Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dost · 06-09-2003, 02:09 PM

Hello.

I would like to know the reasons why many scholars tend to reject the 2nd century tradition that names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors of the Gospels. What are the major evidence or reasons that caste doubt over the claim made by Papias? Papias made his claims in about 4 decades of the writing of the Gospels, is it therefore possible that in a matter of 4 decades the names of the authors could have been completely forgotton and blotted out of memory? And if Papias was incorrect, then why don't we find any other competing set of names as the authors of these Gospels?

Dosen't the agreement and acceptance among Christians over the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the only authors of the Gospels, with no other competing names, indicate the reliability of the Papias tradition?

Furthermore, why assign the Gospel according to Mark to a relatively insignificant individual such as Mark? If Papias was "making it up", then why not claim a more significant Church leader as the author of the Gospel?

These are just some arguments that are often raised by some apologists and conservative Christian scholars. I am interested to know how scholars, who consider the Gospels anonymous, deal with these arguments.

Thanks.

Toto · 06-09-2003, 05:59 PM

This site seems to summarize the arguments:

Rejection of Pascal's Wager

Quote:

is it therefore possible that in a matter of 4 decades the names of the authors could have been completely forgotton and blotted out of memory? And if Papias was incorrect, then why don't we find any other competing set of names as the authors of these Gospels?

Dosen't the agreement and acceptance among Christians over the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the only authors of the Gospels, with no other competing names, indicate the reliability of the Papias tradition?

The gospels may have never had single identifiable authors, so there would never have been other competing ideas about who wrote them. It is likely that the gospels were not composed by one person, but evolved out of community traditions and liturgy.

Besides, the statement from Papias does not identify the gospels that he claims were written by Mark or Matthew. (He describes a gospel by Matthew that contains sayings in Hebrew, but it is not clear how this can be tied to a biographical story written in Greek.) It appears that later church fathers at some point felt the need to pin names on the anonymous gospels, and mined the names from Papias, so there is no good reason to respect that tradition.

The case for someone named Mark having written the gospel of Mark is a little better than the case for Matthew, Luke, or John.

Peter Kirby · 06-10-2003, 02:20 PM

It's best to treat the authorship issue separately for each book. Papias mentions only the authors "Matthew" and "Mark," though some such as Robert Price dispute whether Papias was talking about the canonical books that now have these superscriptions.

Here is a previous thread on the Gospel of Mark.

Here is a post by Vinnie

First I want to re-ask a question: What does it mean to say that Mark was the interpreter of Peter? Was he translating what Peter said or what? Or does "interpreter" mean he "rephraseed" Peter's preaching? In a footnote in his Intro NT Brown seemed to lean towards the former (p. 160 n. 84).

Basic facts: Papias' reference dates from 100-150. Fixing a precise date seems hard. Mark was in existence for 30 to 80 years before Papias wrote what he did. If the tradition about the elder is correct it goes back earlier and we see that this tradition was shaped within several decades of the composition of Mark's Gospel.

Mark's Gospel never claims to be the Memoirs of Peter. Neither Matthew nor Luke make an explicit connection and Luke does not use Mark nearly as extensively as Matthew and changes many things. But both did use the book writing from different areas within one to three decades so this needs to be explained.

But I wonder if Luke 1:1-4 applies to Mark. Luke certainly has a different theological spin in parts so maybe there is an implicit correction of Gmark in certain spots in Luke's Intro.

Quote:

E.P. Sanders & Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 6

Questions of the date and authorship of works written in Greek, as were the Gospels, are ordinarily quite simple. Usually they were published in the author�s name, and usually there is enough biographical information about the author to allow the reader to date the work, at least approximately. At first glance this appears to be the case with the synoptic gospels . . . [but] these titles, however, were not originally attached to the gospels: the author of Mark did not write, �The Gospel according to Mark�, but simply �the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1). The gospel writers, it will turn out, did not follow the usual Greek (and Roman) practice pf naming themselves, but rather the tradition of anonymous publication, a practice frequently followed in Jewish literature.

Mark follows the practice of anonymous composition.

Quote:

Peter Kirby Wrote: What is interesting in this case is that the tradition about Gospel of Mark resists the tendency to claim apostolic authorship as found in the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of James, and other documents. As you point out, the alleged author of the Gospel of Mark is not an eyewitness and not an apostle. This is surprising to some modern fundamentalists who assume that the Four Gospels must have all been written by people who knew Jesus. If the intent of the tradition's originators was to lend authority to the text, why wasn't the Gospel of Mark assigned to an apostle in the same way as the Gospel of Matthew? One elegant answer is that the tradition was grounded in knowledge of who the author was, preventing a false attribution to an apostle. What is interesting in this case is that the tradition about Gospel of Mark resists the tendency to claim apostolic authorship as found in the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of James, and other documents. As you point out, the alleged author of the Gospel of Mark is not an eyewitness and not an apostle. This is surprising to some modern fundamentalists who assume that the Four Gospels must have all been written by people who knew Jesus. If the intent of the tradition's originators was to lend authority to the text, why wasn't the Gospel of Mark assigned to an apostle in the same way as the Gospel of Matthew? One elegant answer is that the tradition was grounded in knowledge of who the author was, preventing a false attribution to an apostle. This argument certainly is not a complete failure.

Here is something by Sanders and Davies:

Quote:

Sanders & Davies SSG p. 13
Irenaeus (and others) did not have a clue where the Gospel of Mark came from or who wrote it. They loved the gospel and found in its rough and plain prose an echo of an earlier day and a place where Greek was not fluent. They wished to assign a gospel to Peter, and the apparently simple gospel now called Mark was the likeliest candidate. They could not, however, attribute it to Peter himself, since it had been around for almost a hundred years without having been ascribed to him. They put together Acts 12.12 (Peter went to Mark�s mother�s house in Jerusalem) and 1 Peter 5.13 (�my son Mark�) and concluded that the historical person Mark could have written the gospel.

1. That can easily be modified. Maybe knowledge at the time would not allow a Gospel to be attributed to Peter and Mark was the best way to get closest to him?

2. Mark was a common name. Maybe an unknown Christian wrote GMark and his name was amalgamated with John Mark??? This �elegant solution� could help explain the internal issues (e.g. geography errors etc).

3. As Brown notes in his Intro to the NT: Maybe Peter was an �archetypal figure identified with Jerusalem apostolic tradition and with a preaching that combined Jesus' Teaching, deeds, and passion.�

As Brown noted in a footnote 85 on p. 160: �Several passages in Paul indicate that historically Peter was known as a preacher and perhaps a font of tradition about Jesus (a combination of I Cor 15:3,5,11; one interpretation of Gal 1.18). Later Acts personifies Peter as the preacher of the Jerusalem community. The ecumencial book PNT contends that after his lifetime Peter became an idealized figure for certain functions in the church. II Pet 1:13-19 embodies the picture of Peter as the preserver of the apostolic memory.�

As Brown further noted (pp. 160-161): �Papias could, then, be reporting in a dramatized and simplified way that in his writing about Jesus, Mark reorganized and rephrased a content derived from a standard type of preaching that was considered apostolic. That could explain two frequently held positions about Gospel relationships: first, that the Marcan Gospel was so acceptable within a decade as to be known and approved as a guide by Matthew and Luke writing in different areas; second, that John could be independent of mark and still have similarities to it in outline and some contents. Many would dismiss entirely the Papias tradition; but the possibilities just raised could do some justice to the fact that ancient traditions often have elements of truth in garbled form.�

4. Papias or the Elder were mistaken.

5. John Mark actually authored the Gospel.

Sure, there are several �elegant answers�. How do we decide which one is correct? This argument is a complete failure in that it does not seem to demonstrate what it attempts to do so: John Mark wrote GMark. There are several "elegant" answers.

Points where GMark seemingly does not reflect eyewitness reminiscing:

1. This is new area to me but Brown writes that in some places the accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus seem secondary to accounts in Q or other Gospels. Sure Peter�s preaching would not be �secondary�?

2. As mentioned earlier, Mark has Jesus declare all foods clean. Is this a memoir of Peter?

As Raymond Brown notes (Intro to the NT. p 137) "The hard-fought struggle over kosher food attested in Acts and Paul would be difficult to explain if Jesus had settled the issue from the beginning."

Paula Fredriksen relays similar thoughts to Brown's above in Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews (p.108) "we must take into account the controversy in Antioch, years after this supposed encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees, when Peter, the men sent from James, and Paul disputed about mixed Gentile-Jewish meals taken in community (Gal 2:11-13). If Jesus during his mission had already nullified the laws of kashrut, this argument never could have happened."

Critical scholars recognize this as the voice of Mark rather than
the voice of Jesus. Mark's gloss stylistically intrudes upon this
passage. Here is Fredriksen on the gloss: (p.108) "Its the equivalent of a film actors stepping out of character and narrative action and speaking directly into the camera, addressing the viewing audience . . . The addition makes Mark's point, not his main character's.

Mark dismisses the concerns of Jesus' opponents�Shabbat, food, tithing, Temple offering, purity�as the "traditions of men." To these he opposes what Jesus ostensibly propounds as "the commandments of God" (7:8). The strong rhetoric masks the fact that these laws are biblical and, as such, the common concern of all religious Jesus: It is God in the Torah, not the Pharisees in their interpretations of it, who commanded these observances . . .�

3. If you accept the accuracy of Kloner�s article in BAR, was the rolling stone a memoir of Peter?

4. John Mark (the alleged author under discussion) was (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who had early become a Christian. This seems hard to reconcile with Mark�s several Palestinian geography errors. I can cite the verses if necessary. Of course, it may be maintained that a native of the land could make such errors but that seems like a stretch to me.

5. The Gospel allegedly written by John Mark the (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem does not look like a translation from Aramaic.

6. The Gospel allegedly written by John Mark the (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem seems to be based upon traditions received in Greek. (Hengel might dispute this on the basis of the high number of Aramaic words)

7. Mark is writing for an audience seemingly outside of Palestine given that he needs to explain certain Jewish customs/practices. I can cite the verses if necessary. But Mark the (presumably Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem seemingly gets them wrong. In Mark 7:3-4 its said that all Jews practiced hand-washing. E.P. Sanders and others do not think this was the practice of all Jews. See Sanders HFJ p. 219 see 332 and notes.

8. This is not conclusive in itself but I�ll add it to the list. Mark makes a scriptural blunder: Mark in 2:25-26. Compare that with Luke 6:4 and Matthew 12:3 who correct the error. See NJBC p. 604 and NIV study Note

9. See the author of GMark add new commandment: Mark 10:19. Then see Matthew and Luke drop Mark�s addition: Matt 16:18 and Luke 18:20 See NJBC 616

10. Is Mark�s portrayal of the disciples and the Messianic secret a �memoir� of Peter?

11. Mark may have garbled tradition based upon a scripture citation and come up with a confused reason on why Jesus spoke in parables: to confuse. Matthew corrects this error. Of course this could be related to the messianic secret in Mark so I won�t push it.

12. Mark 2:23-27 23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." 27Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

As one with knowledge of form criticism will easily notice: Why is it that only Jesus� disciples are accused of plucking grain? It is strange that they and not Jesus and them are accused. The disciples represent the early church. These saying which defend the non-observance of the Sabbath �may have been said by the historical Jesus, but perhaps in another context. The event as it is told in the synoptics is �an ideal scene� created by the church so as to give the saying the context which was subsequently appropriate. � (Sanders and Davies SSG pp 125). Peter could �possibly� be responsible for this material but this type of material in Mark tends to push me away from eyewitness reminiscing.

To quote Paula Fredriksen on Mark and Jesus� controversy traditions:

Quote:

�Mark shapes these controversy traditions polemically, to provide the greatest contrast between Jesus and his challengers. The scribes and Pharisees fuss over imagined Sabbath infringements (in fact, none is actually presented; it is the tone of Jesus� activity that offends), oblivious to the splendid healings; miffed by a question and a miracle, they plot his murder. In their anxiety to ensure universal conformity to their own standards of observance, they follow Jesus everywhere, watching his house to see whom he eats with and how (Mark 2:13-17 and parr.), patrolling grainfields on the Sabbath hoping to catch him out (2:23-24), checking to see whether his disciples first wash their hands before eating (7:2). This is polemical caricature, not realistic portraiture. As such, we can scarcely use it directly for realistic reconstructions of the past. The first step, rather, is to identify Mark�s polemical hobbyhorses, and then try to correct for these when reading what he has to say.

For example: Consider the long and contrived controversy story given in Mark 7. In protesting that Jesus� disciples do not purify their hands before eating, mark�s Pharisees in effect complain that Jesus� disciples are not Pharisees (since such a purification practice seems to have characterized specifically this group). Should this surprise them? As we noted in our earlier survey, even taking Josephus� number of six thousand Pharisees in the first century, they would have constituted at the most 1.2 percent of the total population of Palestine. Didn�t they know that they were a small minority, and that their customs were hardly universal?� pp. 107-108 Jesus of Nazareth

The memoirs of Peter? I think not.

12. Mark 5:35-43. Is that eyewitness reminiscing of Peter? At best it can be claimed that this is historical and it was thought that the girl was dead and was raised.

13. The feeding of the five-thousand with a few loaves. The eye-witness reminiscing of Peter? The feeding of the 4,000

14. The wording of the prayer at Gethsemane. The eyewitness reminiscing or preaching of Peter or Christian creation based upon the tradition of Jesus praying over his fate some point before his death (the stance of Brown in the Death of the Messiah)?

Etc etc. I don't have time to go on and read through Mark or my sources and point out other examples at the moment. These are the ones I remembered.

So, what exactly comes from Peter and what comes from Mark? Remember, Papias says Mark wrote carefully what Peter said not being careful not to omit. He did not write in order and Papais may have been okay with Mark adding to Peter but I guess we have to ask how much is Mark allowed to add and how much has to be accurate? The cases I brought up seem to go well beyond this. In all practicality, they render the link to Peter moot.

Taken as a whole, this material and my earlier points which posited other �elegant solutions� to the Papias question point me in one direction: This Gospel written around 70 AD was written by an unknown Christian.

Are there any other evidences for a direct link to Peter?

Peter's prominence in GMark fails miserably. Peter's prominence was simply factual in the early church. Ergo, Mark's content does not even come close to necessitating and sort of direct contact with Peter.

Vinnie

Here is my response.

I appreciate all the work you have put into these posts. You might want to work it into an article for your web site. Recall that my initial reply was, "Why do we think that the author of Mark hadn't heard Peter say stuff? I haven't seen the subject addressed in detail." That statement is no longer true. You have gone into impressive detail on why you disbelieve the traditional attribution of the Gospel according to Mark.

An additional and potentially powerful argument against Petrine authority behind Mark has come to my attention since writing my last post. I have recently read St. Paul versus St. Peter by Michael Goulder, who claims that the Gospel of Mark is virulently Pauline. Here is what Goulder has to say:

Quote:

And is there not a tradition that Mark was Peter's interpreter in Rome in later years?

There is indeed, and a very unreliable tradition too: it comes from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in western Turkey about 130, and it comes alongside a series of other pieces of wishful thinking designed to defend the Gospels against those who pointed out contradictions between them. A little earlier the author of I Peter (who was not St Peter) ends his letter: 'She who is at Bablyon (i.e. the church at Rome) . . . sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark'. Mark was a well-known figure in the Roman church, and mentioning him made it more plausible that Peter was the writer. But arguments of this kind of reference and from tradition are always perilous. The only way to find out Mark's attitude to Peter is to look carefully at what he says about him, and compare it with the other accounts we have. All arguments of the form, Surely Mark would have . . ., prejudge the issue. We need to look fairly at the evidence, and as before, to try to forget for the moment our interests in what Peter was actually like, and to concentrate on what Mark (and the others) thought about him. For this purpose we must certainly note all the positive stories Mark includes about him, which are for the most part the same incidents I have mentioned with James and John. But there are two passages which are about Peter on his own, and these are instructive. We may seee Mark's emphasis most easily by taking another account alongside.

, , ,

It is clear that Peter was the first to hail Jesus as 'the Christ' (the long promised king of the line of David - see below ch. 14); and that this was a big moment, and greatly to his credit in the eyes of all Christians, Mark included. But a comparison of the two texts above shows how enthusiastic Matthew is about it, and how grudging is Mark. (1) In Mark Peter gives Jesus the merely human title 'Christ'. But Mark thought that the real significance of Jesus was that he was divine, 'the Son of God' (ch. 14); it is Matthew who adds 'the Son of the living God'. (2) In Mark Peter gets absolutely no credit for his great moment of insight; the response is chilling, like a schoolchild who feels he has written a marvellous essay and the teacher makes no comment at all. Contrast Matthew: Blessed . . . revealed . . . Peter . . . this rock . . . the gates of Hades . . . the keys of the kingdom. We begin to see reasons for thinking that Matthew is a Petrine. (3) Mark makes it clear that Peter has only begun on the road to understanding. He has not taken in that Jesus has to suffer, die and rise again, which are crucial to a true understanding. Matthew has this too, but he separates it from Peter's scene of triumph with 'From that time . . .'

Mark seems even to take the offensive against Peter. (4) Although Jesus explained things plainly, Mark says Peter had the gall to rebuke him - to rebuke the Son of God! Matthew makes the rebuke ever so gentle - 'God forbid, Lord!' - so gentle that it is hardly a rebuke at all. (5) This causes Jesus to rebuke Peter, calling him Satan, which is a pretty stinging remark; and he does it publicly, 'turning and seeing his disciples'. Matthew drops the latter; he retains the famous 'Satan' saying, but lets it down to mean that Peter is not only the rock on which the church is built, but also a rock which has nearly tripped Jesus up. (6) There is a worse matter, which is often not noticed. Jesus goes on immediately in Mark: 'If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life shall lose it . . .' Can you think of anyone in the Gospel story who wanted to save his life, who refused to come after Jesus and take up his cross, who did not deny himself but denied Jesus? Well, so could St Mark. (St. Paul versus St. Peter, pp. 16-18)

If true, this seems to be the most powerful argument against the tradition of Petrine authority behind the Second Gospel. I will let you read Goulder himself to decide whether his theory is true.

E. P. Sanders writes, "The key fact to recall is that the tradition about Mark does not surface until approximately 140, which on balance must make us doubt that Papias had an old and reliable tradition." (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 12) Is that a fact? All we have to go on for dating Papias (within the rough range of 80 to 180) are the patristic statements. Robert H. Gundry offers us this analysis:

Quote:

The date of the tradition depends on the date of Papias's writing and on the identity of the elder whom he quotes regarding Mark. Modern handbooks used to put the date at ca. 130 C.E. or later (see the survey by R. W. Yarbrough in JETS 26 [1983] 181-82), but a consensus seems to be developing that Papias wrote earlier by a quarter century or more, i.e. in the first decade of the second century. Eusebius leads us to the early date by saying that Papias became famous during the time of Polycarp and Ignatius, with whom he associates Clement of Rome (H.E. 3.36.1-2; 3.39.1). Polycarp did not die till the middle of the second century; but Ignatius died ca. 107 and Clement ca. 100. Eusebius's discussion of Papias's writings comes right at this point, i.e. before Trajan's persecution, which started ca. 110 and which Eusebius does not describe till Book 4 of his Ecclesiastical History whereas the fragments of Papias appear in Book 3.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Yarbrough (op. cit. 186-90), Eusebius's Chronicon puts together and in order the Apostle John, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius and assigns the date 100 to this entry (R. Helm, Chronik 193-94); and J. B. Orchard (in The NT Age 393-403) shows that Eusebius is following a chronological order according to which all the events recorded in H.E. 3.34-39 take place during the bishopric of Evarestus at Rome (101-108 C.E.). Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, describes Papias as an "ancient man" and as "the hearer of the Apostle John" (Haer. 5.33.4; cf. Eus. H.E. 3.39.1, 13; cf. also R. H. Gundry, Matthew 614-15). The failure of Irenaeus and Eusebius to quote Papias against Gnosticism is best explained by Papias's having said nothing against Gnosticism because he wrote before it became a serious threat, i.e. before 110 (cf. also M. Hengel, Studies 152, n. 61). And the Papian fragments exhibit a general similarity to the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, written early (for details, see Yarbrough, op. cit. 188-90).

U. H. J. Kortner (Papias 225-26) agrees that Papias's polemics fit an early rather than late date and adds that it is easier to think of an early date for Papias's making inquiry of those who had heard "the elders" (Eus. H.E. 3.39.3-4), but it is hard to think of the Elder John and Aristion as still alive toward the middle of the second century. The present tense of legousin, "are saying" (ibid.), implies that they are still alive when Papias writes, however. It is also hard to believe that he lived so long as to have both had personal acquaintance with the daughters of "Philip the Apostle" in the middle of the first century (Eus. H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Acts 21:8-9) and written toward the middle of second century. Papias's use of "the Lord's disciples" and of "the elders" instead of "the apostles" for the guarantors of orthodoxy favors an early date, i.e. a date before "the apostles" developed such a connotation; and Papias's lack of great attention to John's writings favors an early date, i.e. a date so soon after John had written that those writings did not yet command much attention. Finally, E. Stauffer (in Neutestamentliche Aufsatze 283-93) and H. H. Schmidt (in TZ 44 [1988] 135-46) have noted a large number of Semitisms in the Papian fragment on Mark, Semitisms favoring the tradition of the Elder John had a very early and therefore likely reliable origin.

The only hard evidence favoring a late date consists in a statement by Philip of Side, who makes Papias refer to the reign of Hadrian (117-138; see the citation in Aland's Synopsis 531). But we have good reasons to distrust Philip's statement. He is notoriously unreliable and wrote approximately a century later than Eusebius did (Philip - ca. 430; Eusebius - ca. 324). Comparison of Philip's statement with Eusebius's favors that Philip depended on Eusebius but garbled the information he got. Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus, who addressed an apology to Hadrian, the very emperor during whose reign Philip puts Papias's writings. The claim of Quadratus that some of the people whom Jesus healed and raised from the dead have lived up to his own day sounds something like the claim of Papias to have gotten information about the Lord's commands "from the living and abiding voice" of the elders and other disciples of the Lord (see Eus. H.E. 3.39.1-4 with 4.3.1-2). More strikingly, however, when Philip quotes Papias, the phraseology sounds more like Eusebius's quotations of Quadratus than of Papias. Thus, just as Eusebius associates Quadratus with Hadrian's reign and quotes Quadratus as referring to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living, so Philip associates Papias with Hadrian's reign and writes that Papias referred to people raised form the dead by Jesus and still living. Furthermore, there appears to have been another Quadratus, who was a prophet, not an apologist. Eusebius discusses him in association with Jesus' original disciples and their immediate successors (H.E. 3.37.1). Philip probably confuses Quadratus the apologist with Quadratus the prophet. It was easy for him to do so, because he found Eusebius's similar discussion of Papias bounded by references to the name "Quadratus." A final cause of Philip's confusing Papias's writings with an apology by a Quadratus is Eusebius's associating this Quadratus with the daughters of Philip the evangelist (H.E. 3.37.1) just as Eusebius associates Papias with them (H.E. 3.39.9). Poor Philip fell into a trap. In summary, a large number of considerations unite to disfavor a date of 130 or later in accordance with Philip of Side and to favor a date of 101-108 (see R. W. Yarbrough in JETS 26 [1983] 182-186 against arguments even less substantial than the one from Philip).

Now by his own testimony Papias is not surmising. He is passing on an earlier report by a certain elder. Properly speaking, the tradition does not go back merely to Papias, as most discussions leave the impression it does, but behind Papias to an elder. If Papias writes 101-108, then, the tradition that he passes on reaches back into the first century. (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pp. 1027-1029)

If Gundry is right about the antiquity of the tradition, would that be an argument for taking it seriously?

I am not sure. In line with Goulder's theory, the battle between the Paulines and the Petrines for control of the church would have been in issue in the early period, shortly after the war, and what better way would there be to discredit the ideas of the Petrines than to say that Peter didn't teach them and was rather on the side of Paul? And, well look here, his son Mark was so close to Peter that he interpreted his words and left us this gospel, which shows the glorious truth of the mission to the Gentiles. The consensus seems to be that the gospel was anonymous, so its authorship could be up for grabs to anyone who had a good idea. Are there similar cases in history in which an anonymous document is quickly given a false attribution?

Even though I am now less optimistic about the authorship of Mark, I think that you make many good points and questions that deserve comment, so here are some comments.

Yes. I would take that a little further. Several other Christians seemed to have no interest in Gospel authorship from what we can tell of their surviving thoughts. Its hard to combine literary silence with an accurate transmission of authorship.

That sounds awfully like the dreaded argument from silence! What makes this argument from silence good and another one bad (such as those of Earl Doherty)?

I will answer my own question: There are indeed good and bad arguments from silence. "I submit that at least three criteria can be used to evaluate the strength of an argument from silence. The first criterion is the presumption of knowledge. This criterion asks, how likely is it that a particular writer knew of an event if it had happened? The second criterion is the presumption of relevance. This criterion asks, how likely is it that the writer would mention this event in this document? The third criterion is applied after we have a number of different writers and documents that have been evaluated through the first two. The third one asks, how likely is it that all these documents fail to mention this event? While perhaps it would be understandable if any particular one failed to make a note of the event, the argument is strengthened by several silences when it would seem a strange coincidence for every one to happen not to mention the event." (from http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...b/silence.html - "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated")

How do the criteria apply to this case? The criterion of the presumption of knowledge does not hold securely. If the Gospel of Mark was published without an author's name attached, it is possible that some people knew who the author was and that other people didn't, at least for a while. But the opposing argument would be stronger if it were "general knowledge" that the oldest Gospel was written by one Mark, and this is particularly the case if the Gospel was published openly by Peter's disciples. So the criterion of the presumption of knowledge holds well enough, though not securely. What about the presumption of relevance? Well, why would these authors (who are they?) make a note that the Gospel of Mark was by a disciple of Peter? For one thing, do these authors even mention the Gospel of Mark at all? Further, do these authors depend on the Gospel of Mark in such a way that it would be worthwhile to mention the tradition of authorship? After all, plenty of people quote from the Gospel of Mark today without going into a whole song and dance about its origins. And, how extensive is this silence? At least four second century writers mention the Petrine connection: Papias of Hierapolis, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria. What are the names of the people who should have mentioned the authorship of Mark but didn't?

Yes, but more than that. Some of the material probably reflects ideal situations for the early church.

Later you write: The question that this will boil down to is what is from Peter and what is from Mark and other sources?

Yes, that does put a damper on the whole Petrine authority thing. Here is what the Catholic NAB says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources - miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion - so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day." Certainly everyone critical can agree that Mark is not dictated by Peter as Jerome said.

If Paul says he met Peter in a surviving letter we would probably believe him I think unless evidence to the contrary came up. It would be a contemporary-primary eyewitness source datum that would seemingly warrant a deal of presumption. Of course, even these are sometimes disputed (e.g. some of Josephus' references to himself). But in this case where this issue was disputing from different sides I am not sure why Papias should get any sort of presumption.

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that there was a dispute over the authorship of Mark?

I don't see how your bifurcation is valid. Whether Peter wrote his own account or whether Mark wrote Peter's account (e.g. Papias), whats the difference? The authority is the same either way.

This would be an important point. Some today would say that the Gospel of Mark has the authority of Peter even if composed by his disciple, while others would say that it is hearsay if it were not written down by the eyewitness. But what people would think today is not the crucial issue: the question is, what was the ancient attitude towards authorship? On this question, though I could be wrong, I think you are right: the work of someone who wrote under the authority of a worthy was considered to be basically by that worthy. We even carry on that practice today, what with the lecture notes called the Nicomachean Ethics being treated simply as the work of Aristotle. So I could see Justin Martyr agreeing with the statements of Papias and still calling it the memoirs of Peter.

I was relying on Keoster for the claim that Justin knew Papias. Papias or the presbyter tradition. Either way multiple attestation seems to be ruled out.

There is something that I have sometimes wondered about multiple attestation: don't a lot of "independent" accounts go back to the testimony of one person? For example, the denials of Peter, if they had been historical. They are present both in the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John. Perhaps the author of the Gospel of Mark heard the story from Peter (or perhaps from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from Peter), and perhaps the author of the Gospel of John heard it from the beloved disciple who heard it from Peter. In that case, don't we only have one witness to the event, that of Peter? Doesn't multiple attestation for hearsay suffer from the fact that all the sources may go back to a single eyewitness? In our case, the single witness would have been the author who said, "hey, I just wrote this book based on the stories Peter told." If it's ok for multiply attested claims to go back to a single witness, then how exactly is it multiple attestation? Does it make a big difference if the tree, instead of having two nodes branching off from the root (the first person to recount the Papias tradition and the first person to recount the Justin tradition), has a single node coming from the root (the elder who is the source behind Papias and Justin)? Isn't still the same source and the same number of steps between the source and the written reports? I guess the point is, what is it about multiple attestation that makes stories that are multiply attested more reliable, if it's not that there are multiple eyewitnesses?

Quote:

That Justin should have known the term "LONGGREEKWORDICAN'TTYPE" from its occasional use in the Second Sophistic is possible, but not very likely. It is highly unlikely, however, that his choice of the term as a designation for the gospels was dependent upon this usagem, and it is certainly not the case that Justin adopted the term in order to lend to tye written gospels the rank of historical sources--simply because "SAMEGREEKWORD" did not have any such meaning iat Justin's time. On the other hand, the simple form of the verb "to remember" (GREEKWORD) occurs frequently in the quotation formulae for orally tranmitted sayings of Jesus. The composite form of the verb "to remember" (FORMGREEKWORD) had been used by Papias of Hierapolis as a technical term for the transmission of oral materials about Jesus. If Justin's term "Meemoirs of the Apostles" is derived from this usage, it designated the written gospels as the true recollections of the apostles, trustworthy and accurate, and more reliable than any oral tradition which they are destined to replace.[1]

Moreover, when Justin composed the interpretation of Psalm 22--an earlier treatise that was later incorporated in his Dialogue--it is evideent that he knew of the presbyter tradition quoted in Papias's work. In Dial. 106.3 he refers to the "Memoirs of Peter" in the context of a citation from Mark 3:16-17. This reveals that Justin connected the Gospel of Mark with Peter like the presbyter tradition that is quoted in Papias. That Justin, relying on Papias, coined the term "Memoirs of the Apostles" with an anti-Gnostic intention, is quite possible, considering the use of the terminology of "remembering" in such writings as the Apocryphon of James. But what is of primary importance is the fact that the use of this term advertises the written gospels as replacement for the older oral traditions under apostolic authority."

Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels pg. 39-40

I had forgotten about this passage from Koester. Basically, aside from the point that they agree that Peter is the authority behind Mark (the tradition in question), Koester points out that Justin speaks of "memoirs" while Papias speaks of "remembering," the same root word, while Justin considers the memoirs to be superior to oral tradition. Koester's argument would be more plausible if Justin had mentioned Papias. As it is, there were probably many people who had appealed to the oral memory of the living Jesus, with Papias just being the most famous to us. Another writer who promoted the memory of Jesus is the author of 1 Clement, who asks his readers to remember those sayings of Jesus stored up in their hearts. Justin, if he was using "memoirs" in an allusive way, was not isolating Papias for this allusion.

Where is the CofA reference? I am not familiar with this one.

Haran posted the quotes earlier in the thread. Here they are.

Quote:

Clement of Alexandria
From Eus. - Book 6:14

In the same volumes Clement has found room for a tradition of the primitive authorities of the Church regarding the order of the gospels. It is this. He used to say that the earliest gospels were those containing the genealogies, while Mark's originated as follows. When, at Rome, Peter had openly preached the word and by the spirit had proclaimed the gospel, the large audience urged Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write it all down. This he did, making his gospel available to all who wanted it. When Peter heard about this, he made no objection and gave no special encouragement.

Clement of Alexandria
From Eus. - Book 2:15

So brightly shone the light of true religion on the minds of Peter's hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whoe gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go till they had persuaded him, and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the spirit what had happened, the apostle was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorized the reading of the book in the churches. Clement quotes the story in Outlines Book VI, and his statement is confirmed by Bishop Papias of Hierapolis, who also points out that Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself....

There is also the letter published by Morton Smith.

Quote:

From the letters of the most holy Clement, the author of the Stromateis. To Theodore.

You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in 1, verso Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

Now the true explanation, and that which accords with the true philosophy ...

I agree that the story has become legendary by the time of Clement of Alexandria.

Of course, serious reconstruction is usually not based upon a single witness unless that witness is authenticated. Some scholars general trust that Jesus was a carpenter even though the only evidence occurs in one passage in the NT. But this seemed more incindental there.

Sure a single witness could preserve truth but what evidence can you give me that I should trust Papias here? Papias also relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day and that a man swallowed deadly poison and lived. Of course, neither of these, again, warrant cavalier dismissal of Papais. They only caution us against a naive reliance on Papias' evidence.

I recognize the difficulty in authenticating a single witness. It could be true, but how do we know? As to the resurrection and survival of deadly poison, I must ask whether you believe in miracles? I don't, and so the argument has some sway, but do you?

Where does it say Mark may certainly add to it? You seemed to have read that in. Sure Mark had to pice the material together into a narrative but is this the same as Mark may add to it? Of course when I ask that it is under the assumption of all the things I think Mark probably added that do not come from Peter and I'll list them on Sunday/Modany.

I agree that Papias does not say, "Mark may have added non-Peter stuff." What Papias does is to omit saying that Mark added nothing, though he does say that Mark left out nothing. Perhaps one could make an argument for implication, but that is not what I would do. I would just say that Papias's account is compatible with a scenario in which the author of Mark added non-Peter stuff.

For instance, does the historical datum where the historical Jesus is said to have declared all food clean come from Mark of Peter?

Not Jesus, but maybe Mark, as I think Paul would have used it if he had known of it.

Onward to the next post...

First I want to re-ask a question: What does it mean to say that Mark was the interpreter of Peter? Was he translating what Peter said or what? Or does "interpreter" mean he "rephraseed" Peter's preaching? In a footnote in his Intro NT Brown seemed to lean towards the former (p. 160 n. 84).

The word used in the Greek is herm�neut�s. Feyerabend offers the definition "herald, interpreter, expounder." I was able to find two other occurences of the word through Perseus.

Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae (ed. B. Niese) book 2, section 72. And he expected a prediction like to that of the cupbearer. But Joseph, considering and reasoning about the dream, said to him, that he would willingly be an interpreter [herm�neut�s] of good events to him, and not of such as his dream denounced to him; but he told him that he had only three days in all to live, for that the [three] baskets signify, that on the third day he should be crucified, and devoured by fowls, while he was not able to help himself.

Plato, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman div1 Stat., section 290c. There are men who have to do with divination and possess a portion of a certain menial science; for they are supposed to be interpreters [herm�neutai] of the gods to men.

Thus, in the only two other examples of the exact word that I could find, in neither place did the word refer to a foreign language interpreter. It is still possible that this is the meaning in Papias, for it is possible that Peter had insufficient command of either Greek or Latin. But it is equally possible that the meaning is "expounder," until I see a persuasive argument either way.

Sure, there are several �elegant answers�. How do we decide which one is correct? This argument is a complete failure in that it does not seem to demonstrate what it attempts to do so: John Mark wrote GMark. There are several "elegant" answers.

Here is how Sanders treats the problem:

Quote:

We shall find throughout our study of the gospels that we must often guess what someone would have done, based on our reading of general tendencies. We might as well start now emphasizing that such guesses, though 'informed' to some degree or other, are never certain. Our own judgment is that the 'alternative explanation' of two paragraphs above is more likely than Streeter's argument, but 'more likely' is the strongest term to use for arguments of this sort. We shall present the alterative again: Streeter: the second-century Christians would have assigned Mark to Peter if they could, but their inclination was overcome by their knowledge that actually Mark wrote it. We have proposed instead: the second-century Christians assigned Mark as close to Peter as they could, since it was well known that he did not write a gospel himself. (Studying the Synoptic Gospels, p. 14)

Usually there is more than one possible explanation, but some are better than others. On the face of it, I thought that a good explanation is that the elder didn't attribute the gospel to Peter because it was known to be by Mark. But the explanation that Peter was known not to have authored a gospel would work just as well. And, as for example the argument of Goulder shows, there are difficulties with the traditional ascription. You go on to catalogue several difficulties yourself.

John Mark (the alleged author under discussion) was (presumably an Aramaic-Speaking) Jew of Jerusalem who had early become a Christian.

I know that the tradition refers to the John Mark of Acts, but couldn't Papias be speaking of a person that Peter befriended in Antioch or even Rome? There were plenty of Marks in the ancient Roman Empire.

The feeding of the five-thousand with a few loaves. The eye-witness reminiscing of Peter? The feeding of the 4,000

This is an excellent point, and not just because they are 'nature miracles'.

Here is what Meier has to say: "When compared to most Gospel miracle stories, the feeding of the multitude is supported by an unusually strong atttestation of multiple sources. It is not only attested independently in both Mark and John, it is also attested by two variant forms of the tradition lying behind Mark's Gospel. This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form." (A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, p. 965)

All this talk about development and cycles leaves Peter out in the cold.

So, what exactly comes from Peter and what comes from Mark? Remember, Papias says Mark wrote carefully what Peter said not being careful not to omit. He did not write in order and Papais may have been okay with Mark adding to Peter but I guess we have to ask how much is Mark allowed to add and how much has to be accurate? The cases I brought up seem to go well beyond this. In all practicality, they render the link to Peter moot.

Taken as a whole, this material and my earlier points which posited other �elegant solutions� to the Papias question point me in one direction: This Gospel written around 70 AD was written by an unknown Christian.

According to Randel Helms, the Gospel of Mark was written within three and a half years of the destruction of the Temple, based on (the author of) Mark's rereading of Daniel.

I might have to read Helms again, but I am pretty sure that he doesn't buy into the Papias tradition.

The NAB says the Petrine link should not be exaggerated. This is an understatement. Based on this discussion, I think that the tradition of Peter's authority behind Mark carries little weight if any. Thank you for all this information. You are a scholar and a gentleman.

best,
Peter Kirby

dost · 06-14-2003, 02:00 PM

Hello Peter and Toto.

I would like to thank both of you for your detailed replies, especially Peter. There are some questions on my mind that I will be posting here in a few days time as soon as a few of my college assignments are over.

Thanks again for all your assistance, it is much appreciated!

Vinnie · 06-21-2003, 04:59 PM

I've changed my dating of Matthew and Luke slightly from 80-100 to ca 100 a.d. Mark still sometime around 70 ad and John (one stage at least

) around the same time as Matthew and Luke.

Quote:

I would like to know the reasons why many scholars tend to reject the 2nd century tradition that names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors of the Gospels. What are the major evidence or reasons that caste doubt over the claim made by Papias? Papias made his claims in about 4 decades of the writing of the Gospels, is it therefore possible that in a matter of 4 decades the names of the authors could have been completely forgotton and blotted out of memory? And if Papias was incorrect, then why don't we find any other competing set of names as the authors of these Gospels?

Dosen't the agreement and acceptance among Christians over the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the only authors of the Gospels, with no other competing names, indicate the reliability of the Papias tradition?

I have yet to see a single source that discusses all these issues in depth but if you are widely read you will know that the 2d attributions are, for the most part and with the possible exception of Kuke, quite laughable. See the above comments on the question of Mark writing the Gospel of Mark. We probably know more about the gospels origins than did those 2d Christians attaching names to them.

Vinnie

WinAce · 06-21-2003, 07:32 PM

In this essay on gospel authorship, the Tektonics.org guy tries to present counterarguments to most of the above. Is there anything there worth seriously considering, or is it the usual apologetic nonsense?

Peter Kirby · 06-21-2003, 08:35 PM

What of the above does JPH rebut? The only overlap I noticed is the geographical errors to which Vinnie alludes.

One thing I would be interested in seeing addressed: how do we know that Papias is talking of canonical Mark? Does JPH show this?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 06-22-2003, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Is there anything there worth seriously considering, or is it the usual apologetic nonsense?

The latter.

Vinnie

WinAce · 06-23-2003, 05:19 PM

JPH claims if we apply standard historical criteria, the gospels come up with better authorship attestation than many other documents whose traditional authorship isn't disputed.

Quote:

Gospel Dates, Gospel Authors, Gospels Freedoms

In order for readers to appreciate the magnitude of this situation, I would like to present here a listing of external evidences for the authorship of the works of Tacitus. I wish to thank Roger Pearse for helpfully sending me copies of relevant pages from the works of the Tacitean scholar Mendell, from Tacitus: The Man and His Work. Mendell surveys evidence for knowledge of Tacitus throughout history; we will only look at evidence up to the sixth century (for reasons noted in Mendell below). In doing this we would challenge potential respondents to compare this record to that of the Gospels. We will present Mendell's comments and intersperse our own.

THE Annals were probably "published" in 116, the last of the works of Tacitus to appear. Only Pliny of Tacitus' contemporaries mentions him, and his writings and the evidence of subsequent use up to the time of Boccaccio is slight. It is not true, however, that Tacitus and his writings were practically unknown. They were neglected----possibly, in part at least, because of his strong republican bias on the one hand and because, on the other, the church fathers felt him to be unfair to Christianity. Vopiscus in his life of the emperor Tacitus (chapter 10) indicates the state of affairs in the third century: "Cornelium Tacitum, scriptorem historiae Augustae, quod parentem suum eundem diceret, in omnibus bibliothecis conlocari iussit neve lectorum incuria deperiret, librum per an-nos singulos decies scribi publicitus evicos archiis iussit et in bibliothecis poni" (the text is obviously corrupt in the reading evicos archiis).

Nevertheless, Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in each century down to and including the sixth. In fact, the seventh and eighth are the only centuries that have as yet furnished no evidence of knowing him. The following are the known references to Tacitus or use of Tacitean material after the day of Tacitus and Pliny until the time of Boccaccio. The material was well collected in 1888 and published at Wetzler by Emmerich Cornelius, but a considerable amount of new material has turned up from time to time since.

About the middle of the second century Ptolemy published his Gewgrafikh& 'Ufh&ghsij. In 2. 11. 12 (ed. C. Muller, Paris, 1883) he lists in succession along the northern shore of Germany the towns of Flhou&m, and Siatouta&nda. The latter name occurs nowhere else and has a dubious sound. The explanation is to be found in Tacitus, Ann. 4. 72, 73: "Rapti qui tributo aderant milites et patibulo adfixi; Olennius infensos fuga prae-venit, receptus castello, cui nomen Flevum; et haud spernenda illic civium sociorumque manus litora Oceani praesidebat." The governor of lower Germany takes prompt action, the account of which winds up: "utrumque exercitum Rheno devectum Frisiis intulit, soluto iam castelli obsidio et ad sua tutanda degressis rebellibus." The source of Ptolemy's mistake is obvious.

Note here that Ptolemy's obvious use of Tacitus is taken as a signal of the Annals existing. This is in stark contrast to how quotes in patristic writers from the Gospels are excused asway as "floating, independent tradition" rather than evidence of the Gospels. Note as well that Ptolemy does not name Tacitus. We still do not have an attribution of authorship to work with some 40-50 years after the writing.

It is hard to believe that Cassius Dio (who published shortly after A.D. 200) did not know at least the Agricola. In 38. 50 and 66. 20 he mentions Gnaeus Julius Agricola as having proved Britain to be an island and in the later instance tells the story of the fugitive Usipi. If we make allowance for the method of Tacitus, which leaves his account far from clear, and for the use of a different language by Dio, there can be little if any doubt that Tacitus is the source for Dio. We know also of no other possible source today. The last part of the section, dealing with Agricola's return and death, confirms the conclusion that Dio drew from Tacitus, and it sounds as though Tacitus had left the impression he desired.

Notice we still do not have an attribution, and we are now 80 and more years past the publication of these works by Tacitus. We are already at or past the number of years Papias was from the Gospels.

In the third century Tertullian cites Tacitus with a hostile tone. He had spoken without respect of the Jews and had implied that the Christians were an undesirable sect of the Jews. It is not a surprise, therefore, to have Tertullian (early third century) refer to him as ille mendaciorum loquacissimus. The Apologist is defending the Christians against the charge that they worshiped an ass. The origin of this scandal he ascribes to Tacitus, Hist. 5. 3, 9. Apologeticus 16...

This is the first direct attribution of something to Tacitus -- apparently over 100 years later! Tertullian also cited Tacitus in two other places.

Lactantius, in the time of Diocletian, is at least once (Div. inst. 1. 18. 8) somewhat reminiscent of Tacitean style but that is as far as it is safe to go in claiming him as a reader of Tacitus, in spite of something of a resemblance between Lactantius 1. 11, 12 and Germ. 40.

At about the same date, Eumenius of Autun, in his Panegyricus ad Constantinum 9, quite clearly has Agric. 12 before him. He follows Tacitus in the error of thinking that the nights are always short, and he assigns as reasons the same that the Roman had...Not only the actual quotation from Tacitus is of interest but the careful substitution of synonyms.

Vopiscus, still in the fourth century, cites Tacitus with Livy, Sallust, and Trogus as the greatest of Roman historians...Ammianus Marcellinus, about 400, published his history, which began where Tacitus left off, indicating a knowledge at least of what Tacitus had written. At about the same time Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine wrote his Chronicorum libri and, in 2. 28. 2 and 2. 29. 2, used Tacitus, Ann. 15. 37 and 44 as his source. On the detailed matter of Nero's marriage with Pythagoras and the punishment of the Christians the verbal resemblances make it impossible to think that he was drawing on any other source....Jerome in his commentary on Zacchariah 14. 1, 2 (3, p. 914) cites Tacitus: "Cornelius quoque [i.e. as well as Josephus] Tacitus, qui post Augustum usque ad mortem Domitiani vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit." He gives no proof of having read Tacitus----he may not even have seen his works at all----but he did know of a tradition in which the thirty books were numbered consecutively. Claudian cannot be safely claimed as a reader of Tacitus in spite of his suggestive references to Tiberius and Nero. 8, Fourth Consulship of Honorius...Servius, on the other hand, at the end of the fourth century, while his reference is to a lost part of Tacitus, evidently had read the text. Hegesippus made a free Latin version of Josephus' Jewish War with independent additions, many of which seem to come from Tacitus' Histories. An example is 4. 8: "denique neque pisces neque adsuetas aquis et laetas mergendi usu aves." Compare Hist. 5.6: "neque vento impellitur neque pisces aut suetas aquis volucres patitur." There is a certain studied attempt at variation of wording without concealment of the source. Of the fifth-century writers, two, Sidonius Apollinaris and Orosius, have left evidence of considerable familiarity with Tacitus as well as respect for him as a writer. In Ep. 4. 22. 2 Sidonius makes a pun on the name Tacitus. After comparing himself and Leo to Pliny and Tacitus he says that should the latter return to life and see how eloquent Leo was in the field of narrative, he would become wholly Tacitus. The name as he gives it is Gaius Cornelius Tacitus. Again in Ep. 4. 14. 1 he quotes Gaius Tacitus as an ancestor of his friend Polemius. He was, says Sidonius, a consular in the time of the Ulpians: "Sub verbis cuiuspiam Germanici ducis in historia sua rettulit dicens : cum Vespasiano mihi vetus amicitia" etc...The citations in Orosius are naturally quite different from these casual references and general estimates. Orosius is always after material for argument, and it is the content rather than the style that interests him. He refers to Tacitus explicitly and at length. He compares critically the statements of Cornelius Tacitus and Pompeius Trogus and again of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. The quotations and citations from Tacitus are all in the Adversus paganos and all from the Histories. In 1. 5. 1 Orosius says: "Ante annos urbis conditae MCLX confinem Arabiae regionem quae tune Pentapolis vocabatur arsisse penitus igne caeleste inter alios etiam Cornelius Tacitus refert, qui sic ait: Haud procul inde campi . . . vim frugiferam perdidisse. Et cum hoc loco nihil de incensis propter peccata hominum civitatibus quasi ignarus expresserit, paulo post velut oblitus consilii subicit et dicit: Ego sicut inclitas . . . cor-rumpi reor." The quotation is from Hist. 5.7 and, in spite of some interesting variants, it is reasonably exact. The same is true of his quotation of Hist. 5. 3 in Adv. pag. 1. 10. 1...

Cassiodorus is a sixth-century writer who seems to have used Tacitus as source material. He does not, however, seem to know much about his source, for he speaks of "a certain Cornelius"; but he draws on Germania 45...Perhaps a hundred years or less after Cassiodorus, Jordanes wrote his De origine actibusque getarum which he took largely from Cassiodorus' history of the Goths. That one or the other of these two must have known Agric. 10 is shown by the following passage in Jordanes (2. 12, 13): "Mari tardo circumfluam quod nec remis facile impellentibus cedat, nec ventorum flatibus intumescat, credo quia remotae longius terrae causas motibus negant. Quippe illic latius quam usquam aequor extenditur . . . Noctem quoque clariorem in extrema eius parte menima quam Cornelius etiam annalium scriptor enarrat. . . Labi vero per earn multa quam maxima relabique flumina gemmas margaritasque volventia." The textual confusion memma quam is usually taken to come from minimamque but we should expect brevemque. The very last item is probably from Mela. The Scholiast to Juvenal 2. 99 and 14. 102 refers to the Histories, ascribing them in the one case to Cornelius, in the other to Cornelius Tacitus. The first note is as follows: "Hunc incomparabilis vitae bello civili Vitellius vicit apud Bebriacum campum. Horum bellum scripsit Cornelius, scripsit et Pompeius Planta, qui sit Bebriacum vicum a Cremona vicesimo lapide." The second is a twofold description of Moses: (a) "sacerdos vel rex eius gentis"; (b) "aut ipsius quidem religionis inventor, cuius Cornelius etiam Tacitus meminit" (cf. Hist. 5. 3).

Comparably speaking, this evidence is vanishingly small compared to the incredible number of attestations and attributions by patristic writers, some few earlier than (but many as late as) those listed for Tacitus above. How can someone dealing with the evidence fairly claim to be sure of Tacitus' authorship of his various works (where such external evidence is concerned) and dismiss the Gospels, which have far better external evidence? I have recently checked a book titled Texts and Tranmission (Clarendon Press, 1993) which records similar data for other ancient works. Throughout the book classic works from around the time of the NT whose authorship and date no one questions (though some have textual issues, just like the NT) are recorded as having the earliest copy between 5th and 9th century, earliest attributions at the same period (for example, Celsus' De medicina is attested no earlier than 990 AD, and then not again until 1300!), and having so little textual support that if they were treated as the NT is, all of antiquity would be reduced to a blank wall of paranoid unknowingness. If the Gospels are treated consistenly, there will be no question at all about their provenance, but that is clearly the last thing critics want to do.

From the section specifically on Mark, he presents the following arguments for Papias' assertion being legitimate:

Quote:

Mark

Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:

"Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them."

Critics tend to reject this testimony out of hand. K�mmel, in particular, simply says that Papias "had no reliable knowledge of the connection of Mark with Peter" [Kumm.Int, 95], but fails to provide any significant basis for this assertion. Contrarily, Boyd notes that there "is as yet no convincing reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this statement." That it "predates any concern to artificially give Mark's Gospel apostolic clout," and the "incidental and unpretentious nature" of the statement itself, is testimony to its veracity. Further testimony may be found in that there was certainly no apologetic value to attaching Mark's name to a Gospel, not just because he was a rotten kid, but also because he was a relative unknown, and not an apostle, and there were much better candidates to choose from (even if one proposes, in a desperate moment of conspiracy-mongering, that Mark was chosen precisely because he was low on the totem pole!), like those selected for the late apocryphal Gospels. (Even K�mmel agrees the attribution to a non-apostle adds weight to the argument that Mark was the author. - [ibid., 97]) Reicke also adds [Reic.Root, 165] that Papias' inquiry was undertaken in a time when apostolic dignity was highly esteemed, thus making the ascription to Mark even more unlikely to be fake.

We have noted that such "external evidence" as this is key for secular historians in determining authorship, and it is interesting to note the comments of one such secular scholar, George Kennedy [Walk.RAG, 148ff]. To begin, Kennedy observes that contrary to what many in NT scholarship claim, and in line with typical procedures of composition in ancient times, Papias' remark that Mark wrote "not in order" is not a criticism of Mark's gospel, but a reference to hypomnema, or what we might refer to as notes, on Peter's preaching. Papias is therefore actually stressing Mark's great care in composition: He did not simply belch out a narrative, but carefully wrote up notes based on Peter's preaching as he recalled it, and in the same order as Peter preached (which, being "individual sermons," would not reflect historical order, but the need of each audience and/or the occassion). Eusebius went on to note that Peter neither approved nor disapproved of these notes; this may be simply have been the expected reaction of someone like Peter for whom literacy was not a central issue -- or else, the resigned reaction of one who recognized these notes as fostering his inevitable "replacement".

Backing up Papias' statement are the following considerations:

Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke. He is also the most "true to life" character in the Gospel other than Jesus: Kelber [Kelb.OWG, 68] observes that in Mark, "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus.[/color] There are also many personal touches reflecting Peter, including the frequent and incidental mention of his house (5 times in Mark); phrases such as "Simon and his companions" (1:36) and Andrew being identified as Simon's brother (1:16); and the direct address to Simon by Jesus (14:37). Many third-person verses, if shifted to first- or second-person, would fit right in the mouth of Peter. (1:29, 5:1, 5:38, 6:53-4, 8:22, 10:32, 11:1, 14:18, etc. - [Mart.NTF, 212])

Mark's Gospel has the character of an eyewitness account. As would be expected if the material found its source in an eyewitness, the use of incidental details and characters matches the way an eyewitness account would be composed. Beck notes of the character of Mark's Gospel [Beck.TGJ, 84]:

"His vivid language arrests the reader. The Spirit drives Jesus, his followers hunt him out, he sighs deeply. The demoniac hacks himself, the blind man leaps up, the great crowd jostles Jesus or sits like garden plots on the green grass."

And Kelber, although he does not make the connection that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's preaching, observes [Kelb.OWG, 66]:

"The prolific use of the third person plural instead of the passive is in keeping with the popular style of storytelling.
Pritchard [Pritch.Lit, 37-44] offers correspondence with our determination criteria. He points out that a literary analysis of Mark indicating that someone very like Peter (as we conventionally recognize him) was behind it: Mark's Gospel has a limited vocabulary (1330 words) and was written in "man on the street" Koine Greek; the rhetorical devices used are few in number and are the sort that would be used by someone who was uneducated; and, it bears an uncomplicated sentence structure: "Its sentences are made like the speech of the less educated men, upon whom the niceties of logically subordinated ideas are largely wasted." (! - Nice words about Peter, eh!)

Obviously, one who is desperately conspiracy-minded might suggest that all of this could be faked, but this would suggest a literary artistry beyond what the author of the second Gospel evidences otherwise (i.e., faking being uneducated). Further, it has been objected that much of Mark looks like "community tradition" rather than a personal account - although remember that it is not held that ALL of Mark's material came from Peter, and at any rate, the community had to get the material from somewhere! [Mart.NTF, 204-5] The most parsimonious explanation for the above is not some wild conspiracy, but that Mark's Gospel was created "essentially on the basis of traditions imparted by Peter" [Reic.Root, 57] and on his preaching - just as Papias indicates.

I'll have to re-read Peter Kirby's post several times to let the material sink in.

Paul Baxter · 06-23-2003, 06:19 PM

I'd been told that (as far back as we can trace) there was never an especially strong case made for specific gospel authorship. Just in my own mind I find the question most interesting in John. Bruce Malina makes an interestig case that the only disciple Jesus is said specifically to love is Lazarus, so perhaps he was the author. I frankly couldn't care less what the names of the guys were who wrote the gospels. The issue, I think we might agree, is the accuracy or lack thereof of the material recorded therein. With the Pauline epistles, authorship and accuracy go together to some extent (if the letter claims to be by Paul but you say it isn't, then, at least on that point it is to some degree untruthful).

06-09-2003, 02:09 PM	#1
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Date and authorship of the Gospels Hello. I would like to know the reasons why many scholars tend to reject the 2nd century tradition that names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors of the Gospels. What are the major evidence or reasons that caste doubt over the claim made by Papias? Papias made his claims in about 4 decades of the writing of the Gospels, is it therefore possible that in a matter of 4 decades the names of the authors could have been completely forgotton and blotted out of memory? And if Papias was incorrect, then why don't we find any other competing set of names as the authors of these Gospels? Dosen't the agreement and acceptance among Christians over the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the only authors of the Gospels, with no other competing names, indicate the reliability of the Papias tradition? Furthermore, why assign the Gospel according to Mark to a relatively insignificant individual such as Mark? If Papias was "making it up", then why not claim a more significant Church leader as the author of the Gospel? These are just some arguments that are often raised by some apologists and conservative Christian scholars. I am interested to know how scholars, who consider the Gospels anonymous, deal with these arguments. Thanks.

06-23-2003, 06:19 PM	#10
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	the short version I'd been told that (as far back as we can trace) there was never an especially strong case made for specific gospel authorship. Just in my own mind I find the question most interesting in John. Bruce Malina makes an interestig case that the only disciple Jesus is said specifically to love is Lazarus, so perhaps he was the author. I frankly couldn't care less what the names of the guys were who wrote the gospels. The issue, I think we might agree, is the accuracy or lack thereof of the material recorded therein. With the Pauline epistles, authorship and accuracy go together to some extent (if the letter claims to be by Paul but you say it isn't, then, at least on that point it is to some degree untruthful).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-14-2003, 02:00 PM	#4
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Hello Peter and Toto. I would like to thank both of you for your detailed replies, especially Peter. There are some questions on my mind that I will be posting here in a few days time as soon as a few of my college assignments are over. Thanks again for all your assistance, it is much appreciated!

06-21-2003, 07:32 PM	#6
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	In this essay on gospel authorship, the Tektonics.org guy tries to present counterarguments to most of the above. Is there anything there worth seriously considering, or is it the usual apologetic nonsense?

06-21-2003, 08:35 PM	#7
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	What of the above does JPH rebut? The only overlap I noticed is the geographical errors to which Vinnie alludes. One thing I would be interested in seeing addressed: how do we know that Papias is talking of canonical Mark? Does JPH show this? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.