Ben C Smith

What is the motivation for lying, in your opinion?

Quite true.

I guess what I like to see is an explanation for things. When someone says that G. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I do not even look up from my parchment. But when someone explains that G. Bush had political reasons for doing so, and outlines the intended political effects, then I sit up and take notice.

Likewise, when someone (including Eusebius!) says that Papias was a fool, or that he was a liar, or that he was relying on mere hearsay, of what worth is such talk? Talk is cheap. What I would like to see is the proposed trajectory of development. Not that absolutely every detail needs an explanation, but a general account of what is happening with Papias and his elder would be nice. Sort of like a form of redaction criticism.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

OK, I will present an alternative, but it is not the only alternative.

In the late 2c. CE, St. Irenaeus and his proto-orthodox cohorts appropriated the previously unnamed gospels from the various heretical groups (Adv Haer. 3.11.7). But these worthies faced a problem; the name of Marcion* was strongly associated with early gospel development.

As has been noted, urLucas (the gospel that Marcion modified) was much closer in form to Mark than our canonical Luke. In order to mask Marcion's role, they either modified or forged the words attributed to Papias, followed subsequently by Eusebius.

Thus Marcion, the disciple of Simon Magus (the ersatz Paul) became Mark, the disciple of Simon Peter. The "intended consequence" was to cast back a safely orthodox attribution to a time before Marcion.

Eusbius probably knew the testimony attributed to Papias was fishy, so he attributed stupidity to the guy, as a hint to take what was attributed to him with a grain of salt.

This is not meant to indicate that Marcion was the actual author of proto-Mark. That author is unknown but perhaps (i.e. WAG) was Basilides http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02326a.htm , who allegedly "claimed to have received verbal instructions from St. Matthias the Apostle and to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of St. Peter."

But whoever wrote Mark, he and his audience were no fan of apostolic succession, as evidenced by the unremitting criticism of St. Peter and the Apostles. This, in due course, played right into Marcion's hands in his doctrinal disputes with the Church at Rome. This was the situation St. Irenaeus was out to remedy.

R.Price disusses some of these issues in his "Pre-Nicene New Testament."

Jake Jones IV

*See also the heretic Marcus the magician lampooned by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses, Book I, Ch 13-14

Casper

Excellent Jake!

I have been exploring something like this for some time myself, thank you for painting in the details better for me. I agree, it isn't the only possibility, but it is one possibility.

Ben C Smith

Already in the middle of century II Justin Martyr knows (A) writings that he calls memoirs but which he acknowledges that others call gospels, (B) that these writings were written by apostles and by their followers, and (C) that one of these apostles was Peter, whose memoir contained a detail found only in Mark.

The name of Marcion was strongly associated with butchering the gospel of Luke. Irenaeus supplies our earliest testimony to this action, but Justin, with his talk of the apostolic memoirs, predates Irenaeus.

This has been noted, but is misleading. The Marcionite gospel resembled Mark in some of its omissions (for example, it omitted the birth narratives). But what the gospel actually contained was definitely some recension of Luke, not of Mark. For example, it starts with the Lucan synchronicity, continues with the Lucan narrative in Capernaum, and includes much of the great travelogue portion of Luke that is missing in Mark.

If Irenaeus and company forged or modified the Papian words on gospel origins, why does the only attributed quotation of Papias in Irenaeus have nothing to do with gospel origins?

This name game is quite unconvincing as history. Does it even appear any earlier than the pseudo-Clementines?

If Irenaeus was trying to place orthodox attributions on the lips of somebody who predated Marcion, why did he not not actually place orthodox attributions on the lips of somebody (like Papias) who predated Marcion?

Irenaeus gives us tons of information on gospel origins, yet not once does he actually attribute that information to Papias.

Eusebius attributed stupidity to Papias because Papias was a chiliast. With this reason in place, and it is hardly debatable, your reason becomes superfluous.

It is not necessary, but it is possible to read Papias as saying that Mark was a disgruntled former follower of Peter.

Why would Irenaeus have to remedy a situation that was already remedied by the time of Justin? Why would Irenaeus and company have to attribute the text with the Boanerges detail to Mark when Justin had already attributed it to Peter himself?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Ben,

It is too bad you cannot admit that Justin demonstrated no knowledge of any of the gospels by their "right" names, which he certainly would have if he had known them. It makes discussion of the subsequent points meaningless.

However, your argument to "test the statement itself"* has been shown insufficient to demonstrate the truthfulness of the text. That still leaves the statements of Papias as, at best, heresay.

Jake Jones IV

*I am still interested in Stephen Carr's expert opinion as an attorney to your argument.

Pataphysician

How about his contemporarys, Thucydides and Herodotus

Ben C Smith

How do you suppose Justin knew that the gospels were written by a mixed group of apostles and followers without knowing any names? Why did he say that if he had no idea who exactly had written them?

I cannot see how skipping Justin Martyr entirely in our discussion of gospel origins would render the discussion more meaningful, especially since he obviously attributes to Peter a text that Papias attributes to Mark based on Peter, but which you have given to Irenaeus to attribute. Your reconstruction of events simply did not cover the bases. You have to explain what you think Justin Martyr meant if you want to fast-forward to Irenaeus.

There is no way I can prove, by the standards of a court of law or of a scientific theorem, that Papias or his elder is accurate here. Fortunately, I do not have to. The standards of history are quite different.

Hearsay evidence, while admissible in court only under certain stringent conditions and almost meaningless in science, is a commonplace of historical inquiry. The historian does not omit it. In this particular case (A) the datum itself (the author of a book and some of the circumstances of its composition) is not top secret information, (B) the witness that Papias cites (the elder John) was a contemporary of the author, and (C) the author that cites Papias (Eusebius) was in the habit of extracting long, verbatim quotes from his predecessors.

Item C above, along with the comments of Victorinus of Pettau, makes it impossible (in the historical sense) that Eusebius forged these Papian comments on Mark entirely and unlikely that he modified them. Items A and B above make the transmitted datum certainly knowable. It is always possible that the elder (or Papias) was just making stuff up. Is that really likely? This is where testing the statement comes in. What was the hopeful outcome of making this up? You have concentrated on the possible motives of Irenaeus and his comrades, failing both to notice that the tradition is obviously older than Irenaeus and to explain why Irenaeus would make up a Papian comment that he forgets to use to his favor, or indeed at all, in Against Heresies. What about the possible motives of Papias, or of whoever Justin got his information from?

The goal is to develop an hypothesis that explains every piece of data as we have it, not one that raises more questions than it answers.

Ben.

Vinnie

Ben, where are Justin's comments about the gospels?

I am aware of his extensive harmonizations of Matthew and Luke and that he quoted Mark and referenced Peter's memoirs, but after that I am drawing blanks...

Vinnie

Vinnie

Nevermind, found them via new advent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

Vinnie

spin

Oh, are you playing coy, or do you just not know?