Papias and oral tradition.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by rgprice » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:11 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:07 pm
rgprice wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:46 pm
Ben, don't you think that this quote from Papias about his trust in oral tradition should be viewed with much more caution?
I totally agree. Not least of which because while Papias says he prefers oral tradition, we learn nothing from him that is independent of the Gospels.
What are you talking about?
Building on the Gospels is still derivative. I seriously doubt there was any story of Judas before the Gospel of Mark.

perseusomega9
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:14 pm

But which came first, a Judas tradition or Mark from which more Judas traditions were derived?

perseusomega9
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:15 pm

I think the better argument is that Judas traditions are 'late' but dependency is hard to determine.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8617
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:43 pm

rgprice wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:11 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:07 pm
rgprice wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:46 pm
Ben, don't you think that this quote from Papias about his trust in oral tradition should be viewed with much more caution?
I totally agree. Not least of which because while Papias says he prefers oral tradition, we learn nothing from him that is independent of the Gospels.
What are you talking about?
Building on the Gospels is still derivative. I seriously doubt there was any story of Judas before the Gospel of Mark.
There was a story of Judas before our canonical version of Mark, of that I am certain. But your view of Mark and mine are very different right from the start.

Nevertheless, of course Papias knows gospel texts: at least three of them (one which he attributes to Mark and at least two which he says are translations of a Hebrew Matthew). Your statement, highlighted above, now seems designed merely to repeat that fact. I took you as saying that everything Papias says was derived from the gospels, which is trivially untrue.

Ken Olson
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by Ken Olson » Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:45 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:43 pm
There was a story of Judas before our canonical version of Mark, of that I am certain. But your view of Mark and mine are very different right from the start.
Ben,

What makes the existence of a pre-Markan Judas story certain (or extremely probable)? (Apologies if you covered that earlier in this thread and I missed it).

Best,

Ken

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8617
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:02 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:45 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:43 pm
There was a story of Judas before our canonical version of Mark, of that I am certain. But your view of Mark and mine are very different right from the start.
Ben,

What makes the existence of a pre-Markan Judas story certain (or extremely probable)? (Apologies if you covered that earlier in this thread and I missed it).

Best,

Ken
Mark 3.19, "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him," or "handed him over," is one of those little notes that look like it was meant for someone who already knows that Jesus was betrayed or handed over. Additionally, I think the apostolic list in Mark 3.16-19 is tacked on at this point in the gospel (that is, I do not think it formed a part of the original text), because of the case of anacoluthon which introduces it, καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου, καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου.... The entire passage is a minefield of variant readings, and it appears to me that a lot of rewriting has occurred in this section.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8613
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:20 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:02 am
Mark 3.19, "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him," or "handed him over," is one of those little notes that look like it was meant for someone who already knows that Jesus was betrayed or handed over.
At contrary, Mark 3:19, "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him," supports the contrary thesis (that it was invented the first time by "Mark" himself), since surely it is not a coincidence the crescendo in terms of anti-pauline/"Jesus" hostility from the first of the list (Peter) until to the last (Judas), going through the Boanerghes.

Accordingly, the whole list of names Mk 3:16-19, which begins with Simon-Peter and ends with the betrayer Judash Iscarioth, illustrates the ambiguous, but in fact increasingly negative attitudes of the Jewish-Christian leaders to Paul's mission of the Geniles (Gal 1:22): from the favorauble one of Cephas to the reserved and afterwards negative one of James and other Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:18c-19; 2:11-14).

(Adamczewski, A Hypertextual Commentary, p. 62)

Ken Olson
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by Ken Olson » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:11 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:02 am
Mark 3.19, "and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him," or "handed him over," is one of those little notes that look like it was meant for someone who already knows that Jesus was betrayed or handed over. Additionally, I think the apostolic list in Mark 3.16-19 is tacked on at this point in the gospel (that is, I do not think it formed a part of the original text), because of the case of anacoluthon which introduces it, καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρον, καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου, καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου.... The entire passage is a minefield of variant readings, and it appears to me that a lot of rewriting has occurred in this section.
Thanks, yes. I was wondering if you were convinced that one of the non- Markan (outside of Mark) traditions was independent, early, and authentic. But I think you may be right about multiple levels of source/redaction with Judas and the list of disciples in Mark.

Best,

Ken

rgprice
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by rgprice » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:00 am

Judas to me looks much more like something invented by mark, along wit the whole rest of the Markan story. "Judas" represents the Jews. The Jews betrayed Jesus, that's a Markan thing.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8617
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Papias and oral tradition.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:20 am

rgprice wrote:
Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:00 am
Judas to me looks much more like something invented by mark, along wit the whole rest of the Markan story. "Judas" represents the Jews. The Jews betrayed Jesus, that's a Markan thing.
If the gospel of Mark had been lost to history, would you be saying that the Jews betraying Jesus is a Matthean thing?

Post Reply