Apikorus

Was it him?

Gamera

Were they, in fact? And how do we know that?

Chris Weimer

Thucidydes gives us first hand knowledge of the Peloponnesian War as a general.

Gamera

If I recall my paleography correctly, the oldest ms we have of Thucidydes' works is from the 10th century CE. That's almost 1500 years after he allegedly wrote them. Now, if you were "selling" a ms of Greek history, do you think you would have more buyers if you claimed it came from a general who wrote it?

So circling back to my original point, is the quality of evidence supporting the dates of Thucidydes better or worse than the quality of evidence supporting Paias' dates?


Mind you, I'm not doubting Thucydydes' historicity or dates -- I'm just applying spin's standard for evaluating Papias' dates to Thucidydes to show the absurdities it results in.

Chris Weimer

I don't recall spin, but I could be wrong since I haven't been keeping a keen eye, ever claim that Papias was forged to sell better...

spin

Don't feed this, Chris. It goes like this: if I can't have my way that the gospels are historical documents that don't need to be shown to be historical documents, then you can't have yours, so there! I don't care if you have evidence that your guys are historical: I'll deny it and say that they are full of the same stuff that you'll find in the gospels so it's either accept the gospels or I'll deny your historical texts.

This means that Gamera will cast off all history before he will cast off his warped notion of what is history.

I have tried to get him to commit on whether the Satyricon is history but he hasn't replied. I've asked about the book of Judith and of course no reply. I could ask about Acts or Aesop's fables, the Pumpkinification or the Iliad, Lucian's Peregrinus or his true story. While lacking criteria to decide one way or another on these, he's sure that the gospels are history.


spin

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

But that is precisely the point under discussion. If Justin did know that Mark had written the gospel attributed to him, or an early version thereof, he had the perfect opportunity to say so, but he didn't. That tells against your postition, and favors mine.

Let's take your best case. For sake of argument, let's assume that "his memoirs" (Dialogue 106.3) means "Peter's Memoirs" instead of "Christ's Memoirs." But wait, that would only imply a "Gospel according to Peter." But you need it to say the "Gospel according to Mark" but it says no such thing.

So you must make a further assumption. You refer to Dialogue 103.8, "Justin knew that the gospels were written by a mixed group of apostles and followers" and then you leap to the conclusion that this must mean it was written by Mark.

But it does no such thing. It is possible that the Borangers details the gospel (or proto-gospel) in question, but it does not identify the author. In order to identify the author as Mark, you have to assume that the testimony of Papias was written prior to Justin, and was known to Justin as we read it now. But this is precisely the issue under discussion. Ben this is circular reasoning on your part.

There are several reasons why Basilides is a possible alternative author for the second gospel (nor is this the only alternative). There is an alleged connection to Peter, in that Basilides was said to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of St. Peter. Aren't you glad that heresay evidence is deemed admissable?

Basilides was known to hold several heretical views that would find agreat deal of support in the gospel under question. Basilides was an Adoptionist, and this is the Christology of Mark.

But even more interesting is that Basilides taught that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in the place of Jesus, while Jesus stands by and laughs! The Gospel of Mark can be used to support that doctrine. Oh those sneaky heretics!

Simon is forced to carry the cross (Mark 14:21). After that, it is pronouns all the way through the crucifixtion.
21. They pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene
...
22. Then they brought him to the place Golgotha
...
24. And they crucified him

If you don't like this alternative, I have several more; the most prudent one being that we don't know who wrote the the gospel now known as Mark.

Ben, I now have a question for you. Where do you depart from the catholic story line on this subject?

Jake Jones IV

MortalWombat

Have you forgotten Thucydides?

edited to add: I see Apikorus already provided a pic of him.

Vinnie

Well, Papias did write 50 years before Justin so this is more than a remote possibility. He quotes a passage from Mark and Peter's memoirs appear near it. Both Irenaeus and Clement just after him made this connection and 50 years before him Papais laid it out.

Now I do admit to having some reservations in how Justin appears to use the gospels...but the connection of it to Peter is not much of a stretch...

Vinnie

aa5874

Are you aware that there are also billions of non-Christian people who have a total different of concept of that which appears to be well within the realm of logical possibility

And furthermore, millions of people, apparently, advocated by numerous scholars, claimed that the earth was the centre of the Universe and we now know that is not the case.