Papias said Mark wrote his Gospel out of order

[schillingklaus]

Papias only exists in Eusebian dogmatic fiction, and the statements have no historical value whatsoever for the time abou which they pretend to be; rather, they only offer a window to theological conflicts at the time of Eusebius and attempts to resolve them.

Only Markan prioritists believe that Mt and Lk copied and embellished Mk. Others are able to look for prior redactions and glossing, making all surviving gospels indiscriminately late patchwork.

[Secret Alias]

I don't agree with this. You can see Papias's influence on Irenaeus especially the way he introduced the gospel of Matthew in Book 3.1, his reference to the Lordly logia and the heretics who moved stones in the King mosaic to make him appear like a dog or fox, another reference and Tertullian's interest in the fulfillment of prophesy in the gospel against Marcion etc. Papias definitely left a footprint in the 2nd century. The moving stones in the mosaic is essentially about taxis. It is again John who "resolves" how Mark and Matthew "agree" with one another.

This must have been a new way of seeing their contradictions.

John reframed Matthew's correction of Mark as a recontextualization.
But in so doing John himself becomes the arbiter of what the right taxis is.

Papias cites John
who points to Matthew
who corrected Mark's taxis
by anchoring them in the Lordly logia
which I take to be the Jewish prophesies about Christ.

Already you can see that John
is somehow harmonizing Mark with Matthew

Irenaeus just developed John
into a harmonizer of four gospels

You see it in Book 2
when just using a synoptic gospel
leafs to the "erroneous" notion that Jesus only preached within a calendar year
John is now for Irenaeus a gospel writer
who built a "rule" which helped explain
Jesus's ministry lasting multiple Passovers
through the use of chapter headings in his gospel
which make the synoptic narrative (Mark)
seem less "anecdotal" i.e a string of stories divorced from a proper chronology.

Papias needed to have existed for Irenaeus to warp what he was originally saying.

[Secret Alias]

The point of my posting is to remind people ultimately HOW THE EXISTING EVIDENCE MAKES A SECOND CENTURY ORIGIN FOR CHRISTIANITY UNTENABLE as many here like to suggest.

The point here is that:

1. Irenaeus uses Papias in several places in Against Heresies both explicitly and implicitly
2. Irenaeus wasn't later than 180 CE
3. As such Papias is likely from the date suggested by the claim that he met people who COULD REASONABLY HAVE CLAIMED to have known eyewitnesses (that doesn't mean I believe the claim only that it is hard to believe that he made this claim from a period where such a claim would have been ridiculous)

When all these points are factored together Papias argues for a first century origin for Christianity. Moreover - and this is critical to my main point - I don't believe that the parallels between what is said about the Marcionite interpretation of Galatians chapters 1 and 2 can be completely separate from what Papias says about the relationship between Mark and Matthew and John's testimony about this relationship. In other words, given the fact that Papias was interested in the testimony of people who knew eyewitnesses (like John) and John was a prominent eyewitness against Marcion the fact that the Marcionites criticized the creation of a 'Judaizing gospel' on the authority of the testimony of their apostle (= Paul) the two things (i.e. Papias's positive testimony about the superiority of the Judaizing gospel and the Marcionite depreciation and vilification of this Judaizing gospel) likely mean they are describing the same 'event' especially given the small amount of time that must have existed between John's testimony and the writing of the Christian gospel c. 70 CE. They could not be describing two separate phenomena.

[MrMacSon]

... In other words, given the fact that Papias was interested in the testimony of people who knew eyewitnesses (like John) and John was a prominent eyewitness against Marcion, [and] the fact that the Marcionites criticized the creation of a 'Judaizing gospel' on the authority of the testimony of their apostle (= Paul), the two things (i.e. Papias's positive testimony about the superiority of the Judaizing gospel and the Marcionite depreciation and vilification of this Judaizing gospel) likely mean they are describing the same 'event'

Yep. But it could [just as likely] place 'John' [and Papias] at the time of Marcion

And this —

... given the small amount of time that must have existed between John's testimony and the writing of the Christian gospel c. 70 CE, [t]hey could not be describing two separate phenomena

— would also be true

[Secret Alias]

But surely it's harder to move the place of Irenaeus and Papias than Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

I'm not proposing moving anyone, other than saying 'John' was a contemporary of Marcion and Papias. This fits with the Marcion[ite]-Gospel-prior-to-the-Canonicals proposition (& associated arguments).

[lsayre]

Which early 20th Century Author made the claim that Marcion was the Scribe who wrote down John's Gospel as John dictated it to him? If there is any validity to this, then Marcion comes earlier in history than is commonly believed.

[andrewcriddle]

Which early 20th Century Author made the claim that Marcion was the Scribe who wrote down John's Gospel as John dictated it to him? If there is any validity to this, then Marcion comes earlier in history than is commonly believed.

This is about a passage in the Old Latin Gospel prologues.
See viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8607 IMO it is not a credible source. Even if there are grounds to date Marcion earlier this is not one of them.

Andrew Criddle

[perseusomega9]

Markus Vinzent finds it credible.

[John2]

Eusebius recounted some wacky stories like the letter from Jesus, the Pilate's suicide or the meeting between Peter and Philo. So I tend to be very suspicious of what Eusebius says.

But Eusebius doesn't mention Papias' account of the death of Judas (which is the story in question here). It is mentioned by Apollinaris of Laodicea.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of ... h_of_Judas


This account shows that the story was something that Papias heard from people, since it says "they say."