exist and they seem to have existed before narrative gospels. In any case, the question of what Papias precisely meant by "logia" is rather a minor point. There are far greater problems for Matthean authorship than that one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.