Ben C Smith

Michael, Stephen, and Andrew (et alii), I have much enjoyed following this thread. Quick question(s) on the following comment:

Any chance that those in-line comments (if indeed that is what they are), instead of being Eusebian glosses on Papias, are actually Papian glosses on the elder (John, it seems, whoever that is)? Could Papias himself be domesticating the candid comments of somebody who thought little of Mark?

On the other hand, perhaps you are coming from the angle that those comments are present in Eusebius only, and are absent from both Victorinus (thanks for the Latin there, Stephen) and Irenaeus, therefore Eusebius is the most likely source.

It does seem to me that the elder cited as the source for the comment on Mark and Peter is not going out of his way to emphasize the connection between the apostle and the evangelist. And, if we lay the comment on Hebrew Matthew at his feet, he does not seem very excited about Greek Matthew either, does he? How, I wonder, do you guys imagine Papias himself would have reacted to statements of this kind? Is that what he meant by preferring the living voice over written accounts? Do you think that Papias meant (at least) the gospels of Matthew and Mark when he wrote of books as being less profitable?

Also, if anyone is domesticating anybody here, surely the comments on Mark not erring in writing as he remembered and so forth would fall to the domesticator, right?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Good to see you here, Ben! I love your textexcavation site.

That's certainly a possibility that has to be looked at. However, my working hypothesis of domestication (based in part on Eusebius's treatment of other material) is conceived of in literary/textual terms: quoting and commenting a written work at the same time in a blended fashion.

While there is something to be said for the idea that John the Elder wasn't completely impressed with Mark, I don't have any reason to believe that any such comments were written down. Papias's source looks oral to me, but the mechanism I'm thinking of involves a written source.

At a minimum, they raise a question (while those comments found in Irenaeus and Victorinus do not). But to get to that conclusion, I'll need more than the mere silence of Irenaeus and Victorinus. Ideally, I'd like evidence that it is not Papian and evidence that it is Eusebian. So, at this point, it's just a suggestion of a possibility that sufficiently viable for me keep in mind.

If Papias's elder can be identified with the author/redactor of the Fourth Gospel, then these comments may have occurred in some kind of setting of his justifying the production of a fourth gospel.

If Papias was a disciple of John the Elder as Irenaeus explicitly states (but Eusebius denies under the assumption that the Elder is the son of Zebedee), then the default is assume that Papias's reaction to his teacher would be favorable.

What Papias meant by "the books" is not something I have a favored position on (yet). I'm afraid that the lost context might be essential to understanding what Papias meant.

Under my working hypothesis, those comments might belong to Eusebius.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Many thanks for that. (Of course, it has more than its fair share of links to your sites.)

Ah, I see what you mean. If in fact Papias was citing the elder orally (and indeed he tells us that this is what the elder used to say, ελεγεν), then glosses of the kind that you intend would not make much sense.

We have a lot of Eusebius for comparison, but unfortunately not a lot of Papias.

While I am sorely tempted to tie this elder into the production of John, is there any direct evidence for it other than the name game (two fellows named John)? Or is the evidence all circumstantial and best-fit (Irenaeus may have misinterpreted Polycarp, the letter to Florinus, and so forth)?

Agreed.

Alas, almost certainly true.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

I'm a fan of Martin Hengel's analysis of the issue in his Johannine Question as supported/modified by Richard Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,� Journal of Theological Studies, new series, 44 (1993): 24-69.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Coincidentally, I have been reading through Hengel of late. Just finished his books on Acts, ancient crucifixion, and Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Guess I will go to The Johannine Question next (and throw in his Four Gospels and the One Gospel while at I am at it). Bauckham will have to wait till I can get to a decent library again.

Thanks.

Ben.

vsop44

I happened to stumble on this very interesting site , which might be of interest to this thread .
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html

Equinox

Hi-

Great points made my many. Especially the point about the patchwork gospels. I think it is important to remember that some early version may date quite early, and that later additions and changes could happen quite late. This is part of the reason, I think, for such disagreement. The people who argue for an early date cite the early parts, while those who argue for a late date cite the late parts. This is especially done with the Gospel of Thomas, for some reason. Many researchers put some of the sayings as early as 50 CE, but many of the more Gnostic sayings much later, in the 2nd century. We’ve seen this also with the patchwork gospel link given earlier, and the well-known added endings to mark and John, both of which are in the Bible today, though they were added later. That’s not to mention the extreme example of the “cast the first stone� story (chap 8) that was added to John, perhaps as late at 1000 CE.

Unfortunately, the strongest help (archeological finds of the books of the bible) can’t help us much. Here is a good list:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/t...pyri-list.html

Only 3, p46, p52 and p66 can be earlier than the 3rd century. P46 7 p66 both may be as late as 200, and p52 may date to anywhere between 130 and 160. Nonetheless p52 may say that at least the G of John dates to early 2nd century or earlier.

The apparent portrayal of Jesus as an apocalyptic Jew (probably more accurate than Johns portrayal) leads me to suspect that they are before John, and that puts them not too far from the 70 to 110 timeframe the scholars suggest, so I don’t have a big argument with them. I reserve big arguments for the many, many Christians who suggest that all the books were written by 90 CE, including the pastorals and 2nd peter, and that they were all (except mark and luke) written by apostles! :banghead:

Oh well.

Take care-

-Equinox

freigeister

We've been over this.

Equinox

Thanks! I read over the stuff, and I didn't know about the Augustine quote. I'll think about it more. My best estimate now is that it was added before the 5th century, though with all this patchworking, it can be hard to nail it down for certain.

andrewcriddle

The presence of the pericope de adultera in Codex Bezae, the Vulgate, various Old Latin Gospels, various 4th and 5th century Latin Fathers, and (probably) the original form of the Latin translation/version of the Diatessaron Gospel harmony, mean IMO, that it must have been added to John before (maybe shortly before) 300 CE.

Andrew Criddle