Re: [Fwd: [Synoptic-L] Re: What did Papias say.....]
- Maluflen@... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/2/1999 11:55:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,A fair distinction, but I yet maintain that you've read other folks' conclusions
> 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.
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 otherwiseI know what you mean....all too often evidence like Papias, and even internal
> 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.
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
> << Now to the question. The issue is what do we make of Papias' words. WeIt wasn't meant pejoratively, we all have our pet theories and need to fit
> 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!].
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.