Dating Mark in 115 CE

[Giuseppe]

Note how Norelli means to confute Siegert by quoting Kortner, despite of the fact that Kortner is without a better explanation for the identity of the Papias mentioned by the Armenian writer.

...which, I do not see on what basis, even wonders if it is not here the Latin lexicographer Papias

[Ben C. Smith]

which is in doubt, as per Shanks;

Norelli reports the voice of an expert about the Armenian writer who disagrees about a his possible confusion on Papias.

It is already an established fact that GJohn is post-100 CE. Only apologists, I think, can claim still that GJohn is from first century.

The argument seems to be that a confusion between Pappos and Papias would not have occurred in Armenian.
Assuming FTSOA that this is correct it would still allow confusion in the Greek sources before translation into Armenian.

Andrew Criddle

That makes sense. But, in any case, I have read at least 3 different scholars (two of them are Shanks and MacDonald; the third is Bauckham, I think, though I would have to do some searching to be sure) who state that Norelli deems the Armenian fragments not likely to be Papian. If someone can quote something from Norelli (preferably translated into English, but even if not) to the contrary, I would be obliged.

The Norelli passage is here Norelli notes Siegert's objection to the suggested confusion of Papias and Pappos then goes on to say (my translation based on google translate)

however, his mention immediately after "the geographer", that is pseudo-Moses of Corene, points precisely in this direction: the same information is attributed to one and to the other.
In any case. therefore, it would be unwise to base any conclusions about Papias on this passage. For a criticism of Siegert, see Kortner, Papias 34-35 (which, I do not see on what basis, even wonders if it is not here the Latin lexicographer Papias)

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

See http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb ... edel1.html

Thanks, Andrew. I think I had Siegert wrong. To be clear, Siegert is objecting to the idea that there is some confusion between Papias and Pappos? And Norelli is saying that this idea is actually a pretty good one?

[Giuseppe]

Norelli seems to want to use Kortner to confute Siegert, even if he realizes that Kortner's arguments are missing about the possible alternative for the Papias mentioned by Narvan. Something as:

Siegert: it is impossible a confusion between Pappos the geographer and Papias.

Kortner: but it is possible a confusion between Papias the lexicographer and Papias of Hierapolis.

Norelli (to Kortner): why?

[andrewcriddle]

Thanks, Andrew. I think I had Siegert wrong. To be clear, Siegert is objecting to the idea that there is some confusion between Papias and Pappos? And Norelli is saying that this idea is actually a pretty good one?

IIUC yes

Andrew Criddle