Originally Posted by Toto

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

If I may interject, where I came from shill is an adjective not neccesarily used as an insult which i've always taken to be Yiddish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:



JW:
I still think Victor is putting us on but it sounds so much like an Apologist, how can you be sure? With Apologies to Victor, er, Vinnie, this is the only hard dating of Papias. That Philip wrote a hundred years after Eusebius is apparently an insurmountable problem for Vinnie but Papias writing a hundred years after Jesus is no problem what so ever.

Here is the Philip of Side quote:

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



JW:

Here is the related Eusebius' quote:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm



JW:
We have the following reasons to think it likely that Philip of Side has reasonably reported that Papias did refer to the reign of Hadrian:

1) The words of PS (Philip of Side) indicate this:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

This than is the default position.

2) PS provides provenance for his applicable report:

"Papias in the second volume says"

3) The reference to Hadrian fits the context of the related excerpt:

"He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

4) The applicable phrase of PS is significantly different than the phrase of Quadratus (in English):

PS:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

vs.

Quadratus:

"those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."

JW:
Presumably the above is based on Gundry who's credbility has been impeached many times.

"Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus who addressed an apology to Hadrian. This is the emperor in which Philip places Papias."

The question here for an Apologist is why does Philip quote Papias as using "Hadrian" but Eusebius doesn't? Again, it's already more likely that Eusebius has omitted than Philip has added. Eusebius' reputation for omitting is better that Philip's reputation for adding. Eusebius places Papias in his history before he discusses Hadrian's reign but he places him right before. The chapter summary that follows is probably not original for Hadrian and Eusebius follows by only saying that Quadratus wrote in Hadrian's reign. The point of Eusebius' Papias discussion is to give the chronology of the Apostles and not Papias'. Eusebius' placing Papias directly before Quadratus writing an apology to Hadrian is compatible with Eusebius knowing that Papias used "Hadrian".

"Quadratus' claim that some people healed by Jesus have lived to his own day sounds similar the living and abiding voice mentioned by Papias."

No it doesn't.

"Interstingly, when Philip quotes Papias the phraseology more closely resembles Eusebius' quotation of Quadratus than Papias."

Philip:
"Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian."

Eusebius:
"9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm."

Again, it should be obvious that Philip's source for Papias is Papias and not Eusebius as Philip has many details above not found in Eusebius and Philip explicitly identifies Papias as his source. Further, trying to claim that Philip's source for Papias in Eusebius is where Eusebius is not referring to Papias rather than where Eusebius is referring to Papias is nonsense and you would have to conflate what Eusebius wrote about Papias, Quadratus and Aristides (where Eusebius uses "Adrian").

Thus we have it on good authority that Papias referred to Hadrian and must be dated post 117 with an implication that it is after Hadrian, post 138. This coordinates with Justin, c.155, never mentioning Papias' or his Apostle tradition, and Irenaeus, c. 177, being the first to be aware of Papias.



Joseph

Originally Posted by Toto

Just ran across this: Papias fragments