Pages

Sunday, October 22, 2006

How Influential Was Papias?

In another thread, Ed Babinski quoted Howard Clark Kee commenting:

"Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) relying on the testimony of Papias refers to the gospel of Mark as the 'memoir' of Peter"

Ed's motive in quoting Kee on this subject seems to be to suggest that Justin Martyr's testimony about the background of Mark's gospel isn't of much significance, since he was just repeating what he had read in Papias. This sort of argument is common among critics of Christianity. Testimony from multiple sources will be dismissed on the basis that some or all of the sources can be traced back to one source, then that one source will be dismissed as unreliable. As the apostle Paul is often portrayed as the only source for much of what the earliest Christians claimed about Jesus, Papias is often portrayed as the only source for many of the beliefs of the earliest post-apostolic Christians.

There are many problems with that sort of theory, whether it's applied to Paul, Papias, or somebody else. The only early Christian figure who was widely recognized as having universal authority above the authority of anybody else was Jesus. Paul was an equal among the apostles (1 Corinthians 9:1, 2 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 2:7-10, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14, Ignatius' Letter To The Romans 4, etc.), and Papias had no status we know of that would have resulted in his being regarded more highly than anybody else. He was a bishop and probably a disciple of the apostle John, but many other bishops and disciples of the apostles were alive at the time. Irenaeus, commenting on Papias' contemporary Clement of Rome, another probable disciple of the apostles, wrote that "there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles" (Against Heresies, 3:3:3). It's highly unlikely that somebody like Papias would be the only source of information on an issue like the background of Mark's gospel. Papias himself refers to his dependence on other men of his time who had known the apostles (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:3-4). Whatever information Papias had attained from the apostle John, he hadn't known all of the apostles, so he probably would consult other sources for some of his information. He tells us that he did. As Papias would have had access to many of these sources, so would other people.

Does Justin Martyr mention Papias by name? No. Collections of the fragments of Papias, such as the recent collection by Michael Holmes (The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005], pp. 562-591), don't include any material from Justin Martyr. There's no reason to conclude that Justin had Papias as his source for his comments, and it's unlikely that somebody in his position would have been dependent on Papias for such information.

Justin lived in more than one location. He had been in Israel and in Rome (where Mark's gospel is thought to have originated), for example. He was in contact with a variety of Christian and non-Christian sources, as we see reflected in his Dialogue With Trypho. As he explains repeatedly in his writings, the gospels were read in Christian churches along with the Old Testament scriptures (First Apology, 67) and were believed to have been written by "apostles and those who followed them" (Dialogue With Trypho, 103). Notice the plural: "apostles" and "those who followed them". The use of the plural matches our four gospels: apostles (Matthew, John) and those who followed them (Mark, Luke). Justin doesn't cite the number four anywhere, but his comments are consistent with the collection of four gospels that sources living just after Justin's time refer to. In another place, Justin refers to the apostles composing gospels (First Apology, 66), so he can't just be referring to the apostles as the subject matter of the gospels. He attributes some of the gospels to apostles and some to disciples of the apostles.

Why would the early Christians attribute the second gospel to Mark rather than to Peter? If they were dishonest or careless in such matters, why didn't they just claim that Peter wrote the gospel? The concept that the minor and questionable (Acts 15:37-39) figure Mark wrote it, with Peter as his primary source, is credible and is consistent with what other sources tell us about both Peter and Mark. And as Martin Hengel has noted, the widespread early reports about Mark's reliance on Peter differ in some of their details, and it doesn't seem likely that they all were relying on one source (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], pp. 35-38, 40-41). The influence of Peter on the gospel of Mark is also supported by internal evidence:

As far as Mark is concerned, church tradition tells us that he penned his gospel from the teachings of Peter. Martin Hengel discusses several internal considerations from Mark that support the external evidence, among which I found the following significant:

1. Peter is the first disciple to be called immediately after Jesus' public appearance. His name is also the last of the disciples to appear in Mark (Mark 1:16; 16:7).

2. In Mark 16:7, the and Peter, according to Hengel "disrupts the narrative and is completely superfluous", and it is notable that this unnecessary addition is omitted by Matthew. Hengel states that it is also odd that only here when the disciples and Peter are mentioned together that Peter is mentioned at the end, whereas elsewhere he always is mentioned at the beginning. From this Hengel concludes that Mark structured his gospel so that Peter would be named at the beginning and end in order to give it Peter's stamp of authority.

3. Mark's gospel is predominantly Galilean in character compared with Luke and John, which is significant since Peter served as the "spokesman of the Galilean disciples."

4. According to Hengel, the "disciples" are mentioned a total of 43 times, but Peter is emphasized as he is mentioned 25 times. Matthew also mentions Peter 25 times, but the "disciples" in his gospel are mentioned 75 times. Plus, Matthew's gospel is 70% longer than that of Mark. In an end-note, Hengel cites the work of Feldmeier, who determined ratios for the number of times Peter is mentioned per the number of words in the three Synoptic gospels. The ratio is substantially higher for Mark at 1:443, with that of Matthew and Luke standing at 1:772 and 1:648, respectively. Of course, if the Markan priority paradigm is accurate, then this is that much more significant since the emphases that Matthew and Luke also place on Peter could be largely the result of their use of Mark as a source.

5. Finally, Hengel states that the mentions of Peter tend to accumulate at important parts of Mark's gospel, such as at the beginning of Jesus' activity (ch. 1), the denouement in chs. 8 & 9, and of course, the passion narrative in ch. 14.

And quoting Hengel's conclusion:



Only secondarily is it to be noted that the period of tradition between Jesus and the time of Mark is not more than forty years and the remembrance of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem was still vivid. In other words, the fact that the name of Simon Peter has been quite deliberately and massively retained in his Gospel is grounded not only in the importance of Peter for the evangelist, but also in remembrance and historical reality. For Mark, the chronological distance from Jesus of about forty years could still be surveyed relatively easily, and hardly more than five years separate him from the martyrdom of Peter, his teacher. Even if we did not have the reports of Irenaeus, the two Clements and Justin, the Papias note and I Peter 5.13, we would have to assume that the author of the Second Gospel is dependent upon Peter in a striking way, for historical, theological, and quite personal reasons. [Hengel 2000; 82-85]

Given the large amount of internal and external evidence we have for Mark's authorship of the second gospel under Peter's influence, why should we think that Justin Martyr and other sources were just repeating an unreliable account they got from Papias? Similarly, why should we think that somebody like Irenaeus would only repeat what he had heard from Polycarp, as if Polycarp was his only source? Even if Polycarp was Irenaeus' only source, we have good reason to think that Polycarp's testimony would be reliable. But given Irenaeus' contacts with a variety of apostolic churches and given his possession of earlier writings that are no longer extant and his relationships with other contemporaries of the apostles (like Pothinus), we don't have any good reason to conclude that Irenaeus would have been relying on only one source for his information on issues like gospel authorship.

The apostles traveled widely, and contemporaries of the apostles were in contact with a wide variety of sources, as we see reflected in the letters of Paul, the correspondence between Clement of Rome and the Corinthians, the letters of Ignatius, etc. Christians often traveled, and messengers would transmit information from one church to another. The early churches were highly networked, even as early as the time of Paul, and that networking would have increased with the passing of time. An issue as significant as who wrote the gospels or whether Mark had Peter as his primary source wouldn't have been informed or determined by only one person, like Papias. The fact that modern critics of Christianity resort to this sort of argument tells us more about their desperation than it does about an alleged lack of evidence for a Christian view of the origin of the gospels. Martin Hengel probably is correct about a motive of modern critics in rejecting the traditional view of Mark's gospel: "there is probably also an unacknowledged modern apologetic interest, characteristic of Protestant theology after the Enlightenment, namely offence at the numerous miracle stories in the Gospel" (Ibid., p. 88).

2 comments:

  1. Steve,

    I don't recall reading that very many of the authors whom you and J. P. Holding cite, like Martin Hengel, are themselves inerrantsts. They have reasons for not being inerrants. Even moderates have reasons for not being inerrantists. When you understand and involve yourself debating moderate Christians, then you might understand my own views better as well.

    As I see things...

    The prima facie evidence is that all four Gospels do not contain the names of the people who wrote them.

    None of the Gospels constitue impartial evidence. All four were written by believers in Jesus.

    The words of Jesus preserved in all four Gospels could fill a small 16-page booklet.

    The Gospels themselves are not very long. 90% of Mark is included in Matthew and Luke (including incidental connecting passages in Greek).

    That Mark was the primary source for the later two longer Gospels (Matthew and Luke) is something most scholars do not appear to doubt today.

    We do not know whether or not individual stories about Jesus among the earliest Christians may or may not have been added to other stories, nor exactly how many stories may not owe something to midrashic or pesher interpretations of Jesus. Even the earliest Gospel could have incorporated stories in ADDITION to what "Peter" allegedly told "Mark," and not necessarily authenticated stories either.

    I know you believe that the Bible is inerrant, but do you believe your interpretations of the Bible are also inerrant? (I'm sure we both agree inconclusiveness exists. You just believe that the PROBABILITY of your being correct about holy books being inerrant to their inspired/correct interpretation, is greater than anyone can reasonably doubt.)

    Mark Goodacre of Duke University is a well known scholar, whom I mentioned, who hosts an enormous website, New Testament Gateway, and also has a personal blog on biblical scholarship. Goodacre's links from his blog can also help introduce you to the whole wide world of Biblical scholarship.

    There is even an academic e-List dedicated to the scholarly investigation and discussion of critical questions and issues surrounding the study of the Jesus of History and the rise of Christianity, called, XTalk2 whose homepage is also at Goodacre's New Testament Gateway.

    If you wish to study the Gospel of Mark, which most scholars agree was the earliest Gospel written there are several websites with plenty of scholarly information and also questions:

    NT GATEWAY ON MARK

    EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS: GOSPEL OF MARK

    HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MARK

    Anyone reading all the available info in books and on the web concering the Bible will come to their own conclusions. I have more doubts about the inerrancy of inerrantists than you do.

    Happy reading,
    Cheers,
    Ed

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ed Babinski wrote:

    "Steve, I don't recall reading that very many of the authors whom you and J. P. Holding cite, like Martin Hengel, are themselves inerrantsts."

    Steve didn't write the article you're responding to. I did. And the other article from which I quoted was written by a guest at J.P. Holding's site. It wasn't written by J.P. Holding.

    Hengel isn't an inerrantist, but how is that relevant to what I wrote?

    You write:

    "They have reasons for not being inerrants. Even moderates have reasons for not being inerrantists. When you understand and involve yourself debating moderate Christians, then you might understand my own views better as well."

    I have read and debated liberals and moderates for years. That's why I'm able to quote and interact with people like you and Martin Hengel. I wouldn't be able to quote such sources and write articles about them or in response to them if I wasn't interacting with them to some extent.

    You seem to think that citing the fact that people disagree with Evangelicals is a significant response to Evangelical arguments. It isn't. We know that people disagree with us. Why do you keep acting as if we don't, and why do you keep acting as if interacting with non-Evangelicals would significantly change our views? We have been interacting with them, and it hasn't significantly changed our views.

    You write:

    "The prima facie evidence is that all four Gospels do not contain the names of the people who wrote them."

    That's an assertion, not an argument. We have manuscripts that can be dated as early as the second century that have author names included. Even if the author names were added after the original circulation of the documents, it's unlikely that the documents would ever have circulated without oral references to authorship. That one of the gospels circulated anonymously for a long time is unlikely. That all four did is even more unlikely. As Martin Hengel notes:

    "Nevertheless the fact remains that it is utterly improbable that in this dark period, at a particular place or through a person or through the decision of a group or institution unknown to us, the four superscriptions of the Gospels, which had hitherto been circulating anonymously, suddenly came into being and, without leaving behind traces of earlier divergent titles, became established throughout the church. Let those who deny the great age and therefore basically the originality of the Gospel superscriptions in order to preserve their 'good' critical conscience, give a better explanation of the completely unanimous and relatively early attestation of these titles, their origin and the names of authors associated with them. Such an explanation has yet to be given, and it never will be. New Testament scholars persistently overlook basic facts and questions on the basis of old habits." (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], p. 55)

    You write:

    "None of the Gospels constitue impartial evidence. All four were written by believers in Jesus."

    That's a different subject than the original subject of this thread. I can understand why you'd want to change the subject, but readers ought to recognize what you're doing for what it is: a changing of the subject.

    All humans are partial. It's not as if the Romans who were burning Christians or giving them to wild beasts were unbiased. It's not as if Ed Babinski is unbiased. Historians and humans in general regularly accept the testimony of biased sources:

    "Likewise, to claim that we cannot rationally believe Jesus rose because the New Testament authors were biased toward Jesus is to commit the genetic fallacy. Such an argument fails to address the data they provide. The prominent New Testament historian N.T. Wright comments, 'It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a 'bias' tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents. It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can.'" (Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case For The Resurrection Of Jesus [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2004], p. 125)

    You write:

    "The words of Jesus preserved in all four Gospels could fill a small 16-page booklet."

    So, do you agree with Evangelicals that the gospel authors were conservative in preserving the words of Jesus rather than fabricating whatever they desired to put in Jesus' mouth?

    You write:

    "90% of Mark is included in Matthew and Luke (including incidental connecting passages in Greek)."

    You have to be more specific. 90% in what sense? Are you including vague similarities? Surely you know that many scholars would use a much smaller percentage than the one you're citing.

    You write:

    "That Mark was the primary source for the later two longer Gospels (Matthew and Luke) is something most scholars do not appear to doubt today."

    Similarity of wording or conceptual agreement doesn't demonstrate that Mark is "the primary source" in the sense that Matthew and Luke wouldn't have known of that material without having read Mark. If we assume Markan priority and assume the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, the latter two could use Mark because of its association with Peter and its widespread acceptance, yet not be dependent on Mark in any way that would undermine an Evangelical view of the gospels. Matthew and Luke repeatedly include details that Mark doesn't include, and they discuss periods of Jesus' life that Mark doesn't address (Jesus' infancy, His adolescence, and His resurrection appearances and ascension). Even if Matthew and Luke had done nothing other than duplicate Mark, you'd still have to address Mark's testimony and the fact that it was so widely accepted and corroborated by sources like Matthew and Luke, and you'd have to address John's gospel.

    You write:

    "We do not know whether or not individual stories about Jesus among the earliest Christians may or may not have been added to other stories, nor exactly how many stories may not owe something to midrashic or pesher interpretations of Jesus. Even the earliest Gospel could have incorporated stories in ADDITION to what 'Peter' allegedly told 'Mark,' and not necessarily authenticated stories either."

    Issues like those have been addressed at this web site many times and in a lot of depth. Consult the archives. You're ignoring a lot of the documentation you've been given on the subject of this thread, and you're turning to other subjects instead. Your intention seems to be to raise doubts, then change the subject once the initial attempts to raise doubt have been answered.

    You write:

    "I know you believe that the Bible is inerrant, but do you believe your interpretations of the Bible are also inerrant?"

    I used to. Then Ed Babinski told me the truth, and now I know better. Until you came here, all of us on the Triablogue staff thought we were an Evangelical papacy.

    You write:

    "Goodacre's links from his blog can also help introduce you to the whole wide world of Biblical scholarship."

    Again, I realize that there are non-Evangelical Biblical scholars. I mentioned some of them in the opening post of this thread. Why do you keep acting as if I, Steve Hays, and other Evangelicals you're interacting with here aren't familiar with non-Evangelical scholarship? Maybe you used to be so ignorant that people needed to inform you of the existence of non-Evangelical scholars, but you shouldn't assume that every Evangelical you meet is as ignorant as you were.

    You write:

    "Anyone reading all the available info in books and on the web concering the Bible will come to their own conclusions."

    Yes, we all come to our own conclusions. Here's my conclusion: if you had a good answer to what I've argued about the gospel of Mark and the influence of sources like Papias, you would have provided that answer. You haven't provided it, and that's probably because you don't have it.

    ReplyDelete