Johnny Skeptic

At a web site at http://virtualreligion.net/primer/papias.html readers will find an informative article about Papias written by Malcom H. Smith, who is a well-educated Christian. Smith says that Eusebius said of Papias the following:

He got these ideas from a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts. For he did not understand what they said mystically & in figurative language. For he obviously was a man of very little intelligence, as one can tell judging from his sayings. (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.12-13).

Smith: Clearly, Papias was no scholar. For he based his opinions on hearsay rather than on the comparison of texts. Moreover, Papias himself did not claim to be a disciple of "the elders," but rather a reporter who sought interviews with those who were their followers. Therefore, Papias' testimony is at best two steps removed from the apostolic generation, & even more from Jesus himself. This needs to be kept in mind in evaluating his comments about the composition of the gospels.

Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. 3.39.2), [said that] Papias mentions two Johns: one an apostle, the other an elder (presbyter); and Papias claimed his traditions were derived from the elders (not apostles).

Steven Carr

And his habit of doctoring his quotations...

Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book 19 Section 346 'But as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger (Greek 'Angelos') of ill tidings...' Eusebius in his History (2.10) omits the words 'boubona - epi schoiniou tinos' (ie an owl on a certain rope) and retains only the 'angelos' or messenger. As it stands in Eusebius, the 'quote' of Josephus appears to support Acts 12:23 which mentions an 'angelos', but naturally does not say this messenger was an owl.


Eusebius said Tertullian referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not. Eusebius also said Trajan referred to the tribe of Christians. He did not.


Eusebius is the first person to say that Josephus referred to 'the tribe of Christians' . Well, third time's a charm. Clearly, Josephus did refer to the tribe of Christians......

Roger writes 'If Eusebius quotes a text, why should we not presume that text existed in his time?'

I guess Eusebius really did track down rare letters by Jesus....

Steven Carr

What I mean by this, is that if Eusebius has a text in front of him, and he presents the text as genuine history, then we cannot presume the text is what Eusebius claims it to be.

Roger shrugs off the miraculous account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp as irrelevant. Why? If the work claims that the fire did not burn Polycarp, why should we regard the work as historically accurate?

yalla

Steven carr says: "Roger shrugs off the miraculous account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp as irrelevant. Why? If the work claims that the fire did not burn Polycarp, why should we regard the work as historically accurate?"

Which is much the same that I was trying to say: " So just because something is written, and written in Eusebius, does not mean it should be accepted"....as authentic and true.[I should have added this previously]

It is at that point we can start to analyse that particular quote but taking into account it's provenance.
And the trouble is with a lot of this apparent hard data is that the provenance is very ..well..doubtful..

I checked out Marcion one day and found the usual stuff...from Sinope, son of shipbuilder whatever, went to Rome with lots of money, was ambitious and missed out on promotion so went off in a huff aroun 140 or 144 or 150...etc. More or less, the details don't really matter because along the way I found that all the biographical stuff on Marcion originates from one source..I forget who...Hippolytus? And whoever it was was a political opponent of Marcion. One site I visited suggested that the details were consequently untrustworthy.
But if I had a dollar for every site that told me the standard version I'd be richer than I am.

And to a person like me who is new to all this, that is actually misleading. I am not inferring evil motives, perhaps at the worst laziness. I know it can be tedious to have to reference all information precisely and to present all aspects relevant to any one situation or argument would be boring and long winded.

But when I read Roger's comment "So Irenaeus tells us that the apostle John was still around in 100AD; that John's disciple Polycarp, Irenaeus' master, was still alive and preaching what John had said and done in 150AD in Rome." I thought that given the shonky provenance of the source material, the presence of spurious material, the confusion or ignorance of basic data [where and when], the principal reliance on one source with it's inherent weaknesses, the presence of motives that suggest the information is not impartial, the presence of fantastic events [the dove out of Polycarp's body,heavenly voice] and so on, then I just thought the statement was unwarranted.

Roger Pearse

Have a look at the thread on Gaius and you'll see the same sort of approach required there also.

I wonder if perhaps you have some picture in your mind of how we go about getting the facts, and feel we can reject stuff that doesn't fit that picture? In fact, in ancient history, we have to make do with what we can get.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

yalla

I did read that thread Roger..sort of. The trouble is it is way over my head, I don't know what you guys are talking about there. I have never heard of Gauis et al.

So maybe I'll get back to you in a year or 2 or 3 when I've learned a little more.

Steven Carr

One example is Valentinus claiming to have been taught by Theudas, a disciple of Paul.

Should we take such claims of handing on of tradition seriously?

Steven Carr

Next you'll be claiming that Mormon and Jehovah Witness histories of the growth of their movements are not entirely accurate, despite the fact that Mormon and JW historians are the ones with the best access to the facts and the closest to the events involved.

Roger Pearse

No normal person has, so don't be concerned.

FYI, the query was something along the lines of "I have read somewhere in a modern source that some chap called Gaius, a presbyter of the Roman church in the second century AD, denied that the gospel of John was by the apostle John. On what ancient sources is this based?" Stephen Carlson gave a list of them (including Irenaeus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Dionysius Bar Salibi), which together sort of make up that statement.

The reason I mentioned it was that it shows the sort of way that our knowledge of antiquity generally is put together (as far as I know, no-one denies that someone did so deny, in the second century).

You may not know that there are handbooks of the Fathers of the Church -- life, works, bibliography. You've come across Tixeront online; Quasten's "Patrology" in four volumes is the standard anglophone one, although getting a bit outdated in vols 1-3. There are also specialist handbooks for fathers in particular languages, such as those I cited for Syriac Fathers.

I hope that helps.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Eusebius seems to have disapproved of Papias because Papias took literally prophecies about the imminent end of the world we know and the coming of the millenium.

This dispute is probably irrelevant to Papias' reliability as a source of information about early traditions.

Andrew Criddle