Vinnie

http://www.vincentsapone.com/writing...mythicism.html

Papias, who has hitherto been dated early (c. 105) and shown to reference the Gospel of Mark in threads here is now being utilized to firmly evidence a historical Jesus and deconstruct the mythicist position.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

Why do we need another thread? Isn't this the discussion in Papias Attestation of Mark's Gospel Dates to c. 105 A.D.?

Vinnie

In my opinion that thread discusses what the title of it says, that Papias dates to 105. I threw out a few questions about how this might impact mythicism but they didn't go far and weren't intended to. The thrust of it was the long article I referenced indicating an eaerlier dating of Papias.

This thread I have made for discussion of the evidence Papias provides for an historical Jesus. These threads have enough tangents so as to warrant separate discussions for each of these ideas.

Vinmie

spin

Until you can deal with the claimed date, Vin, this thread should be shelved.


spin

Vinnie

You missed the giant flaming QED at the end of the other thread?

I presented the evidence. Youy vaguely accused both/either or Irenaeus and Eusbius of either forgery or stupidity in citation. There was no other counter argument present in the thread that I can remember and I don't even realize the full force of your because you failed to present it systematically or coherently.

In my mind, the evidence has clearly been presented the discussion is over. That you think Eusebius forged Papian material then heaped scorn upon him or misquoted his books he referenced and referred his readers to consult themselves, or Irenaeus whom he quotes, you are welcome to do so. Just please don't attempt to pawn this off as good critical history. Its not. That is what I gleaned from your objection: "You can't prove Eusebius didn't make it all up." There are a lot of things I can't prove weren't made all up but there are no good indications this is the case and presumption sides with historicity here. "Eusebius made it all up" is not an argument, Spin, no matter how many times you will reiterate the notion. I digress (back to the topic at hand).

Vinnie

spin

Gosh, musta.

I.e. what Eusebius reports that Papias said and a quizzical statement by Irenaeus. That got us a long way, Vin.

Everyone, please note what happens when someone reduces the possibilities to a banal binary taxonomy. Both sides of the divide do it. But here we have just another example. Vinnie cannot see any other possibilities. Forgery or stupidity. He won't even consider notions of tradition.

Vinnie, Irenaeus gives us no indications about Papias other than that he heard a John, knew Polycarp ("Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp") and wrote five books. How Irenaeus got the information is not known, though you assume it was via Polycarp. Which John, Vinnie? When did Papias know Polycarp? You can't get it from Irenaeus who at least had an opportunity of getting the information from someone who might have known Papias. What can you say about the extra information provided by Eusebius? How could Eusebius know better information than Irenaeus who knew next to nothing about Papias?

You have no argument from history whatsoever. You've just retold so far untrustworthy gossip purporting to be about a guy called Papias. Surely you can do better than that.

I think you show an unscholarly and slavish acceptance of an untried developing tradition.

Eusebius is not known to be the greatest scholar of his time, but does he need to have forged the literature? How he got the tradition that he reports is what you have to deal with, not say "shit, it must be true".

You can't get anything from the fact that Eusebius two hundred years after the fact knows more than someone who knew someone who knew Papias.

How we got the information via Eusebius is your problem, Vinnie. You have to face it or forget the whole thing.


spin

Vinnie

All this and you have managed to say virtually little of substance. Irenaeus knew of Papias' five treatises on the Lord as did Eusebius whoe quoted from them. You keep asserting nothing was known about Papias but if you would actually READ the primary literature and make mental note of all the details you would stop spewing this hyperskeptical nonsense which reduces to accusations of gross incompetance and/or forgery and does not cohere with the data as we have it.

The range of dating supplied by Irenaeus (who calls him Ancient) and others is important and that is where the table I made of all the lines of evidence is important in establishing this date. They all converge ca. 105. You can't hope to use the upper extreme of 8 lines of evidence and claim to be critical in doing so....

As for Eusebius getting the tradition, he QUOTED IT FROM PAPIAS' work. He also referenced his readers to Papias's works in so far as I am reading the text correctly. If you feel I am not consult it and demonstrate it. The tradition comes from Papias' work. Here is what Eusebius says,

Yet Papias himself, according to the preface of his volumes, in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them, for he speaks as follows:

Please pay attention to the text. Eusebius is quoting it. The skepticism you are ushering here is not good skepticism. Its hyperskeptical abuse.

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

Do you believe that Judas was run over by a chariot? Eusubius sez that Papias sez. Don't get all hyperskeptical on me now.

Vinnie

See my paper for information on the death of Judas:

http://www.vincentsapone.com/writings/judas.html

I don't know how Judas died and it seems that neither did early Christians. That Papias would say this is entirely consistent with the ancient tendency to ascribe coding endings to infamous individuals and is precisely what Matthew and Luke did. Papias can be dependent upon Matthew and disagree with his treatment of Judas' fate just as Luke can (in the Mark without Q thesis). Matthew may have started it all or maybe both used pre-existing traditions that developed differently.. Either way, if independent traditions are cropping up pre-Matthew and Luke for different deaths of one of Jesus' followers who betrayed him (an embarrassing detail!) what does that say about my argument for historicity via Papias? I think it only increases its viability more so than it already is.

Papias' comments on Mark correspond exceedingly well to the gospel and how it was used very quickly by two evangelists. It is also might be much closer in time to the composition of Mark's gospel than to the alleged death of Judas which the sources suggest occured early IIRC (Luk's and to this day). Either way, Mark wote 30+ years after Judas could have killed himself--ifd he did in fact do so.

Papias may relay inaccurate traditions about Jesus' followers and Jesus' followers themselves may have created inaccurate inormation about Judas or reshaped material so much that exegetes today construe it as inaccurate. None of this is relevant to the thesis that Papias firmly demionstrates the existence of an historical oiver the contention that the original followers heralded some returning mythical Christ.

Vinnie

spin

Gosh, really, Vinnie? You rehash crap and expect it to be significant. Face it Vin, you've said nothing about history yet.

Big leap of faith, Vin. You can get hold of Lovecraft's Necronomicon as well, but is it the real thing?



Ummm, I have, Vinnie. That's why I'm trying to tell you you're blowing smoke from the wrong end.



Gosh, 8 lines of evidence? Where? What Eusebius tells us Papias wrote?? Eusebius seems to know more than someone who had the opportunity to have at least second hand information. Eusebius has no way of knowing what he is doing is meaningful at all. A lot of crap was produced in those times. So, you're rehashing what Eusebius reports as though it were surely from the source claimed. They say faith can move mountains, Vinnie. Well, yours seems to move this Eusebius stuff without any trouble. Historians are not so free in their analyses.

Really? Just like I can quote from the Necronomicon? The gullibility factor is high, Vinnie.

Watch it with this abuse stuff, Vinnie.

I cannot help your adherence to untested data. You simply believe and accept. Would you believe and accept the letters of Abgar and Jesus or of Paul and Seneca?

You can't provide any trajectory for the text material you uncritically use from Eusebius. You cannot show from the material that it is historical. You've got nothing up your sleave but belief.


spin