S.C.Carlson

Yes, but the Irenaeus quotation from Papias includes material that is older than 2 Baruch and missing from 2 Baruch (e.g. the simile of the wheat, which is attested in a more primitive form in 1 Enoch 10.19). Thus, Papias could not have derived the wheat portion from 2 Baruch.

Rather, both the Papias agraphon and 2 Baruch would ultimately derive from an apocalyptic midrash on Gen 27:28. Another element of the midrash missing from 2 Baruch but present in the Papias is a word-play linkage with Gen 49:12 (also attested in R. Dimi, b Ketub 111b). These midrashic features use Hebrew puns and are almost certainly beyond the competence of the Gentiles Papias and Irenaeus.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on your misunderstanding, but I'll simply note that it may have come from reading that portion of Irenaeus which Eusebius quoted out of context!

Actually, Eusebius's claim is more like Irenaeus overlooked the preface:

What's interesting is that Eusebius understood the preface to mean that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John and observed that Papias often mentioned them by name. The preface is not the only part in Papias that mentioned John. Even Eusebius admitted that.

I didn't state that Eusebius manufactured a false quote, only that we don't have have the full context of his quote to argue informedly from what Papias did not say in it.

Apart from what I just discussed, Irenaeus also stated that Papias was a colleague of Polycarp. That information did not come from the portion of the preface that Eusebius quoted.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

I believe the evidence for it is pretty much limited to Eusebius's reading of the bit of Papias he quoted.

gregor

Mr. Pearse

So why cite P52 as some basis for your earlier argument if you disavow it now? You are the one that brought it up.

And please advise which facts I have mistakenly stated (other than giving credence to the potentially incorrection notion that it might be as early as 125 CE)?

Please ref: the companion thread on P52

Steven Carr

It doesn't , as Roger would say if he consulted a professional on the matter.

Steven Carr

Is there any uncertainty about what Papias said about (apostle/elder/) John?

John was a very common name...... Every Tom, Dick and Harry was called John in those days.

andrewcriddle

There is obviously uncertainty. (As I noted in another post in this thread)

The most we can hope for is to determine the most probable answer.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

What is most probable is a matter of persepctive, Andrew. I find it to be very improbable that God would wait around for countless trillions of years before he finally got the notion that he wanted to create humans, and that he would cause a global flood in order to get rid of evil humans instead of simply killing them like he killed all fo the first born males in Egypt, and that is just for openers.

What is not improbable at all is that humans like to dream up religions in order to satisfy their desire for immortality, and not just any old immortality, but quite conveniently an immortality in comfort. The goal of Christians is to obtain a comfortable eternal life, and although they are not aware of it at this time, ultimately they couldn't care less who provides them with a comfortable eternal life as long as it is available. Any of a number of means of achieving it would be deemed equally acceptable. For example, if all that God required was a heartfelt "I am sorry for my sins," without any mention of the shed blood of Jesus, that would be perfectly acceptable as long as a comfortable eternal life is available. Similarly, if you have cancer, you couldn't care less who provides you with a cure as long as a cure is available. Truly, as far as religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to comfort completely irregardless of who provides it. In other words, comfort is the common denomiator in religions, not who provides it. If humans were able to achieve all of their desires for comfort on their own, including perceived immortality, almost no one would be religious, probably even including you, Andrew.