Vinnie

The mere historicity of a figure from antiquity is hardly a supernatural claim. There were lots of people who existed, many of them with the name Jesus. One started a movement. Papias is especially solid because of his attestation of the Gospel of Mark, and an unknown sayings list of Jesus, his attempted connections with the first stratum and written document expounding the oracles of the Lord. That is overkill when it comes to establishing the mere historicity of a person from antiquity. Saying "I sought ought those that knew him and those who knew his original followers and I wrote down a record of his oracles" is enough to establish historicity. Maybe not to some hyper-skeptics, but it is solid enough for me since I see the historicity of a person from antiquity as being a mundane item, one that is hardly worth objecting or disputing.

1 and 2 are meaningless since he left a written record behind that was quoted and it is obvious several people were aware of his work. 3 is also meaningless as everyone has bias. 4 is also useless since Eusebius's bias against Papian eschatology and the book of Revelation is what probably causes this. Otherwise, why insult the man you use to establish the text of Mark and Matthew? 5 is unclear since the identity of the elder John may be the apostle John. I have yet to look at all the relevant literature on that. Moving there soon as I recently looked at all the 2nd century mentions and uses of the synoptic Gospels (AClement, Muratonian Canon, Irenaeus, Tatian, Justin, 2 Clement, Marcion, and next Papias since the consenus dates him here. Why don't you find Gundry's commentary on Mark and write a detailed response to his section on Papias though? At least make an attempt to dialogue with the secondary literature. In addition, Papias collected sayings and claims to have attempted to find first-hand testimony. 6 is not coherent. Mark, M, L, Q and some of Thomas are sources of the alleged words and deeds of a person named Jesus who started a movement in the first third of the first century before being executed by Rome. Of course, each source has to be sifted but the sheer amount of sources and textual evidence, material that goes against the grain, and multiple attestation left behind by this "mythical person" in such a short period of time is mind boggling.

It is no wonder mythicists seem inclined to date all the gospels into the second century. This of course is not justified and runs contrary to virtually all the evidence we have. That is an example of "putting on" to use your own words.


Vinnie

RParvus

Hi Jake,

I think Papias wrote his “Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord” as early as the mid 140s CE and possibly as late as the 150s CE. As the O’Connell reference at the head of this thread notes, this was a common enough position among early twentieth century scholars. It squares with Irenaeus’ claim that Papias was friends with Polycarp. And it also squares with my theory regarding the Apellean origin of John’s Gospel; for there is nothing in the early record to preclude that it was in 140s that Philumena was having her supposed revelations and Apelles was composing the “Manifestations” based on them. Papias may have had knowledge not only of the oral form of the sayings provided by “the living and abiding voice” of Philumena’s phantom boy, but probably even in their written form as doctored by the proto-orthodox for—again, as noted in the O’Connell article—the first six disciples in Papias’ list appear in the same order that they make their appearance in the Fourth Gospel. And if, in fact, Papias was friends with Polycarp, he may have been an influence on him to work out an arrangement with Apelles and his followers.

Papias seems to have collected in his books not only the fabulous creations of Apelles (Aristion?) and Philumena (pseudo-Tertullian describes the “Manifestations” as “private and EXTRAORDINARY lections”), but also those of every Tom, Dick and Harry who claimed to have met one of the elders. Eusebius was clearly embarrassed by the “strange parables” and “fabulous accounts” in the books of Papias. He excuses Papias’ lack of critical judgment on the grounds that Papias was “simple-minded.” I, for once, am inclined to agree with him.

Papias however, although simple-minded, did not let himself be imposed upon by everyone. As a good proto-orthodox Christian, he apparently refused to buy into the claims of the Marcionites. He writes: “I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth; and not those who recalled commandments from STRANGERS, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself.” Marcion called his god the “Stranger” or “Alien,” and he held that, from the standpoint of God, men were “the Strangers” (See p. 80 of Harnack’s “Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God”). Thus, Papias apparently refused to let his gullibility run wild at least when he was dealing with Marcionite sources.

Best regards,

Roger

jakejonesiv

Hi Roger,

Your dating of Papais to 140-150 CE make sense.

Jake

jakejonesiv

What I am saying is this. Ireneaus did not quote Papias about Mark being the interpreter of Peter, and thus writing a gospel. Only Eusebius makes this claim.

Jake

angelo

We know nothing of Papais apart from the very unreliable accounts of Eusebius and Irenaecus who tell us he lived in Asia Minor between 70-140AD, where he allegedly heard the apostle John. But the dating doesn't make sense as I have stated above. I smell a rat. Perhaps this fellow was like many others, a teller of tales, a story teller with perhaps no basis on fact at all.

spin

It's no wonder that you choke at the idea that the gospels weren't written when you'd like them to have. You've invested a lot of emotional commitment to your own apologetic on the issue. Thing is, you have no reliable dating mechanisms for the gospels. Christians have pressed the credibility levels of their own integrity, citing gormless arguments such as

1. the prediction of the destruction of the temple means that it was written before the fall of the temple;
2. palaeographical dating puts John to have been written before 125CE (citing the earliest date from a range given in an extremely old analysis of P52, whose validity has long been challenged);
3. Papias (whose writings we don't have, but who is vouched for by Irenaeus whose credibility you've just impinged elsewhere here and by Eusebius whose credibility is not held in high esteem here) is a reliable witness of hearsay of hearsay; and
4. I'm sure you've got a few others up your sleeve that don't come to my mind but are of a similar worth.

You've got to get over your apologetic tendencies, Vinnie.


spin

Chaucer

And you've got to get over your Jihadist tendencies, Spin.

JoeWallack

JW:

JW:
I still think Victor is putting us on but it sounds so much like an Apologist, how can you be sure? With Apologies to Victor, er, Vinnie, this is the only hard dating of Papias. That Philip wrote a hundred years after Eusebius is apparently an insurmountable problem for Vinnie but Papias writing a hundred years after Jesus is no problem what so ever.

Here is the Philip of Side quote:

http://www.textexcavation.com/papias.html#philipside

JW:

Here is the related Eusebius' quote:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

JW:
We have the following reasons to think it likely that Philip of Side has reasonably reported that Papias did refer to the reign of Hadrian:

1) The words of PS (Philip of Side) indicate this:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

This than is the default position.

2) PS provides provenance for his applicable report:

"Papias in the second volume says"

3) The reference to Hadrian fits the context of the related excerpt:

"He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

4) The applicable phrase of PS is significantly different than the phrase of Quadratus (in English):

PS:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

vs.

Quadratus:

"those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."

JW:
Presumably the above is based on Gundry who's credbility has been impeached many times.

"Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus who addressed an apology to Hadrian. This is the emperor in which Philip places Papias."

The question here for an Apologist is why does Philip quote Papias as using "Hadrian" but Eusebius doesn't? Again, it's already more likely that Eusebius has omitted than Philip has added. Eusebius' reputation for omitting is better that Philip's reputation for adding. Eusebius places Papias in his history before he discusses Hadrian's reign but he places him right before. The chapter summary that follows is probably not original for Hadrian and Eusebius follows by only saying that Quadratus wrote in Hadrian's reign. The point of Eusebius' Papias discussion is to give the chronology of the Apostles and not Papias'. Eusebius' placing Papias directly before Quadratus writing an apology to Hadrian is compatible with Eusebius knowing that Papias used "Hadrian".

"Quadratus' claim that some people healed by Jesus have lived to his own day sounds similar the living and abiding voice mentioned by Papias."

No it doesn't.

"Interstingly, when Philip quotes Papias the phraseology more closely resembles Eusebius' quotation of Quadratus than Papias."

Philip:
"Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

Eusebius:
"9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm."

Again, it should be obvious that Philip's source for Papias is Papias and not Eusebius as Philip has many details above not found in Eusebius and Philip explicitly identifies Papias as his source. Further, trying to claim that Philip's source for Papias in Eusebius is where Eusebius is not referring to Papias rather than where Eusebius is referring to Papias is nonsense and you would have to conflate what Eusebius wrote about Papias, Quadratus and Aristides (where Eusebius uses "Adrian").

Thus we have it on good authority that Papias referred to Hadrian and must be dated post 117 with an implication that it is after Hadrian, post 138. This coordinates with Justin, c.155, never mentioning Papias' or his Apostle tradition, and Irenaeus, c. 177, being the first to be aware of Papias.



Joseph

jakejonesiv

Hi angelo atheist,

I see your point! It may be that Papias was a sock puppet for the church fathers to whom stray bits of uncorroborated rumor could be attributed.

It is noteworthy in this respect that Ireneaus was a chiliast, and he attributes something stupid to Papias concerning his (Ireneaus') millenarian beliefs. Likewise, Eusebius had the stated bias to prive apostolic succession to prop up the authority of the Roman church. So he finds a conveniently unmentioned "testimony" to GMatthew and GMark from a LOST BOOK of Papias that does just that. Apollinarius of Laodicea notes a ludicrous and previously undocumented fate of Judas. Papias was not a reliable witness to anything.

Jake

spin

And you've gotta stop being a christian shill.


spin