Doug Shaver

He always was. All history is built on a pile of assumptions. The debates are in large measure about which assumptions are justified. I think the assumption of Paul's historicity is entirely justified.

Ben C Smith

This passage is reported by Eusebius, not by Irenaeus.

In the Greek it is pretty clear that Papias is claiming to be (or to have been at the time of his inquiries) contemporary with Aristion and John the elder, both of whom he calls disciples of the Lord. It is true that he does not claim to actually have met either Aristion or John; he claims to have met their followers. The distance is one of space, not of time.

Ben.

aa5874

You mean "Paul" justifies his own historicity without any external corroboration or non-apologetic sources?

You mean assumption without justification.

"Paul's" historicity is assumed because the Bible says so?

Up to now, it would appear that the church writers have not even properly identified the writings of "Paul".

Doug Shaver

Sorry. I was relying on memory from a few years ago. I guess it's time for me to do some refresher reading.

Doug Shaver

No, I don't mean that.

I said I considered the assumption justified. You can disagree with me, of course, but what I meant was what I said.

No.

I have no idea which "church writers" you're referring to. However, the fact that some Christians are mistaken about who wrote some of their scriptures is irrelevant to this discussion.

aa5874

But your asuumption is baseless, without justification.



I refer to Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and other church writers that made claims about some-one called "Paul" who wrote letters to churches and close acquaintances, and these letters were canonised.

Now, if Christians did not know or are mistaken about "Paul", about what "Paul" wrote , it cannot be irrelevant to this discussion since you claim the assumption of "Paul's" historicity is justified.

These fundamental errors about "Paul" MUST be taken into account to make any assumption about "Paul's" historicity.

Doug Shaver

That is certainly possible, but it isn't so just because you say so.

OK

Relevance has to be demonstrated. You can't just assert it. Well, you can, but your mere assertion doesn't prove anything.

aa5874

What!

Did you just make an assertion?

gnosis92

If Papais work had survive (and can be dated) and states as Eusebius claims, I would take this as an independent witness to Jesus historicity. Is there a good argument to think Eusebius is making this up?

I don't see any evidence against a historical Jesus in the passage in question, since the context was Jewish observance and circumcision of Gentiles.

9So when James, Cephas,[d] and John (who were reputed to be leaders)[e] recognized the grace that had been given me, they gave Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10The only thing they asked us to do was to remember the destitute, the very thing I was eager to do.7
Paul Confronts Cephas in Antioch

11But when Cephas[f] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong.[g] 12Until some men arrived from James, he was in the habit of eating with the gentiles, but after those men[h] came, he withdrew from the gentiles[i] and would not associate with them any longer, because he was afraid of the circumcision party. 13The other Jews also joined him in this hypocritical behavior, to the extent that even Barnabas was caught up in their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas[j] in front of everyone, “Though you are a Jew, you have been living like a gentile and not like a Jew. So how can you insist that the gentiles must live like Jews?”

show_no_mercy

Eusebius doesn't like Papias' method of investigation. I'm thinking that the reason that Papias' works were "lost" is because they had information that the ante-Nicaean church didn't like.

There's nothing about meeting a flesh and blood Jesus in this passage. All it says is that Peter, James, and John are the pillars. So while there's no evidence against a historical Jesus, there's also no evidence for a historical J. The Pillars could just be the leaders of a proto-Gnostic church that Paul is attaching himself to.