Why Mark had to be called Mark

[John2]

Ben wrote:

If there is no proof, then why is this your take? Is there at least some evidence for it?

Well, I mean I doubt I could convince anyone who sees it as being a forgery, and I don't think the latter can be proven either, but both interpretations are of course based on what the epistle says, and what it says "strikes" me as being genuine. I could go through it and cite some things that stick out in particular to me, but I'm feeling too lazy to at the moment.

At least one of those people being "the elder," correct?

Yes.

[Giuseppe]

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? From this POV, the same use of the word "elder" is more evidence of the greater chronological distance of Papias from the presumed "evangelist" than not the contrary. Evidently, for him not even a Jesus 50 years old was sufficient to pass the ball to him!

[Ben C. Smith]

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....

What is your evidence for this?

[Giuseppe]

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....

What is your evidence for this?

my point is that in both the cases (Papias and Irenaeus) the excessive insistence on the old age of the preservers of the "tradition" betrayes their real myth-making since it raises the strong suspicion of:
1) their need of apologize their claims
2) their need that the same tradition is an old one, against these Christians who did insist at the contrary on the absolute newness of the Gospel tradition (Marcion in primis by the his revelation of a "new" god).

If Papias had talked not of elder but had given more info about his presumed preservers, then his words would be more credible.

[toejam]

Guiseppe said: "If Papias had talked not of elder but had given more info about his presumed preservers, then his words would be more credible."

I reckon if Papias had been more specific, you would criticize him for being too specific - "his specificity betrays his real myth-making agenda!"

[Giuseppe]

Guiseppe said: "If Papias had talked not of elder but had given more info about his presumed preservers, then his words would be more credible."

I reckon if Papias had been more specific, you would criticize him for being too specific - "his specificity betrays his real myth-making agenda!"

it is true. I am sincere. I would do so insofar all this your interested desire of credibility for Papias words seems to be used as supporting historicity (how precisely I continue to not know).

[Ben C. Smith]

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....

What is your evidence for this?

my point is that in both the cases (Papias and Irenaeus) the excessive insistence on the old age of the preservers of the "tradition" betrayes their real myth-making since it raises the strong suspicion of:
1) their need of apologize their claims
2) their need that the same tradition is an old one, against these Christians who did insist at the contrary on the absolute newness of the Gospel tradition (Marcion in primis by the his revelation of a "new" god).

If Papias had talked not of elder but had given more info about his presumed preservers, then his words would be more credible.

What about Aristion? Does Papias imply his age somehow?

[Giuseppe]

What about Aristion? Does Papias imply his age somehow?

I read about an ''Ariston the Elder'' that he was clearly a forger :

this codex is also remarkable for ascribing the longer ending of Mark to "Ariston the Elder", which is often seen as somehow connected with Papias.[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

[Ben C. Smith]

What about Aristion? Does Papias imply his age somehow?

I read about an ''Ariston the Elder'' that he was clearly a forger :

this codex is also remarkable for ascribing the longer ending of Mark to "Ariston the Elder", which is often seen as somehow connected with Papias.[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

First, that is not clear at all. I am not even sure how you interpret that marginal note to imply that Aristion is a forger. I mean, honestly, what are you even thinking there?

Second, I did not ask about Etchmiadsin 229 (Matenadaran 2374). I asked you about Papias.

[Giuseppe]

What about Aristion? Does Papias imply his age somehow?

I read about an ''Ariston the Elder'' that he was clearly a forger :

this codex is also remarkable for ascribing the longer ending of Mark to "Ariston the Elder", which is often seen as somehow connected with Papias.[47][48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

First, that is not clear at all. I am not even sure how you interpret that marginal note to imply that Aristion is a forger. I mean, honestly, what are you even thinking there?

Second, I did not ask about Etchmiadsin 229 (Matenadaran 2374). I asked you about Papias.

The note reports that some have connected someone named 'Ariston the Elder'' (described as the forger of the longer ending of Mark) with the ''Aristion'' cited by Papias.