Vivisector

I'll readily grant you an overall weak chain of transmission. But I'm not trying to defend Papias's reliability (as if that could be done), and I'm certainly not trying to establish a direct and reliable chain of links all the way back to the deeds of Jesus, which is why I limited my comments. I simply don't see how it reasonably follows that, based on lack of a manuscript of Papias or Irenaeus containing the relevant passage and predating the oldest manuscript of Eusebius's HE, the passage is no older than HE.

If we found a manuscript of Irenaeus's that predated our oldest copy of HE and contained the Papias reference, would it necessarily or reasonably follow that Irenaeus fabricated the passage?

Regards,

V.

S.C.Carlson

I missed that thread. Can someone provide a link to it? I don't have such a radical view of Eusebius (but see below).

It's certainly difficult to work with because of the multiple levels of hearsay within hearsay, but I can't figure out where the MSS of Irenaeus are supposed to fit into this chain of transmission.

My working hypothesis, which I hope to eventually substantiate, is that Papias did transmit something about Mark from the presbyter, but Eusebius interpolated his own comments into it (as editorial parentheses) when he quoted Papias in order to domesticate him to what the 4th-century orthodoxy would find acceptable. (This is not unlike how I think the Testimonium got interpolated by Eusebius.)

Stephen

Vivisector

Yes - I can see how this would work. Thank you.

Do you have ideas on the relative sequence of events? Same as above, or would (b) have preceded (a) (i.e., Papias knew from the presbyter that a Mark interpreted Peter's preaching prior to becoming aware of GMk)?

Regards,

V.

S.C.Carlson

I think it's possible to weaken my point (a) little in that Papias may not have known of the attribution for the Gospel according to Mark and guessed/inferred it from the presbyter's statement, who for all we know could have been talking about another gospel. (Though the presbyter's criticisms of it happen to fit the Gospel according to Mark.)

I am reluctant, however, to go further and suppose that the presbyter did not attribute a gospel-like document to a Mark who was Peter's former interpreter, an attribution Papias had to glean from 1 Pet (or even Acts). I've got two problems with this: (1) 1 Pet 5:13 is not a particularly clear suggestion of Mark's being Peter's secretary, and (2) the reference to Mark as Peter's interpreter in the statement of the presbyter that Eusebius quoted via Papias is pre-Eusebian.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Hard to tell, but I suspect that the presbyter's comments were made in connection with the publication of John around 100, so Papias before then probably would have been familiar with another gospel. That other gospel could have been Mark, Luke, or some version of Matthew (even Thomas?), but, given the rather limited circulation of Mark, it is not wholly inconceivable that Papias did not actually come into contact with Mark until well after the presbyter's death. At this point, the evidence is rather limited, so I guess I don't really have any good ideas on the relative sequence.

Amaleq13

Here are two in which I know Jay participated:

Eusebius forged Hegesippus

Would Eusebius have Fabricated...

He may also have participated in this one:

Eusebius the Liar?