Aspirin99

Specifically, I was reading - http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...theodotus.html.

As for Papias, doesn't it seem he was just shooting from the hip? I would find it extraordinary if Matthew could write in Hebrew (let alone a whole book). Maybe he was just name dropping or spewing out every rumor he'd ever heard.

Amaleq13

Could you expand on this a bit or point to a source (online, fingers crossed) for more information?

S.C.Carlson

See this old thread back in 1999 initiated by Stevan Davies on crosstalk: "Regression to the Mean".

andrewcriddle

Ome possible early reference to John's gospel is Irenaeus' statement in Against heresies book 5 This has 'the presbyters the disciples of the apostles' commenting on John (14:2)

If the presbyters or elders here are teachers from the previous generation to Irenaeus (which is IMO likely) this would imply use of John before 160 CE and maybe before 140 CE.

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

The dating of the Muratorian fragment is fairly controversial now, particularly since Geoffrey Mark Hahneman's reopening (1995) Sundberg's thesis that it is a late fourth century work.

Personally, I'd date the Muratorian fragment to the early or mid-third century, i.e. contemporaneous (if not by) Hippolytus of Rome or Victorinus of Pettau. Hahneman has shown, to my satisfaction, that it should not be set in the second century. Unfortunately, Hahneman failed to adequately address the third century dating, so his case for a fourth-century date largely rests on a false dilemma.

Stephen

MortalWombat

Referring to the Logos as the first-begotten of God is a pre-Christian idea. For instance, Philo of Alexandria, writing in the early 1st century, refers to the Logos as such.

S.C.Carlson

A reasonable surmise is that Irenaeus's source here is actually Papias.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

I think the key the argument here is "Logos christology." Philo never identifed the Logos with Jesus Christ.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

P66 and P75, both from early third century (possibly earlier, possibly later), give the title as the Gospel according to John.

Eusebius's theory is that the John who wrote Revelation was different from the John who wrote the Gospel. If Papias had identified the Johns as the same person (but presumably different from the son of Zebedee) or, even worse, identified the apostle as the author of Revelation with the elder as the evangelist, there's no way Eusebius would have openly quoted Papias on John.

However, Charles E. Hill believes that he has found an anonymous use by Eusebius of Papias on the fourth gospel. Hill's argument is based, in part, on style, and I haven't done the heavy lifting to verify/double-check that aspect of the argument.

Stephen

Stephen

Aspirin99

My point is that the doctrine of the Trinity and its supporting christology terminology evolved in Christian writing. There was a time when it was not present and a time when it begins to be used more and more frequently. I'm well aware of the use of logos prior to Christianity.