dog-on

... and there it seems to remain...

LogicandReason

The timing of 'Mark' and the fall of Jerusalem was convenient (no one to dispute the legend).

It is further interesting that we don't find any Jewish writers (18.3.3 in Antiquities is an interpolation IMHO) discussing Jesus until the 3rd century. I find the Papias references, especially his comments about who wrote Mark and Matthew, interesting as nobody quotes his more preposterous writings...Christians can be very selective in their reading and quoting.

show_no_mercy

Papias is only used as an authority when it suits faith. For some reason his "authority" is ignored when his writing doesn't match what the faithful assume Christian history to be.

show_no_mercy

What if the gospel "according to Mark" (markon) is actually the gospel "according to Mark" (markion)?

andrewcriddle

Like a lot in Wheless this is not entirely accurate.

The claim that "those who were raised to life by Christ lived on until
the age of Trajan," is not attributed to Papias by Eusebius. Philip of Side says that Papias claimed that "those who were raised to life by Christ lived on until
the age of Hadrian,". I suspect Wheless is confusing this with the claim, probably made by Papias, that the Apostle John lived till the time of Trajan and attributing the whole thing to Eusebius.

(Philip of Side is probably conflating the claim "those who were raised to life by Christ lived on until my own time" and the claim of the author to be writing in the time of Hadrian. )

The claim that Jesus lived to the age of 50 comes from the traditions of the elders cited by Irenaeus. It is unclear whether or not they derive from Papias and unlikely that they denied the crucifixion of Jesus.



Andrew Criddle

LogicandReason

Yep...It's hard to say what actually happened before Eusebius...the current hegemony is based on his edits of history.

Steven Carr

I like O'Connell's claim that Eusebius was wrong to say Papias was of limited intelligence, as Papias made it to Bishop.

O'Connell also says it seems 'likely' that Papias was collecting traditions between 80 and 100 AD.

Naturally there is no evidence given for this, which in any case is after the date that Paul said Christians were all too readily accepting a different Jesus to the one he preached.

JoeWallack

JW:
Oy. spin!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Carr

Papias also calls James a disciple of the Lord. (and sticks the very brother of Jesus in among Philp,Thomas, John and Matthew and the other disciples)

I don't recall any James in the list of the 12 disciples.

Papias is yet another Christian who doesn't seem to have any idea that this James was supposed to be the brother of Jesus.

O'Connell simply claims that when Papias said disciples, he did not mean disciple, he meant 'a member of the apostolic generation'

andrewcriddle

James bar Zebedee brother of John is included in all the synoptic lists of the twelve disciples/apostles. He is clearly intended to be a diferent person from James the brother of Jesus. According to Acts James bar Zebedee was executed by Herod in the early 40's CE.

Andrew Criddle