FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2009, 06:30 AM   #31
show_no_mercy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
I have expressed caution with using that piece of tradition by its lonesome since "gnostic themes" can be traced back to the Corinthians Paul wrote to. The argument from silence I present is this:

Quote:
The failure of Eusebius and Irenaeus to quote Papias against Gnosticism is most easily explained by having Papias say nothing about it because he wrote before it became a serious threat, i.e. before 110. [5] This view is bolstered by the fact that when Irenaus is able to cite earlier authorities and Biblical writers against his opponents, he gladly does so. Likewise, Eusebius had a penchant for extensively quoting earlier works. As Yarbrough writes, "Yet for all the vehement opposition of these two against the early gnostics, it appears that neither turns to Papias for support in his arguments."
There is nothing wrong with an argument from silence but building an entire case on mere silence is begging for trouble. What I have done is similar to arguing against the historicity of the slaughtering of the innocents in Matthew. Josephus does not mention it and he went out of his way to document the insanity of Herod's last days.

I have not given a poor argument from silence. The silence is one of many corroborating evidences for an earlier date to Papias' literary activity.
Papias doesn't write against gnosticism, but his contemporary the Elder John does (actually he's probably writing against docetism in 1 John). Polycarp, who is also a contemporary of Papias does so as well. Unless you date the epistles of John the Elder and Polycarp to later than Papias? From what I've read, both of those authors were writing in the early 2nd century around the same time as Papias (or by some 1 John was written in the late 1st).
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:33 AM   #32
Steven Carr
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
We have biographical-contemporary primary data attesting to the existence of the disciples of Jesus. Personally, I will not discuss historical issues with anyone who dates the entire Pauline corpus post 70 C.E. You are too far gone to have a reasonable discussion with on Christian origins.

Vinnie
Which first century document is by somebody who names himself as ever having heard of Judas or Thomas?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:34 AM   #33
Roger Pearse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
If it was true that Papias heard the apostle John, he must have been over a hundred years old. Papias Lived in Asia Minor between 70-140 AD. John, if he was around 30 when an apostle, would have been 70 years old when Papias was born. The facts don't compute.
This places Papias much too late. John was around in AD 100. Presumably he was 20 or so when he met Jesus.

Because he lived on after the other apostles, quite a few people knew him. Indeed we could tell that he was around a lot later than the others, if we didn't know, from the way that he has left all these anecdotes scattered around the Fathers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:55 AM   #34
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

You have no corroborative non-apologetic biographical-contemporary primary data attesting to the existence of the disciples of Jesus. Your claim is just a hoax.

By the way, the OP is about Papias not Paul. You may gone too far ahead of yourself.

And I hope you are not using Eusebius to support the date and authorship of the Pauline corpus. That will be a disaster.
Paul provides contemporary primary data for the historicity of some of Jesus original followers in the fifties. But I'd be willing to take a guess and say there were collections of Paul's letters before you even think they came into existence!

Vinnie
The letters with the name Paul have been found to have been manipulated. Eusebeius claimed all the Pauline letters were authentic, but as would be expected, Eusebius appears to be wrong, it has been deduced that more than one person used the name Paul.

The Pauline letters are worthless as historical markers. They have have no corroborative support and the Church writers were either fooled or try to fool their readers about letters the Pauline character actually wrote and when those letters were written.

The Church writers claimed the Pauline writer had a close companion named Luke who wrote Acts of the Apostles, but this close companion of the Pauline character produced a most fictitious outrageous account of his conversion claiming Jesus Christ blinded him to reality with a bright light. Utter non-sense.

It is just absurd to use manipulated writings filled with fiction to corroborate other sources filled with the very same unconfirmed characters and fictitious events.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 06:58 AM   #35
spin
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Well, what do we know about this John the Theologian? or was it John the Elder? This latter is associated with an otherwise unknown Aristion.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:09 AM   #36
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default Terminus ad quem for Papias = 185 CE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Hi Vinnie,

...
You misuse the term “terminus ad quem” For example, citing Irenaeus Book 3, you claim, based on your reasoning that the “terminus ad quem” for Papias’ writings are in the 130’s CE. That is incorrect. The “terminus ad quem” is the earliest date by which the subject in question is unambiguously attested to. Irenaeus wrote AH in the 180’s CE, with Book 3 being published about 185 CE.

...
Best,
Jake Jones IV
It is my understanding that terminus ad quem is the latest possible date for something, not the earliest. I believe terminus a quo is the earliest it could have occurred.
...
Vinnie
Hi Vinnie,

You are correct that terminus ad quem is the latest possible date for something.

The terminus ad quem for a work is determined by by the appearance of external corroboration. For Papias, this is determined by Irenaeus mentioning him ca. 185 CE in AH.

Will you correct the useage of the term in your articles?

Best,
Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 07:41 AM   #37
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Personally, I will not discuss historical issues with anyone who dates the entire Pauline corpus post 70 C.E. You are too far gone to have a reasonable discussion with on Christian origins.

Vinnie
Why is that? Even if for sake of argument, 1 Clement and the Ignatiana are deemed authentic, we still don’t have external attestation to any Pauline epistle before the very late first/early second century. And then it is limited to the single epistle 1 Corinthians, where the opponents appear to be the Cerinthians.

Please allow me to ask a very simple question to illustrate my point. When is the very first time that the epistle to the Galatians is mentioned by name?

Best,
Jake Jones IV
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 08:03 AM   #38
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
If it was true that Papias heard the apostle John, he must have been over a hundred years old. Papias Lived in Asia Minor between 70-140 AD. John, if he was around 30 when an apostle, would have been 70 years old when Papias was born. The facts don't compute.
This places Papias much too late. John was around in AD 100. Presumably he was 20 or so when he met Jesus.

Because he lived on after the other apostles, quite a few people knew him. Indeed we could tell that he was around a lot later than the others, if we didn't know, from the way that he has left all these anecdotes scattered around the Fathers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
But if Jesus lived to an advanced age, (even up to the time of Trajan?), as Irenaeus believed according to AH 2:22, then all the conventional dates are off by twenty years.

Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 08:03 AM   #39
Roger Pearse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie View Post
Personally, I will not discuss historical issues with anyone who dates the entire Pauline corpus post 70 C.E. You are too far gone to have a reasonable discussion with on Christian origins.

Vinnie
Why is that? Even if for sake of argument, 1 Clement and the Ignatiana are deemed authentic, we still don’t have external attestation to any Pauline epistle before the very late first/early second century. And then it is limited to the single epistle 1 Corinthians, where the opponents appear to be the Cerinthians.

Please allow me to ask a very simple question to illustrate my point. When is the very first time that the epistle to the Galatians is mentioned by name?

Best,
Jake Jones IV
One might equally ask whether Hermias was composed at the renaissance, having passed through the years without being quoted by anyone.

This whole genre of argument is horribly flawed. Date a text from the evidence, not from this "must be dated as late as possible" approach.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 07-29-2009, 08:22 AM   #40
RParvus
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 53
Default

As O’Connell notes, the Papias passage is puzzling in many ways. There is, first of all, the fact that Elder John’s name occurs twice in it. He is listed among the elders whose past sayings interest Papias. And he is paired with Aristion (who is not described as being an elder). Both Aristion and elder John, as O’Connell correctly notes, “were still alive” when Papias was collecting his information. Now the question immediately arises: Why would Papias even bother about gathering information about Jesus by the indirect route (through a friend of friend of a friend) when presumably an endless supply of information was available directly from elder John who was still alive? To my mind, the most reasonable answer to that question is that access to elder John must have been limited in some way.

Other puzzles: Who was Aristion? Why is he paired with elder John? And since he was not an elder, why is his name even in Papias’ list?

I have a theory regarding the origin of John’s Gospel that I believe also provides plausible solutions to the above puzzles. For more particulars on my theory see the two postings I made to the July 17, 2009 thread “Was Acts Written by a Montanist?” Basically, I propose that the “Signs Source” used to construct the Fourth Gospel was the mid second century work entitled “Manifestaions” (Phaneroseis) written by Apelles, the ex-disciple of Marcion. Apelles’ book was a kind of gospel that he put together from revelations made by his prophetess associate Philumena. An extant fragment from Tertullian's “Against the Apelleans” describes how Philumena supposedly received her revelations from a phantom boy who appeared to her: “The same phantom appeared to Philumena dressed as a boy and sometimes stated he was Christ, sometimes Paul, and she would tell the audience what the phantom said” (Migne’s Latin Patrology 42:30, note 1).

Now, as you may know, John is often presented as the youngest of the twelve apostles. And there were some in the early church who claimed he was no more than a boy. Pseudo-Hilary wrote:

“John the most holy evangelist was the youngest among all the apostles. Him the Lord held in his arms when the apostles discussed who among them was the greatest and when he said: ‘He who is not converted as this boy (“puer”) will not enter the kingdom of heaven.’ It is he who reclined against the Lord’s breast. It is he whom Jesus loved more than the others and to whom he gave his mother Mary, and whom he gave as son to Mary.”

Ambrose too claims to have read in a gospel “dictated by the voice of John himself” that the evangelist was a youth (“adolescens”). And Jerome says he read in certain ecclesiastical histories that the evangelist John was a mere boy (“puer”), the youngest of all the apostles. (For more on the evangelist John as a boy see chapter 12 of Robert Eisler’s “The Enigma of the Fourth Gospel”).

If the discourses supposedly revealed to Philumena are behind John’s Gospel, and if the phantom boy she claimed as the source of her information was John, I believe we can make sense of what Papias was saying. Here’s how:

1. As Papias saw it, John was an elder because he was one of those whom Jesus chose to be a disciple during his earthly ministry. But elder John was also a contemporary of Papias because he was regularly appearing from beyond to Philumena and revealing to her what Jesus and Paul said. Thus the boy disciple John not only “had said” certain things back in the first century, he still “was saying” things in the second century. And it is understandable that Papias had so little regard for written sources of information, when the “living and abiding voice” of the phantom boy was still supposedly being heard, at least by Philumena. Papias doesn’t claim that he himself heard elder John speaking. He didn’t have that kind of access. That is where Aristion comes in.

2. Aristion was not an elder, but was paired with elder John because it was he who, by relaying the revelations of Philumena, was effectively the conduit for what elder John was saying. This is why Papias was interested in what Aristion “was saying” and named him before elder John. Aristion, I propose, was another name for Apelles. The “Apostolic Constitutions” (7,46) contain a reference to someone with a very similar name —Aristo—and list him as the first bishop of Smyrna. We can couple this with the fact that both the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox traditions, in their martyrologies, honor an Apelles as the first bishop of Smyrna, though they claim to know very little about him. True, other traditions consider Polycarp to be the first bishop of Smyrna. I suspect both are correct: Polycarp was the proto-orthodox bishop of Smyrna at about the same time that Apelles was the Apellean bishop of Smyrna. If, as I contend, Apelles and some of his followers eventually reconciled with the proto-orthodox church, we would effectively have two people who could lay claim to having been the first bishop of Smyrna.

3. But if this scenario is correct, why didn’t Papias name Philumena along with Aristion and elder John? I believe it likely that he did, but that her name had to be deleted later when she was caught in adultery. However much compassion Papias might have had for the fallen Philumena, he could hardly keep an adulteress in his list of sources. And note that, as O’Connell correctly points out in his article, Papias knew the story of the woman caught in adultery. This is the same story that was inserted into second century Old Latin versions of John’s Gospel as a symbolic acknowledgment of Philumena’s role in the composition of that gospel (Again, see the previously referenced thread “Was Acts Written by a Montanist?”)

Best regards,

Roger
RParvus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.