Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:53 pmThe "next best thing" in a case like this counts for virtually zero in my estimation. The primary source is obviously Clement, and to say that Papias agrees with him does not tell us in which details he agrees. All of them? Most of them? Some of them? The most important one of them?John2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:36 pmWell, as I wrote on another thread (and since Stephan and I are cross talking now I should probably leave this one):
But sure, a quote would nicer, but what we have is the next best thing.I get that Church writers want things to agree, and perhaps that is the case here, but considering that Eusebius had Papias' writings and Clement's Outlines and we do not, I don't think his statement about Papias and Clement being in agreement about Mark should be lightly dismissed.
Possibly. Not sure. But I cannot cite what I am not given, and I do not think that Eusebius' quotation of Clement gives me anything about Papias beyond what we already knew. Just because Clement averred that Mark wrote during Peter's lifetime does not mean that this is one of the details included in the alleged agreement.And just so I understand you, do you think what is in Eusebius' citation is all that Papias said about Mark?
I also think that, if Papias had said what Clement tells us, in those explicit details, Eusebius probably would have quoted him rather than Clement; that is his custom elsewhere; he rarely quotes someone quoting or summarizing someone else if he has the original quote to give us.
Fair enough. But could we at least say that Eusebius' remark is at least "something" and "better than nothing" (instead of "virtually zero") and worth bearing in mind, if with a grain of salt, of course?