aa5874

There appears to be not even 'hearsay' of Jesus the Christ in the first century from any extrabiblical source.

jakejonesiv

Ben,

Divine, semi-divine beings and great heros often would decend into the underworld, the land of death, and only with great difficulty (if at all) return.

The descent of Inanna to the underworld meets all of the conditions you specified.

But she arises from the dead! Likewise, Kore returns mythically to the land of the living each spring from her sojorn in Hell, as does Osiris who, although existing in the realm of the dead as its ruler, is reborn as the "grain Osiris."

For a mythical and otherworldly locale, but still of physical manifestation we find the Elysian Fields.

According to Apuleius, The Golden Ass (Metamorphoses), Book 11, when Lucius, after being saved from his assine condition, is initiated into the Mysteries of Isis.
He undergoes a nocturnal death experience:
Lucian experiences the direct manifestation of the Regina Caeli (Queen of Heaven).

Isis promises him "You shall live blessed. You shall live glorius under my guidance; and when you have traveled you full length of time, and you go down into death, there also, on that hidden side of earth, you shall dwell in the Elysian Fields and frequently adore my favors."

On rare occassions, the myths deem it possible for a mortal to visit these nether worlds (and perhaps return!).
It is the same with mythical Olympus, the dwelling place from whence the gods go to and fro, it is a rare mortal foot that treads that Mount.

Jake Jones IV

spin

For the fourth specific time, Gamera, what are your criteria for considering ancient written materials for a given historical topic?


spin

jakejonesiv

The discussion about how one must accept hearsay because “all of history is based on such” is troubling to me. In the case of Mark and Papias, the supposed chain of transmission is extremely tenuous. This particular example has more uncertainty associated with it than just being written in an old text.

We don’t have any copies of the alleged books written by Papias, only quotations by Eusebius and Irenaeus, and no copies of Irenaeus that quote Papais older than Eusebius. (Plus a few other passages by late obscure writers.)
Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1ff cf Irenaeus Adv. Haer. 5.33.4.

Who actually believes that the chain of transmission below (or some variation of it) is true?

Jesus -> Peter -> Mark -> John the Elder -> Ariston -> Papias -> Eusubius

Is someone here going to tell me that if I doubt the above, I have no right to “do history?”

The best arguments to support this are clever harmonizations to wiggle out of a tight spot. The total inability of the pro-Papais proponents to admit any doubt whatsoever as to the authorship of GMark is puzzling. It is the absolutism of the way the case is presented that I find the most disturbing.

Who can say with me, “we don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospel of Mark?”

Jake Jones IV

Gamera

Whatever my criteria are, they don't include hearsay, since all historical texts from the classic period are by definition hearsay. You objected to the topic thread based on the "hearsay" declarations of Iranaeas. But of course, ALL historical texts, from Herodotus to Thucydides to Burkehardt and Braudel are "hearsay." So your objection makes no sense. Essentially you're saying, you don't like Iranaeus's hearsay, but Thucydides' hearsay is OK. That's fine as a statement of preference, but why should anybody accept it as an argument?

And of course none of these text are really hearsay at all -- since hearsay is a rule of evidence that applies in a court of law, not in the court of empiricism.

So get off the hearsay kick. It isn't relevant to historiography.

Gamera

Jake, you have the perfect right to call into question the transmission of historical narratives where they appear dubious. That's good historical analysis.

But it has nothing to do with the concept of hearsay, as spin alleges. Any historical text is hearsay unless the author is alive and you can cross-examine him. But of course you don't determine history by the rules of evidence in a courtroom in any case, so why worry about hearsay, unless like spin you just want to make a rhetorical point that has no substance.

As to the merits of the case, my only concern is that if you are worried about the transmission from Jesus to Eusebius' text, apply that to ANY classical historical text and history basically disappears. Like I say, we know nothing about the ms history that got us from the battle of Marathon to the text we have, 1500 years letter, in which a guy called Thucydides claims he witnessed it all. At the very least we have a clearer (and thankfully shorter) ms tradition that links Jesus with Eusebius.

Again, I have no problem with you questioning the links that take us from Jesus to Eusebius, just be consistent. If you apply the same standard, you should doubt the existence of Pericles.

Me, I don't doubt the existence of Pericles or Jesus, so I don't have your problem.

Ben C Smith

What is Aristion doing there? Papias claims to be quoting the elder directly. The chain that I think is actually the case is:

Jesus -> Peter -> Mark -> John the elder -> Papias -> Eusebius.

The link from Jesus to Peter does not depend on Papias or on the elder. There are plenty of sources more direct than these to support this link.

The link from Peter to Mark is indirect. But our witnesses tell us that the link is indirect, that Mark was writing from memory. This link is the weakest, in my judgment. The links after this one have only a small handful of data to get right (Mark, Peter, memory, and so forth). But Mark has an entire gospel full of data to remember correctly from Peter. There may have been embellishment or error.

The link from John to Mark depends on the testimony of the elder. The link from John to Papias depends on the testimony of Papias. These are oral links, but these links are transmitting a single episode with few details to keep straight.

The link from Papias to Eusebius is secure at least in those elements of the tradition that can be verified through Victorinus (and probably in all of the elements). This connection is not oral.

I for one have no idea what you mean. I do not think Marcan authorship of our second canonical gospel is beyond doubt. I just think it is probable. With the rare exception of an Actium here and there, I have to settle on probable as my best case scenario for all ancient data.

I can absolutely and unflinchingly aver with you that we do not know for sure who wrote the gospel of Mark.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Gamera,

I think I see where you are coming from. Let's forget about the term hearsay.

Do you believe everything that appears in an historical text? If not, you are applying some set of criteria that separates the wheat from the chaff.

Specifically, what is that criteria? I know you have a standards, because you mention standards above. I just want to know what they are.

OK, if you are able to specify the above in general, how do you apply them in the specific? How do you know that Jesus is real and Cyclops isn't?

Thanks!
Jake

jakejonesiv

Gamera,

I am not trying to trick you. I would assume that judging the trustworthiness of a particular text would involve several steps. So i will go first, and throw out a "straw man" set of criteria, which I have purposefullly left incomplete. That way, you can revise it to your liking, and we will see where you are at. Each item would not be applicable to all texts. Of course, anyone else can reply also.

In no particular order,


1. Do we have the source documents? In the case of Papias' Testimony to Mark,we do not. The source is Eusubius.
2. Do we have eye witness testimony? No. We are told that Papais got his information second hand; it is not stated that he observed or talked to Mark (much less Peter).
3. Are the claims inherently unlikely? Are there appeals to the supernatural? In the case of Papias, no.
4. Are we depending on one source (like Eusubius) or do we have mutiple witnesses to the statements in the text?
5. What is the oldest extant copy of the text?(Give date range). With all due respect to the defenders of "Secret Mark" (jumping to another text for a second) the lateness of the extant text is a factor which tells against its authenticity.
6. Who had custody of the text during the copying period? Did they have any reason to modify or interpolate the text?
7. If we are dependant on one manuscript, is there anything suspicious or unusual in its provenance?
8. Was the author biased? Does the source have any reason to slant the facts. Pay special attention to religous motivations.
9. Are there inner contradictions in the document?
10. Is the text consistent with or contradicted by other texts? Or neither?
11. Is the text consistent with or contradicted by archeology and artifacts? Or neither?
12. For oral tradition, do we have a plausible unbroken series of witnesses? In the case of Papias, yes.
13. If the truthfulness of a text depends on the accurate transimision of information through a series of links, what is the estimated probability of the entire chain. For example, if there are four links in a chain, and each is 80% likely, then the entire chain is .8 to the 4th power, or 40% likely. If each link is 90% likely, then the entire chain is .90 to the 4th power, or 65% likely.


Using step 13, what percentages do you apply to each link in your chain, and the overall likelyhood? If you don't think #13 is a valid method, why not?

My most favorable answer for each link would be:
Jesus -> Peter. 49% (Obviously, this could be much lower).
Peter -> Mark. 49%
Mark -> John. 75%
John -> Papias. 75%
Papias -> Eusubius. 75%

Overall: .49 x .49 x .75 x .75 x .75 = .10 or 10%

Thanks,
Jake

Ben C Smith

I will be glad to answer this when we get a preliminary concern out of the way. The chain you have constructed seems to me to be useful only for tracing a particular datum or set of data. If the datum being tracked changes at certain steps, we are no longer doing anything meaningful.

Take the imaginary case, for example, of an unbroken chain in my family tree. My great-grandfather told my grandfather about moving to Nebraska in 1909. My grandfather told my father about fighting in World War II. My father told me about my grandfather fighting in World War II.

In this case our chain has four links... but not all the links belong to the same chain! Such a chain is useful only if the same story (in this case, moving to Nebraska) is being told from person to person.

So, to return to your example, what is the datum that is changing hands all the way from Jesus to Eusebius? What are we tracking? The datum that I use Papias for has nothing originally to do with Jesus himself; I use Papias to help answer the question of who wrote Mark, and surely that datum starts with Mark, not with Jesus or Peter.

Ben.