Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 4636
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:51 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:44 am
The full context of the notice about Mark is important:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15: And the elder would say this: "Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For [γάρ] he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them."

Why did Mark write out of order? Because (γάρ) he had neither heard nor followed the Lord. What kinds of things could Mark have been writing down whose incorrect order would be the result of his not having been an eyewitness or earwitness of the Lord? The answer is right there in the context: "the things either said or done by the Lord."
But 'interpreter of Peter' may mean also that Mark gave a first context for the oracles of the Lord spoken via Peter, the human channel by which the Lord Jesus gave the his instructions for the Church. Just as the Pythia of Delphi (a historical person) required interpreters.
I see again and again the presence of words of Jesus, but not of acts for Jesus (the latter being part and parcel of the interpretation of the former).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5948
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:51 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:44 am
The full context of the notice about Mark is important:

Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15: And the elder would say this: "Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For [γάρ] he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them."

Why did Mark write out of order? Because (γάρ) he had neither heard nor followed the Lord. What kinds of things could Mark have been writing down whose incorrect order would be the result of his not having been an eyewitness or earwitness of the Lord? The answer is right there in the context: "the things either said or done by the Lord."
But 'interpreter of Peter' may mean also that Mark gave a first context for the oracles of the Lord spoken via Peter, the human channel by which the Lord Jesus gave the his instructions for the Church.
Sure, it may. It may also mean that Mark was translating Peter's words into a different language. Or it may mean other things. One thing it does not mean is that the term logion has to mean what you think it means.
I see again and again the presence of words of Jesus, but not of acts for Jesus (the latter being part and parcel of the interpretation of the former).
Giuseppe: "I see again and again the presence of words of Jesus, but not of acts for Jesus...."

Papias/John: "Mark... wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4636
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:27 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am
Giuseppe: "I see again and again the presence of words of Jesus, but not of acts for Jesus...."

Papias/John: "Mark... wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord."
a celestial death coud be "done" by the Lord. Or a celestial descending. Or a celestial fugue from the evil forces. Or a celestial opening of the Book of Life as reported in the book of Revelation. Or an earthly apparition but after the Resurrection.

How could Mark "interpret" an action, if the action was only a banal earthly episode?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5948
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:37 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:27 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 10:57 am
Giuseppe: "I see again and again the presence of words of Jesus, but not of acts for Jesus...."

Papias/John: "Mark... wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord."
a celestial death coud be "done" by the Lord. Or a celestial descending. Or a celestial fugue from the evil forces. Or a celestial opening of the Book of Life as reported in the book of Revelation. Or an earthly apparition but after the Resurrection.

How could Mark "interpret" an action, if the action was only a banal earthly episode?
Aaaand here we are again, back to the gobbledygook. I have no idea what you are trying to say here, and your final question seems to depend upon some assumptions which are downright bizarre.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Ken Olson
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Ken Olson » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:40 am

Eusebius HE 3.39.15-16 on Papias:
But we are now obliged to append to the words already quoted from him a tradition about the Mark who wrote the gospel, which he [Papias] expounds as follows:

“And the Presbyter used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter [or translator] and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded, but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s logia, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

This is related about Mark, and about Matthew this was said:

Matthew arranged the logia in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated [or interpreted] them as best he could.
At present, I would interpret Papias’ remarks on the composition of Mark and Matthew as follows:

Papias is using “the logia” to refer to the material about Jesus, both words and deeds, which comprise the gospel. You could substitute the word gospel for the word logia in Eusebius’ quotations of Papias above, though the gospel/the logia/the sacred tradition would be broader than only that subset included in Mark and Matthew.

Papias is using Mark and Matthew to refer to the authors of the Greek gospels we know as “The Gospel According to Mark” and “The Gospel According to Matthew.”

The issue Papias is addressing is why, if both Mark and Matthew are The Gospel, they differ in wording and order.

Papias’ explanation of why Mark and Matthew differ order is that Mark wrote down Peter’s teaching, which was not put in order but given as occasion demanded, and that Mark wrote it down as he remembered it, omitting nothing. Matthew, on the other hand, made an arrangement of the logia (as Mark had not) in the Hebrew dialect.

Papias’ explanation of why Mark and Matthew differ in wording is that: “each [of the evangelists Papias has been discussing, Mark and Matthew] translated them [the logia about the Lord] as best he could.”

I’m also supposing that Eusebius’ quotation of Papias on Matthew followed immediately, or very soon after, his quotation of Papias about Mark, so that “each” may refer to the two evangelists. I can’t of course, prove this, but there’s no evidence against it either. I’m interpreting evidence we actually have.


I’m rejecting at least two common interpretations of Papias:

Papias’ logia were sayings (which would be logoi) or oracles, in the sense of prophecies about the future (I would suggest logia meant something more general, like “divine communications” ).

Papias actually had good historical information about how Mark and Matthew wrote their gospels. On the contrary, I’m suggesting that Papias (or the Elder on whom he depends) did not have good information about how the gospels came to be written, but is trying to deduce the reasons for their differences in wording and order in their extant Greek versions. I’m not particularly going out on a limb in saying this, as he has missed the fact (as I take it to be) that Matthew is dependent on mark in Greek. More radically, I would suggest that Papias had no direct knowledge of a Hebrew Matthew, and, moreover, is not saying that such a document ever circulated, only that Matthew put the Hebrew logia in order (prior to the time he translated it into Greek) unlike Peter who gave teaching as occasion required.

Best,

Ken

Giuseppe
Posts: 4636
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:44 am

I don't understand why we should be obliged, as your (Ben's)intention seems to be, to interpret the things "interpreted confusedly" by Mark as necessarily the earliest form of a (our) gospel. Is a visit on the earth of the Risen Jesus a thing "spoken" or a thing "done" by Jesus?

Totally beyond if Papias had interpreted these revelatory things as factual concrete historical things.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5948
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:52 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:44 am
I don't understand why we should be obliged, as your (Ben's)intention seems to be, to interpret the things "interpreted confusedly" by Mark as necessarily the earliest form of a (our) gospel.
I nowhere said it was the earliest form of any gospel. You have added that concept of being the earliest to what I am saying, just as you customarily add all manner of jumbled concepts on top of what would otherwise be pretty simple ancient Greek prose.
Is a visit on the earth of the Risen Jesus a thing "spoken" or a thing "done" by Jesus?
It could be both. Why are you asking?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4636
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:05 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:52 am
I nowhere said it was the earliest form of any gospel. You have added that concept of being the earliest to what I am saying, just as you customarily add all manner of jumbled concepts on top of what would otherwise be pretty simple ancient Greek prose.
I mean: as a reference to a document of genre: gospel.
Is a visit on the earth of the Risen Jesus a thing "spoken" or a thing "done" by Jesus?
It could be both. Why are you asking?
if the Logion x was the prophecy of an action "done" by Jesus then "Mark" interpreted it (=he historicized that prophecy by inventing de facto an action for it) just as an interpreter of the oracle y of the Pythia gave a first possible interpretation of the oracle y.
How can you deny that the "confusion" of Mark was the feature of the his interpretations (in this sense, his Gospel as set of "historicized prophecies") , in opposition to a better interpretation (surely a more clear one) by Matthew?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5948
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:07 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:05 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Dec 01, 2018 11:52 am
I nowhere said it was the earliest form of any gospel. You have added that concept of being the earliest to what I am saying, just as you customarily add all manner of jumbled concepts on top of what would otherwise be pretty simple ancient Greek prose.
I mean: as a reference to a document of genre: gospel.
Is a visit on the earth of the Risen Jesus a thing "spoken" or a thing "done" by Jesus?
It could be both. Why are you asking?
if the Logion x was the prophecy of an action "done" by Jesus then "Mark" interpreted it (=he historicized that prophecy by inventing de facto an action for it) just as an interpreter of the oracle y of the Pythia gave a first possible interpretation of the oracle y.
How can you deny that the "confusion" of Mark was the feature of the his interpretations (in this sense, his Gospel as set of "historicized prophecies") , in opposition to a better interpretation (surely a more clear one) by Matthew?
Again, you have lost me in a thicket of assumptions I cannot even begin to trace.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Giuseppe
Posts: 4636
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:10 pm

Which assumptions, apart the single assumptions that:

Logia = oracles (=predictions of actions) about Jesus or by Jesus (=instructions via revelation)

To interpret a Logion = to give context (time and place) for it
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply