Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 07-28-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vinnie,

Your statistics are based on certain assumptions about the reliable nature of Eusebius' reporting what Papias actually wrote.

One may use statistics in the same way to figure out the real age of Batman's sidekick Robin. Robin is referred to as being a teenager in a 1940 comic book of Batman and referred to as being a teenager in a 1980 comic book of Batman. The average age of a teenage let us say is 16. If we take the 1940 comic, and subtract 16 years, we get a birthdate of 1924 If we take the 1980 comic, and subtract 16, we get a birth date of 1964. Taking an average between 1924 and 1964, we get a date of 1944. Thus we can say that Robin was born in 1944.

Since we have a definite and real birthdate for Robin, we may say that Robin is a solid witness that Batman was definitely born before 1944.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Papias is an especially solid witness to the historical Jesus since he probably wrote ca. 105 C.E. Papias also attests to the sayings of a historical individual in the first third of the first century as does Mark, M, L, Q and some of Thomas. Those are merely the first century references, btw.

Vinnie

Its not difficult to copy what someone wrote. Eusebius may have copied him wrong but that same problem extends to many other authors in antiquity as well. We have no reason to doubt what Eusebius writes about Papias since he thinks the man of small intelligence to begin with.

Vinnie · 07-28-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

How can Papias be a witness to the historical Jesus if he isn't even a witness to the "original" apostles? He asks his contemporaries what these original apostles said, meaning that he was at least one generation removed from them.

Irenaeus calls him a hearer or the apostle John. I'm not sure if I accept that but Papias may very well have been born some time in the second two thirds of the first century. The possibility of hearing original followers of Jesus and those they directly converted is a viable option. A line of transmission is there.

Vinnie

Edited to add....don't forget the stated acquaintance with the daughters of Philip.

Vinnie · 07-28-2009, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derec

I do not think Papias is a particularly reliable witness for anything. After all, this is what he wrote about Judas:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apollinarius of Laodicea

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before choking. And this the Acts of the Apostles makes clear, that falling headlong his middle burst and his bowels poured forth. And Papias the disciple of John records this most clearly, saying thus in the fourth of the Exegeses of the Words of the Lord:
Judas walked about as an example of godlessness in this world, having been bloated so much in the flesh that he could not go through where a chariot goes easily, indeed not even his swollen head by itself. For the lids of his eyes, they say, were so puffed up that he could not see the light, and his own eyes could not be seen, not even by a physician with optics, such depth had they from the outer apparent surface. And his genitalia appeared more disgusting and greater than all formlessness, and he bore through them from his whole body flowing pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. And after many tortures and torments, they say, when he had come to his end in his own place, from the place became deserted and uninhabited until now from the stench, but not even to this day can anyone go by that place unless they pinch their nostrils with their hands, so great did the outflow from his body spread out upon the earth. [4]

As found here.

Oh yeah, don't forget that he also perpetuated miraculous claims such as an individual drinking the venom of a viper and living and the raising of Manaemus from the dead!

Vinnie

Vinnie · 07-28-2009, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Vinnie - nice to see you back. :wave:

Hey Toto, how have you been?

Vinnie

Roger Pearse · 07-28-2009, 11:30 AM

I think that we would be better off referring to this for the passage from Apollinaris.

I'd be interested to know just where this comes from. I get the impression that this is material from catenas; but which ones? Does "Apollinaris" appear as a lemma in the catenas?

andrewcriddle · 07-28-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that we would be better off referring to this for the passage from Apollinaris.

I'd be interested to know just where this comes from. I get the impression that this is material from catenas; but which ones? Does "Apollinaris" appear as a lemma in the catenas?

The passage about Judas from Papias according to Apollinaris exists in two forms. The long one is as given in the link above the shorter is

Quote:

Judas lived his career in this world as an enormous example of impiety. He was so swollen in the flesh that he could not pass where a wagon could easily pass. Having been crushed by a wagon, his entrails poured out.

Both versions come from catenae. One of the best discussions of the textual issues is by Lake in the beginnings of christianity v5 pps 22-30

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv · 07-28-2009, 12:52 PM

Hi Vinnie,

I read comments in this thread and your article, Jesus Mythicism and How Papias Overturns it. It has a nifty "span" table. It is a pleasure to read arguments that are based on logic.

The information (that is ascribed to Papias by Eusebius EH 3.39.14-17) concerning the gospel of Matthew is obviously NOT a reference to the Gospel of Matthew as we know it. How then, can you claim that it is “hardly disputable” that Papias references the Gospel of Mark? In the one case where we can cross check him, Papias is wrong.

You misuse the term “terminus ad quem” For example, citing Irenaeus Book 3, you claim, based on your reasoning that the “terminus ad quem” for Papias’ writings are in the 130’s CE. That is incorrect. The “terminus ad quem” is the earliest date by which the subject in question is unambiguously attested to. Irenaeus wrote AH in the 180’s CE, with Book 3 being published about 185 CE.

The “Argument from Silence” is generally disdained by historists, yet you invoke it with “failure to quote against Gnosticism” with the apparent conclusion that Papias could not have written after 119 CE. That is simply not true.

But for consistency, would you argue that any reference to gnosticism (as 1 Timothy 6:10) must date that work after 119 CE?

Best,
Jake Jones IV

show_no_mercy · 07-28-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

How can Papias be a witness to the historical Jesus if he isn't even a witness to the "original" apostles? He asks his contemporaries what these original apostles said, meaning that he was at least one generation removed from them.

Irenaeus calls him a hearer or the apostle John. I'm not sure if I accept that but Papias may very well have been born some time in the second two thirds of the first century. The possibility of hearing original followers of Jesus and those they directly converted is a viable option. A line of transmission is there.

Vinnie

Edited to add....don't forget the stated acquaintance with the daughters of Philip.

IIRC Irenaeus says that Polycarp was a disciple of John [the Apostle], not Papias (and that he remembers Polycarp from his youth). Either way, in Papias' writing (quoted by Eusebius) he says that he was a hearer of and eyewitness to John the Elder, not John the Apostle. He implies that he never met John the Apostle face to face, but had to ask other people what the Apostle said. Eusebius goes on to mention that there were two tombs with the name "John" on them in Ephesus.

Roger Pearse · 07-28-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that we would be better off referring to this for the passage from Apollinaris.

I'd be interested to know just where this comes from. I get the impression that this is material from catenas; but which ones? Does "Apollinaris" appear as a lemma in the catenas?

The passage about Judas from Papias according to Apollinaris exists in two forms. The long one is as given in the link above the shorter is

Quote:

Judas lived his career in this world as an enormous example of impiety. He was so swollen in the flesh that he could not pass where a wagon could easily pass. Having been crushed by a wagon, his entrails poured out.

Both versions come from catenae. One of the best discussions of the textual issues is by Lake in the beginnings of christianity v5 pps 22-30

Andrew Criddle

Very interesting; thank you!

Both are quoted, then, from Cramer's catena -- one on Matt. 27, the other on Acts 1 -- and represent versions of the same passage in book 4 of Papias; in one the extra wording is attributed to Apollinaris himself, in the other to Papias. As Lake remarks, further research in the catenas would probably provide a better text. And if I follow him, this is the catena of Andreas that is being used here by Cramer.

Can I ask where the translation of the shorter passage comes from?

Also, I find in Lake that he uses a quotation of Papias in Dionysius bar Salibi's Commentary on Acts as evidence on the question of which to prefer; a 13th century Syriac source. I don't know if the publication of that quote by Rendel Harris in the American Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 501 is accessible to anyone, but I think it might be illuminating.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Switch89 · 07-28-2009, 03:53 PM

I'm noticing a lack of discussion of the point I made:

The best mythicist theories usually have Christianity begin as a mystery religion. Mystery religion begin with the initiate being told some myth, and later, as he ascends in rank, he is told the symbolism of the myth. Jesus mythicists would argue that the myth was passed on, but the inner symbolic truth was lost over time (perhaps those in the inner circles all died out before they could pass the truth on. Remember, the great revolt lasted from 66-73).

Your evidence is that Papias, who knew some elders who knew the apostles (or knew some elders who knew some elders who knew the apostles) believed in a historical Jesus, and therefore it is probable that Jesus existed.

But on the mythicist theory I just described, it may be that the apostles knew the symbolic truth but that they never passed it on, or that they passed it on one or two generations and that generation never passed it on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2009, 11:30 AM	#15
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I think that we would be better off referring to this for the passage from Apollinaris. I'd be interested to know just where this comes from. I get the impression that this is material from catenas; but which ones? Does "Apollinaris" appear as a lemma in the catenas?

07-28-2009, 12:52 PM	#17
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Hi Vinnie, I read comments in this thread and your article, Jesus Mythicism and How Papias Overturns it. It has a nifty "span" table. It is a pleasure to read arguments that are based on logic. The information (that is ascribed to Papias by Eusebius EH 3.39.14-17) concerning the gospel of Matthew is obviously NOT a reference to the Gospel of Matthew as we know it. How then, can you claim that it is “hardly disputable” that Papias references the Gospel of Mark? In the one case where we can cross check him, Papias is wrong. You misuse the term “terminus ad quem” For example, citing Irenaeus Book 3, you claim, based on your reasoning that the “terminus ad quem” for Papias’ writings are in the 130’s CE. That is incorrect. The “terminus ad quem” is the earliest date by which the subject in question is unambiguously attested to. Irenaeus wrote AH in the 180’s CE, with Book 3 being published about 185 CE. The “Argument from Silence” is generally disdained by historists, yet you invoke it with “failure to quote against Gnosticism” with the apparent conclusion that Papias could not have written after 119 CE. That is simply not true. But for consistency, would you argue that any reference to gnosticism (as 1 Timothy 6:10) must date that work after 119 CE? Best, Jake Jones IV

07-28-2009, 03:53 PM	#20
Switch89 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Montgomery, AL Posts: 453	I'm noticing a lack of discussion of the point I made: The best mythicist theories usually have Christianity begin as a mystery religion. Mystery religion begin with the initiate being told some myth, and later, as he ascends in rank, he is told the symbolism of the myth. Jesus mythicists would argue that the myth was passed on, but the inner symbolic truth was lost over time (perhaps those in the inner circles all died out before they could pass the truth on. Remember, the great revolt lasted from 66-73). Your evidence is that Papias, who knew some elders who knew the apostles (or knew some elders who knew some elders who knew the apostles) believed in a historical Jesus, and therefore it is probable that Jesus existed. But on the mythicist theory I just described, it may be that the apostles knew the symbolic truth but that they never passed it on, or that they passed it on one or two generations and that generation never passed it on.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.