Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Fwd: [Synoptic-L] Re: What did Papias say.....]

Expand Messages
  • Larry J. Swain
    ... A fair distinction, but I yet maintain that you ve read other folks conclusions which they ve drawn from these words of Papias. I could say the same
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Maluflen@... wrote:

      > In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      > x99swain@... writes:
      >
      >
      > I never said you were arguing for Marcan priority, but only that you
      > formulated your comments on Mark and Matthew in terms of Marcan priority,
      > which is different.
      >

      A fair distinction, but I yet maintain that you've read other folks' conclusions
      which they've drawn from these words of Papias. I could say the same thing using
      Matthew first, but it comes a little unnaturally since Papias is recorded as
      having written about Mark first and contrasting Matthew with Mark. I'm attempting
      to be very careful in this discussion about allowing presuppositions of the origin
      of the gospels affect how Papias is to be read---humanly impossible since I have
      my own ideas on the subject, but worth the effort. Perhaps I took too much
      umbrage at your words...

      > Your contrary to fact condition in the above is a bit harsh, but otherwise
      > you make a good point. After reading over what you wrote (or at least what
      > you cite above), I admit to a bit of hypersensitivity to the ghost of Marcan
      > priority in my response.
      >

      I know what you mean....all too often evidence like Papias, and even internal
      evidence from the gospels is read to support the thesis already concluded....If A,
      then this means B, and then C and we come to A.....this forum has amazingly
      steered clear of this sort of reasoning, but it occurs in many textbooks on the
      New Testement. So if you're hypersensitive so am I and I was gruffer than need
      be.

      > << Now to the question. The issue is what do we make of Papias' words. We
      > haven't yet jumped to the level of how we fit what we think Papias is saying
      > in with our pet theories of gospel origins [ouch again!].

      It wasn't meant pejoratively, we all have our pet theories and need to fit
      evidence into the construct.

      So all that said and done....what do we make of Papias? My own thinking on this
      has been that discussions on gospel origins have been guilty of treating Papias
      and other such evidence as "external" and evidence from the gospels themselves as
      "internal"; then the old school chose to take the external evidence, since
      mid-century the internal evidence is hailed and the external dismissed as simply
      wrong in many cases. So my thinking has been along the lines of treating it all
      as "evidence" and trying to make sense of the evidence in a cohesive, sensible
      fashion. Ok, Jeffrey, my .02, now someone else can take Papias on.

      Larry Swain
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.