Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 01-07-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Bauckham writes

Quote:

But we should probably assume that the majority were simply versions of stories and sayings to be found in the Gospels, of which, by the time he wrote his book, Papias knew at least those of Matthew, Mark, and John. (Papias book probably consisted of collections of Gospel traditions along with commentary on them,

So per Bauckham, while on a holy mission to find support for the Canonical Gospels, in 5 books Eusebius only quotes from Papias stories not in the Canonical gospels. Bon appetite MJs.

Joe seems to disagree that the parts of Papias not quoted by Eusebius were probably parallels to the canonical gospels.

I have often suspected, even before reading Bauckham, that the rest of Papias (that is, those parts not cited in our extant fragments of his lost five-part work) were a combination of (A) fabulous narratives that Eusebius would not appreciate and (B) parallels to narratives in the canonical gospels (canonical, that is, in the time of Eusebius).

I suspect A because Eusebius actually tells us:

And the same man sets out other things also as having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things.

I suspect B because the extant fragments of Papias do contain parallels to canonical gospel materials (the death of Judas, for example, or the woman caught in sin, which Eusebius mentions, but this story was not canonical in his day!) and because it would not make sense for Eusebius (and others) to quote Papias very much where Papias was following stories that were either canonical or parallels to the canonical materials.

I suspect not all on this thread would agree with that last judgment. And, in fact, I think I recall Doherty writing once that the rest of Papias was probably stuff not in the canonical gospels, or else more of the fathers would have quoted more of Papias.

But such a supposition seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what I, for one, would expect. The fathers (especially Eusebius) were not much in the habit of quoting other writers quoting scripture. They did so occasionally to show that the author in question knew such-and-such a text, but they hardly did so in extenso. I for one expect Eusebius to habitually quote the gospels (as the more authoritative texts) for gospel materials and Papias for materials that cannot be found in those gospels.

There is a way of testing these two different expectations:

1. Expecting Eusebius to quote Papias quoting scripture.
2. Expecting Eusebius not to quote Papias quoting scripture very much, instead relying on Papias for material not to be found in scripture.

The test is this: How does Eusebius treat other authors whose works are still extant for comparison?

I propose Irenaeus, for two reasons. First, Irenaeus quotes extensively from the four canonical gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (especially in book 3 of Against Heresies). Second, Eusebius quotes Irenaeus a lot in his Church History (considerably more than he quotes Papias).

A scan of the Irenaeus materials in Eusebius ought to answer this question. Does Eusebius very often quote Irenaeus quoting scripture? Or does Eusebius usually quote Irenaeus for material that cannot be found in scripture?

I shall post all references to Irenaeus in the Church History by Eusebius, in English translation, in due time on a subsequent post on this thread. But first I would like some preliminary feedback, if possible. Which of those two expectations, prima facie, seems more reasonable? That Eusebius would quote Irenaeus mainly for his gospel quotations or that Eusebius would quote Irenaeus mainly for stuff not to be found in the gospels?

Please note that this thread is not about the authenticity of the writings of Eusebius, Irenaeus, or Papias. Thanks.

Ben.

spin · 01-09-2008, 11:02 PM

I thought this was worth a bump as no-one has responded and Ben C has put a bit of thought into the issue.

While I'm here I'll ask:

Assuming Eusebius's account reflects reality for a moment, where do you, Ben C, think the stories that Eusebius mentions ("certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things") came from, given that Papias was supposed to have written as early as you have indicated elsewhere?

(This is not meant as a change of direction of the thread, but a side issue stemming from it that interested me.)

spin

Ben C Smith · 01-10-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I thought this was worth a bump as no-one has responded and Ben C has put a bit of thought into the issue.

Thanks for that.

Quote:

Assuming Eusebius's account reflects reality for a moment, where do you, Ben C, think the stories that Eusebius mentions ("certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things") came from, given that Papias was supposed to have written as early as you have indicated elsewhere?

I think they came from a fund of oral tradition, in which I place very little confidence as to overall accuracy. Some of this oral tradition will have been completely made up. (At present I see it as probable, for instance, that nobody really knew how Judas, if such a person existed, really died, so people made up fitting deaths for him based on existing paradigms. Assuming for a moment that the story in Acts comes before the longer version of the story in Papias, we can trace part of the growth of this tradition.) Other parts of the tradition will have been based on some kernal of history that has accumulated layers of legend. Then, of course, it is always possible that some parts might have been transmitted fairly accurately, but I place almost no stock in this final scenario when it comes to most oral transmission. I think we have to be prepared in all cases to peel back the accumulated layers.

Ben.

Zeichman · 01-11-2008, 06:33 PM

Ben, this sounds really interesting. It might make a good series of blog posts.

JoeWallack · 01-12-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

From another thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Bauckham writes
So per Bauckham, while on a holy mission to find support for the Canonical Gospels, in 5 books Eusebius only quotes from Papias stories not in the Canonical gospels. Bon appetite MJs.

Joe seems to disagree that the parts of Papias not quoted by Eusebius were probably parallels to the canonical gospels.

I have often suspected, even before reading Bauckham, that the rest of Papias (that is, those parts not cited in our extant fragments of his lost five-part work) were a combination of (A) fabulous narratives that Eusebius would not appreciate and (B) parallels to narratives in the canonical gospels (canonical, that is, in the time of Eusebius).

I suspect A because Eusebius actually tells us:

And the same man sets out other things also as having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things.

I suspect B because the extant fragments of Papias do contain parallels to canonical gospel materials (the death of Judas, for example, or the woman caught in sin, which Eusebius mentions, but this story was not canonical in his day!) and because it would not make sense for Eusebius (and others) to quote Papias very much where Papias was following stories that were either canonical or parallels to the canonical materials.

I suspect not all on this thread would agree with that last judgment. And, in fact, I think I recall Doherty writing once that the rest of Papias was probably stuff not in the canonical gospels, or else more of the fathers would have quoted more of Papias.

But such a supposition seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what I, for one, would expect. The fathers (especially Eusebius) were not much in the habit of quoting other writers quoting scripture. They did so occasionally to show that the author in question knew such-and-such a text, but they hardly did so in extenso. I for one expect Eusebius to habitually quote the gospels (as the more authoritative texts) for gospel materials and Papias for materials that cannot be found in those gospels.

JW:
Congratulations Ben, you understand Bauckham's "Methodology." Ignore/Deny Direct evidence and try to use Indirect evidence to support a Conclusion. We have the following Superior evidence that little or nothing Papias wrote was Canonical:

1) No one has ever quoted a Canonical excerpt from Papias.

2) All excerpts quoted from Papias are not Canonical.

3) No Church Father ever claimed Papias quoted from Canon. (Except possibly for the reference to the Forged PA - see below).

4) Eusebius describes Papias as writing stories that are not Canonical (my words).

5) There are serious Doubts as to what Canonical Gospels, if any, existed before Papias and even more serious Doubts as to what Papias would have been aware of.

6) No one ever refers to Papias in Textual Criticism even though he would have been well before any other known potential source.

7) orthodox Christianity chose not preserve Papias probably because it was not mainly or at all Canonical. I already mentioned that we have no Direct evidence that Papias was familiar with any Passion Narrative.

8) We can already Convict orthodox Christianity of the sin of having it Bauckwards regarding attribution. There was no known "Mark" and "Matthew" in Papias' time. It was because of Papias that "Mark" and "Matthew" received their (mis)names.

(This is priMarily for Neil Godfree)

In addition to Attribution being Bauckwards, when we look at the extant quotes of Papias, we see the same thing, Papias was likely the Source (surprise) or at least evidenced a Source for the Canon. Moving to Paul Tobin:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papias.html#1

Quote:

Quoted in History of the Church 3:39:3-4
But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders 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 deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. 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 Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

JW:
"not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith"

Support that HJ was HJ-LA (Law-abiding) and that Papais Ignore/Denied any such evidence (ala Paul and "Mark"). So much for HJ Papias (Historian Papias).

"For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice"

Papias is not a fan of the literal Jewish Canon but instead interpretations of it. Confirms above.

Quote:

History of the Church 3:39:11-13
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. 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. 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. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.

JW:
We don't have to guess at what Eusebius thought of the rest of Papias, Eusebius tells us, it was not Canonical (my words).

"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."

The Source for Revelation?

Quote:

A fragment of Papias’ writing, preserved by Apollinarius of Laodicea, a fourth century Christian bishop, tells of the fate of Judas. It is important to read this passage in full:

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. And this the Acts of the Apostles makes clear, that falling headlong his middle burst and his bowels poured forth. And Papias the disciple of John records this most clearly, saying thus in the fourth of the Exegeses of the Words of the Lord:

Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth. [4]

JW:
Probably the Source for Acts.

Quote:

There are further examples from available fragments of Papias’ writing of the basic unreliability of his writings. He was a teller of tall tales. In the fragment preserved by Philip of Side (c. 380 - c. 439), we hear of the daughters of Philip who would drank snake venom with no ill effects, of a woman resurrected and of those who were raised by Jesus surviving until the early second century!

The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian. [6]

JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

Another Source for what we would all agree was Forged Canon.

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

Quote:

Papias:
Eusebius tells us that Papias in his lost books (Logi,wn Kuriakw/n evxhgh,seij) told a story "about a woman, who has been accused of many sins before the Lord" and that it was apparently also included in the Gospel of the Hebrews (so Eusebius). It is possible, even probable that the story is basically the same as the one we know today. This is already the understanding of Rufinus, a contemporary translator of Eusebius, who specifically labels the woman an adulteress.
That Papias (ca. 125 CE) knew the story means that it existed already ca. 100 CE. This again makes it quite probable that the story contains a genuine Jesus tradition.

Another Source for what we would all agree was Forged Canon.

Considering all this I Am sore Amazed/APauled that Bauckham can assure us that everything not quoted by Eusebius was probably Canonical. I suggest Bauckham borrow Spielberg's DeLorean and go back Bauckwards in time to the 2nd century so Bauckham can write his own Eyewitness account of what supposedly happened in the 1st century.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

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

Ben C Smith · 01-14-2008, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

All excerpts quoted from Papias are not Canonical.

I do not know, then, what you mean by canonical. Because we certainly have quotations of Papias that attribute quotations to him that are extant only amongst the canonical gospels.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-14-2008, 06:18 AM

And, incidentally, Joe, I would like to redirect your attention to the main theme of this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

...it would not make sense for Eusebius (and others) to quote Papias very much where Papias was following stories that were either canonical or parallels to the canonical materials.

The question is not actually whether Papias did indeed contain (parallels to) canonical materials, but rather how sound the expectation that Eusebius (and others) would have quoted him quoting canonical materials is. Even if Papias contained thoroughly noncanonical materials beyond our extant fragments, whether this expectation is sound is still a good question. So, judging from how Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, Lyons

), do you expect him to quote Papias quoting scripture?

Ben.

JoeWallack · 01-14-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

And, incidentally, Joe, I would like to redirect your attention to the main theme of this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

...it would not make sense for Eusebius (and others) to quote Papias very much where Papias was following stories that were either canonical or parallels to the canonical materials.

The question is not actually whether Papias did indeed contain (parallels to) canonical materials, but rather how sound the expectation that Eusebius (and others) would have quoted him quoting canonical materials is. Even if Papias contained thoroughly noncanonical materials beyond our extant fragments, whether this expectation is sound is still a good question. So, judging from how Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, Lyons

), do you expect him to quote Papias quoting scripture?

Ben.

JW:
Eusebius didn't need to quote Irenaeus, he preserved the whole thing. Papias' Sayings of the Lord on the other hand he shipped Father-El X-Prax to were ever the hell Jesus has been the last two thousand years.

Joseph

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

Ben C Smith · 01-14-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Eusebius didn't need to quote Irenaeus, he preserved the whole thing.

Oh, but Eusebius does quote Irenaeus. Early and often. He quotes Irenaeus more than he quotes Papias.

Ben.

Peter Kirby · 01-14-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Which of those two expectations, prima facie, seems more reasonable? That Eusebius would quote Irenaeus mainly for his gospel quotations or that Eusebius would quote Irenaeus mainly for stuff not to be found in the gospels?

I'm not sure of my logic, but I would say door #2, on a "seems more reasonable" first glance. If it were Gospel quotes, Eusebius wouldn't need an extra layer, as the Gospels were quite accessible to him already, and authoritative in themselves besides.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2008, 11:02 PM	#2
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I thought this was worth a bump as no-one has responded and Ben C has put a bit of thought into the issue. While I'm here I'll ask: Assuming Eusebius's account reflects reality for a moment, where do you, Ben C, think the stories that Eusebius mentions ("certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things") came from, given that Papias was supposed to have written as early as you have indicated elsewhere? (This is not meant as a change of direction of the thread, but a side issue stemming from it that interested me.) spin

01-11-2008, 06:33 PM	#4
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Ben, this sounds really interesting. It might make a good series of blog posts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.