S.C.Carlson

You'll have to be more specific. I don't have an all-or-nothing approach to Papias's testimony (or anyone else's). Some of it could be viable; some of it not. It all depends on the specific claim.

Stephen

rlogan

Oh, no Vinnie - that post was not directed at Christianity.

It was directed at YOU. And your response was to avoid addressing it.



Well, I certainly did not make that argument. That's why you couldn't quote me doing so.


You demonstrate not the slightest concern about explicitly apologetic (and scientifically ridiculous) material arising in a mileau of state-sponsored terror over historical canon.

Specifically, the story that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed by definition impossible miracles in his lifetime, and of course rose from the dead etc. etc. - this was not just the official religion - but also the official history.

And it follows that the suppression of alternative religious belief is precisely the same thing as supression of alternative historical belief.

Nowhere in any of this discussion do you even admit to the slightest possibility that such conditions would influence Eusebius, not to mention others, writing "history" that was not true - eg the Testimonium Flavianum, the Neronian "persecution" and a host of other things including Papias.

You won't even admit to the incentive being there. The motive that hangs like a guillotine over the head of the man weilding the pen.

Do you anywhere in these screeds demonstrate how any of this might bear upon how one should evaluate any particular piece of evidence? No - instead it is ridiculous piffle like the statistical quote, which was not even relevant: but incorrectly stated.

Vinnie

I didn't know that when some authors wrote they did so with the express intention of not conveying their biased thoughts, beliefs and politics. I always that that the idea of writing is sharing your thoughts, your beliefs, your biases and that final product will represent the way you see things in your specific culture and time. The focus of the work will reflect what you consider important and the method you go about in doing it will reflect your thoughts on how that ought to be done. Can you please cite some of these neutral texts, penned in a vacuum by omniscient narrators so that I may read them?

Spare me. All writers have agendas and biases. Josephus and Tacitus had their own. The best we can do is comb their texts in an effort to point them out. This is why some scholars do think Papias did in fact hear the apostle John. Eusebius had an axe to grind with him concerning revelation and wanted it made certain he misunderstood things and did not get his views explicitly from the Lord's apostles, but was once removed. Thus, contrary to your assertions, I am sympathetic to taking into account the agenda of the ready. Eusebius didn't like Revelation and sought to sever the link between Papias and John, but as Gundry shows, he appears to slip up at a point--though some ambiguity remains.

Granted the way it is treated, this is hardly a likely candidate of Eusebian forgery. GMark was connected with APeter by Clement, Irenaeus and possibly Justin, all in the 2d century after the time Papias is reputed to have relayed the traditions of the Elder. There is not even a good reason to deny that Eusebius formed this one passage as it fits the later progression of beliefs in the 2d. century. If you have anything of substance aside from "the times were political" please present it. I don't care to entertain blatant examples of special pleading. There is no good reason to be skeptical of the existence of Papias, that Irenaeus mentioned him, that he wrote five oracles and that he was an ancient figure who referenced the Elder on the gospel of Mark.

You should show more discretion in choosing your battles.

Vinnie

spamandham

I see this type of argument all the time, and I honestly don't understand it. It seems to me it makes little sense to simply accept ANY ancient document at face value, for the very reason you stated. That doesn't mean they are useless, it just means they are not generally trustworthy at face value.

I think it's time to accept that we simply do not have the certainty we wish we had regarding the past. Perhaps we should be grateful to the relentless legions of apologists for helping us realize that.

Vinnie

If certainty is what you are after, don't attempt to reconstruct ancient history. Play in the natural sciences. There you will be afforded the luxury of more certainty granted an uncertain faith in induction.

One of my more likable quotes:

""Josephus, for example who was a very self-conscious historian, and who was also fairly accurate, claimed, in retelling biblical history, that he added nothing and omitted nothing (Antiq. 1.17; cf. Antiq. 4.196; 20.260-261). In fact he omitted a great deal and added numerous items. He attributed to Moses, for example, the commandment to gather each week to study the law (Against Apion 2.175). This represents first-century practice but cannot be found in the Bible; and Josephus, if pressed, would have granted that to be true. He knew the Bible extremely well, and further he knew that many of his readers were equally well versed in it. Then why ascribe to Moses new commandments? We cannot precisely recapture his mental processes, but perhaps they went like this: It is an established tradition in our religion that we gather in synagogues on the Sabbath to study the Scripture; this has been true as far back as anyone can remember; Moses himself must have intended it; I shall use a shortcut and say that he commanded it.

Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up the them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said.

We should not exult too much over ancient historians. Below the very top level of academic biography modern authors frequently attribute statements to their subjects when, in the nature of the case, there could be no possible line of transmission. Most modern readers accept this, since the story is presented smoothly and authoritatively, without noting the absence of evidence. Ancient author's wrote in this way--only more so."[20 -- Sanders and Davies, Studying Synoptic Gospels]

Its been so long I forgot the issue that Meier discusses concerning Josephan bias...I'll have to dig it up....

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

Did you miss the triangulation of Victorinus, Irenaeus, and Eusebius? (And we can throw Justin into the mix.) Just for kicks, I would like to see your explanation of the development of this tradition.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

I had a brief quote about the Elysian Fields here. I am suprised you and Gamera had never consider it. I will work up some more references when I have time.


Sorry for the confusion, I am not dealing with Earl theories directly, only asking for clarification of the theories arrayed against him.

See The Descent of Inanna. The Queen of Heaven.


My comment was too tangential for this thread. Sorry.
Jake

spin

Yes, I did. What triangulation is this? I've seen a single mention by you in this thread of Victorinus, but nothing else. And I've love to see you throw Justin in any tangible way. So let's have some meat.

I don't really need to explain how Eusebius got hold of the Papias traditions. He somehow got hold of the Abgar tradition and believed it wholeheartedly, despite it being bogus. What I need is some reasoned trajectory of the Papias material that isn't 95% conjecture. (It could be, to speculate vainly about the Papias tradition, that someone noted the reference to Papias in Irenaeus and decided to give content to it. How much of Ignatius's work was written by Ignatius? How did we end up with Laodiceans [possibly two], 3 Corinthians, an Acts and even a lost Alexandrians of Paul? Pseudepigraphic literature is rather common.)

It should be plain by the examples I've already given elsewhere that traditions frequently came along similar to the Abgar stuff. I mentioned Tertullian and Ebion, Jerome and the Paul/Seneca letters, Eusebius and the meeting between Paul and Philo during the reign of Claudius (and Philo describing christians). (And these are just the first ones I lighted upon.)

As such traditions simply do arise, we need means of knowing whether a tradition is kosher or not. You can't just pick up one that appeals to you and pretend it is history, as people seem to do with this Papias stuff.


spin

jakejonesiv

Hi spin,

Your comments are congruent with a quote I posted from Robert Price's Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk) two years ago. Click here.

Jake

spamandham

Certainty isn't my bugaboo. I suppose that's why I advocated not accepting any ancient texts at face value.

You certainly won't hear me saying anything like "Josephus wrote it, I believe it, and that's that."