Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

[Secret Alias]

Where do Papias and Irenaeus assert that Mark used a Hebrew original of Matthew?

Loosely reinterpreted. Irenaeus says that Matthew's gospel was first written in Hebrew and he got that information from Papias and Papias says that Mark had the same stories as the/that Hebrew gospel ('that' if you believe Irenaeus's spin on Papias) but in the wrong order.

[Secret Alias]

From Schoedel:

the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write "in order." It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made "an ordered arrangement" of the materials) - or perhaps more generally by Papias' own conception of what ought to be included in such an account - and that he had in mind completeness of information as well as "order" in the narrow sense of the term.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why is the name of the father mentioned first in Mark 10:46? Because Daddy Timaeus was known within the Markan community?

Mark 10:46
... ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν
... the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, blind beggar was sitting beside the way

Why not going for this? It would be the same logic!

It is the same logic, but culture and tradition trump logic. No matter how illogical it may seem, they did in fact identify people by patronymic; the patronymic was basically a surname. It is what it is.

Ben.

[neilgodfrey]

But of course in our case it is not A or R who are being identified by the patronymic but it is Simon being identified by his sons. This is indeed unusual.

[toejam]

Why is the name of the father mentioned first in Mark 10:46? Because Daddy Timaeus was known within the Markan community?

Sure, that's entirely plausible. Don't write it off too quickly.

[Ben C. Smith]

Irenaeus says that Matthew's gospel was first written in Hebrew....

Yes.

...and he got that information from Papias

Almost certainly, yes, though he does not explicitly say he got it from Papias.

...and Papias says that Mark had the same stories as the/that Hebrew gospel ('that' if you believe Irenaeus's spin on Papias) but in the wrong order.

Papias nowhere explicitly compares the actual contents of Mark with those of Matthew, whether Hebrew or Greek. He says that Matthew composed/ordered the logia of the Lord, and he says that Mark wrote down what he remembered of the Petrine preaching. Whatever overlap there may be between the two, it is at most implicit in that both are writing about the same person.

Papias does say that Mark wrote not in order, yes.

But I do not think Papias says that Mark used Hebrew Matthew anywhere amongst the extant fragments. Here is my personal collection of them: http://textexcavation.com/papias.html. Papias says that Mark used the preaching of Peter.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why is the name of the father mentioned first in Mark 10:46? Because Daddy Timaeus was known within the Markan community?

Mark 10:46
... ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν
... the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, blind beggar was sitting beside the way

Why not going for this? It would be the same logic!

I am sorry. I may have written this off too quickly. The fact that Timaeus is mentioned first may indeed mean something. But without looking extensively for analogies I would not know what yet.

Ben.

[Ulan]

Papias nowhere explicitly compares the actual contents of Mark with those of Matthew, whether Hebrew or Greek. He says that Matthew composed/ordered the logia of the Lord, and he says that Mark wrote down what he remembered of the Petrine preaching. Whatever overlap there may be between the two, it is at most implicit in that both are writing about the same person.

Papias does say that Mark wrote not in order, yes.

But I do not think Papias says that Mark used Hebrew Matthew anywhere amongst the extant fragments. Here is my personal collection of them: http://textexcavation.com/papias.html. Papias says that Mark used the preaching of Peter.

The choice of "logia" for Matthew's writings also suggests a more Q-like document, which would further suggest not much overlap between both texts. The "not in order" may suggest he isn't talking about our gMark, although there is the further possibility he may just compare it to gJohn. The latter possibility would make it more likely that there was no overlap between Papias' Matthew and Mark, if we for a moment assume that the text mostly resembled our gMark. Of course, this latter idea depends heavily on the texts not being too different from ours (with the exception of the "logia"), which is not a given.

[Peter Kirby]

this thought .

link no worky

[neilgodfrey]

this thought .

link no worky

hopefully fixed now.

the link was only to my previous comment -- initially i had hoped to post directly beneath that comment but in the meantime someone else had posted. . . . (it's getting complicated)