spamandham

Before we get too far discussing whether this source or that is hearsay, does't it make sense to first try to establish whether the documents being discussed were even originally intended to be historical or biographical in nature!?

On what authority do we declare that the Gospels were intended as historical works? It seems pointless to discuss their fidelity without first establishing the author(s)' intent.

We don't seem to fret about whether or not the Odyssey is hearsay.

mountainman

Typo. Should be M. Antoninus -- aka Marcus Aurelius.

I was literally horrified to find a christian reference in "Meditations"
particularly because I was not forewarned in (my reading of)
the literature prior to the time I read this work.

Do you have any idea who first noticed this reference in
"Meditations"; who was first to quote it after c.167, as
I cannot find Eusebius quoting it anywhere.

Gamera

Good point. At least somebody around here actually understands the hearsay rule and its complexities. I don't know how many times I've been in court and had to explain it to the judge. It just doesn't reduce to: somebody claims somebody else said something.

mountainman

One reason that Eusebius could have fabricated a complex mass,
almost an army, of conflicting texts is that he was coerced by a
malevolent soon-to-be-supreme imperial mafia thug, dictator and
emminent "christian theologian and proselyter" - Constantine.

In the same manner that those in possession of the writings of
the emminent Eastern academic Porphyry, and/or of that "Porphyrian"
Arius, were coerced and threatened with death - by beheading.

IMO Eusubius thought that he was a clever man, because of the very
very unique position that he found himself in, about the time that
Constantine had Maxentius' head found in the Tiber, c312 CE.

Thirteen years down the track, at the COuncil of Nicaea, he would
address the newly conquered Eastern regime, at the right hand of
Constantine.

Papias was just another Eusebian profile, and IMO probably had his
existence in the new fourth century technology, another reason
why Eusebius thought he was clever. Eusebius appears to have
inherited the "multi-column" concordance concept from Origen,
or earlier --- this in anyone's book is a primitive database.

By means of a multiple column notage technology, Eusebius was
not only able to keep track of parallel histories (Chronicon), but
also (IMO) multiple fraudulent "prenicene christian" profiles, and
their stories, whether they had small minds like Papias, or giant
minds like Hegesippus, or no minds at all, like the heretics, etc
etc ...

mountainman

This admission Gamera says little for the courts you've been in.

jakejonesiv

Hi Gamera,

This is a good reply. Some authors are more biased than others, and we need to take the author's bias, if any, into account when evaluating their claims. For example, Eusubius tells that he is writing for a purpose, "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles," Church History I.1.1. OK, that is revelaling. The authority of the Roman church depends on apotolic sucession, and he intends to build that up.

Eusubius also states a second purpose. "It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ." That is also revealing. He will oppose the heretics (specifically gnotics), and he has a purpose; to save the flock of Christ from devestation.

Given such stated purposes and strong motivation, we are justified in using caution when evaluating claims that Eusubius puts forward to support apostolic succession, and Papias is a prime example.

As for Luke and political events, a case can be made that canonical Luke is strongly pro-Roman outlook. Pay your taxes (Luke 20:20-25), turn the other cheek, give the Roman soldiers your cloak, go the extra mile. In other words, be good little servants and you will get your reward in heaven! This is as far from a rabble rousing Zealot Jesus as you can get.

But back to the subject. Why don't you start a new thread on this subject? I would like to see spin's input.

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

This is rich. First, you use hyperbole ("any chance of being viable"), and, then, you complain of wordgames. Perhaps a better way to show you're serious is to avoid the hyperbole and avoid terminology (like "hearsay") whose complexities you haven't yet shown here to have mastered.

Stephen

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie!

I have my doubts about Q also! So we are off to a good start.

We do in fact have source documents from that period. The orginals, not copies.

But you are correct. In most cases we have copies of copies. But that is not my point with Papais. We don't have any copies of his works, only a few select quotations in the Church fathers.

Eusebius did have an agenda to prove apostolic succession. Church History I.1.1. This would include tying the gospels of his time back to the apostles. So he did have a reason. The question is, did he? Maybe not.


No. The gospels already had presumed authors in his time. He was concerned to prove that these ascriptions were cast back to the apostolic past. Hence the convienence of Papias.


Maybe he lied, or maybe he cherry picked the information he presented to support his previously declared purpose. Sort of like the Irag war. Also, Eusubius may have told the truth as well as he could.

That is a fair answer. But it the claim would have been stronger if Papias had not gotten his information second hand, would it not? I get a dozen e-mails a week in which friends warn me of some terrible danger, based on what another friend's e-mail said. Most often, these turn out to be urban legends. Have you ever played "telephone?" At a party, one person whispers a simple story to another. This is passed around the room, and the last person recounts what he or she had heard. The results are often hilarous. Now, Vinnie, please understand that I am not saying that what was told to Papias was necessarily wrong, but we must take into account that possibility.

Agreed.
Now wait a minute Vinnie. Ben is likely busting a gut with Ireneaus didn't quote Papias about Peter and Mark.
Vinnie, one reference is good, but not as good as 10,000 independant attestations. Really, you do agree with this right?

I would provisionally date Q to the 20th century, but what do I know? But the point is, the textual history of Eusibius is such that we can feel confident that he really did write the Papias passage in question. I don't think we would disagree on this point.

Agreed. I was including general items that are not applicable in this particular discussion.



Unless I missed something, there are no inner contradictions in this case. I am assuming you agree.

Yes, it can be harmonized with Justin. Ben has shown that.

Agreed.


I would be interested to see the probability you give each link.

Jake

P.S. Even if the chain of evidence is accurate, we don't know for sure that Papias was referring to the Gospel of Mark as we know it. It could have been a substantially different "proto-gospel" or even another work altogether.

Your remark that "That Papias' Mark was our canonical Mark is undeniable" is simply unknowable. Canonical? Dayum!

spin

Actually, you were intruding the legal concept of hearsay -- as against the common meaning of "gossip" -- which is inappropriate to the discussion unless otherwise indicated appropriate, which it had not. I attempted to remove it from the conversation because you guys were falling over yourselves and missing the point of validating the documents you'd like to use. You don't just pluck texts off the shelf and surreptitiously insert them into an argument as though it were kosher however it is done.

Responding to my statement:

"You can't use a [document] when you can't give the data any chance of being viable".

And you are being unreasonable in ignoring its intent and whinging about the means of expression.

Not one of your best showings.


spin

S.C.Carlson

The problem is that, if you had meant "gossip," you didn't say what you meant but tarted it up by calling it "hearsay" instead.

Your expression involved tarting up your points in hyperbole and legalese. Insofar as your intent can be objectively discerned, your choice of expression evidences a lack of being serious. That Gamera and I responded the way we did shows that we've understood the intent actually conveyed in your writing whether or not it competently conveyed your true, subjective intent.

Stephen