Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
View Post
It must have been a document with a lasting impression
...and frankly, we do not know all that Papias said since we don't possess the entirety of his work.
Would he even need to? By the time of Irenaeus, these works would have been known and again
I seriously doubt that all that Irenaeus had just one document
...and other church leaders all around the known world at the time all said Mark, which points to a uniformity in a tradition.
Further, if he was wanting to give it apostolic authority, why not just say it was the Gospel of Peter and an account of Peter directly and leave out the middleman?
The ancient world was not as easy to travel, but yet it was quite often and many a Jew would regularly go to Jerusalem for the Passover feast as well.
I do think we have many reasons to think the sequel, Acts, is quite reliable historically. (Keener has written a massive commentary showing such or rather at least started it as I believe there is another volume yet to come)
The book then has the we passages where the author includes himself as well. We could say he was lying, but it would be a wonder why the we isn't there from the very beginning
...and also why would the early church attribute such a work to Luke, a man hardly known in the epistles and not at all known in the Gospels.
Comment