Gamera

Does the historicity of Jesus hang on whether Papia got the facts of Judas' death right?

Is that how we judge the historicity of persons mentioned in texts?

spin

Neither do modern christians.

At least two of the ancient sources are wrong. But you want to believe that the information you want to use is not wrong. How do you know?

Are you saying that they weren't interested in facts?

So you find obviously questionable material and that "only increases its viability more so than it already is". Don't be daft, Vinnie.

You're talking pure blather now. Eusebius's reported comments from Papias "correspond exceedingly well"? Vain opinion, which I disagree with. And "very quickly" is something you know nothing about. Facts, Vinnie, stick to the facts.

You won't get much support for this conjecture here. You have constructed a web of conjecture built on conjecture built on material that we have to accept was really from Papias without you doing the footwork to try to convince about that claim.

Perhaps Paul didn't relay accurate traditions in his epistle to the Laodiceans. What about Ephesians? Texts get written in people's names with an exceeding regularity. How many letters of Ignatius are not by Ignatius at all? Did James write the Apocryphon? What about the gospel of Bartholemew, who wrote that? You are all too happy to accept that what Eusebius got his hands on was certainly by Papias, despite the fact that we have no real corroboration of the material.

Aren't you just peddling your beliefs wrapped with a veneer of unsullied textual guesswork?


spin

S.C.Carlson

Eusebius did not say that Papias said that. The bit about Judas's death attributed to Papias comes from an anonymous scholiast excerpting from a lost commentary by Apollinaris.

Stephen Carlson

Gamera

Herodotus had no idea what the size of the Persian army was, or at least he's made up a whopper to make his point about the superiority of the Greeks over the effete bloated invaders.

Does that mean we should throw out Herodotus? What is the credibility of a historian who demonstrably can't count?

spin

Just a correction: according to my Irenaeus he doesn't call Papias archaios anhr (ancient man) at all. That is found in Eusebius though. How much more has the Papias tradition gained between the time of Irenaeus and Eusebius?


spin

spin

Your comments don't bear any relationship with what you cited from me.

I haven't thrown out the whole of Eusebius.


spin

S.C.Carlson

Vinnie is more careful than that, but, if you've got some real evidence that Papias didn't write what Eusebius attributed to him, then, by all means, please share it with us. I'd love to hear it. I'm tired of listening to the crickets.

Stephen

Gamera

Not half as much, one must conclude, than what the Thucydides tradition gained between his alleged writing and the 1500 years before we have an extant ms.

Is Thucydides out, and with him Pericles?

S.C.Carlson

However, the Latin translation of Irenaeus, not through Eusebius, has the equivalent "vetus homo."

Stephen

spin

Admit it, you like listening to the crickets.

You don't use heresay evidence when you can't give the data any chance of being viable. Eusebius can't even quote Irenaeus correctly. And a Latin translation of Irenaeus is further evidence that the text has been changed.


spin