Why Mark had to be called Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:49 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:34 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:24 am 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'' ... with the ''Aristion'' cited by Papias.
Yes, obviously. But that falls far, far short of identifying Aristion as the forger of the longer ending. Surely you must see that.

If Aristion added the longer ending, but included his name, then Aristion is not a forger.

If somebody else added the longer ending in Aristion's name, then Aristion is not a forger.

If somebody else added Aristion's name to the longer ending for some reason, then Aristion is not a forger. (It is quite possible, for example, that the longer ending resembles, or was even based on, something in Papias that Papias attributed to Aristion, so a scribe connected the dots.)

Only if Aristion added the longer ending without his name is he a forger.

But back to my question, Giuseppe. Does Papias imply Aristion's age somehow?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:26 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:49 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:34 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:24 am 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'' ... with the ''Aristion'' cited by Papias.
Yes, obviously. But that falls far, far short of identifying Aristion as the forger of the longer ending. Surely you must see that.

If Aristion added the longer ending, but included his name, then Aristion is not a forger.

If somebody else added the longer ending in Aristion's name, then Aristion is not a forger.

If somebody else added Aristion's name to the longer ending for some reason, then Aristion is not a forger. (It is quite possible, for example, that the longer ending resembles, or was even based on, something in Papias that Papias attributed to Aristion, so a scribe connected the dots.)

Only if Aristion added the longer ending without his name is he a forger.

But back to my question, Giuseppe. Does Papias imply Aristion's age somehow?
Papias doesn't imply directly Aristion's age, but :
1) since he talks about ''elders'' as the his presumed informers in general
2) and since that there was an ''Ariston the Elder'' who was connected with the Aristion of Papias (independently if he was a forger or not, at any rate he was someone who introduced something that was not part of the original Mark),

...then it is slightly more probable than not that this Ariston was an elder, too, at least in the mind of the late readers of Papias.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:00 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:26 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:22 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:49 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:34 am

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

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'' ... with the ''Aristion'' cited by Papias.
Yes, obviously. But that falls far, far short of identifying Aristion as the forger of the longer ending. Surely you must see that.

If Aristion added the longer ending, but included his name, then Aristion is not a forger.

If somebody else added the longer ending in Aristion's name, then Aristion is not a forger.

If somebody else added Aristion's name to the longer ending for some reason, then Aristion is not a forger. (It is quite possible, for example, that the longer ending resembles, or was even based on, something in Papias that Papias attributed to Aristion, so a scribe connected the dots.)

Only if Aristion added the longer ending without his name is he a forger.

But back to my question, Giuseppe. Does Papias imply Aristion's age somehow?
Papias doesn't imply directly Aristion's age, but :
1) since he talks about ''elders'' as the his presumed informers in general
2) and since that there was an ''Ariston the Elder'' who was connected with the Aristion of Papias (independently if he was a forger or not, at any rate he was someone who introduced something that was not part of the original Mark),

...then it is slightly more probable than not that this Ariston was an elder, too, at least in the mind of the late readers of Papias.
Wow, you are all over the place here.

"Elders" are actually anybody who is older than you are. Of course one is going to receive information about the past from those who are older than you are. That is how it normally works.

I suspect the Armenian scribe read Papias in the same way you are (hence the "elder" ascription). But Papias writes of "Aristion and the elder John," making a distinction.

2 John [1.]1 and 3 John [1.]1 have to be considered here, too. The whole issue is very complex, and you are shortcutting right through it by making unfounded assumptions. Why not slow down, be careful, and get it right rather than fast?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

2 John 1 and 3 John 1:1 attest only, as mere forgeries, the custom of introducing ''elders'' when it occurs to invent a ''tradition''.
Why is Paul not listed among these ''elders'', when even Judas is mentioned?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:40 am 2 John 1 and 3 John 1:1 attest only, as mere forgeries, the custom of introducing ''elders'' when it occurs to invent a ''tradition''.
Why is Paul not listed among these ''elders'', when even Judas is mentioned?
I am not sure what you are even asking.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

קש = old קש = elder קש = (Christian) priest
“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: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:07 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:40 am 2 John 1 and 3 John 1:1 attest only, as mere forgeries, the custom of introducing ''elders'' when it occurs to invent a ''tradition''.
Why is Paul not listed among these ''elders'', when even Judas is mentioned?
I am not sure what you are even asking.
If I understand you well, you are assuming that there is a relation between the use of ''elder'' in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1:1 and the use of ''elders'' by Papias. For me the more probable relation is the invention of a tradition by making appeal to presumed ''elders'', also since Papias is mentioning Judas as if he was a historical person, so it is clear that he is using the names of the apostles as ideological tools.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:48 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:07 am
Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:40 am 2 John 1 and 3 John 1:1 attest only, as mere forgeries, the custom of introducing ''elders'' when it occurs to invent a ''tradition''.
Why is Paul not listed among these ''elders'', when even Judas is mentioned?
I am not sure what you are even asking.
If I understand you well, you are assuming that there is a relation between the use of ''elder'' in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1:1 and the use of ''elders'' by Papias.
I am not assuming a relationship. I am exploring the apparent relationship which already exists. Papias refers to a man named John who can also be called simply "the elder." 2 and 3 John are written by someone who calls himself "the elder." 2 and 3 John are related to 1 John, which Eusebius says Papias knew. Papias' list of disciples bears affinities to disciples important to the gospel of John. There is a lot going on here, but you have already decided that Papias naming Judas means some specific thing, not quite clear to me, which is only one of several things it could mean.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by Giuseppe »

Ok.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Why Mark had to be called Mark

Post by toejam »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:44 am
toejam wrote: Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:06 pm 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).
I have no "interested desire of credibility for Papias words". I don't know how credible his claims are. Indeed, I once wrote an 1hr long lecture on why the Gospel of Mark probably wasn't written by someone as close to Peter/Jesus as Papias claims. The point in my last post was that your attempt to argue that Papias' "elder" was a myth invented by Papias because Papias isn't more specific about him is terribly weak. It's so weak that the reverse argument would be just as strong (i.e. that if Papias were too specific, then that too would be rounded up as a point in favor of Papias' invention of the elder).
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Post Reply