Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 03-19-2011, 07:02 AM

A commission of mine to translate all the known fragments of this writer has now come good, and it's all online. Links to a PDF and to an HTML version are at my blog here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Littlejohn · 03-19-2011, 09:11 AM

Sorry..but is there some translation online of the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamina in english language?

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Roger Pearse · 03-19-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Sorry..but is there some translation online of the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamina in english language?

I wish. The only translation ever made is that of Frank Williams (or via: amazon.co.uk), which is offline and will be in copyright when all of us are dead.

JoeWallack · 03-19-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

A commission of mine to translate all the known fragments of this writer has now come good, and it's all online. Links to a PDF and to an HTML version are at my blog here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JW:
Once again, your effort to make Patristics freely available to the Masses is a credit to you and your religion.

On the Skeptical Side, Philip of Side is important for providing the only definite dating clue for Papias. Christianity has traditionally used Papias as providing the date by which the Gospels were identified but ironically Papias actually provides the opposite, the date at which the Gospels were still unknown, as he provides no specific evidence that he was aware of the Gospels.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...04.1%20-%204.7

Quote:

Fr. 4.6

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a hearer of John the Theologian, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of the Lord's logia.[113] In these, he enumerated the Apostles after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, and recorded Aristion and a second John—whom he called a "presbyter"—as disciples of the Lord;[114] and thus, some think that the two Epistles, the short and general ones, which are in circulation under the name "John," belong to this John, because the ancient [Christian writers] only accepted the first [Epistle of John as genuine]. And some erroneously considered the Apocalypse to belong to this [John] as well; and Papias is also mistaken regarding the Millenium—as is Irenaeus, because of him.[115] Papias in the second book says that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews. The aforementioned Papias related, as something he had heard from the daughters of Philip, that Barsabas, who was also called Justus, when he was being put to the test by the unbelievers, drank a viper's poison in the name of Christ and was preserved unhurt.[116] He also relates other marvellous stories, in particular the one about Menahem's mother, who was raised from the dead.[117] Concerning those who were raised from the dead by Christ, [he relates] that they lived until Hadrian. And Chrysostom, in the 1st Homily of the second section on the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, says that both those who were raised from the dead at the time of the cross [i.e., the crucifixion of Jesus] and those [who were raised from the dead] before them—all died.[118]

JW:

Hadrian was emperor 117-138 so per POS (Philip of Side) Papias wrote some time after 116. The Wikipedia article for

Papias of Hierapolis strangely neglects to mention POS here even though it provides the only known definite dating guide while willing to use an implication from Eusebius to support an earlier dating.

Note that the specific wording of POS here "until Hadrian", suggests that Papias wrote after Hadrian (138) since this is the type of expression one would use looking back and not for the present emperor.

Our own favorite Christian son, Ben Smith, summarizes the standard related Christian Apologetics here:

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

Quote:

However, it is probable that Philip has actually confused Papias with the apologist Quadratus, whom Eusebius affirms in his History of the Church to have written this very thing, that those raised by Jesus lived until Hadrian. If Philip has gotten the two early men confused, then the way is clear for an earlier date for Papias. Robert Gundry writes on page 1028 of his Commentary on Mark:

The only hard evidence favoring a late date consists in a statement by Philip of Side, who makes Papias refer to the reign of Hadrian (117-138; see the citation in Aland’s Synopsis 531). But we have good reasons to distrust Philip’s statement. he is notoriously unreliable and wrote appoximately a century later than Eusebius did (Philip — ca. 430; Eusebius — ca. 324). Comparison of Philip’s statement with Eusebius’s favors that Philip depended on Eusebius but garbled the information he got. Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus, who addressed an apology to Hadrian, the very emperor during whose reign Philip puts Papias’s writings. The claim of Quadratus that some of the people whom Jesus healed and raised from the dead have lived up to his own day sounds something like the claim of Papias to have gotten information about the Lord’s commands "from the living and abiding voice" of the elders and other disciples of the Lord (see Eus. H.E. 3.39.1-4 with 4.3.1-2). More strikingly, however, when Philip quotes Papias, the phraseology sounds more like Eusebius’s quotations of Quadratus than of Papias; in other words, it looks as though Philip transferred what Quadratus wrote over to Papias. Thus, just as Eusebius associates Quadratus with Hadrian’s reign and quotes Quadratus as referring to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living, so Philip associates Papias with Hadrian’s reign and writes that Papias referred to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living. Furthermore, there appears to have been another Quadratus, who was a prophet, not an apologist. Eusebius discusses him in association with Jesus’ original disciples and their immediate successors (H.E. 3.37.1). Philip probably confuses Quadratus the apologist with Quadratus the prophet. It was easy for him to do so, because he found Eusebius’s similar discussion of Papias bounded by references to the namd "Quadratus." A final cause of Philip’s confusing Papias’s writings with an apology by a Quadratus is Eusebius’s associating this Quadratus with the daughters of Philip the evangelist (H.E. 3.37.1) just as Eusebius also associates Papias with them (H.E. 3.39.9). Poor Philip fell into a trap.

JW:
As a Skeptic just be aware that POS provides the only known direct dating for Papias which is definitely after 116 and could be after 138 which is completely consistent with the lack of any direct evidence that the Gospels were identified before 138.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Littlejohn · 03-19-2011, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Sorry..but is there some translation online of the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamina in english language?

I wish. The only translation ever made is that of Frank Williams, which is offline and will be in copyright when all of us are dead.

Yes, I did know already of the translation of Frank Williams...

Thank you!

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

stephan huller · 03-19-2011, 10:41 AM

It should be noted for those who have no knowledge of Aramaic that Menahem is the equivalent of the Greek παράκλητος, 'Paraclete' and is said to be the name of the messiah in rabbinic literature. The diminutive form of this name is Mani. There were many second century Christians who claimed to be this figure. In the third century Mani was so identified. Even later Mohammed.

I am more interested in the strange idea that Pantainos was the student of Clement. Clement as the student of Athenagoras seems impossible by the coventional understanding of the dating of Athenagoras. There seems to be a deep interest in Alexandria. The idea that Alexander and Peter appointed Mani to a position of authority seems a garbling of the idea that Mani was only kicked out of a position of authority at the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia deep into Alexander's reign. Philostorgius intimates Imperial meddling in the selection process. Arius was quite obvious the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria, one of long line of Origenists even if he wouldn't say so publicly. Arius probably preferred to think of himself representating the tradition that dated back to St. Mark which was probably more accurate (there was no such thing as 'Arianism' really).

Very interesting stuff. It will take some time for all of this to sink in.

Roger is the best

Roger Pearse · 03-19-2011, 11:35 AM

Glad to help! Philip is writing ca. 390, so has access to interesting stuff. But he was clearly not a very intelligent person, and may have misunderstood it.

Littlejohn · 03-19-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It should be noted for those who have no knowledge of Aramaic that Menahem is the equivalent of the Greek παράκλητος, 'Paraclete' and is said to be the name of the messiah in rabbinic literature.
.

It's a topic, this, susceptible to unpredictable developments ... Surely Jesus was considered the παράκλητος

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

stephan huller · 03-19-2011, 12:40 PM

No Giovanni

Jesus can't be the Paraclete because Jesus speaks about this figure in the third person

spin · 03-19-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It should be noted for those who have no knowledge of Aramaic that Menahem is the equivalent of the Greek παράκλητος, 'Paraclete' and is said to be the name of the messiah in rabbinic literature. The diminutive form of this name is Mani.

Little did you know that the "historically inaccurate, somewhat perverted illusionary replica of Ancient Rome or something" was ruled by The Funky Emperor, Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus. Well, he's "Cletus" to his friends. His real name is Paracletus, brother of Paracelsus (who is known as Celsus to his friends). So, the next time I say, "Hi, cats & kittens!", you know I'm citing The Funky Emperor, (Para)Cletus.

03-19-2011, 07:02 AM	#1
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Philip of Side - English translation now online A commission of mine to translate all the known fragments of this writer has now come good, and it's all online. Links to a PDF and to an HTML version are at my blog here. All the best, Roger Pearse

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

03-19-2011, 09:11 AM	#2
Littlejohn Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Italy Posts: 708	Sorry..but is there some translation online of the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamina in english language? Greetings Littlejohn .

03-19-2011, 10:41 AM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It should be noted for those who have no knowledge of Aramaic that Menahem is the equivalent of the Greek παράκλητος, 'Paraclete' and is said to be the name of the messiah in rabbinic literature. The diminutive form of this name is Mani. There were many second century Christians who claimed to be this figure. In the third century Mani was so identified. Even later Mohammed. I am more interested in the strange idea that Pantainos was the student of Clement. Clement as the student of Athenagoras seems impossible by the coventional understanding of the dating of Athenagoras. There seems to be a deep interest in Alexandria. The idea that Alexander and Peter appointed Mani to a position of authority seems a garbling of the idea that Mani was only kicked out of a position of authority at the Church of St. Mark in the Boucolia deep into Alexander's reign. Philostorgius intimates Imperial meddling in the selection process. Arius was quite obvious the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria, one of long line of Origenists even if he wouldn't say so publicly. Arius probably preferred to think of himself representating the tradition that dated back to St. Mark which was probably more accurate (there was no such thing as 'Arianism' really). Very interesting stuff. It will take some time for all of this to sink in. Roger is the best

03-19-2011, 11:35 AM	#7
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Glad to help! Philip is writing ca. 390, so has access to interesting stuff. But he was clearly not a very intelligent person, and may have misunderstood it.

03-19-2011, 12:40 PM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No Giovanni Jesus can't be the Paraclete because Jesus speaks about this figure in the third person

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.