Gamera

I beleive the first historical reference to Pericles is in Aristotle's constitution of the Athenians.

Pericles is circa 495–429 BCE; Aristotle 384 BCE – 322 BCE

Applying your standard, Pericles a myth.

andrewcriddle

Hi Vinnie

It is an interesting article. One question.

You link Papias Ignatius and Polycarp and use this as an argument for an early date.

If I am right and Ignatius died c 125 CE not 108 CE how would this affect your argument ?

Andrew Criddle

spin

So we forget about contemporary references to Pericles of course. Remember there are no contemporary reports for Papias. :wave:

(And why do you talk about "myth", Gamera. Have you got alzheimer's or have you forgotten I'm not a mythicist?)


spin

Gamera

And those contemporary references are. . .?

I hope you're not refering to Sophocles' "references".

And does that rule out Themistocles who came before?

Or going back a step or two Isagoras?

jakejonesiv

Where did Papias get his information? How do you know his sources were telling the truth?

Can Papias be trusted to transmit accurately what he heard, especially considering that Eusubius considered him a stupid man who misunderstood the figurative and mystical accounts he heard? Even if Papias were a dynamo of integerty, we have no way to verify his sources, or the sources of his sources.

Isn't the testimony of Papias information concerning the gospel of Mark actually third or fourth hand? And if you run the chain back to Peter and Jesus? How many hands is that?

The alleged testimony of Papias is at best heresay. It is a weak link in a chain of weak links.

In the past, when I have raised these questions I have received the answer that since it is the only information we have, we are compelled to give it great weight. Well, duh, no we aren't. It is more prudent to withhold judgment than to believe a FOAF tale, the equivalent of an urban legend.

Jake Jones IV

mountainman

How many times shall the minutiae of atomic elements of pre-Nicene
"christian ecclesiastical tradition" be called into question over their
referential integrity to the entire history of the prenicene epoch?

And when for Gods' sake, will someone start taking seriously the
task of assessing the integrity of the entire literary package, as
assembled in the fourth century, near Rome c.312-324 CE, and
the very real historical possibility that along with it, a pseudo-
history was tendered, and eventually evolved to become "canon".

What is there in modern scientific and archeological citations, C14
datings, architecture (buildings), art, sculpture, archeological relics,
coins (of gold, silver, bronze), inscriptions and all other mediums
of historical information preservation which immediately precludes
the asking of the question "Did Constantine invent christianity",
aside from that "long held tradition" that many of us were "brought
up to believe" that "the tribe of christians" had to have existed
prior to Constantine's "embracing" them.

Ben C Smith

The elder, John.

Test the statement itself. I refer you to the questions I asked above.

Let us imagine that the elder is simply lying, or that Papias is. What was the intended outcome of that lie? If to push Mark closer to Peter, why so indirectly (later fathers had no trouble claiming that Peter dictated while Mark recorded) that Irenaeus takes Papias to mean Peter was already dead when Mark published his gospel? If to push Mark away from Peter, why mention Peter at all? If neither of these was the intended outcome, then what was?

Remember, it is no big deal for a contemporary to know the name of the author of a text, nor even some of the circumstances surrounding its composition. We are not pressing this elder for insider knowledge of any kind. And that this John (whom I do not take to be the son of Zebedee) was a contemporary of the author of Mark is virtually certain if Gundry is correct that Papias was writing before 110.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Mountain Man,

OK, you got me on this one. In the case of Papias, we actually don't have any evidence of his writing earlier than Eusebius. As Robert Price put it in TISSOM, Papias is perhaps nothing more than fourth century garnish.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

If "intended consequences" were the motivation for lying, half the lies in the world wouldn't get told.

And, lies don't always work out the way the liar planned.

So IMHO the logic you have proposed does nothing to substantiate the truthfulness of the alleged statements.

But maybe I am missing something. I would like to see Steven's opinion of your argument. He is a lawyer, and as such his opinion will carry a lot of weight.

Thanks,

Jake

mountainman

[i]Fifty years ago Eduard Schwartz, to save Eusebius’ reputation as a competent chronographer, conjectured that the two extant representatives of the lost original of Eusebius’ Chronicon — the Latin adaptation by St Jerome and the anonymous Armenian translation — were based on an interpolated text which passed for pure Eusebius. This conjecture is perhaps unnecessary; nor are we certain that the Armenian version is closer to the original than St Jerome’s Latin translation. Both versions reflect the inevitable vagaries of Eusebius’ mind to whom chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda.

--- Arnaldo Momigliano
--- Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.
--- This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
--- The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
--- The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99