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 8:49 am

EDIT: CORRECTION.

R. Annaud, 'Papias and the Four Gospels' (1956) advances this interpretation of the Prologue:
Papias wrote down the Gospel, John dictating correctly the true (evangel). When Marcion the heretic had been disapproved by him [Papias] for holding contrary views, he was expelled. Marcion had, however, brought him [Papias] writings, or letters, from the brethren who were in the Pontus
Last edited by Giuseppe on Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2428
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by DCHindley » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:56 am

Gentlemen,

Just a side comment here, so feel free to ignore.

Members of this board should be, and most are, aware that in rabbinic Judaism (based in Jamnia soon after 70 CE) there is a tradition that besides the written books of the Law there was also Oral traditions pertaining to the matters written in the five books of the Law. This was transmitted by elders (at least this is what I seem to recall them being, with the major players age to age being "sages"). These sages were represented as pairs with opposed positions on interpretation, perhaps to summarize the general range of thinking about law and national traditions in each successive age of paired sages.

Could this similarity be used as an analogue to assess the matter of the nature of these "elders" passing on lore related to early Christian history, even going back to Jesus himself? We have unwritten traditions passed on elder to elder.

The rabbinic form of the Judean unwritten tradition was eventually written down (The Mishna, 200 CE, although some think that parts are borrowed from one or more earlier written forms). So also Papias and Hegesippus wrote down their recollections of discussions had with local Christian elders (presbyters) encountered while traveling in the Levant (I presume for business, either their own or that of a master of some kind).

We don't have paired sages, but perhaps this kind of thing did not really exist in rabbinic circles until the publication of the Mishna, which used the pairing as a plot device. But we do seem to have the passing of traditions generation to generation by apostles (someone dispatched on business of another), disciples (students of a school of thought) and elders (local Christian community leaders, presbyters). Rabbis had Moses write the Law, but an assembly of elders received unwritten traditions from Moses as well, with these oral traditions passed on by a succession of disciples.

If the rabbinic sages (the more outstanding among their peers) differed in their interpretive opinions or even facts of the matter, can we not also expect that Christian elders might pass on unwritten traditions that differed in lore or facts. What else can one expect?

DCH

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 8:57 am

The link to Ken Olson I don't remember, so Richard Carrier may replace him, OHJ, p.331:
Whatever the case may be, Hegesippus tips his hand when we learn from Eusebius that he told all these narratives i n order to 'prove' that there had been no heresy before the reign of Trajan, because up until then the family of Jesus and his disciples had everywhere ensured a faithful adherence to the 'virgin' gospel, and only after they had passed away did false sects arise. 76 Such a fantasy is not only certainly false (the Epistles of Paul already attest to numerous schisms, including his own, and there had surely been countless further splits all through the first century), it is also an obvious motive for inventing tales of family and eyewitnesses to Jesus.
(my bold)

Note 76 reports:
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.32.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 9:05 am

DCHindley wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:56 am
If the rabbinic sages (the more outstanding among their peers) differed in their interpretive opinions or even facts of the matter, can we not also expect that Christian elders might pass on unwritten traditions that differed in lore or facts. What else can one expect?
The problem with this view is that the marcionites didn't have something as a ''old tradition''. The God of Marcion was totally a new revelation and the only ''Elder'' allowed is only him, SOLUS PAULUS. Even Celsus recognized this fact and despised the being too much suspiciously ''new'' of this religion. So the term ''tradition'' identifies without shadow of doubt only the Judaizers field.

And if I identify Papias as an anti-marcionite figure, then any his use of the term ''tradition'' is made not ''innocent'' (innocent in the sense meant by DCH) by the simple his being a tradition eo ipso in opposition to Marcion.
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 9:26 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:57 am
The link to Ken Olson I don't remember, so Richard Carrier may replace him, OHJ, p.331:
Whatever the case may be, Hegesippus tips his hand when we learn from Eusebius that he told all these narratives i n order to 'prove' that there had been no heresy before the reign of Trajan, because up until then the family of Jesus and his disciples had everywhere ensured a faithful adherence to the 'virgin' gospel, and only after they had passed away did false sects arise. 76 Such a fantasy is not only certainly false (the Epistles of Paul already attest to numerous schisms, including his own, and there had surely been countless further splits all through the first century), it is also an obvious motive for inventing tales of family and eyewitnesses to Jesus.
(my bold)

Note 76 reports:
Eusebius, History of the Church 3.32.
:facepalm:
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:35 am
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).
Not true. There is the story of John the apostle meeting Cerinthus in a bathhouse, for example, and then fleeing forthwith.
Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:49 am
EDIT: CORRECTION.

R. Annaud, 'Papias and the Four Gospels' (1956) advances this interpretation of the Prologue:
Papias wrote down the Gospel, John dictating correctly the true (evangel). When Marcion the heretic had been disapproved by him [Papias] for holding contrary views, he was expelled. Marcion had, however, brought him [Papias] writings, or letters, from the brethren who were in the Pontus
I regard the Prologues as late and legendary. They are of little if any relevance to the matter at hand.
The problem with this view is that the marcionites didn't have something as a ''old tradition''.
Your problem is that you desperately want Marcion to have preceded virtually everything else Christian. So you have shown yourself quite willing to interpret evidence in that direction which on its own does not so incline. One would need a diamond saw to cut through your bias.
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 9:41 am

Why should the Prologue be late while Eusebius about Papias not?

And what do you mean precisely against the Carrier's argument on Hegesippus?
Have you evidence that the "Elders" were met alive by Papias? Or were they already dead as was dead the last brother of Jesus for Hegesippus?
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 9:52 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:41 am
Why should the Prologue be late while Eusebius about Papias not?
  1. Eusebius is easy to date, while the Prologues are very hard to date. Papias himself is not easy to date, but the Prologues are even less so than he.
  2. Eusebius quotes Papias in a way that makes it virtually impossible that Papias wrote the fourth canonical gospel at John the apostle's dictation. The Prologue states exactly that. Moreover, Eusebius claims to be quoting; the Prologue is, at best, paraphrasing. Which one do you think better represents Papias?
Have you evidence that the "Elders" were met alive by Papias? Or were they already dead as was dead the last brother of Jesus for Hegesippus?
This question makes sense only if you have utterly failed to grasp my position.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9642
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:54 am

You created this newly emboldened Joe. Enjoy.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

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 10:04 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:52 am

This question makes sense only if you have utterly failed to grasp my position.
your position is that Papias was really reporting a tradition by real Elders (beyond if these Elders were all liars, for you they "existed") and that he met them directly. My point is that they didn't exist just as the Jesus family ruling in Jerusalem until to Trajan according to Hegesippus never existed and just as Jesus the Elder of Ireneus didn't exist (since their common function was to confirm the late birth of heresy).
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 10:16 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:04 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:52 am

This question makes sense only if you have utterly failed to grasp my position.
your position is that Papias was really reporting a tradition by real Elders (beyond if these Elders were all liars, for you they "existed") and that he met them directly.
No, that is not my position. I was very clear. Carry on. I am not flagellating myself further.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply