cen31602

It has been suggested (?) that they (mmand l)appeared at this late date in order to refute the writings of Marcion, who became extremely popular about this time.
waldobob

Amaleq13

Actually, my question was intended to elicit what you considered suggestive of support for Papias' description. I see nothing whatsoever to suggest that the story is based on the personal recollections of Peter. I would prefer to wait until the allegedly supportive evidence is considered before shifting the focus to any allegedly contrary evidence.

What internal indices do you see in favor of Mark's authorship by Peter's secretary?

Amaleq13

Either that or it is simply an unfounded rumor like his story about Judas bloating up and getting squished by a chariot.

andrewcriddle

I am convinced that at least 'To the Ephesians' 'To the Romans' 'To the Philadelphians' and 'To Polycarp' are authentic. I think 'To the Magnesians' 'To the Trallians' and 'To the Smyrnaeans' are probably genuine but I'm less sure.

(Just to clarify I'm talking about the so-called 'middle recension' of Ignatius. The 'long recension' and 'short recension' are clearly secondary.)

In redating Ignatius I suggested Ignatius was killed around 125 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

If your point, or the purpose of your question, is to say that one would not conclude that the author was an associate of Peter from the text of Mark alone, then I agree. To be relevant to my discussion with Iasion, however--the dating of Mark primarily, specifically as to the arguments from external references, and secondarily the authorship of Mark, as that pertains--I don't see how you can do other than to consider the allegedly contrary internal evidence. Once again, there is an assymetric relationship. If the internal evidence does not positively demonstrate the idea of authorship by an associate of Peter, that does nothing to contradict the truth of such an idea, nor the tradition of Papias, nor a first century date of Mark. Only if the internal evidence positively demonstrated the idea that it wasn't authored by an associate of Peter would there be a contradiction to the tradition of Papias, and only then could such consideration be adduced against this particular piece of evidence for a first century date of Mark (even then, without showing a second century date of Mark, without dispensing with all the possible arguments, and without even completely dispositing this piece of evidence, as even a Papias in error can attest to a first century Mark).

Since it is not quite relevant to my existing conversations, and because whatever might be there is seriously "weak tea" kind of stuff (which I'd only consider brewing to compare it to the "weak tea" internal evidence against), I'd like to cut off such a tangent. I've written as much as I have above to explain why. If the question had been asked in another context, I might attempt an answer.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

That seems to me to suggest there is no good reason to assume Papias was referring to the canonical text and, therefore, Papias cannot a basis for dating that text.

If Papias is to be used to date canonical Mark, then some correspondence between his description and that text should be expected, no? If there is no supportive positive evidence, there is no basis for correspondence. Contrary internal evidence seems superfluous given the absence of supportive evidence. It would be nice but not necessary. I'm not sure what would constitute contrary internal evidence except an author identifying himself as someone other than Peter or Peter's secretary. The text is anonymous so there is no contrary internal evidence against any particular author, is there?

It also does nothing to support any of those things.

For all we know, Papias was passing on rumors with no more substantiation or connection to the canonical texts than his story of the death of Judas. For all we know, his rumor was the source for the eventual choice of identifying two of the four canonical texts despite the absence of any actual connection.

Why does Papias have to be contradicted to be considered non-useful as evidence rather than expecting his claim to be supported by the evidence in order to conclude it is useful? It seems to me that his Fat Judas story and his incorrect Jesus-quote attribution places an even greater burden of proof upon him than an ancient source who does not offer such apparently erroneous information.

This is what I said from the beginning though with emphasis on "a". It seems to me that, at best, Papias is evidence that there existed by the late first century at least one collection of stories about Jesus and a claim (rumor) that it had been written by Peter's secretary. There does not appear to be any reason to assume that this story collection was canonical Mark except that some people in the 2nd century have a story they attribute to the same guy. For all we know, Papias could have been talking about Q.

:huh: Dating canonical Mark to the first century by appealing to Papias' remarks seems to me to make establishing that Papias can be reliably assumed to have been talking about canonical Mark entirely relevant.

neilgodfrey

101 years later that message is still coming out of left field.

To essentially take the self-witness of ancient documents at face-value may satisfy our need for some certainty in our historical enquiries but such an approach can no more be justified in our quest for historical information than a naive reading of Genesis can be justified in a search for an understanding of the origin of the world.

Thompson's critique of a naive reading of biblical texts for historical evidence applies equally to how we approach the texts of Papias, Justin, Ignatius, and the rest ....

"It hasn't helped that those who are interested in the development of historical research in this region have avoided the implications of the mythical and literary [and theological and apologetic] overtones that are a constant of all the Bible's stories [and early christian documents]. They have chosen rather a rhetoric that supports the assumption of historicity. For example, even when speaking of stories filled with literary fantasy [c.f. the literary fantasies we know are attributed to Papias], they speak of a 'biblical record' and of the Bible's 'account of the past'. This rhetoric .... avoids the useful scepticism that historians usually have ready at hand whenever iron is reported to float on water."

and

"It is a fundamental error of method to ask first after an historical David or Solomon [or Papias or Ignatius or.....], as biblical archaeologists and historians often have done. We need first to attend to the David and Solomon [or Papias or Ignatius or.....], we know: the protagonists of Bible story and legend [of church apology and theology]. The Bible does not hesitate to tell these stories as tall tales." -- nor is our source literature for christian-origin studies free from tall tales and literary fantasies and theological intent.

Pages 38 and 45 from T.L.Thompson's "The Mythic Past" -- [with my insertions]

Points of historicity within these documents (authors included) is a question that can only be determined independently of the self-witness of the documents. Unfortunately this does not make a valid historical construction of christian origins very easy.

Vorkosigan

Why not?

That's totally untrue. I do not own or know of any mainstream scholar that accepts Papias' claim that Mark wrote down remarks from Peter. That view is held only by religiously-motivated conservative scholars. (defining mainstream as those scholars whose historical views, outside of the historicity of the Crucifixion, are not dictacted by their religious stances).

In any case Papias is citing the remarks of someone else, who claims that Mark wrote from memory with altering anything. The remarks as Papias presents them are clearly incorrect. As you note:

Here is the quote (translation via S. C. Carlson): "And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them."

I am sorry to have used the word "dictated" for it unfortunately focused your remarks in the wrong direction, arguing against a position that I didn't really hold and is easy to knock down.

Everything Papias says is wrong, and this quote looks like a later forgery aimed at providing a link between the creator of Mark and the early apostles. Mark's narrative does have a discernable order (the order of the Elijah-Elisha cycle in the book of kings for the narrative portion, for example), Mark has no "remembrances" as invention in one form or another -- de novo, paralleling, use of conventions -- accounts for everything in Mark. Mark definitely both falsified and omitted, if you believe that Mark wrote from a tradition. Otherwise he invented. Whoever Papias cites clearly does not know anything about Mark, though he claims to have inside knowledge. Hence the entire quote must be a invention, probably of the later Church, aimed at bringing Mark into the theological fold.

It's present in the letters of Paul.

What "reasonable" basis is there for such an inquiry? The writer of the Gospel of Mark holds the disciples up to ridicule at every turn, Peter on top. Mark's theology is close to what is found in the Pauline letters. There is no hint that Peter has any position in any heirarchy, in Mark. There's no Petrine theology of any kind in Mark; Peter has no theological ideas in Mark, other than spotting Jesus as the Messiah, a scene clearly invented by the writer. As Weeden pointed out, the story of Peter's betrayal is unknown prior to Mark and is probably an invention of the writer of Mark. Yet it is the central story of the Gospel with regard to Peter.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Off-topic: Do you think obtaining a "valid historical construction of christian origins" is even possible given the state of the evidence?

More on-topic: Does dating the Gospels require or does it follow from a valid historical construction of christian origins?

darstec

I'm confused here. In this thread everyone says, "Papias says ...." But from everything I read, it is Eusebius who says that Papias says that a witness says. Do we actually have the original writings of Papias? Or do we have a few fragments which coincide with what Eusebius says Papias says? And how do we know they weren't written after the fact, that is after what Eusebius wrote?

Also note that in those same 5 little fragments, Papias seems to put a lot of stock in the Gospel of the Hebrews which claims are as dubiously outrageous as those he makes in reference to his speaking with witnesses who knew the apostles and writers of the gospels.