Eusebius in his *Historia Ecclesiastica 3.39.15* writes about Papias claiming Mark, an attendant of Peter, had written an account about Jesus: > And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of > Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he > remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he > neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, > who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an > ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin > having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made > one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or > falsify anything in them. > > Και τουθ ο πρεσβυτερος ελεγεν· Μαρκος μεν ερμηνευτης Πετρου γενομενος, > οσα εμνημονευσεν ακριβως εγραψεν, ου μεντοι ταξει, τα υπο του κυριου η > λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα. ουτε γαρ ηκουσεν του κυριου ουτε παρηκολουθησεν > αυτω, υστερον δε, ως εφην, Πετρω, ος προς τας χρειας εποιειτο τας > διδασκαλιας, αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων, > ωστε ουδεν ημαρτεν Μαρκος ουτως ενια γραψας ως απεμνημοσευσεν. ενος > γαρ εποιησατο προνοιαν, του μηδεν ων ηκουσεν παραλιπειν η ψευσασθαι τι > εν αυτοις. Could the phrase ου μεντοι ταξει refer to the concept of a rhetorical arrangement that is not in order, in that it skips over major sections of the life and ministry of Jesus? There are two references in the New Testament that are different, yet similar: > Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account > of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the > beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them > down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated > everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in > orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], most excellent Theophilus; so that you > might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1.1-4) > > But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them > in orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], saying.... (Acts 11.4) The early second century literary critic Lucian in his book, *How to Write History* uses ταξει in a broad sense when he writes: > As to the facts themselves, [the historian] should not assemble them > at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking > investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, > listen to those who tell the more impartial story, those whom one > would suppose least likely to subtract from the facts or add to them > out of favor or malice. When this happens let him show shrewdness and > skill in putting together the more credible story. When he has > collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a > series of notes, a body of material as yet with no beauty or > continuity. Then, after arranging them into order [τάξιν], let him > give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, > and rhythm. (47-48) Of course, it is possible that Papias is making reference to an early version of Mark's Gospel. If so, it might be similar to how Tertullian in his work *Against Marcion* writes: > Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my > concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My > first edition [primum opusculum], too hurriedly produced, I afterwards > withdrew, substituting a fuller [*pleniore*] treatment. This also, > before enough copies [*exemplariis*] had been made, was stolen from me > by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who > chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly > [*mendosissime*], and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need > for correction [*emendationis necessitas facta est*]. The opportunity > provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus > this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third > from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the > work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or > another he comes across varying forms of it [*varietas eius*]. > (1.1.1-2) The target audience of Mark's Gospel appears to be Cæsar's equites . So, an abridged version of the life and ministry of Jesus might have deliberately been crafted to leave out certain events for rhetorical purposes such as memory retention, etc. For example, in the Fragments attributed to Clement of Alexandria it states (emphasis added): > Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel > at Rome before some of **Cæsar's equites**, and adduced many testimonies > to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to > memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely > what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be > recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the > Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. So, what is a survey of the various views that Christians related to the question of what did Papias mean when he wrote how Mark did not write "in order" about what Jesus said or did?

The [Books of the Maccabees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Maccabees) recount the history of the [Maccabees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees) which include historical-theological narratives of the [Maccabean Revolt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabean_Revolt) . The major events and characters within the revolt itself have solid historicity, even by modern standard. While theological narratives are usually biased, the theological elements cannot be disproven by historiography. Instead, I'm looking for a scholarly evaluation of the **historical elements** in [1 Maccabees](https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-web/eng-web_1MA.pdf) , [2 Maccabees](https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-web/eng-web_2MA.pdf) , and [3 Maccabees](https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-web/eng-web_3MA.pdf) that are *more likely* to be fictional than factual, so we can assess the overall historical reliability of the books.

It has been suggested that the religion of Christianity arose as a result of the destruction of the Jewish temple and the Jewish priesthood by the Romans in the year 70. This date marks the inception of the religion and not AD30-33 when Jesus was supposedly crucified. The theological concept of the sacrifice of one man, namely Jesus, to replace the annual Jewish ritual of the Atonement arose at this time and not before because there was no need for the concept prior to this event. Furthermore, it is asserted that the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels was invented to explain how the religion arose, but it actually arose as a consequence of the interplay of expectation and traumatic events consistent with normal human behaviour. **What is the evidence for and against this hypothesis?**

This article , entitled The Scientific Search for Nephite Remains, from the Institute for Religious Research contains a large number of quotes from Ray T. Matheny . Matheny earned his BA and Master's degrees at Brigham Young University in 1960 and 1962, and a PhD degree in anthropology from the University of Oregon in 1968. He was involved in many archaeological expeditions to Mayan cities. He was closely connected with the New World Archaeology Foundation and with the establishment of the BYU Field School in Southern Utah. He passed away in 2020 and was BYU Professor of Anthropology and an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). The article contains quotes from Professor Matheny on several topics related to reconciling geographic and anthropological claims found in the Book of Mormon (as well as corroborating statements from Joseph Smith and past Mormon presidents and elders) with data collected within the fields of Geography, Anthropology, and Archaeology. I recommend the entire article (for more detail) but am asking only regarding the following quotes which the article attributes to Matheny and which summarize his responses to the Book of Mormon's claims of various industries such as an Iron Industry, Old World Agriculture, and Old World Domestic Animals being present in pre-Columbian MesoAmerica: Regarding the Iron Industry: > No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size kind of problem, it seems to me, for so-called Book of Mormon archeology. The evidence is absent. Regarding Old World Agriculture: > There's a whole system of production of wheat and barley ... It's a specialized production of food. You have to know something to make flax [the source of linen], and especially in tropical climates. Grapes and olives ... all these are cultures that are highly developed and amount to systems, and so the Book of Mormon is saying that these systems existed here. > Matheny noted that a 1983 Science magazine article describing barley found in a pre-Columbian setting is wrongly claimed as support for the Book of Mormon because the grain described was not a domesticated old world barley. Regarding Old World Domestic Animals: > You don't just have a cow or a goat or a horse as an esoteric pet or something. There is a system of raising these things, and the picture that is painted for me as I read this, and others too, is that we have [in Book of Mormon portrayals] ... domestic animals and so forth in the New World. > > I mean in Alma there [18:10; 20:6,8] , you know he's using the stable > there preparing the horses for King Lamoni, and also he's preparing > the King's chariots because they're going to take a trip from one city > to another over the royal highway. And also the horses are pastured, > no less. So there are contexts within the Book of Mormon itself. These > are not just substitutions, it seems to me, but the authors of the > Book of Mormon there are providing the context, they're not trying to > describe a tape deer or something else, it seems to me. This is a weak > way to try to explain the presence of these names in the Book of > Mormon. This article began by acknowledging that archaeology cannot directly prove or disprove the spiritual claims of the Book of Mormon or the Bible. However, it can evaluate the historical claims which both books make. Matheny is quoted in the article as having said: > "I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon that it has no place in > the New World whatsoever." This viewpoint is echoed by the highly respected Mesoamerican archaeologist Michael Coe: > The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere. What impact is made within LDS theology regarding the spiritual content of the Book of Mormon when the historical claims therein are shown by both secular and Mormon scholars to be factually unsupported?

I'm interested in finding books and studies (both for and against) the idea that Medieval European society had a kind of order that's desirable. Foundationally, there's a clear religious order--officially Western Europe was completely Catholic. In turn, this kind of religious uniformity supported a clear political order--the secular authorities were committed to this religious order and drew from it as a basis for their political order. I believe this is a version of "Medievalism", but there may be a better more specific name for it. Whether such a description of Medieval society is accurate or not really is irrelevant for me: the fact is that a minority of Christians (Catholics and others) seem to have this belief. I'd like to understand more about its recent origins, key apologists for it, and any significant criticisms of the idea. Catholic critiques in particular would be helpful. Patrick Deneen is one key thinker I've already identified. Thanks so much. See: [Medievalism (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medievalism) .

[Pseudo-Dionysius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite) was a 5th/6th century Christian theologian who claimed to be the Dionysius that Paul converted in [Acts 17:34](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17%3A34&version=ESV) . This claim was widely accepted for almost a millennium, which afforded his work significant influence in medieval Christianity. I know that historiography has come a long way in the last 1500 years, but the idea that these works could have originated in the first or second century seems completely preposterous. Why, for example, were none of the writings of "Dionysius" quoted in the prolific writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, or Gregory of Nazianzus? Not to mention their complete absence in the Councils and in Western writers like Augustine. I see from the Wikipedia article that "Dionysius" had some early skeptics, but a number of medieval figures argued for the early dating, such as Severus, John of Scythopolis, and Theodore of Raithu. My question is: **what arguments did these and other early-date proponents make that convinced medieval Christianity to consider these works authentic?** I know that some of these writers had a vested interest in the authenticity of the works, but they must have made other arguments besides "I agree with Dionysius so he must be who he claims to be." What evidence did they cite?

I was curious as to whether or not St. Thomas Aquinas every formally laid out any principles to be adhered to when writing/studying/interpreting history or ever elucidated a theory of the "nature" of history itself.