Consider the following from years ago at the Theology Web:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic
Do you maintain that Papias was a hearer of John? If so, where is your evidence?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RogerPearse
Surely you know this? -- Irenaeus says so. If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong, then we have to ask what evidence other than the opinion of Eusebius, two centuries later, is there for this? It is possible to read these two texts such that they contradict each other, of course. But then that too is a judgment. Let's hold onto all the data, not find reasons to ignore bits of it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
We do not have to reject it, but you insist that we accept it. Why can’t we agree to be agnostic on the issue? Regarding “Let’s hold onto all the data,” you of course mean all of the data held onto by the historical winners.
|
Regarding "If someone says that Irenaeus is wrong," that is a typical conservative Christian tactic of trying to shift the burden of proof to skeptics even though the burden of proof is on people who claim that Papias was a hearer of John.
Consider the following from Wikipedia:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Eusebius held Papias in low esteem, perhaps because of his work's influence in perpetuating, through Irenaeus and others, belief in a millennial reign of Christ upon earth, that would soon usher in a new Golden Age. Eusebius calls Papias "a man of small mental capacity" who mistook the figurative language of apostolic traditions. Whether this was so to any degree is difficult to judge without the text available. However, Papias's millennialism (according to Anastasius of Sinai, along with Clement of Alexandria and Ammonius he understood the Six Days (Hexaemeron) and the account of Paradise as referring mystically to Christ and His Church) was nearer in spirit to the actual Christianity of the sub-apostolic age, especially in western Anatolia (e.g., Montanism), than Eusebius realized.
|
Consider the following from Peter Kirby:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
Irenaeus of Lyons wrote his Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE. His work is invaluable to modern scholarship in the attempt to recover the content of Gnostic teachings in the second century. Irenaeus also provides the first explicit witness to a four-fold gospel canon.
Mary Ann Donovan writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, p. 457):
"Eusebius (ca. 263-ca. 339) is the principal source for our knowledge of the lost works of Irenaeus. These include at least the treatises 'On the Ogdoad' and 'Concerning Knowledge' and letters 'On Schism' and 'On the Monarchy [of God]' (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5.20.1), as well as the full text of the letter to Victor already mentioned." [c. 188 to c. 198]
|
According to Roger's implications, we should hold onto data from Irenaeus, which also requires holding onto data from the quite suspect Eusebius. No thank you, Roger.
Logically, neither Papias, Irenaeus, nor anyone else should be automatically trusted simply because they wrote literature, especially where supernatural claims are concerned. Surely the methods for reasonably verifying supernatural claims by necessity must be more demanding than a secular claim like "the chicken crossed the road." Chickens cross roads ever day. People do not walk on water every day, if at all.
02-14-2010, 08:32 AM
"Let's hold onto all the data, not find reasons to ignore bits of it."
