Bernard Muller

Attonitus:
Yes, right, more so when you do not have evidence.

Eusebius lied a lot but "most of what he writes are only lies" is quite an exageration in my view. You have a lot of work to do to prove that.

Here are the passages about Papias, from Eusebius 'History of the Church' (HofC):

Book II, HofC
Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."

Book III, HofC
1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord.377 Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him,378 in the following words:379 "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenaeus.
[Irenaeus wrote in HE 5: 4. And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (suntetagme/na) by him.]

2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.380

3 He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations381 whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver383 the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing from the truth itself.

4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion385 and the presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books387 would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him.388 The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John's.389 It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John390

7 And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8 But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9 That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated.391 But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time392 one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

10 The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said."393

11 The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.394

12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.395 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding,396 as one can see from his discourses. but it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Iranaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.397

14 Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15 "This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.399 For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related 16 by Papias concerning Mark.
16But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

One good evidence is Eusebius reported the story of GMark, but this time from Clement of Alexandria, who greatly embellished it (likely from Papias & Irenaeus):

Eusebius HofC, 6:
5 But again in those very books Clement presented a tradition of the original elders about the disposition of the gospels, in the following manner:
He said that those gospels with genealogies were openly published, 6 but Mark had this procedure: when Peter was in Rome preaching in public the word and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many, entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what was said, to record what was spoken; but after he composed the gospels, he shared it with anyone who wanted it;
7 when Peter found out about it, he did not actively discourage or encourage it;

See the progression from Papias to Clement about the making of GMark. But that's not all. Irenaeus version is in between, in the intermediate stage:
AH 3
when Peter and Paul in Rome were evangelizing and founding the church;
3 but after their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he too handed what was preached by Peter down to us in writing,

The same wording, as quoted from Irenaeus, appears in Eusebius HofC, 5:

while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.
After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached;

Once again, there is sorting to do, but I think Eusebius quoted Papias accurately, even if he assumed and embellished on the outside.

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Regardless, it is the situation. Open to interpretation.

Clearly, the passage about "not one stone upon another" is a prophesy that the temple will be destroyed.

Not sure how to answer this. It looks suspiciously likely that the gospel had this after-the-fact prophesy written into it.



You know, there is one very glaring problem as a backdrop to all of this: No date for the crucifixion. The singlemost important item in all of Christianity.

Without that cornerstone, there just is no anchor at all. And as we radiate outward we find shakey ground...

Bernard Muller

rlogan:
Ya, that's what I think also. That is the prophecies about the temple destruction were certainly written after the fact. I hope that what you meant.

Yes, but ancients were not as sticky about dating as we are now. There is no theological reason why the exact date of the crucifixion would be important. But that was addressed early on regardless. "Luke", pretending to be a historian, gave a date for JB & Jesus apparitions on the scene but I think he/she made an error (2 years) or had a very unusual way to date the start of the rule of Tiberius. GLuke goes for an one year ministry (as for the other synoptic gospels and the original GJohn). At least it is strongly implied (and specified in the original GJohn). GJohn later gave another dating for the same happening from another reference point and the date is 70% certain for me to be 27CE. Keeping the one year and starting at 27CE, that gives me 28CE. Also the apparition of JB in the winter/spring of 27CE makes a lot of sense according to an event related in Josephus' works. See John the Baptist for more details.
I got three pages dealing in part for the dating, where I explore everything and come back to 28CE from different angles.
27CE
and
28CE
This is detective history, sorting through the muck, I have to admit, just like for the rest.
But early on, in Christianity, it was known (orally) 28 was the date, according to my research. That never get captured because of the mess which developed later.
The date of crucifixion was avoided because:
The final GJohn went to (implied) 2 years ministry (Irenaeus went for 20 years to oppose the ones who accepted only 1 year! Eusebius proposed almost 4 years!).
GLuke indicates 29 and GJohn points to 27. Eusebius gave 2 different years for the start of Jesus' ministry, 29 and a few lines later implied 24.

Christians nowadays do not care that much if it is 30 or 33, the two most accepted dates,as long as it falls during Pilate's rule (fall 26- fall 36).

Best regards, Bernard

spin

You're right. I basically do though. Mark was written to a Roman audience. It uses Roman coinage, such as denarii, when the coins issued by the Romans in Palestine were still shekels and prutahs. The text also gives a few explanations which were specifically for Romans, telling that two leptas (not a Palestinian coin) were equal to a kordranths, ie a Roman quadrans (12:42), and that the hall/palace (aulhs) of 15:16 was a praitwrion, ie a praetorium. (The Peshitta translator of Mark didn't see any point in keeping the praetorium.) There are also various other special Latin terms in Mark, such as legion and flagellare. And one extra nice loan translation from Latin, "hikanon poiew" (15:15), a literal rendering by parts of the Latin "satis facere", to make content or satisfy. The linguistic evidence is rather strong for Mark being written in the Roman speaking world, which rules out the Greek speaking east. The upshot of this is that any Palestinian assumptions imputed on the writer are inappropriate.

And no I'm not going to attempt to date the first gospels, before serious dates for church fathers such as Ignatius, Papias and Aristides have been developed. Another problem is that first gospels need not correspond too closely to the gospels we now have.

"Vain" in this case meant of no value. You are asking for an analysis of what was in the writer's head at the time of writing.

Known by whom? Eusebius. Hence my statement: "Aristion first appears in the pages of that trustworthy of sources Eusebius". This is indisputable, as much of what we learn of Papias first appears in the pages of that trustworthy of sources Eusebius. (This does not mean that Eusebius necessarily fabricated the information, but that he may have or that the information developed in the few hundred years between the reputed events and Eusebius or it may even be correct. It is merely useless data at the moment. Get the point?)

You were getting all emotive about how emotive Mark was about what it portrays, so I mentioned how emotive these other texts got over events of hundreds of years prior to their writing. You are simply and inappropriately imputing things upon writers that you just can't know about.

Your only point in all your writing is that there is an apocalyptic urgency that you see related to the destruction of the temple, yet apocalyptic urgency is a well known literary trope, which may or may not be related to the scenary of the stories that contain it, and which may or may not relate to some knowable events. You need to know about the situation of the community in which it was written in order to be able to place the text with any definiteness.

I think in this case you are imputing a historical context, given that the Jewish tradition very often rehashes contexts in later writings making them reflect new and newer historical contexts, so that, when you say, "in the OT, the end (or new beginning) is often stated to happen soon after the prophecy is claimed", you cannot glean anything of the final writer's historical context at all.

And as a case in point:

There is no "yes, but" to the discussion. How is the fall of the temple being used? Not knowing the Marcan community at all, you can't say. It could symbolically represent some time of persecution in the community to which the writer is saying to persevere. Not knowing the background, not being able to date the texts independently from your assumptions, not knowing who the writer was or why he was writing, you cannot make your judgments based in reality.


spin

spin

As, Bernard, we have been through a round of dating based on John the Baptist who is mentioned by Josephus as alive in the mid-30s CE, and given the fact that Jesus was supposed to have been alive during the reign of Herod the Great, ie pre 4 BCE, I think we should take a little seriously the thinking involved in GJn 8:57's note that Jesus was not yet fifty, ie he was seen as probably more than 40 and see Josephus as correct in placing his John in the mid-30s. As Jesus is supposed to have survived JB by some time, over 40 seems accurate.


spin

rlogan

Yes, agreed - and of course this is I guess what you would call "orthodoxy" now.

Keeping it close to 70 though requires a whole web of things, each of which we are discussing elsewhere.

Vinnie takes this approach too. For me it is a big problem.


That was an interesting discussion. A related issue that we have thrashed to death here is the lack of early veneration or pilgrimage. Were there to have been one, we'd have the 4th, 5th, 10th, 20th, and 50th annual "crucifest" and the dating would never have been a question.

Bernard Muller

rlogan:
Can you give me the thread on that?

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Sure thing Bernard:


http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ght=veneration

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ght=veneration


One of them was on Jewish veneration tradition, and another was on post-crucifixion history.

My recollection is that there was a tradition of Jewish veneration, but that nothing immediatley after the crucifixion developed for the christians.

Ted Hoffman

You "think"? is that an argument? We don't care about what you think! What we want is what you can argue.

Doherty's argument is:
Now, simply list the authors, their works and dating and show how they contradict what Doherty argues. Pure and simple.

The criteria they must fall under in order to qualify as a challenge to Doherty's argument :

a) They must be considered to be a "major apologist" (I dont care what this means - ask Doherty - but he says they are not more than six.)
b) They must be mentioning a HJ in an defense of Xstianity against the Pagans
c) They must not have lived beyond c. 180.

The rest are just red herrings from you. Can't you read an argument and understand it without constructing a strawman!!!

Spin should spin you on his lap and slap your backside for being so good at constructing red herrings. What is being defended here is not Doherty's argument but your selective reading and understanding of it!

Argue against what Doherty actually says!

Muller,
The argument here is that no-one knew the facts about Jesus' life. Not one person. If you know of anyone who did, name that person.

The historical details would be so important in determining whether Jesus was mythical or historical.

Would it? You tell us.
It matters as much as the existence of poisonus snakes in Malta matter or as much as the veracity of the existence 2000 pigs next to the sea (of galilee?) matter.

Gakusei
The three criterions please. Otherwise, red herrings are what you have posted. Thus you leave Doherty's argument intact.

Again, red herring. A misreading of Doherty's argument. Check the criteria above.

I don't believe I need to bother reading the rest of this thread.

Amaleq13

Before someone replies to rlogan's post with the "nobody questioned the historicity of Jesus" angle, please read it within the context of the fact that one of the most (if not the most) significant difference between Christianity and the pagan Mystery Religions is the alleged historicity of the central figure.