Dating Papias

[rgprice]

When you look at Acts for example, what you see is that Peter and Paul are made mirror images of each other. We see this a lot in later traditions of the mid-second century onward. If Paul is said to have done something then a similar tradition is made about Peter. For example, Paul was said to be martyred in Rome, so too Peter. Paul preached in Rome, so too Peter.

The pattern is always consistent in Christian writings--Peter is first and Paul is last.

In Christian writings, Peter went to Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius [c 43 CE] but Paul went to Rome when Festus was governor of Judea [c 59-62].

Even in the Epistles the supposed Paul claimed he was the last [after the apostles] to be seen of the resurrected Jesus. Paul is always last.

An associate of Paul's wrote a Gospel (Luke), so a Gospel needed to be attributed to an associate of Peter's also.

Again, we have the very same scenario. The supposed associate of Peter wrote the earliest Synoptic Gospel [gMark] but the supposed associate of Paul wrote the last [gLuke].

Look in Acts--the name Peter is introduced in the very first chapter but the name Paul is introduced in the 13th chapter. Peter is first --Paul is last.

In Acts thousands of persons had already been converted by Peter before Paul.

It is clear that the Pauline character was a very late invention in an attempt to change earlier doctrines of the Christian cult.

LOL, I was with you until the end.

It's actually the opposite. We know Paul's ministry was real. At least some of the Pauline letters are authentic and attested by other early writers. Peter, on the other hand, is a total fabrication. None of the Petrine epistles are authentic, they are all forgeries.

Yes, there was some real Peter in Jerusalem, but nothing beyond what Paul says in Galatians is known about him. The Peter of Christian lore is an entirely fictional character. The Peter of the Gospels is a literary construct. The Peter of Acts is a literary construct. Peter never went to Rome.

Saint Peter is just a fabricated fictional character designed to offset the influence of Paul. Paul was Marcion's apostle. The Catholics needed a counterweight, they needed an apostle of their own. But there was no such person, thus the legends of Peter were born. And of course, the key part of that legend is that Peter did it all first.

[hakeem]

The pattern is always consistent in Christian writings--Peter is first and Paul is last.

In Christian writings, Peter went to Rome in the 2nd year of Claudius [c 43 CE] but Paul went to Rome when Festus was governor of Judea [c 59-62].

Even in the Epistles the supposed Paul claimed he was the last [after the apostles] to be seen of the resurrected Jesus. Paul is always last.

An associate of Paul's wrote a Gospel (Luke), so a Gospel needed to be attributed to an associate of Peter's also.

Again, we have the very same scenario. The supposed associate of Peter wrote the earliest Synoptic Gospel [gMark] but the supposed associate of Paul wrote the last [gLuke].

Look in Acts--the name Peter is introduced in the very first chapter but the name Paul is introduced in the 13th chapter. Peter is first --Paul is last.

In Acts thousands of persons had already been converted by Peter before Paul.

It is clear that the Pauline character was a very late invention in an attempt to change earlier doctrines of the Christian cult.

LOL, I was with you until the end.

It's actually the opposite. We know Paul's ministry was real. At least some of the Pauline letters are authentic and attested by other early writers. Peter, on the other hand, is a total fabrication. None of the Petrine epistles are authentic, they are all forgeries.

Which Paul are you talking about? Once it is admitted that the so-called Pauline Epistles were products of multiple authors then it is impossible to know who and if there was a real Paul. There are no existing authentic writings in the entire NT and no historical evidence to show NT Paul was a figure of history.

In addition, there was no such thing as Paul's ministry. Saul/Paul was an invented character whose conversion by a bright light and a voice from a dead Jesus is utter fiction.

The supposed Paul did not convert a single known person to Christianity outside the NT and no NT writer corroborated an Epistle to any Church.

Yes, there was some real Peter in Jerusalem, but nothing beyond what Paul says in Galatians is known about him. The Peter of Christian lore is an entirely fictional character. The Peter of the Gospels is a literary construct. The Peter of Acts is a literary construct. Peter never went to Rome.

It is good that you admit Peter was a fictional character so how did the Epistle writer abode with the fictional Peter for fifteen days?

Galatians 1:18

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

The Epistles were written precisely in an attempt to historicise fictional characters found in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

1. The Epistle writer stayed with Peter who didn't exist. 2. Paul saw and heard from the resurrected Jesus when there was no resurrection.

Paul in the Epistles is an invention--a witness and participant in fiction.

Saint Peter is just a fabricated fictional character designed to offset the influence of Paul. Paul was Marcion's apostle. The Catholics needed a counterweight, they needed an apostle of their own. But there was no such person, thus the legends of Peter were born. And of course, the key part of that legend is that Peter did it all first.

If Paul was Marcion's apostle then he [Paul] must have been after Marcion.

[John2]

The more I think about it the more Papias doesn't make sense.

This is from Eusebius :

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

All the references to Papias: http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html

That translation is more easily accessed here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But what Eusebius attributes to Papias doesn't make sense. Firstly, note that even Eusebius indicates that what he attributes to Papias isn't in Papias' own writings.

I'm not getting that sense. To me it looks like Eusebius is saying that if you want to see more of what Papias wrote about "strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature" and "other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John" then you can read about it in his books.

But to the preceding "extracts" from Papias' writings that Eusebius had made, Eusebius wanted to add "a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words." In other words, all of this information comes from Papias' writings.

But if we assume Papias were to make this statement around 110, then clearly there is yet no canon nor even knowledge of the four Gospels.

Right, I agree. While I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Luke and John existed by c. 110 CE, if they did they don't appear to have been known to Papias and thus there was no canon of four gospels at that time.

Following David Trobisch, who seems to really know WTF he's talking about, the logic behind these names didn't really arise until the establishment of the first edition of the whole New Testament. Where would Papias have plucked these names from? One can argue that Papias maybe pulled them from thin air or got them from some tradition, and then later justifications for these names were developed, but this seems highly doubtful, especially given that Eusebius appears to be the first person to attribute these claims to Papias. It appears that the names Luke and Mark are drawn from the letters of Paul, but Papias shows no knowledge of Paul.

Papias knew that certainly Mark and presumably Matthew as well were called such because he learned about it from Christians who had known Jesus' followers ("And the presbyter said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter ...").

Why would Papias say that Mark wrote down what Peter said? The whole idea of justifying the merit of this account by tying it to Peter is a much later concept. Why would someone in 110 think that the account of Mark would need to be justified by tying it back to the primary apostle?

Because that's what "the presbyter" (presumably John) had said. And whether it is true or not, it fits with Peter being the primary apostle in Mark and Mark being referred to as "my son" in 1 Peter.

The establishment of Peter as the "patron apostle" of the Roman church had presumably not even happened yet.

Well, no, but he was an apostle to Jews and a pillar of the early church, as per Paul in Gal. 2:8, so he was a very important figure from more or less the get-go in Christianity.

Why would Papias make a statement about Mark being out of order? This sounds like a justification that one would only make against the full four Gospel collection.

Or against Matthew, like Papias says.

Sure we can claim that he has Matthew to compare against, but if Papias only knows Matthew and Mark and has no concept of a canon yet, then why would he even be making these judgements or even be concerned with this subject? The whole topic doesn't sound relevant to someone from 110ish.

It sounds very relevant to c. 110 CE to me. It's early enough to think that Luke and John did not exist or were not widely circulating yet and fits with what Papias says about knowing people who knew Jesus' followers.

Furthermore, that the epistles of John and Peter even existed in 110 is highly doubtful. But even if they did, we are to believe that this Papias is busy making proofs from these two very writings which appear later in the canon? But in reality we have very good cause to believe that the epistle of John was written after the Gospel of John and that the Gospel of John is quite late. This whole statement from Eusebius sounds entirely bogus.

Not to me. Not only did Papias know people who knew Jesus' followers, he lived in one of the regions that 1 Peter is addressed to, and since I think 1 Peter is genuine, I have no issue with it being known to Papias c. 110 CE.

And why would Papias, without any other context, attribute this Gospel to an associate of Peter? In the Gospel of Mark Jesus calls Peter Satan! Why in Hell would someone think that Peter would give an account in which he says that Jesus called him Satan? That makes no sense at all.

in my view Mark learned from Peter because that is how Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism worked, and I think Christianity was a faction of the Fourth Philosophy and Josephus says that Fourth Philosophers agreed with "Pharisaic notions."

MrMacSon recently brought this excellent article by Yadin-Israel to my attention ("For Mark was Peter's Tana: Tradition and Transmission in Papias and the Early Rabbis") in which he discusses the similarities between the oral tradition of Mark and Peter and that in Rabbinic Judaism.


https://www.academia.edu/15432597/2015_ ... rly_Rabbis


And I gather Jesus is not calling Peter Satan because he thinks he is Satan because he goes on to say that Peter has "human concerns." I think he might be calling Peter Satan in the sense of being an adversary (which is the literal meaning of Satan), like in Numbers 22:22, where "the angel of the Lord" is called "satan":

But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary [satan].

Peter, like Jesus' other followers, simply did not understand Jesus' suffering and dying philosophy until after Jesus' death and supposed resurrection, and since he is the primary apostle in Mark, his "adversarial" position stands as a primary example of Jesus' followers not "getting it" during his lifetime. But we know from Paul and other Christian writings that Peter did eventually "get it" (and thus he was no longer an "adversary"). And even Mark says that Peter was among the first to hear that Jesus had been resurrected (16:7: "But go, tell his disciples and Peter").

[rgprice]

@John

All of your evidence comes from only one place: Eusebius.

Papias knew that certainly Mark and presumably Matthew as well were called such because he learned about it from Christians who had known Jesus' followers ("And the presbyter said this: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter ...").

You're using the claims of Eusebius to support the claims of Eusebius. There is not a single attestation of Papias saying anything about Mark or Matthew other than Eusebius. Everyone else who says the same thing is copying from Eusebius.

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel

This is a dead giveaway. Eusebius is covering himself by signaling that you can't find these claims in any of Papias' writings. He has already summarized everything from Papias' writings. Now he's adding something additional, which isn't in his writings.

The idea that the Gospel of Mark would be associated with Peter makes no sense at all. It is clearly an anti-Peter work. Jesus calls Peter Satan. There are scriptural references that indicate he is wicked. Jesus predicts he will deny him, and indeed he does. He abandon's Jesus in his hour of need, and furthermore doesn't witness his resurrection. What else needs be said?

The name "Mark" was assigned to this Gospel originally in order to associate it with Paul, not Peter. It is clearly a pro-Pauline work. It was given the name Mark when it was placed alongside Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters, in which Luke and Mark are mentioned together. These were supposed to be two Gospels written by a pair of Pauline followers. But the later Catholic Church couldn't have that. They needed to keep the legacy of Paul the Marcionite apostle in check. Thus, they needed a Gospel associated with Peter to balance out the Gospel associated with Paul. The only Gospel that could be used was Mark. The four Gospels were already tied together. Matthew and John were already known as Gospel of eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Luke had to remain Pauline because it was tied to Acts and because Luke had to serve as an anti-Marcionite Gospel by having appropriate Marcion's Gospel. That only left Mark, so Eusebius had to claim that Mark was tied to Peter, despite the fact that its an anti-Peter account. No one would have tied Mark to Peter for any other reason. The Gospel of Mark is in fact the most anti-Peter Gospel of them all. The only reason it's tied to Peter is because it was the only one without a pre-existing important legacy.

[Ben C. Smith]

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel

This is a dead giveaway. Eusebius is covering himself by signaling that you can't find these claims in any of Papias' writings.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Eusebius is very clearly claiming that Papias wrote those words about Mark (ἐκτέθειται διὰ τούτων... ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου). The claim could not possibly be clearer. Eusebius is not adding to Papias; he is adding to his own extracts, already given (προεκτεθείσαις), from Papias.

[John2]

@John

All of your evidence comes from only one place: Eusebius.

Yes, and as Ben has pointed out elsewhere, what Eusebius cites from extant sources is fairly accurate and I think it is fair to suppose that the same could be true for lost sources like Papias, particularly given that Papias' writings still existed in Eusebius' time and thus could be checked.

[rgprice]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Eusebius is very clearly claiming that Papias wrote those words about Mark (ἐκτέθειται διὰ τούτων... ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου). The claim could not possibly be clearer. Eusebius is not adding to Papias; he is adding to his own extracts, already given (προεκτεθείσαις), from Papias.

Then why does he say, "For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]"

Why does Eusebius say that for more information about what was previous stated you can refer to Papias' books, but... This implies, at least in the translation, that you cannot find what Eusebius is about to say in Papias' books. Perhaps there is something lost in translation.?.?.?

Nevertheless, I still content that there is no way anyone would have associated Mark with Peter.

[Ben C. Smith]

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Eusebius is very clearly claiming that Papias wrote those words about Mark (ἐκτέθειται διὰ τούτων... ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου). The claim could not possibly be clearer. Eusebius is not adding to Papias; he is adding to his own extracts, already given (προεκτεθείσαις), from Papias.

Then why does he say, "For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]"

That is more of a paraphrase than a translation, for one thing. For another, the context is specifically Papias' passing along of traditions from Aristion and John. Eusebius is not giving all of those, and refers the reader to Papias' work itself for further information. He is not claiming to have completely summarized all of Papias' work now before moving on to something else.

You have a lot of good ideas, man, even when I do not agree with them (which is frequent). I would hate for you to dilute them with idiosyncratic interpretations which fall flat before they ever even get going.

[rgprice]

That is more of a paraphrase than a translation, for one thing. For another, the context is specifically Papias' passing along of traditions from Aristion and John. Eusebius is not giving all of those, and refers the reader to Papias' work itself for further information. He is not claiming to have completely summarized all of Papias' work now before moving on to something else.

You have a lot of good ideas, man, even when I do not agree with them (which is frequent). I would hate for you to dilute them with idiosyncratic interpretations which fall flat before they ever even get going.

I appreciate the correction! That's why I post on here, to work stuff out with people who know what their talking about

But as I said, I still don't believe that anyone from 110ish authentically claimed that a Gospel was identified with Mark, and that said Mark was an associate of Peter. Even if Eusebius is attributing that claim to writings of Papias, I still don't believe him. Either Papias didn't actually write that, or Papias wrote much later than Eusebius indicates.

[perseusomega9]

@John

All of your evidence comes from only one place: Eusebius.

Yes, and as Ben has pointed out elsewhere, what Eusebius cites from extant sources is fairly accurate and I think it is fair to suppose that the same could be true for lost sources like Papias, particularly given that Papias' writings still existed in Eusebius' time and thus could be checked.

context context context. Taking stuff out of context and framing it the way you want is typical propaganda.