Ted Hoffman

Layman stated:
So now that its settled, can Layman now retract this reckless statement or not?

Steven Carr

Papias '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.'

Why did Eusebius not mercilessly discredit this? He passed by it in silence.

Eusebius writes '[The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]' Why did Eusebius not mercilessly attack Papias for using the Gospel according to the Hebrews? He passed by it in silence.

Layman

Nope. Doherty's theory cannot explain the "we passages." Whether he or you or Toto want to admit it, this is problematic for his supposed reconstruction of the Marcionite controversy and the late dating of Acts.

As Kirby concluded, the "we-passages" were likely written by a companion of Paul and this supports a date in the first century. Doherty's alterantive explanation for this fails.

Layman

He likely reacted like many modern Christians, by thinking the accounts were reconcialable. There were already two varying accounts. Not exactly an issue you want to highlight.

I'm not sure what Eusebius' opinion was of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Do you have a reference showing what Eusebius thought of it?

In any event, thank you for noting that he was pointed out a tradition recorded in Papias' books and noted it was not in the Canonical gospels. This actually provides support for my argument that if the Five Books were completley divergent from the Gospels that Eusebius would have said something about it.

Arguing that Papias' five books contained no gospel sayings is based on zero evidence at best. At worst, it is unlikely that Eusebis would not have noted such a thing. Especially if he was going so far as to point out varying accoutns from the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Amaleq13

This is a much more accurate summary. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no reason to assume that either gospel included anything taught by a living Jesus. Paul unequivocably states that he obtained his gospel directly from the Risen Christ and not from any man. If we consider the specifics, it is clear that his gospel involved an inspired reading of Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture will you find the statements "Christ died", "Christ was buried", or "Christ rose again after three days". These can only be divinely inspired interpretations of Scripture. What follows are references to the resurrection experiences of the apostles. I have no problem accepting that Paul's gospel was in complete agreement with that of the Jerusalem group on these points. What is entirely lacking, however, is substantiation for your assumption that this also included teachings based on a ministry conducted by a living Jesus.

If you consider the apparently divinely revealed Scriptural information and the stories of the resurrection appearances to the apostles to represent “apostolic tradition” then I agree that there is evidence of this in Paul’s letters. What you want to add seems to come from the Gospel stories and you have offered no legitimate basis for that addition.

First, by referring to the original apostles as "disciples" (something Paul never says or even implies) but is found in the Gospel stories. Second, by trying to gather the recollections of those who were followers of those apostles or followers of those followers.This is exactly how an "apostolic tradition" is created.

He refers to a book he claims represents the recollections of Peter and to one he claims to be a collection of "oracles" collected by Matthew and written in Hebrew. Without those attributions, there is no connection to apostles. Why should we assume these attributions are anything other than Papias’ own opinions or based on a similarly unreliable source like the one he uses for the death of Judas?

Scholars agree that the Gospels were originally anonymous. The later addition of attribution to original apostles (directly and indirectly) creates the appearance of an apostolic tradition but there is no reason to assume that appearance reflects reality. As we have seen, there is no suggestion of any such tradition in the letters of Paul and, arguably, very explicit statements that appear to deny it.

I’m not suggesting he invented the existence of the books. I’m saying we have no reason to assume the apostolic connections he asserts date any earlier than Papias.

This is possible though not explicitly stated. However, that should cause one to question why Papias would prefer oral traditions over written texts if those texts were known to have been written by disciples of the living Jesus. Apparently, he considered the oral tradition to be more reliable despite his belief that at least two could be connected to original apostles.

I don’t see how moving the date for Papias back 15 years changing anything except to make his creation of an “apostolic tradition” a little earlier. It still post-dates the first Gospel story where the apostles are originally portrayed as disciples of a living Jesus.

They are “there” in Papias but we have no reason to assume they can be traced to a “there” predating the first Gospel story. The most reasonable explanation of the evidence is that this is where the "tradition" began.

This is your opinion but you offer nothing to suggest it should be assumed to be true. Papias seems to me to be creating the appearance of an apostolic tradition because there is no trace of it prior to the first Gospel story.

Again, this appears to only your opinion. There is no indication in the text that Papias is repeating information he learned a long time ago.

This seems reasonable but I would add there is no reason to assume that any of the information can be reliably traced back to men who were disciples of a living Jesus. We can’t even reliably trace them back to men who were the original apostles.

On the contrary, what I am intent on doing is not accepting assumptions that lack sufficient justification. There is no basis for the assumption that Paul included an “apostolic tradition” that included teachings from a living Jesus in his gospel. There is no basis for the assumption that Paul understood the original apostles to have been disciples of a living Jesus. There is no basis for the assumption that Papias had information that could be reliably traced back to disciples of a living Jesus. It is even questionable whether you can establish that his information can be reliably traced to the original apostles.

Your entire argument requires that these assumptions be taken as true but you have not offered anything even remotely approaching sufficient justification for any of them.

Layman

Except that Paul explicitly tells us that Jesus was a human being, you mean?

You are doing what JA has fallen into doing. Claiming that there can be no Apostolic Tradition because there was no historical Jesus. That's fine I suppose, but Doherty was saying something more by arguing that there was not the "barest concept" of a multi-generational tradition handed down from the apostles.

You are being anachronistic in your understanding of what gospel means.

Really? Then why does Paul never say that?

Since Jerusalem Church already believed this stuff, how can Paul claim to have come upon it himself by his own reading of scripture? Obviously he means something else.

Like I said, you have relegated yourself to simply assuming the Jesus Myth and therefore denying the Apostolic Tradition.

My point is this. Paul learned, accepted, and propogated traditions from the Christians before him. Thus, his claim to have received the "Gospel" through revelation is not a denial of the existence of the apostlic tradition. There was such a tradition and he knew that even divinely inspiried revelation had to be subordinated to it.

Yes, the resurrection appearances are examples of the apostolic tradition. As is the died, buried, and resurrected creed he expresses therein. Thus, the Jerusalem Church propogated specific creeds and enforced -- the extent it could -- adherance to those creeds. Even for other apostles like Paul.

Which is much more consistent with the "barest concept" of an Apostolic Tradition than with the rioutous diversity espoused by Doherty and JA.

So you think Papias simply invented these people?

We should think this is someting other than Papias' own personal opinion because it was told to him by someone a generation closer to the Jersualem Church ("And the presbyter said this.").

Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, at 66.

I would add that if Doherty's late dating of Mark is correct, the tradition is even closer in time to its composition.

You can assume Papias is lying. But the only reason for doing so is to preserve your own presumptions.

How reliable the tradition is not really all that relevant to Doherty's rgument That it existed among the generation of Christians preceding Papias is enough to establish at least "the barest concept" of an Apostolic Tradition.

And since you seem to think some of the Gospels were written after Papias, why do you assume his account of Judas is unreliable?

Having conceded that Paul collected and passed on traditions from the Jerusalem Church, you can only argue there was no apostolic tradition indicated by his letters by assuming that there was no historical Jesus.

And you seem to misunderstand what scholars mean by "anonymous." They do not mean that no one knew who wrote them, they mean that the Gospel texts themselves do not identify the author. There is no reason to think that the Four Gospel authors wrote in secret. Their communities knew who the authors were.

Except that Papias tells us that the apostolic connections are earler than him. So you do not think Papias invented the existence of the books, but you do think that he invented his source for that information?

I see no indication in Papias' writings that he thought the books were unreliable. He certainly expresses no doubt about their apostolic origins. Far from it: "Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them."
In any event, Papias believed there was plenty more to be learned from those who knew the apostles themselves.

Our modern preference for written sources is something of an anachronism. The ancients often valued oral tradition very highly.

Doherty argued that there was not even the barest concept of an apostolic tradition in the first century. Papias shows he was wrong. Very wrong. There was already established traditions about apostolic sources of information about Jesus in the first century. It also proves troublesome for Doherty's arguments that the gospels were midrash. If they are to be dated around the end of the first century, no one else in the church seems to have been reading them as midrash. Far from it.

No, your undrestanding is unreasonable. Papais tells us he got these traditions from others who preceded him. You can only assume the tradition began with him by assuming he's lying. And the only reason to assume he is lying is because you can't see past your grasping of the Jesus Myth.

So you counter my "opinion" with nothing more than your own? My "opinion" has the advantage of actually reading what Papias wrote. Yours is based on denying almost everything that he wrote.

Sure there is. Papias writes as one reflecting on his career:

All this is in the past tense. And phrases like "stored up with care" indicate that Papias is reflecting on a history of this pracitce in his life.

Papias knew people who claimed to be disciples of the Apostles. Many of them by his own accounts. They freely told him about Jesus' teachings and deed. He wrote down their traditions. These people undoutedbly lived in the first century. This alone shows the widespread existence of an Apostolic Tradition in the First Century.

And on what basis do you assume all these men were liars?

Actually, you are assuming that Papias is lying that John told him about Mark and Mattew writing gospels. You assume he is lying about meeting several people who claimed to be disciples of Jesus. You assume, apparently, that anyone who told Papias that was also lying.

Sure there is. You have conceded that Paul accepted and passed along traditions from the Jerusalem Church. I have shown in several places that Paul believed that Jesus was a human being with an earthly ministry. Paul explicitly cites to the teachings of this human Jesus and shows many allusions to other such teachings.

In any event, I was referring to your reading of Papias.

Except that Papias tells us that he knew many people who claimed to know the discipes of Jesus and were willing to pass along what they had learned from them.

Reliability is less of an issue than the mere existence of such claimants in the first century.

Actually, all my argument requires is that Papias did not lie about everything he wrote. Your refutation requires that we assume he did lie about just about everything he wrote.

Toto

Doherty has no obligation to explain the "we" passages.

They could be:

• part of an eyewitness account of travel included in the later version of Acts (one of the many sources Luke used)
• a literary device used by the author of Luke-Acts to add drama to the tale, even if there is no proof that this sort of literary device was common
• a literary device used by the author to imply personal participation, which he knew to be fictional
• just unexplained and unexplainable

Even if the "we" passages indicate that a companion of Paul's wrote those passages, there is no reason to assume that all of Luke-Acts was written at the same time. This literary consstruction is not proof that stories of the apostlic succession date to the time of Paul.

Layman

He has no obligation to do anything. But so far Kirby's article appears to provide the best explanation.

Amaleq13

I wrote:
Unfortunately for your argument, there is no reason to assume that either gospel included anything taught by a living Jesus.

Clearly untrue but entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Please avoid creating tangential arguments and try to focus on my actual posts (i.e. the absence of substantiation for your assumptions).

I won't speak for Jacob but, if you carefully read my posts, you will find that none of my arguments assume or require the assumption of a mythical Jesus. Please avoid creating tangential arguments and focus on my actual posts questioning the basis for your assumptions.

I'm not arguing "for" Doherty but I am questioning the basis for your as-yet unsubstantiated assumptions.

I wrote:
Paul unequivocably states that he obtained his gospel directly from the Risen Christ and not from any man.

How so? It would be anachronistic to apply the later meaning of the term (i.e. texts attributed to Mk,Mt,Lk,Jn) but that is not what I am doing. I'm understanding Paul with Paul:

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11-12, NASB)

"And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man, for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12, YLT)

I wrote:
If we consider the specifics, it is clear that his gospel involved an inspired reading of Scripture.

Paul states that he obtained his gospel as a revelation from the Risen Christ and not from any man.

Paul states that part of that gospel (i.e. Christ died, buried, resurrected) is "according to Scripture".

Given that there is no Scripture that explicitly states any of these things, the only reasonable conclusion is that part of the revelation from the Risen Christ was a new understanding of specific passages of Scripture.

I am simply using Paul to understand Paul. I have no idea why Paul does not state this explicitly nor is that actually relevant to the credibility of the conclusion.

You seem to have it entirely backward. That accepting Paul at face value fails to support your argument does not require a reinterpretation of Paul.

Paul explicitly states that his gospel came from a direct revelation from the Risen Christ.

Paul explicitly states that his gospel did not come from any man.

Paul also states that his gospel and the gospel preached by the Jerusalem group agree.

The only reasonable conclusion is that both Paul and the Jerusalem group obtained the same "inspired" understanding of Scripture.

I wrote:
I have no problem accepting that Paul's gospel was in complete agreement with that of the Jerusalem group on these points. What is entirely lacking, however, is substantiation for your assumption that this also included teachings based on a ministry conducted by a living Jesus.

Again, please read my posts carefully. You will not find the historicity of Jesus questioned nor the assumption of a mythical Jesus as part of any of my posts. Not that it is relevant but I had already concluded that the "apostolic tradition" was a late development well before I started questioning the historicity of Jesus. This conclusion was based on the evidence of Paul and the evidence of Papias while I assumed Jesus to have been historical.

This is explicitly denied by Paul when he asserts he did not obtain his gospel from any man. It is also denied when he asserts that the Jerusalem group "added nothing" to the gospel he presented to them. Why do you assume Paul was lying when he made these statements?

True. He denies this notion when he denies obtaining his gospel from any man and also when denies that the Jerusalem group added anything to his gospel. I see no reason to assume he was lying in either case.

If we rely on what Paul actually says, none of the above is supported.

Since Paul does not specifically indicate this information to have been obtained from an inspired reading of Scripture or from a revelation by the Risen Christ nor explicitly deny that it came from any man, it is possible that he obtained it from a human source. I'm not sure the subsequent list can be considered part of his gospel as much as it is evidence that the last Scripturally-based declaration was true (i.e. that Christ rose from the dead).

No, this information Paul describes as based on a divinely inspired reading of Scripture.

No. There seems to be no reason to doubt that Papias talked with people who claimed to have been followers of the apostles or followers of the followers of the apostles.

I wrote:
He refers to a book he claims represents the recollections of Peter and to one he claims to be a collection of "oracles" collected by Matthew and written in Hebrew. Without those attributions, there is no connection to apostles. Why should we assume these attributions are anything other than Papias’ own opinions or based on a similarly unreliable source like the one he uses for the death of Judas?

Contrary to Hengel, the "presbyter" source is not identified by Papias and only the reference to Peter's recollections is so attributed. For this claim, then, why should we assume that an unnamed alleged follower of one of an apostle or follower of a follower of an apostle is a reliable source? For the other attribution, the question remains valid. Why should we assume that Papias had reliable information with regard to the collection of "oracles" written in Hebrew by Matthew?

If these attributions were legitimate, why weren't these enormously valuable texts preserved? Even the Catholic Study Bible doubts Papias' claims:

"Petrine influence should not be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources - miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion - so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day." (p.67 of the NT section)

At most, I have suggested that Papias might be just as mistaken as he apparently was in his understanding of the death of Judas or his attribution of 2 Baruch to Jesus. I'm asking why we should assume that these attributions are more reliable than his other information?

I'm not sure that it true since an unreliable tradition hardly argues against his thesis but I'm not arguing for Doherty. I'm questioning your claims and an unreliable tradition certainly is relevant to your assertion of an apostolic tradition that can be reliably traced back to Paul and the Jerusalem group.

I have no idea where you obtained this assumption about my dating of the Gospels but it is incorrect. In fact, I have clearly indicated that I consider the Gospel story to predate Papias. As for his story about the death of Judas, maybe it is just me but I don't consider it credible when he claims Judas' body was so swollen that a chariot squished him while trying to pass him on the street. Do you?

I concede that it is possible that he obtained his list of resurrection appearances from humans rather than by revelation. That's it. The text of his letters fails to support any of your other assumptions.

On the contrary, I am quite aware of what it meant and nothing I wrote suggests otherwise. The texts are understood to have originally lacked any indication of the authors' identities. The apostolic attributions are understood to be later additions. They are not understood to have been written by the apostles.

"In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition. The task is difficult indeed, for these documents are all products of Christian churches in the second half of the 1st century A.D." (Meier, Marginal Jew, vol 2, p.5)

I wrote:
I’m saying we have no reason to assume the apostolic connections he asserts date any earlier than Papias.

No, he attributes one to an unidentified person who was or at least claimed to be a "presbyter" and the other is unattributed. What Papias meant by a "presbyter" is, of course, unclear. According to the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

"...Irenaeus and Eusebius, who had the work of Papias before them, understand the Presbyters to be not Apostles, but disciples of disciples of the Lord, or even disciples of disciples of Apostles. The same meaning is given to the word by Clement of Alexandria." (www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)

I have no reason to doubt that someone calling himself a "presbyter" (or referring to himself in a way suggesting to Papias this was an appropriate title) provided the information about the text attributed to Mark to Papias. What does seem reasonable, given the apparent unreliability of some of his other information, is to question why we should assume this information to be reliable. You have offered no substantive or credible reply so far except that it supports your conclusion. I prefer to read the evidence in order to reach a conclusion rather than first assuming a conclusion and then reading the evidence so that it fits. I consider this to be a more reliable approach.

Again, I'm not arguing for Doherty but questioning your assumptions. That said, neither Papias nor his "presbyter" offer any support for a first century tradition. They offer evidence of a developing tradition in the early second century.

Papias met people who claimed to have been either disciples of the apostles or disciples of the disciples of the apostles. At least some of their information appears to have been faulty. Why should we assume any of it was reliable?

I thought you said you had read Papias. This is not something Papias says. He attributes the reference to "Mark" to an unidentified "presbyter" and offers no source for the reference to Matthew's "oracles". It is Eusebius who suggests this individual was named "John".

NOGO

Coming from a believer this is a rather astonishing statement.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as divine inspiration?
And therefore Paul had to have gotten his information from another man.

He is then a liar, unless you can come up with that something else which you claim he meant.

So, Paul is either a liar or there was no apostolic tradition.

Amaleq13:
Excellent job!
Layman wants to believe that we assume that Jesus is a myth and conclude that there was no apostolic tradition when in fact two things are quite obvious from the discussion

1. Layman assumes an HJ and concludes that Paul got it from apostolic tradition independent of what Paul says.

2. The absence of apostolic tradition in Paul leads to the logical conclusion that there was no HJ.