Why Mark had to be called Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:43 am

Note also the double game of Papias: he concedes that there is a lot of historical distance between himself and the Lord but he places a lot of emphasis on the authority of ''elders'' as providential mediators in the face of an otherwise dramatic situation.

I don't see this as very much different from modern apologists who concede that the oral memory is full of defects, flaws, etc, but even so they show themselves so sure about its existence.

Hence my reasons to consider Papias words as suspiciously defensive.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:47 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:23 am
I am saying that ''elders'' is an obvious and common thing to call them if Papias wanted to give them a some kind of authority. If Papias was ''innocent'' and less ideological in the his words, then he would have used another term. For example, Eusebius doesn't show about Papias the same high respect that Papias shows about these presumed ''elders'': really, Eusebius wrote that Papias was a fool. Eusebius didn't call Papias as ''the elder'', so here is a valid counter-example that confutes your (Ben's) view of ''elders'' as an innocent term (''innocent'' = without ideological double ends).
Hold on there. I never said that the term "elders" was not used as a term of respect, one that implies authority. Of course it is. But this is the claim of yours that I was responding to:
Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:09 pm
The "elder" is only an artificial device invented by Papias for the same reason why Irenaeus had to invent a Jesus being 50 years old: the chain of "tradition" had to be secured in some way, right?
So stop shifting the goal posts.

My point is that the term "elder" itself is hardly evidence of your claim. We would expect that term both if the tradition were valid and if it were not. My argument here is not even necessarily that the tradition is valid. Rather, it is that your reasons for thinking it invalid do not work.

To return to your claim, for Irenaeus to say that Jesus died at 50 is to put less distance in between Jesus and Irenaeus. For Papias to call the disciples "elders," on the other hand, puts more distance in between Jesus and Papias. Your comparison above between Papias and Irenaeus does not work. Irenaeus is improving the tradition by bringing Jesus closer to its later tradents. Papias is merely claiming that the tradition existed; he is not improving it.
But the disciples are already contemporary with Jesus, by definition, so to call them "elders" cannot serve your preferred purpose.
Isn't Papias meaning something as: apostles > elders > Papias. I have thought so.
That is how Irenaeus uses the term. But this is what Papias says:

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew... said....

Papias is asking about the words of the elders. Papias is asking about the what Andrew and Peter and the rest said. "The elders" = Andrew and Peter and so on. As I mentioned, the easiest way this works in the Greek is for "words of the elders" to be in apposition to (and therefore equivalent to) "what Andrew" and the rest "said." The disciples, then, are the elders. That another John is also called "the elder" simply means that this is his title, exactly as implied in 2 and 3 John.

Note that Papias is not claiming contact with the elders (but rather with those "who had followed" the elders), and he is not claiming contact with the disciples, either. That is because they are the same group.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:03 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:47 am

Hold on there. I never said that the term "elders" was not used as a term of respect, one that implies authority. Of course it is. But this is the claim of yours that I was responding to:
Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:09 pm
The "elder" is only an artificial device invented by Papias for the same reason why Irenaeus had to invent a Jesus being 50 years old: the chain of "tradition" had to be secured in some way, right?
To return to your claim, for Irenaeus to say that Jesus died at 50 is to put less distance in between Jesus and Irenaeus. For Papias to call the disciples "elders," on the other hand, puts more distance in between Jesus and Papias. Your comparison above between Papias and Irenaeus does not work. Irenaeus is improving the tradition by bringing Jesus closer to its later tradents. Papias is merely claiming that the tradition existed; he is not improving it.
And here (the part in red) I should disagree with you. What escapes you is that both Ireneus and Papias start by recognizing a ''little'' problem: Jesus is too much distant chronologically from them.

The apologetical (hence: invented) solution they appeal to is not so different, secunda facie:

Ireneus invents a ''Jesus the Elder'' while Papias invents the ''elders'' as providential mediators who substitute validly, with their authority, for the temporal black hole between Jesus and Papias. Of grace, stantibus rebus, how on earth can you see the Papias's ''elders'' are real people?




That another John is also called "the elder" simply means that this is his title, exactly as implied in 2 and 3 John.
Surely the ideological (for the reasons given above) use of ''elders'' was shared by Papias with other authors.
Note that Papias is not claiming contact with the elders (but rather with those "who had followed" the elders), and he is not claiming contact with the disciples, either. That is because they are the same group.
So, if elders = apostles, then Papias is extending their lives, just as Ireneus was extending the live of Jesus. Identical strategy.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:12 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:03 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:47 am

Hold on there. I never said that the term "elders" was not used as a term of respect, one that implies authority. Of course it is. But this is the claim of yours that I was responding to:
Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:09 pm
The "elder" is only an artificial device invented by Papias for the same reason why Irenaeus had to invent a Jesus being 50 years old: the chain of "tradition" had to be secured in some way, right?
To return to your claim, for Irenaeus to say that Jesus died at 50 is to put less distance in between Jesus and Irenaeus. For Papias to call the disciples "elders," on the other hand, puts more distance in between Jesus and Papias. Your comparison above between Papias and Irenaeus does not work. Irenaeus is improving the tradition by bringing Jesus closer to its later tradents. Papias is merely claiming that the tradition existed; he is not improving it.
And here (the part in red) I should disagree with you. What escapes you is that both Ireneus and Papias start by recognizing a ''little'' problem: Jesus is too much distant chronologically from them.

The apologetical (hence: invented) solution they appeal to is not so different, secunda facie:

Ireneus invents a ''Jesus the Elder'' while Papias invents the ''elders'' as providential mediators who substitute validly, with their authority, for the temporal black hole between Jesus and Papias.
So far as Papias is concerned, this is the same thing as saying that the tradition may be invented.
Of grace, stantibus rebus, how on earth can you see the Papias's ''elders'' are real people?
Because (hold on to your hat) they may have been. If they existed, then it is natural to call them elders. If they did not exist, then it is natural to call them elders. That Papias called them elders is not an argument; it is an observation (at least in this case).
So, if elders = apostles, then Papias is extending their lives, just as Ireneus was extending the live of Jesus. Identical strategy.
No, because Papias is extending their lives only to make sure that they are already dead before he gets on the scene anyway. Irenaeus (if his making Jesus nearly 50 is a chronological strategy) would be decreasing the distance between Jesus' generation and Papias, so that Papias can have heard from John the apostle. But Papias himself does not do that. He implies that John the disciple was already dead.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:43 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:12 am
So, if elders = apostles, then Papias is extending their lives, just as Ireneus was extending the live of Jesus. Identical strategy.
No, because Papias is extending their lives only to make sure that they are already dead before he gets on the scene anyway. Irenaeus (if his making Jesus nearly 50 is a chronological strategy) would be decreasing the distance between Jesus' generation and Papias, so that Papias can have heard from John the apostle. But Papias himself does not do that. He implies that John the disciple was already dead.
they are already dead since to argue the contrary would be even for Papias an extravagant thing to say: if they were still living, how could be so many heretics there out?

The point shared by both Papias and Ireneus is the recognition of the common problem: too much time is passed from the presumed time of Jesus.

So the life of someone had to be extended, as remedy.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by John T » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:56 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:22 am
1 Peter 5:13-14 :

13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. 14 Greet one another with a kiss of love.
Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

So Papias based probably his claim (that Mark was an assistant of Peter) simply on the epistle of 1 Peter that is a forgery.
Occam's razor.

Perhaps just perhaps, the gospel of by Mark is called Mark because when it was being copied by the scribes they kept the headline the same: "According to Mark."

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0

kata in the accusative means; according to.

Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the right one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:10 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:43 am
So the life of someone had to be extended, as remedy.
I remember Ken Olson's argument that the list of brothers as leaders in Jerusalem of Hegesippus was invented by Hegesippus for the same reason: insofar there was still a brother of Jesus in life, still no heresy was appeared.

So it is implicit there (in virtue of the same reason behind Hegesippus desposyni) in Papias that:

''Death of the last Elder = Apparition of the first heresy''.

It is curious that Papias talked about Marcion as appearing as disciple of John.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:13 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:43 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:12 am
So, if elders = apostles, then Papias is extending their lives, just as Ireneus was extending the live of Jesus. Identical strategy.
No, because Papias is extending their lives only to make sure that they are already dead before he gets on the scene anyway. Irenaeus (if his making Jesus nearly 50 is a chronological strategy) would be decreasing the distance between Jesus' generation and Papias, so that Papias can have heard from John the apostle. But Papias himself does not do that. He implies that John the disciple was already dead.
they are already dead since to argue the contrary would be even for Papias an extravagant thing to say: if they were still living, how could be so many heretics there out?
Why? Later generations had no problem making Papias and the apostle John share a time period, and no problem making heretics like Simon Magus contemporaries of the apostles. You are imputing motives to Papias which are not clearly his, and indeed which not all Christians shared.
The point shared by both Papias and Ireneus is the recognition of the common problem: too much time is passed from the presumed time of Jesus.
Let us assume for a moment that John and Aristion historically existed, and that Papias (directly or indirectly) gleaned information from them. In what way could Papias express his indebtedness to them that would not pique your suspicions?
It is curious that Papias talked about Marcion as appearing as disciple of John.
What are you talking about? We have nothing from Papias about Marcion.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4218
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:35 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:13 am


Why? Later generations had no problem making Papias and the apostle John share a time period, and no problem making heretics like Simon Magus contemporaries of the apostles. You are imputing motives to Papias which are not clearly his, and indeed which not all Christians shared.
To my knowledge, only Simon Magus was made (deliberately) contemporary of the apostles (in order to accuse him and only him of all the later heretical chaos).

Please read my last post: if I remember well, Ken Olson said that Hegesippus invented an entire succession of carnal brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem to remark that, only after the death of the last of them, the first heretics moved their first steps.

As with Hegesippus, so with Papias: his Elders had to be all dead to allow (and possibly also explain) the presence of heretics in the time of Papias.

Let us assume for a moment that John and Aristion historically existed, and that Papias (directly or indirectly) gleaned information from them. In what way could Papias express his indebtedness that would not pique your suspicions?
To begin, there should not have been the name of ''Mark'' in 1 Peter 1:1, that is the reason I started this thread.

And the name of Papias is too much strictly connected with that of Marcion to not raise suspicions a priori:
"The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the Churches by John whilst he was still alive in his body, as Papias, called the Hierapolitan, the beloved disciple of John, has reported in his five books of “Exegetics". (he who) wrote down the Gospel, John dictating correctly the true (evangel), (was) Marcion the heretic. Having been disapproved by him for holding contrary views, he was expelled by John. He had, however, brought him writings, or letters, from the brethren who were in the Pontus."
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5635
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:47 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:35 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:13 am


Why? Later generations had no problem making Papias and the apostle John share a time period, and no problem making heretics like Simon Magus contemporaries of the apostles. You are imputing motives to Papias which are not clearly his, and indeed which not all Christians shared.
To my knowledge, only Simon Magus was made (deliberately) contemporary of the apostles (in order to accuse him and only him of all the later heretical chaos).

Please read my last post: if I remember well, Ken Olson said that Hegesippus invented an entire succession of carnal brothers of Jesus in Jerusalem to remark that, only after the death of the last of them, the first heretics moved their first steps.
I will need a link. I cannot evaluate an argument I have not read.
Let us assume for a moment that John and Aristion historically existed, and that Papias (directly or indirectly) gleaned information from them. In what way could Papias express his indebtedness that would not pique your suspicions?
To begin, there should not have been the name of ''Mark'' in 1 Peter 1:1, that is the reason I started this thread.
I asked you how Papias should have expressed himself.

And what if John the elder himself used 1 Peter for his tradition? And Papias noticed the possible connection?
And the name of Papias is too much strictly connected with that of Marcion to not raise suspicions a priori:
"The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the Churches by John whilst he was still alive in his body, as Papias, called the Hierapolitan, the beloved disciple of John, has reported in his five books of “Exegetics". (he who) wrote down the Gospel, John dictating correctly the true (evangel), (was) Marcion the heretic. Having been disapproved by him for holding contrary views, he was expelled by John. He had, however, brought him writings, or letters, from the brethren who were in the Pontus."
What?? This is not translated well; nor does it show that Papias had anything to say about Marcion. Show me where Papias talked about Marcion.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply