Steven Carr

Well, clearly there was an early tradition that prophecies about the imminent end of the world should be taken literally.......

Is Papias reliable about early traditions about the death of Judas?

Johnny Skeptic

Well, the following that my well-educated Christian source said is most certainly not irrelevant:

"Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels."

Andrew, are you disagreeing with my Christian source? He obviously is not very impressed with Papias. Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?

The issue of the number of eyewitnesses is of great importance. The texts claim somewhere between 520 - 550 eyewitnesses, but how can we reliably verify this claim? Any ancient writer can claim any number of eyewitnesses that he wants to claim. Why do you trust the texts on this issue? What you need to produce are external records that indicate approximately how many people claimed to have been eyewitnesses. In your opinion, how many claimed eyewitnesses does it take to impress you, and since we don't have any first hand eyewitness testimony, how many steps removed from first hand eyewitness testimony does it take to impress you? Can you produce any second hand or third hand eyewitness testimony?

Roger Pearse

Well, I think that the opinion of the person you quote is indeed irrelevant, since he has no data to go on that we do not. I was unclear what we need him for, when we have all the data? The position given is contradicted by Irenaeus, that is, by 50% of the evidence. I must say that the description of Papias testimony as 'hearsay' seems a curious way to describe what Papias says. (The words read as if they were written in haste, and it would probably be unfair to pillory the chap for them).

Incidentally I'm not sure why you refer (three times, now) to this person as a "well-educated Christian" -- he seems to be a teacher of religion at one of the secular universities in the US, and a member of the Jesus Seminar.

Surely you know this? -- Irenaeus says so.

If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong, then we have to ask what evidence other than the opinion of Eusebius, two centuries later, is there for this? It is possible to read these two texts such that they contradict each other, of course. But then that too is a judgement. Let's hold onto all the data, not find reasons to ignore bits of it.

I wasn't sure I understood this -- sorry. This seems to be a long list of demands that you make of Andrew -- why is it his problem rather than yours? --, and I don't see the relevance to the rest of the thread. In fact ancient history cannot be done like this. Have a look at the thread about Gaius to get a feel for the sort of thing we have to do for most things, Christian or not, in antiquity.

Of course if the point you are really making is that ancient "history is mostly bunk", then that is a judgement which the educated world has declined to accept, ever since the beginning of modern times. I think of Petrarch finding a manuscript of the letters of Cicero, and getting so excited by the text that he sat down and wrote a 'letter' to Cicero to say how much it meant to him. That is the spirit of learning and education.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Carr

Huh?

Why was the 'unfortunate' who proved that the work could not be by John refuted by the publication of p52?

yalla

Johnny Sceptic asked Roger Pearse:

"Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?"

Roger replied:

"Surely you know this? -- Irenaeus says so.

If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong, then we have to ask what evidence other than the opinion of Eusebius, two centuries later, is there for this?"

So I thought I'd buy into this.
I presume we are discussing whether or not Papias claims to have been a hearer of John as in the extract of Eusebius HE 3.39.3ff.
There are 2 Johns mentioned. One is in the group mentioned in the past tense. So it is not him.
The other is John the presbyter.[aka the"Elder"?]. He is still alive.
And how does Papias get his information as to what these persons, alive or dead, said or are saying?
From .."whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters ....names of the dead inc. a "John"....and what Aristion and the presbyter John were still saying...'.

So I conclude from this that Papias says he was getting his information from the followers. Not from either the dead or still alive John.

Eusebius disagrees..."[Papias] says he listened to Aristion and the presbyter John with his own ears".

This is what I managed to find on this subject from the somewhat messy notes I have kept on books I have read. The notes are not perfect but I think they are essentially accurate and capable of verification or otherwise.

"He [Papias] does not claim to have any personal acquaintance with John the Elder or even that he lived in Ephesus" " J. Marsh in "St. John." pub. Penguin UK 1968. page 23


"Papias' relations with the apostle John were [at best] second hand" CK Barrett in "Gospel according to St. John" pub SPCK London 1978 page 105 t0 109 [notes a bit rough here]

1."Irenaeus' information that Papias was a hearer of John is not correct". p243
2."Irenaeus says Papias heard John [according to E] but this does not tally with Papias' own words in his proem..." p241
Both from W. Kummell "Intro to the NT" SCM London 1975.

"Irenaeus states that Papias, a companion of Polycarp, was a hearer of John, a MISTAKE pointed out by Eusebius"..........It cannot, then [reference to intervening material] be pronounced impossible that Irenaeus was mistaken in the recollections from boyhood that he claimed to have of Polycarp's teaching......"
From:A.H. McNeille in "AN Intro to the Study of the NT" page 283 pub Oxford Uni Press
2nd ed. london 1953.

So I am not alone in my interpretation.

gregor

Mr. Pearse

How can the discovery of a scrap of paper containing a few verses (portions of seven sentences, IIRC) that can be dated from 125 to as late as 175 CE that bears language that is similar to what we now call John (i.e. p52) establish:

1. P52 was written by a disciple
2. The gospel now called "John" was written by a disciple
or
2. The complete gospel of John from 350 CE was in remotely the same form as what existed in 150 CE

Roger Pearse

I would suggest you take these questions up with a professional. I think you have some of the facts wrong, by the way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This is not the passage by Irenaeus...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

yalla

Roger:"This is not the passage by Irenaeus..."


I know that.
It is the only record of what Papias is alleged to have said on this subject.
It is the prime source material. The ONLY source of what Papias said.

It is that upon which Irenaeus is basing his claim that Papias knew a John called
elder/presbyter.

But Papias does NOT say he knew either of the Johns. He only knew the "the followers".
Irenaeus got it wrong.
That is why those NT scholars say he got it wrong.

Irenaeus accidentally or deliberately got it wrong. Papias did not know either of the possibly relevant persons named John.

S.C.Carlson

Actually, Irenaeus had access to the entire work of Papias. We have access only to this extract Eusebius quoted.

Eusebius is known to take quotations out of their context, so one should not assume that this extract that Eusebius preserved for us is a fair representation of everything Papias had to say about John. Our suspicion that Eusebius may not have been completely candid as to what Papias said can only be strengthened when we realize that Eusebius was strongly biased against Papias's chiliasm.

Stephen