Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 07-13-2011, 12:50 PM

The most absurd part of New Testament studies is the idea that there is oral history or an oral tradition of a man named Jesus preserved in the New Testament. It is founded on a single statement quoted by Bishop Eusebeus in his Church History (3:39.3-4)

Greek

Syriac

"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.”

"I do not scruple to adduce for thee in these interpretations of mine that also which I well learned [] from the Elders and well remember. And I attest on behalf of these men the truth. For I did not take delight in those who have much to say, as many do, but in those who teach the truth; neither in the those who recall commandments of strangers, but in those who transmit what was given by our Lord to the faith, and is derived and comes from the Truth (itself). Neither did I when anyone came along who had been a follower of the Elders, compare the words of the Elders: what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or what James, or what John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord. Nor what Aristo or what John the Elder []. For I did not think that I could so profit from their books, as from the living and abiding utterance."

from http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias

People who believe that Papias is telling the truth dismiss the obvious idea that Papias is writing a rhetorical passage to forestall criticisms of his wildly imaginative writings. What type of writings? Apollinarius (c310-390) relates this one:

Quote:

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.

Eusebius relates these fantastic stories of Papias (5.39.9):

Quote:

other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. 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 time 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.

The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Savior, 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..."

The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Savior, 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.

The entire oral tradition rests on a single witness who even the uber-credulous Eusebius suggests is a crackpot.

I suggest that anybody who believes in an oral tradition or oral history behind the writings about Jesus be labeled a Papiass and dismissed as a believer of absurdities and nonsense, no matter how many degrees s/he may have or articles peer reviewed by other Papiasses.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

dog-on · 07-13-2011, 12:53 PM

Well, yea...

hjalti · 07-13-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

The most absurd part of New Testament studies is the idea that there is oral history or an oral tradition of a man named Jesus preserved in the New Testament. It is founded on a single statement quoted by Bishop Eusebeus in his Church History (3:39.3-4)

So you think that nobody was telling stories about Jesus?

PhilosopherJay · 07-13-2011, 02:44 PM

Hi hjalti,

The only evidence is Eusebius' quote from Papias. Besides the fact that Papias was considered imaginative even by the standards of the extremely imaginative church writers, the text doesn't support the idea of oral transmission.

Quote:

Neither did I when anyone came along who had been a follower of the Elders, compare the words of the Elders: what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas, or what James, or what John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord. Nor what Aristo or what John the Elder []. For I did not think that I could so profit from their books, as from the living and abiding utterance."

At best, he is saying that did not compare what was in different books by people like Andrew or Peter or Philip etc. Instead he questioned the Elders directly. This is just his rhetorical way of saying I've read all the stories, but I didn't copy anybody else's written stories. There is no use looking for written evidence of the stories I am telling. I got them from the fathers themselves who heard them from the Apostles of the Lord, so you know they're true.

Imagine a science fiction writer who writes stories about Albert Einstein as a time traveler. He says at the beginning, "You won't find anything written about these stories in biographies of Albert Einstein or in newspapers about him, these stories were told to me by friends of my father who knew him personally and personally heard him talk about his time travel stories from his closest associates, Ellery Queen, Dr. Watson, Clark Kent and Lois Lane.

Obviously, this is just a rhetorical device by the fiction author to give his stories more of a sense of verisimilitude. Imagine serious scholars saying that this text was proof that there was an oral tradition of time travel stories circulated about Albert Einstein.

Papias is evidence only that people were writing new stories about the disciples in the Second century. We have enough stories around that we know this is true without him.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

The most absurd part of New Testament studies is the idea that there is oral history or an oral tradition of a man named Jesus preserved in the New Testament. It is founded on a single statement quoted by Bishop Eusebeus in his Church History (3:39.3-4)

So you think that nobody was telling stories about Jesus?

GakuseiDon · 07-13-2011, 02:59 PM

There is also Polycarb and others within the early Church, according to Irenaeus:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time...

Also:

Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles...

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

And:

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition... Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom... Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

stephan huller · 07-13-2011, 03:13 PM

Yes - while I am not sure that I agree with the idea that no one was talking about 'Jesus' (whatever he was, God or man) it is worth noting that our only source for BOTH of these witnesses - Polycarp and Papias - is Irenaeus. That doesn't mean that Polycarp isn't a real person or that Papias never existed but what we have essentially is a single letter of Polycarp which is generally regarded as having some issue with interpolation etc, Irenaeus's testimony with respect to Polycarp (whether it be Against Heresies or the Martyrium which passed through his hands) AND Eusebius's reporting of Irenaeus's testimony regarding Papias. I would argue that the evidence suggests that the letter to the Philippians also passed through Irenaeus's hand (as did the Irenaean corpus). I see no evidence to suggest that what did survived into the later period with respect to Papias wasn't similarly 'corrected' by Irenaeus.

So your left with just Irenaeus's version of history.

I deliberately omit mention of the Coptic fragments of the Martyrium which are of uncertain origin and too fragmentary for much serious analysis.

GakuseiDon · 07-13-2011, 04:56 PM

There is also 1 Clement, which suggests that the 'Gospel' was passed on as an oral source rather than a written one. The apostles converted people by "preaching the Gospel", and those first conversions ("the first-fruits [of their labours]") became the first bishops and deacons:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith..."
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?

PhilosopherJay · 07-13-2011, 05:16 PM

Hi GakuseiDon,

As Polycarp was instructed, I instructed my students yesterday. Before every lecture, I read and take notes from a textbook, I read the notes to them and show them pictures and videos. They write down notes and they ask questions. I consult the text if I don't know the answer. Yesterday, I taught them that the Crusades started in 1096. Would you say that they learned from an oral tradition that the Crusades started in 1096? Only in the most trivial sense can you say that they are learning from an oral tradition instead of from written text.
There is no indication here that Polycarp's instruction was primarily oral rather than written.

In your second example, the hypothetical question, "For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down[/b] to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" doesn't suggest an oral tradition, but simply undocumented traditions. For example, lots of college students go out on dates on Friday night and go to the movies. One would hardly call that an oral tradition. If there were no movie ads in newspapers that have been handed down to us, we would have to look at the tradition of movie going to know anything about the movies.

In the third example, Irenaeus simply says that the barbarians can't read the writings of the heretics. so they act like good little doggies

None of these statements are evidence of an oral tradition.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There is also Polycarb and others within the early Church, according to Irenaeus:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time...

Also:

Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles...

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

And:

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition... Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom... Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

beallen041 · 07-13-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There is also Polycarb and others within the early Church, according to Irenaeus:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time...

Also:

Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles...

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

And:

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition... Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom... Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

One immediately wonders what Polycarb's blood sugar was!

PhilosopherJay · 07-13-2011, 05:45 PM

Hi GakuseDon,

Notice how many times written texts are mentioned in this short paragraph.

Quote:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith..."
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?

God appoints Jesus, Jesus appoints the apostles, the apostles appoint the Bishops. This does not refer to any oral tradition. The only sentence that can be mis/construed as refering to an oral tradition is "they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities". When a king hands a proclamation to a minister and says proclaim this throughout the kingdom, we have no evidence of an oral tradition. When the preacher preaches from his bible, we have no evidence of an oral tradition, except for the trivial meaning that someone is reading orally from a text.

The proposition of the Papiasses is that the gospels or words of Jesus were transmitted orally before being written down. I would like to see the evidence for that.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

There is also 1 Clement, which suggests that the 'Gospel' was passed on as an oral source rather than a written one. The apostles converted people by "preaching the Gospel", and those first conversions ("the first-fruits [of their labours]") became the first bishops and deacons:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith..."
...
Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?

07-13-2011, 02:59 PM	#5
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	There is also Polycarb and others within the early Church, according to Irenaeus: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time... Also: Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles... Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? And: To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition... Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom... Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.

07-13-2011, 04:56 PM	#7
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	There is also 1 Clement, which suggests that the 'Gospel' was passed on as an oral source rather than a written one. The apostles converted people by "preaching the Gospel", and those first conversions ("the first-fruits [of their labours]") became the first bishops and deacons: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith..." ... Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached?

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

07-13-2011, 12:53 PM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Well, yea...

07-13-2011, 03:13 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes - while I am not sure that I agree with the idea that no one was talking about 'Jesus' (whatever he was, God or man) it is worth noting that our only source for BOTH of these witnesses - Polycarp and Papias - is Irenaeus. That doesn't mean that Polycarp isn't a real person or that Papias never existed but what we have essentially is a single letter of Polycarp which is generally regarded as having some issue with interpolation etc, Irenaeus's testimony with respect to Polycarp (whether it be Against Heresies or the Martyrium which passed through his hands) AND Eusebius's reporting of Irenaeus's testimony regarding Papias. I would argue that the evidence suggests that the letter to the Philippians also passed through Irenaeus's hand (as did the Irenaean corpus). I see no evidence to suggest that what did survived into the later period with respect to Papias wasn't similarly 'corrected' by Irenaeus. So your left with just Irenaeus's version of history. I deliberately omit mention of the Coptic fragments of the Martyrium which are of uncertain origin and too fragmentary for much serious analysis.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.