spin

Papias is reported to have said:

Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect, and every one translated it as he was able.

As Matthew is a synoptic gospel, derived from Mark, and as the Greek is an improvement over Mark and shows no signs of having been retranslated from Greek through a Semitic language, we should be able to safely conclude that the report assigned to Papias does not deal with the gospel we have of Matthew, which is attested to from the 2nd c. CE.

And on Mark Papias is reported to have said,

Mark being the interpreter of Peter, whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, but not, however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but, as before said, was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses.

The gospel of Mark, which shows no special point of view reflecting the perceptions of a specific disciple, cannot be considered to be derived from Peter as described by the Papias report.

This means that what Papias has to say about the gospels doesn't reflect what we know about those gospels named as the report names them. Either the report is wrong it it reflects different gospels though bearing the same names from those we know. The latter is possible but is more complex than the first option, suggesting that the first is the more likely.

One of the ironies of quotes attributed to Papias is that he was supposed to have gathered all sorts of information regarding the apostolic times and their memories of Jesus' time, yet almost none of it has survived attached to his name. One of the few is this gem:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

Yet another version of Judas's death. Is it any more credible than the ones supplied by Matt and Acts? (There is of course a certain similarity with the Acts account, but substantially different enough to say that it wasn't derived from Acts.) Once again we have material which doesn't reflect well on the quality of information attributed to have come from Papias. The information about what Papias was supposed to have known doesn't compare well with what we know of the literature.

The earliest report about Papias is from Irenaeus, c.180 CE, who links Papias to Polycarp as a companion, though Polycarp, who at least acknowledges Ignatius in a late letter, gives no knowledge of the companionship with Papias. The report comes 75 years after the reputed time of Papias. Irenaeus has a predisposition to favoring traditions which were considered apostolic, but this doesn't provide us with any solid evidence for being able to date Papias at all. We cannot simply trust reports cited in one father or another, especially reports which are not claimed to have been first hand, so the vain attempts to date Papias serious must fall. Reports that are not first hand are often immediately questionable... the pastor's uncle's mistress's butcher said quality material. Should we consider the story attributed to Papias about his having known the daughters of Philip?

Dating Papias from the information we have seems like necromancy rather than historical research. Using what Papias is reputed to have said is seen as questionable at best. What can be usefully achieved mining the Papias tradition? Anything based on the material seems to have little value.


spin

Vinnie

This quote is far more complicated then most people realize and involves doing a lot more research to safely conclude anything in regards to it.

About a billion people throughout history have disagreed with this perception of yours and have had no problem with a Petrine origin to this. If you grant traditional authorship here Mark is simply recalling things as he remembered them, and in no specific order. I am sure a few other sources may have been involved. We do not have to believe Mark endured the verbal plenary inspiration from Peter who was dictating the gospel to him. Recollection works just as well and there are a few scenes, IIRC, which hint at first hand info from Peter. But omniscient narrating explains this just as well.


Papias comments correspond to Mark surprisingly well unless we anachronistically force the acumen of a modern biographer onto Mark who was writing an apology for the cross.

Who needs Papias when you have a four-fold gospel written by alleged eyewitnesses?

There is no indication any apostles of Jesus witnessed Judas' death or how he died. Matthew's text rips the OT and Luke creates his own codign ending. The certain thing is that in antiquity codign endings were manufactured for infamous individuals. Maybe we should tell Mark Goodacre that Luke could not have known Matthew because he changed the story about Judas' death? I tend to think otherwise.

Irrelevant and meaningless argument from silence unless you can establish that Polycarp made it a habit to name all his acquantiances in his writings.

Irenaeus wrote 75 years after the time of Papias. Big difference in your view whereas earlier equals better. Is this a historical criterion you ar marshalling out, much like the Fist Stratum (FS) one that I employ?

In historical investigation, is time necessarily more important than a line of transmission? I think not, and I bet most historians would agree.

Finally, as I noted, Irenaeus is reputed to have been a pupil of Polycarp. The means for the accurate transmission of this datum is right in front of our noses. Papias & Polycarp, Polycarp & Irenaeus.

Then its good we have a number of different lines of evidence all attesting this early date. Also, I see no reason to suppose that Papias could not have been told by a Daughter of Philip that she rose from the dead. One can be the staunchest materialist in existence and still grant that Papias was told this story. The datum stands. What we should simply trust is to not abide by the naturalistic tendency to immediately toss out anything supernatural as entiely worthless.

Your post looks like a lawyer attempting to cast doubt on things. Try casting that doubt on the skepticism you embrace

Vinnie

Vinnie

Oh, and just to throw a monkey wrench into the issue, I think there are actually two forms of Papias' description of Judas' ending. They are both in here somewhere...

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

mountainman

The facts are that Eusebius informs us that both Bishop Papias
and Bishop Ireneus considered Jesus to have lived until old age.


IRENAEUS (120-c. 200) Saint, Martyr, Bishop of Lyons; ex-
Pagan of Smyrna, who emigrated to Gaul and became Bishop;
"information of his life is scarce, and [as usual] in some measure
inexact. ... Nothing is known of the date of his death, which may
have occurred at the end of the second or beginning of the third
century." (CE., vii, 130.) How then is it known that he was a
Martyr? Of him Photius, ablest early critic in the Church, warns
that in some of his works "the purity of truth, with respect to
ecclesiastical traditions, is adulterated by his false and spurious
readings" (Phot.; Bibl. ch. cxx); -- though why this invidious
distinction of Irenaeus among all the clerical corruptors of
"tradition" is not clear. The only surviving work of Irenaeus in
four prolific Books is his notable Adversus Haereses, or, as was
its full title, "A Refutation and Subversion of Knowledge falsely
so Called," -- though he succeeds in falsely subverting no little
real knowledge by his own idle fables. This work is called "one of
the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity." Bishop St.
Irenaeus quotes one apt sentiment from Homer, the precept of which
he seems to approve, but which he and his Church confreres did not
much put into practice:

"Hateful to me that man as Hades' gates,
Who one thing thinks, while he another states."
(Iliad, ix, 312, 313; Adv. Haer. III, xxxiii, 3.)

JESUS DIED OF OLD AGE!

Most remarkable of the "heresies" attacked and refuted by
Bishop Irenaeus, is one which had just gained currency in written
form in the newly published "Gospels of Jesus Christ," in the form
of the "tradition" that Jesus had been crucified to death early in
the thirties of his life, after a preaching career of only about
one year, according to three of the new Gospels, of about three
years, according to the fourth. This is rankly false and
fictitious, on the "tradition" of the real gospel and of all the
Apostles, avows Bishop Irenaeus, like Bishop Papias earlier in the
century; and he boldly combated it as "heresy." It is not true, he
asserts, that Jesus Christ died so early in life and after so brief
a career. "How is it possible," be demands, "that the Lord preached
for one year only?"; and on the quoted authority of John the
Apostle himself, of "the true Gospel," and of "all the elders," the
saintly Bishop urges the falsity and "heresy" of the Four Gospels
on this crucial point. Textually, and with quite fanciful
reasonments, he says that Jesus did not die so soon:

"For he came to save all through means of Himself -- all,
I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and
children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore
passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus
sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying
those who are of this age; a youth for youths, and thus
sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man
for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not
merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as
regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and
becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came
on to death itself, that He might be 'the first-born from the
dead.'

"They, however, that they may establish their false
opinion regarding that which is written, 'to proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord,' maintain that he preached for
one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In
speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage,
destroying His work and robbing Him of that age which is both
more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more
advanced age, I mean, during which also, as a teacher, He
excelled all others. ...

"Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty
years, and that this extends onward to the fortieth year,
every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year
a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord
possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,
even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were
conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord,
(affirming) that John conveyed to them that information. AND
HE REMAINED AMONG THEM UP TO THE TIMES OF TRAJAN [Roman
Emperor, A.D. 98-117]. Some of them, moreover, saw not only
John, but the other Apostles also, and heard the very same
account from them, and bear testimony as to [the validity of
] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe?" (Iren.
Adv. Haer. Bk. II, ch. xxii, secs. 3, 4, 5; ANF. I, 891-2.)

The Bishop's closing question is pertinent, and we shall come
back to it in due course.

Irenaeus also vouches his belief in magic arts, repeating as
true the fabulous stories of Simon Magus and his statue in the
Tiber and the false recital of the inscription on it; and as a
professional heresy-hunter he falls upon Simon as the Father of
Heresy: "Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all heresies derive
their origin. ... The successor of this man was Menander, also a
Samaritan by birth; and he, too, was a perfect adept in the
practice of magic." (Adv. Haer. I, xxiii; ANF. i, 348.)

-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930

spin

Don't let me stop you, Vinnie, from doing any research. However, the gospel of Matthew is clearly a linguistic development on the Greek text of Mark and nothing directly to do with any Hebrew text.

Vinnie, perhaps this billion might convince you if you indeed needed any convincing, but you know that reality has nothing to do with popularity. Firstly there is some purely non-historical source materials in Mark, the temptation scene for example or the garden of Gethsemane. Let's eliminate them in an effort to see if there is anything one can attribute to Peter. Let's eliminate the first half chapter before the appearance of Peter. In the six chapters which follow the reference to Peter's house, there is no mention of Peter whatsoever except for the standardized list of apostles. That's a deafening silence from the Petrine background of the gospel. Please don't listen to the crowd, Vinnie. Get to the text and work from it.

Eusebian attestations of what Papias is supposed to have said.

One certainly needs something. Both Luke and Matt are derived from Mark and cannot therefore be considered independent witnesses, so we can forget them as eye witnesses from the start, especially when the both share a literary source beside Mark, be it independent or a source one based on the other. Four-fold is more blindfold.

Does this do anything to rehabilitate Papias as a worthy secondhand source?

It's not meaningless. We have a silence from the reputed time of Papias until Irenaeus breaks that silence to tell us a tiny bit about Papias, eg Polukarpou de etairos. It's only natural to look for a little confirmation of the claim. I don't make a big thing out of it. I do make a big thing out of the fact that there is nothing historical to support what we know about Papias. The best evidence for his existence is that people didn't seem to like what he wrote.

I don't know your reference to "Fist Stratum". Earlier guarantees information more likely to have come from the period under question, so indirectly earlier equals better, yes.

I don't know what you mean when there is no sign of transmission of the tradition until it appears 75 years after the reputed facts.

Does Irenaeus give indications of having been a student of Polycarp or is this yet another later tradition that we have as baggage to accept without any real basis?

I think our task here is one of history. That's how I approach the issue. If you want to believe the report about the daughters of Philip, that's fine but there are no independent reports dealing with Papias which are at all helpful. We must always start with Irenaeus. What Papias may or may not have said is hard to discern coming only from the mouths of much later reporters.

What I am trying to do is be historical in procedure. I trust the Papias stuff not much more than I trust the Ebion stuff.

Anyway, it's good to see you out and about and I hope you've recovered fully.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Psst, Spin. Read this post again. I invite you to consider the Possibility that someone can write something without really believing it.



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

I think Pete is referring to the following statement:

But that the age of thirty years is the prime of life for a youth, and it extends up to the fortieth year, everyone will allow it to be confessed; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year it declines already into the senior age, which our Lord had while he was teaching, just as the gospel and all the elders, who had dwelled with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia, testify that John delivered. For he remained with them until the times of Trajan. But some of them saw, not only John, but also other apostles, and heard these same things from them, and testify concerning the previously related matter.

You can find this on my page about the traditions of the elders.

The problem, of course, is that the one who remained, supposedly, until the times of Trajan was John, not Jesus. (This is exactly how Eusebius takes it in his Chronicle: Irenaeus and others report that John the theologian and apostle remained in life until the times of Trajan...; see my page on Papias) Another wrinkle is that Irenaeus does not explicitly attribute any of this to Papias, though the suggestion itself is worthy of consideration.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

The daughter of Phillip!

Eusebius wrote that Papias wrote what a daughter of Phillip (Acts 21:8-9) said and that Ariston said that either Prester John or Apostle John said that Mark wrote about what Peter said about what Jesus did.

Casper

What would be the connection between Marcion and Papias?

Were they contemporaries or not?

Was papias referring to Marcion's gospel, and Eusebius (ironically) unaware of this?

Were papias and Marcion really just two different manifestations of the same Catholic bogeyman?

Amaleq13

Hey Vinnie,

Glad to see you back! :wave:

What percentage of that "billion" reached their conclusion on the basis of faith rather than the evidence? Faith allows one to have no problem accepting all sorts of idiotic notions. What evidence leads one to that conclusion? I don't see anything in the story that would suggest Peter as the ultimate source and much that suggests someone not particularly fond of Peter.

I don't find this to be at all true of Mark's story but I'm willing to consider whatever specific passages you think supports it.