GakuseiDon

I wonder if that's true. (Below is part of my review of Doherty's book that didn't make the cut, mainly because I wasn't out to push for a HJ.)

We have fragments from Papias that suggest that Papias knew people who knew people who knew Christ. I agree that it's a bit of a long chain, but then Papias himself appears to have been born early (Doherty gives 60 CE to 140 CE).

According to the earlychristianwritings website on Papias:

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).

Papias himself describes how he met those who knew the disciples found in the Gospels, because "what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice". This suggests that there were books circulating (though probably not the Gospels of Mark and Matthew we know) as well as a tradition of oral memory available.

Papias writes (my emphasis):

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or 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 Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

The implications are clear: here is an early writer, living around 60 CE to 140 CE, who had met people who knew the disciples listed in the Gospels. Given the time-frame for when Papias lived, there is nothing particularly incredible about anything above.

What is Doherty's view? Some quotes from Doherty on Papias (my emphasis):

Modern catalogues of the various fragments of or about Papias usually list as No. 1 a quotation from Irenaeus in the late 2nc century (Againast Heresies, Bl. V, 33.3-4). This fragment closely parallels a passage (29:4-8) in 2 Baruch, a Jewish apocalyptic work written around the end of the 1st century CE...

This attribution to Jesus of a passage taken from a Jewish writing illustrates not only the unreliability of Papias' own judgment or the traditions he is using about what Jesus had said, it is a good example of the widespread phenomenon of attaching current wisdom, ethical and prophetic material--even that contained in non-Christian sources--to the figure of Jesus, as the latter progressed from myth to history. It casts doubt on everything Papias says, or is reported to have said. Alternatively, if Irenaeus is mistaken, it casts doubt on all the later traditions about Papias and his writings, including in Eusebius. (Page 466)

Doherty goes on to make "a number of fairly secure conclusions" (page 467) about the fragments found in early writings about Papias. My summary:

(1) Papias himself had not seen the Mark and Matthew documents
(2) The gospels may or may not have circulated under the names of "Mark" and "Matthew". Doherty writes, "Papias does not specify that this is what they were called, but simply who the reputed compilers were." (Page 467)
(3) Those documents were highly unlikely to be our versions of Mark and Matthew
(4) Doherty writes: "Some scholars assume that Papias possessed copies of these documents, even that he discussed the Gospel sayings of Jesus in his work. This is patently impossible... If Papias had actually discussed anything from the Gospels we know, there can be no doubt that Eusebius, having Papias' work in front of him, would have thrown a spotlight on it." (Page 468)
(5) "Whatever Papias' second-hand description referred to, it is possible that traditions like these were drawn on later when it came time, probably a little after Justin, for the Church to decide who might have written the Gospel accounts of Jesus of Nazareth." (Page 468)

Doherty also writes (my emphasis):

We might further note that Papias' lost work is focused on collected sayings of the Lord, which could imply that the documents he mentions conformed to that genre. That these were haphazard, unorganized collections is further suggested by all the apology about them which Papias expresses. This in turn suggests that such collections may have had nothing to do with a Jesus figure originally, and only seemed "unordered" as a picture of his ministry when they were assigned to such a figure. (Page 468)

I never finished this part in my review, because I decided it didn't fit with the intent of the review. But, Holy Ravioli!, Doherty's points are weak, weak, weak. If the fragments we have accurately represent what Papias wrote, then that is good evidence that the disciples existed and, by extension, Jesus as well.

Toto

I don't see Doherty's arguments as that weak. All you can say is that IF the fragments are accurate, that some people existed who had the same names as the disciples or early followers listed in the gospels. Papias calls them the disciples of the Lord. If Jesus was a spirit, the existence of disciples of the Lord does not show that Jesus existed.

It always seemed strange to me that Papias did not ask about the sayings of Jesus. Why ask about the sayings of the disciples and not Jesus himself?

And of course, this fragment comes to us from Eusebius, for his own purposes.

GakuseiDon

Maybe Doherty should add this to his other points. It fits right in.

spamandham

Why is Papias writing in the past tense?

GakuseiDon

Another good point for Doherty to include in his next edition!

GakuseiDon

Just so that people won't think I am being needlessly sarcastic:

Papias also apparently wrote:

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings.

Papias apparently wrote:

For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith...

So he was assuming that those he asked had got their info from the Lord.
He goes on:

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or 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 Lord's disciples... For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

He was after "the living and abiding voice". It seems he asked those who knew the disciples about what the disciples had said, THEIR voice. At least, that's how it comes across.

You mean, about those who attended to the elders? I guess it was because they were dead. At the least, Papias was writing about the past.

Sheshbazzar

Of course they took in abandoned children, still do. The Priesthood has always been on the lookout for fresh meat, the more innocent and ignorant the better for 'instruction' in the mysteries of 'Christian love'.

aa5874

So, the historical Jesus is based on HALLUCINATIONS, I mean YOUR IMAGINATION.

Please don't ever tell me anything about your Jesus that you don't know anything about.

You don't even know if Jesus was ever alive.

YOU Remember "PAUL" was HALLUCINATING????

Don't ever forget.

Now, I know what HJ really means.

HALLUCINATION JESUS.

Chili

. . . and yet he is iconic so we can relate to him and that alone and in itself means he is real and we are not.

Kapyong

Gday,

Do you really believe the Peter and James that Paul refers to actually met Jesus?
And that they wrote the books named after them?
Really?

That means Peter and James did NOT write the books named after them. Do you still think they met Jesus and did the things mentioned in the NT?

The fact that even NO Christian claims to have met Jesus, argues that Jesus never existed (apart from the late forged 2 Peter.)


What eye-witnesses?
There is no historical evidence for eye-witnesses.


IF?
In fact there is NO historical evidence of any original companions, nor is there any evidence of any such documents.


The lack of CHRISTIANs claiming to have met Jesus argues AGAINST his existence. If someone HAD met Jesus they would shout it from the rooftops.


It is quite clear we have NO eye-witness accounts. NO Christian ever claimed to have met Jesus, or Mary, or Joseph, or Lazarus etc.

This argues it never happened at all..


K.