Ted Hoffman

Ok, I am willing to grant that Philipe of Side confused Papias with Quadratus.

Catholic Encyclopaedis states "The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. "

Therefore it was Ok to tell a lie? Fabricate a false story?

How Judas Died
"Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. ...when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground."

Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord as quoted in Apollinaris of Laodicaea, The Apostolic Fathers, p. 323-324, (1989, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan)

So, Judas stank for what, 90 years?
And his head swelled until it was bigger than a wagon?

The Barnabas incident (drinking snake poison) is referenced by Doherty, p165. Its from fragment 11, also from Philippe of Side.

Eusebius is not lying but Papias set off his BS detector.

Vinnie

Settled.

What evidence is there for this? I have provided evidences which show Papias to have written ca 100 here and on Ebla in the past? Shall I reprint them here? There is even good evidence for early literary activity.



"""""""Therefore it was Ok to tell a lie? Fabricate a false story? """""""""""

Matthew and Luke did it for Judas' fate, why couldn't Papias?

Acts 1: Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The text doesn't actually say "fell". Thats a translation//harmonization bias since Matthew has Judas hanging himself. It is, I believe, more accurately translated as, "and laying prostrate, he burst open". A person who hangs himself (presumably by the neck) doesn't fall headlong anyway.

The sad thing is Judas said all of Jerusalem knew about it yet there are competing versions in Mt and Papias. History my arse.

Matthw has Judas hang himself but the rip off the OT is so blatantly obvious here its beyond dispute:

Gethsemane Prayer in Mark and Matthew and Luke precedes Jesus arrest and it clearly echoes the Old Testament story of King David in 2Samuel.15-17. John Crossan highlights four explicit parallels (1-3, 7) and three more possible ones ( 4-6) I shall summarize (Who Killed Jesus--pp.76-78):

1.Both scenes have a hero and traitor (Jesus and Judas compared to David and Ahithopel. Details differ but in each case a trusted confidant turns traitor.
2.Both locales are the same. David crossed the Wadi Kidron (or Kedron Valley) and goes to the Mount of Olives as did Jesus (see the Gospels).
3.Both Jesus and David offered prayers as suppliants before God on the Mount of Olives, each distraught by what is happening to him.
4. Peter’s insistence he is ready to die with Jesus is similar to Ittai the Gittite’s statement to David (2-Sam15:21).
5.Both David and Jesus seem to have a thy will be done clause (2-Sam15:25).
6.Ahithophel requests soldiers to go and capture David (Sam-17:1-3). This may have been the model for Judas and the arresting band he led.
7.Both Ahithophel and Judas (only mentioned in Matthew) hang themselves, the only two Biblical characters to do so.

With that groundwork laid we move on. Mark was interested only in Judas‘ shameful act, but many of those that followed Mark were interested in his end as well. As Crossan wrote (ibid.p.73), “One who started with such a monstrous act, they reasoned, must surely have ended with an appropriately monstrous death.� As Crossan also wrote, "As Crossan wrote, “There are three independent versions of that appropriate fate, and they all presume a death that was immediate, terrible, according to the scriptures, linked to a specific location in Jerusalem, and reminiscent of the horrible deaths of other infamous characters.�

There is a popular imagination of condign endings for infamous lives in antiquity. Notice first the three (or four?) accounts of Judas death:

Matthew has self-hanging as did another infamous character, Ahithophel, probably Matthew‘s source. Luke has Jesus swell up and burst asunder in Acts. Nadan appears to have had a similar fate (legend of Ahiqar which was very popular ). Preserved comments from Papias have him denigrate Judas harshly: “He was so swollen he could not pass where a wagon could.� He records that Judas was crushed by a wagon and his entrails poured out.� In the longer form Papias records that from Judas’ private parts pus and worms emanated from all parts of the inside of his body and “he died after many punishments and tortures.� So we may have four(?) different horrible endings ascribed to Judas.

Now compare those to the deaths of these infamous characters as recorded by Raymond Brown (Death_Messiah.v.2.p.1409.n.28),

“The long form of Papias is closer to the full account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in II Macc 9:5-10 (worms, vile stench) than is Acts 1:18. The death of Nadan in the Arabic form of the Ahiqar legend (8:38) has a much expanded description of the effect of swelling on the body. Herod Agrippa is struck down and eaten by worms in Acts 12:23. Josephus (Ant. 17.6.5) includes in the death of Herod the Great ulceration of the bowels, rotting of the private organ producing worms, and malodorous breath. Besides going mad, the brutal governor of Cyrene, Catallus, has his ulcerated bowels fall out (Josephus, War.7.11.4). According to Herodotus (Hist. 4.205) the cruel Cyrenaean Queen Pheretime has maggots or worms come out of her body. The same fate befalls Cassander who acts against the family of Alexander (Pausanius, Graeca Descriptio 9.7.3-4). The hostile emperor Galerius is punished with an abcess in his private organ, ulcerated bowels, a multitude of worms, and an intolerable stench (Eusebius, EH 8.16.3-5)

On these grounds the unbiased historian will state the following: Christians did not know what happened to the disciple who betrayed Judas (assuming this is argued to be true on historical grounds) so they decided to affix horrible fates to this disciple that parallel the tortures and punishments of other infamous characters in antiquity. The historian would not harmonize them.

THis is why I use Juddas' death as an example of a blatant contradiction. Some skeptics think its too easy for theists to harmonize it (the rope broke) but this misses everything. This is a blatant and undeniable act of fabrication and creation on the part of not one, not two, but three separate Christians ca 100, the time when the gospels were being written and read.

My books are packed I'll try to dig it out later.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

So, everybody was lying right and left. I repeat:

Vinnie

I thought i answered this already

Vinnie: Matthew and Luke did it for Judas' fate, why couldn't Papias?

also

Vinnie: This is why I use Juddas' death as an example of a blatant contradiction. Some skeptics think its too easy for theists to harmonize it (the rope broke) but this misses everything. This is a blatant and undeniable act of fabrication and creation on the part of not one, not two, but three separate Christians (two gospel authors!!!) ca 100, the time when these gospels and works were being written and read.

Its evidence that they made stuff up and inserted it as if it was history. Luke also says "all Jerusalem heard about it" or something. You won't get an adequate response from any conservatoives here on this issue. There simply isn't one. Its one of the most obvious and blatant acts of creation in the texts.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

So, we have agreed that Papias lied.
Therefore, Papias was a Liar.
Papias claimed that he wrote 5 Volumes.
Nobody ever saw those volumes.
Therefore Papias is likely to have lied. Again.

GakuseiDon

Didn't the books survive until Eusebius's time? From here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

THE writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him." Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were aquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words

Ted Hoffman

It really doesn't matter. Those books do not exist. My main argument was that Papias claimed from Eusebius' testimony that Mark, Peters interpreter, had written the Lords sayings and doings.

Then Papias turns around and writes: "I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."

I was arguing that Papias LIED about that (getting written sayings from Mark). Then Vinnie claimed Papias wrote 5 volumes and the issue got sidetracked.

Assume that Irenaeus never saw the writings though they actually existed - what are the odds of him admitting, before his eager audience, that he never saw them himself? As we have seen, these early "fathers" could fabricate stories like Judas' death just to appear to know everything that happened - even though they werent there. What are the odds of them being asked:

Member of Audience: Revered father, we are told Papias got actual sayings of the Lord compiled from an apostle of the Lord himself. Have you read them?
Irenaeus: <scratcing his bald spot> Uh, actually, I haven't read them myself...

Not very likely.

In any case, we know Mark wasn't Mark. Mark is 99% Unhistorical, full of fiction (miracles) and geographic errors and impossibilities, so the idea of Peter being Jesus' diciple is fiction as well (Crossan).

Vinnie

Vinnie Downloads Musics.
Downloading music Is Stealing.
If Vinnie Goes to a stranger's house and sees $20 on the table an no one is looking he is likely to steal it.

Yeah right.

Guilt by association? Making person into a half-dimensional cutout? Straw man? This is ridiculous.

Not to mention two authors mention the books and one refers his readers to go check them out himself. This is a silly argument.

Vinnie

Vinnie

"""""""""'It really doesn't matter. Those books do not exist. My main argument was that Papias claimed from Eusebius' testimony that Mark, Peters interpreter, had written the Lords sayings and doings.""""""""""""""

Those books are no longer extant is more accurate. Yeah, Papias claims an interpreter of Peter wrote Mark. He lied about judas' death. This doesn't mean he fabricated this as well. He could have but there is no proof. One has to still evaluate this claim which comes up wanting anyways.

""""""""Then Papias turns around and writes: "I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."""""""""""

I explained the social context of this saying and that it appears frequently in ancient sources that did actually use and value books. Living personal contact was valued more highly.

""""""""""I was arguing that Papias LIED about that (getting written sayings from Mark). Then Vinnie claimed Papias wrote 5 volumes and the issue got sidetracked. """"""""""

My claim is based upon solid historical data.

"""""""Assume that Irenaeus never saw the writings though they actually existed - what are the odds of him admitting, before his eager audience, that he never saw them himself? As we have seen, these early "fathers" could fabricate stories like Judas' death just to appear to know everything that happened - even though they werent there. What are the odds of them being asked:""""""""""

WHy not just skip him and ASSUME you are correct. What ideological axe are you grinding here? WHay are you so troubled by Papias have written 5 works ca 100? Does it crumble your worldview or something?

Two authors mention his works and this fact and one refers his readers to consult them himself and even quotes the work. The issue is open and shut barring some revolutionary evidence on your part.

"""""""""""Member of Audience: Revered father, we are told Papias got actual sayings of the Lord compiled from an apostle of the Lord himself. Have you read them? Irenaeus: <scratcing his bald spot> Uh, actually, I haven't read them myself..."""""""""

So now Irenaeus was so egotistical he would make shit up before denying his own omniscience. Wishful exegesis on your part. Again, where is the fire? WHy do you clutch so desperately to deny the obvious?

We know Mark was not John Mark, companion and interpreter of Peter. Mark may have been written by a Mark (extremely common name) who was amalgamated shortly after with John Mark by Papias//Elder.

But granted Papias wrote so early and his material goes back to the Elder and Mark came so late (ca. 70) lying is certainly a valid explanation here. It was common to attribute works and views to apostolic people. But why attribute to Mark and not Peter himself if a deliberate lie? This question is actually easy to answer and serves as no real evidence for traditional authorship--and sadly, its the only "evidence" they ever had.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

+What ideological axe are you grinding here?+
None baby.
+WHay are you so troubled by Papias have written 5 works ca 100?+
Me? Troubled? Ha!
+Does it crumble your worldview or something?+
MY Worldview? Crumbled because Papias wrote 5 books? Please.
+Again, where is the fire?+
The fire or the firepower?

Anyway, enough on this, its not even important. Where's the beer?