Against Polycarp

[Secret Alias]

I cited Watson. And it is common knowledge. https://books.google.com/books?id=23NyC ... 5B&f=false

[rgprice]

I cited Watson. And it is common knowledge. https://books.google.com/books?id=23NyC ... 5B&f=false

Don't you see the problem here?

Watson is saying, "Well Irenaeus got it all wrong and/or misrepresented what Papias said." Why should we think that? This assumes that Irenaeus was familiar with the passage cited in Eusebius. So we have to think either that Irenaeus was an idiot or that Irenaeus was malicious in his treatment of this material from Papias.

Yet the other option is that Irenaeus had no such knowledge of these supposed passages of Papais and the reason that what Irenaeus says does not comply with what Papias supposedly said is because Irenaeus had no knowledge of it to begin with. It makes more sense that Irenaeus was unaware that there was any such account that would have easily falsified his claims. And one reason that he would have been unaware is that no such passage existed at the time of Irenaeus to begin with. That's not the only possibility, but its one of them.

The whole thing is a house of cards built on assumptions.

#1) I don't think anyone would have linked "Mark" and "Peter" prior to the formation of the four Gospel collection. The claim that "Mark" was a hearer of Peter is a misconception that is related to the nature of the four Gospel collection.
#2) I don't think that the "Gospel of Matthew" existed at the supposed time of Papias, nor that the name Matthew would have been linked to any "Hebrew Gospel". That claim is also anachronistic.

[Secret Alias]

Don't agree.