Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[robrecht]

You would think that it would at least be mentioned or survive until the fairly late second century (Papias did live until 155 C.E.). But those like Origen (who probably got his information from Clement of Alexandria) only show knowledge of the traditional interpretation.

There is also the fact that Eusebius would have actually known the context of Papias' statement. I don't think he would have confused it at all. The only evidence we have of anything being said to have been written by Matt in the early church is a Hebrew gospel.

Besides this, wouldn't it make more sense for Papias to give the origin of something that was actually used (was this sayings source used in the early second century as opposed to or with the Gospels?)

Not really. Papias does not say Matthew wrote a 'gospel', but an ordered account of the Lord's oracles. He also spoke of others translating these as they were able. Were any of these other translations written, were any in use at the time of Papias? An ordered account of the Lord's oracles sounds like it could refer to the five major discourses found in our current gospel of Matthew, and thus it could even refer to the gospel of Matthew as we know it now, but this is speculation. It is not evidence. It is important to distinguish evidence from assumptions and speculation.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Not really. Papias does not say Matthew wrote a 'gospel', but an ordered account of the Lord's oracles. He also spoke of others translating these as they were able. Were any of these other translations written, were any in use at the time of Papias? An ordered account of the Lord's oracles sounds like it could refer to the five major discourses found in our current gospel of Matthew, and thus it could even refer to the gospel of Matthew as we know it now, but this is speculation. It is not evidence. It is important to distinguish evidence from assumptions and speculation.

Ok fair enough. But what about Eusebius who would have known the context? And why did no other Church father (that we are aware of) interpret it differently?

The question to me is this:
I know Markan priority explains the internal data well. But I think mine does as well. (The grammatical changes in Mark would be due to writing style, memory and Peter's influence). There is nothing wrong with Matt being proficient in Greek in my opinion. (If he was a tax-collector, wouldn't he have to be proficient in Greek?).
I think the Early Church fathers are unanimous in the order and language of the gospels and nothing Papias says necessarily implies anything different.

Here is a list of arguments as to why Markan Priority is pretty much universal in scholarship
(https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem)

Which ones do you think (besides the bad Greek) that my hypothesis doesn't address adequately?

At this point, I feel that I am wasting your time so after you respond, I will respond once more and this thread would be over (if you want to respond to that one, go ahead).

[Doug Shaver]

But what about Eusebius who would have known the context?

How do we know what Eusebius would have known about Papias?

[robrecht]

Ok fair enough. But what about Eusebius who would have known the context? And why did no other Church father (that we are aware of) interpret it differently?

The church fathers lived at a time prior to the development of the historico-critical method.

The question to me is this:
I know Markan priority explains the internal data well. But I think mine does as well. (The grammatical changes in Mark would be due to writing style, memory and Peter's influence). There is nothing wrong with Matt being proficient in Greek in my opinion. (If he was a tax-collector, wouldn't he have to be proficient in Greek?).
I think the Early Church fathers are unanimous in the order and language of the gospels and nothing Papias says necessarily implies anything different.

Here is a list of arguments as to why Markan Priority is pretty much universal in scholarship
(https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem)

Which ones do you think (besides the bad Greek) that my hypothesis doesn't address adequately?

At this point, I feel that I am wasting your time so after you respond, I will respond once more and this thread would be over (if you want to respond to that one, go ahead).

No time to read your link, sorry, but I can say that your explanation does not account for the generally secondary character of Matthew's text to that of Mark. A few examples of which I mentioned above. Early on, I also invited you to choose any pericope of the triple tradition and I will show you what is meant by this--not just by me, but almost all historico-critical scholars. You constantly just reduce this grammar and style, and that is part of it, but it is also a matter of improvement, not just of grammar, but of what Wallace refers to in your link as hard readings. That invitation still stands. You also do not have a convincing explanation for why Peter and Mark both left out some very beautiful and profound material, eg, merely saying that they forgot about the beatitudes or the Lord's prayer, etc. Another weakness in your theory is that you completely ignore the gospel of Luke. You seemed to be unaware above of the idea that Luke used any sources. Any good solution to the synoptic problem should be able to account for textual similarities and differences among all three synoptic gospels. How would you account for Luke not including any of the changes of order in Matthew and yet including all of the double tradition material?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Last Post then for me

The church fathers lived at a time prior to the development of the historico-critical method.

Ok and? Even if they did, the Church has always understood the Order of the Gospels as being Matt, Mark, Luke and John (ever since Irenaeus at least up until much later) with Matt being written in Hebrew. If the internal evidence doesn't contradict this, then the traditions should not be assumed to be false.

No time to read your link, sorry, but I can say that your explanation does not account for the generally secondary character of Matthew's text to that of Mark. A few examples of which I mentioned above. Early on, I also invited you to choose any pericope of the triple tradition and I will show you what is meant by this--not just by me, but almost all historico-critical scholars. You constantly just reduce this grammar and style, and that is part of it, but it is also a matter of improvement, not just of grammar, but of what Wallace refers to in your link as hard readings.

The problem with the Hard readings argument is that, no matter what, Mark simply wrote what he understood from his sources or what he thought was right regardless of whatever source he got it from. If he didn't think it was right, he wouldn't have incorporated it into his gospel. In other words, the Hard sayings are interpretations of Mark's sources (or possibly, what Mark's sources said themselves like Peter.)

That invitation still stands.

Ok how about the Olivet discourse. That would certainly be interesting

You also do not have a convincing explanation for why Peter and Mark both left out some very beautiful and profound material, eg, merely saying that they forgot about the beatitudes or the Lord's prayer, etc.

First of all, that is very subjective in itself. You need to show that it must have been profound or beautiful to Mark. I find Quantum Mechanics beautiful and profound but that doesn't mean it is to you.

Secondly though, even if they were profound to Mark, he may have decided not to include them on the basis that Peter never really emphasized them in his speeches. We don't have any evidence that Peter spoke about things like the sermon on the Mount or the Lord's Prayer.

And Mark was apparently conceived of as being Peter's preaching:

"And thus when the divine word had made its home among them [the Christians in Rome], the power of Simon [the magician] was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of PETER'S hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought MARK, a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of MARK. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son" (1 Peter 5:13). And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-2, 2.16.1)

Another weakness in your theory is that you completely ignore the gospel of Luke. You seemed to be unaware above of the idea that Luke used any sources. Any good solution to the synoptic problem should be able to account for textual similarities and differences among all three synoptic gospels.

The reason I ignored Luke was because my position was somewhat in line with scholarship here. I believe that Luke used Mark as a source but not the only one. (Luke left out Mark 6:45-8:26 for
instance.). He would have likely consulted Matthew as well as other sources to make his gospel.

How would you account for Luke not including any of the changes of order in Matthew and yet including all of the double tradition material?

Simple. Luke arranged the order of the double tradition so as to suit his preferences (perhaps a chronological narrative)

[Quantum Weirdness]

Well, I'll make a response to this one as well :)

How do we know what Eusebius would have known about Papias?

Here's Eusebius

There are extant five books of Papias,. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

3. He says: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...iii.xxxix.html

From the Above, it can be seen that Papias' works were existent in the time of Eusebius and that Eusebius read the preface of Papias'

[robrecht]

Ok and? Even if they did, the Church has always understood the Order of the Gospels as being Matt, Mark, Luke and John (ever since Irenaeus at least up until much later) with Matt being written in Hebrew. If the internal evidence doesn't contradict this, then the traditions should not be assumed to be false.

Before Irenaeus, it seems Papias may have considered Mark to have been written first. Clement of Alexandria considered Luke to have been written before Mark, whereas Augustine considered Mark to have been written after Luke. Some manuscripts place the gospel of John before or immediately after that of Matthew. None of the traditions we have of the order of authorship are first or even second hand so there is no strong argument from tradition. And there is very strong internal evidence that the gospel of Mark was indeed written first, which is why practically every critical scholar on the planet affirms Markan priority.

The problem with the Hard readings argument is that, no matter what, Mark simply wrote what he understood from his sources or what he thought was right regardless of whatever source he got it from. If he didn't think it was right, he wouldn't have incorporated it into his gospel. In other words, the Hard sayings are interpretations of Mark's sources (or possibly, what Mark's sources said themselves like Peter.)

Ok how about the Olivet discourse. That would certainly be interesting

First of all, that is very subjective in itself. You need to show that it must have been profound or beautiful to Mark. I find Quantum Mechanics beautiful and profound but that doesn't mean it is to you.

Secondly though, even if they were profound to Mark, he may have decided not to include them on the basis that Peter never really emphasized them in his speeches. We don't have any evidence that Peter spoke about things like the sermon on the Mount or the Lord's Prayer.

[robrecht]

Well, I'll make a response to this one as well :)


Here's Eusebius

There are extant five books of Papias, ...

The word "extant" does not appear in the Greek. One could argue that it may be implied in Eusebius' periphrastic construction, which is nothing more than a direct quote of Irenaeus (Adv Haer 5,33,4), but it is by no means explicit. That being said, I have no objection to the possibility of Eusebius knowing all of Papias' work. He was not much impressed with Papias, as we know from the comments I quoted above, and this would coincide with his inclusion of so little material if he did indeed know the whole work.

[Doug Shaver]

How do we know what Eusebius would have known about Papias?

From the Above, it can be seen that Papias' works were existent in the time of Eusebius and that Eusebius read the preface of Papias'

OK. And how much can we learn about an author just by reading something he wrote? Doesn't that depend on whether his writing was mainly about himself or about some other subject?

And why should I believe Irenaeus? Does he tell us where he got his information?

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth;

Well, now, he would say that, wouldn't he? Everybody, but absolutely everybody, will assure you that the only thing they care about is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[OingoBoingo]

Before Irenaeus, it seems Papias may have considered Mark to have been written first.

Where does he say this? I can't seem to find it in the sayings attributed to him.

[OingoBoingo]

He was not much impressed with Papias, as we know from the comments I quoted above, and this would coincide with his inclusion of so little material if he did indeed know the whole work.

I thought scholars generally chalked that up to differences in their eschatological beliefs (as previously mentioned by QW) because of the following passage:

"12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses."

[robrecht]

Where does he say this? I can't seem to find it in the sayings attributed to him.

He doesn't say it. He merely describes how he believes Mark wrote his gospel before he describes how Matthew wrote his.

[OingoBoingo]

He doesn't say it. He merely describes how he believes Mark wrote his gospel before he describes how Matthew wrote his.

These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows:

[OingoBoingo]

And why should I believe Irenaeus?

Why shouldn't you? Seems like an inconsequential thing to make up.

[robrecht]

I thought scholars generally chalked that up to differences in their eschatological beliefs (as previously mentioned by QW) because of the following passage:

"12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses."

Some certainly do, but I see no reason to presume that Eusebius was exaggerating his slight appreciation for Papias merely because he disagreed about eschatology. Note that the sentence you quote, as it is commonly divided in English mistranslation, actually cuts off the beginning of the sentence in the Greek, from which it becomes apparent, if we take Eusebius at his word, that eschatology was only one area in which he discredited Papias for his gullibility.

3,39,11-13
The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings (ξένας παραβολὰς καὶ διδασκαλίας) of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things (ἄλλα μυθικώτερα), among which his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding (παρεκδεξάμενον) of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving (μὴ συνεορακότα) that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding (σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν), as one can see from his words ...



If we believe Eusebius, Papias' eschatology was only one of the more mythical things that he related, among a multitude of strange parables and teachings of the Savior.