Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

[robrecht]

So...from that you infer that Papias thought Mark was first? ...

No. My point was that Papias does not say that Matthew wrote his gospel first, as was previously asserted in this thread.

[Outis]

Why shouldn't you? Seems like an inconsequential thing to make up.

Because Irenaeus not infrequently used superstition and mysticism to make his point, rather than history. If you have a chance, reference his argument about why there are four Gospels, instead of three or five.

[robrecht]

Why shouldn't you? Seems like an inconsequential thing to make up.

Eusebius also takes issue with Irenaeus' understanding of Papias' closeness to apostolic witnesses:

3,39,2-7:
2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. 3 He says:
5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. 7 And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

[OingoBoingo]

Note that the sentence you quote, as it is commonly divided in English mistranslation, actually cuts off the beginning of the sentence in the Greek, from which it becomes apparent

The translation I cited included the previous sentence. I left it off since I only thought verse 12 and the first part of 13 were relevant to the point.

If we believe Eusebius, Papias' eschatology was only one of the more mythical things that he related, among a multitude of strange parables and teachings of the Savior.

Isn't it just as likely that this is a vague hand wave in order to dismiss Papias' chiliastic view? He doesn't specify the other mythical/strange parables and teachings. Sort of sounds like a modern conversation where you might hear someone say something like "yeah, he believes in some crazy stuff, like, global warming is a myth". The commenter may only have the global warming business in mind, but he throws out a vague claim in order to generally discredit the other guy.

[OingoBoingo]

Because Irenaeus not infrequently used superstition and mysticism to make his point, rather than history. If you have a chance, reference his argument about why there are four Gospels, instead of three or five.

[robrecht]

The translation I cited included the previous sentence. I left it off since I only thought verse 12 and the first part of 13 were relevant to the point.

Of course. But it is important to understand that the English translation does not recognize the unity of a single sentence.

Isn't it just as likely that this is a vague hand wave in order to dismiss Papias' chiliastic view? He doesn't specify the other mythical/strange parables and teachings. Sort of sounds like a modern conversation where you might hear someone say something like "yeah, he believes in some crazy stuff, like, global warming is a myth". The commenter may only have the global warming business in mind, but he throws out a vague claim in order to generally discredit the other guy.

Sure, it is possible that Eusebius is being a little dishonest here.

[OingoBoingo]

Eusebius also takes issue with Irenaeus' understanding of Papias' closeness to apostolic witnesses:

3,39,2-7:
2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. 3 He says:


5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter. 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. 7 And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

So, from this you gather that Papias did not write 5 books?

[robrecht]

So, from this you gather that Papias did not write 5 books?

What? I have never doubted that Papias wrote 5 books. Where did you get that? I said "Eusebius also takes issue with Irenaeus' understanding of Papias' closeness to apostolic witnesses." I did not say anything about Papias not writing five books. Nor did οὔτις for that matter.

[OingoBoingo]

I'm just following the thread. You replied to me replying to Doug Shaver, who replied to QW, who replied to Doug.

But what about Eusebius who would have known the context?

How do we know what Eusebius would have known about Papias?

Here's Eusebius

There are extant five books of Papias,

And why should I believe Irenaeus? Does he tell us where he got his information?

[robrecht]

I'm just following the thread. You replied to me replying to Doug Shaver, who replied to QW, who replied to Doug.

I don't speak for Doug or οὔτις, but I would not assume that was their meaning, and I certainly never said anything like that. One could be questioning what Irenaeus says about Papias being 'an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp'. That seems to be the much more important assertion than the number of chapters in his book, and that is the issue that Eusebius discusses.

[OingoBoingo]

I don't speak for Doug or οὔτις, but I would not assume that was their meaning, and I certainly never said anything like that. One could be questioning what Irenaeus says about Papias being 'an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp'. That seems to be the much more important assertion than the number of chapters in his book, and that is the issue that Eusebius discusses.

Oh, perhaps (though does Irenaeus identify which John he was referring to?). I took Doug as saying that he doubted Irenaeus' claim about the books of Papias since that's what QW was highlighting. If I recall, Doug is also the poster who believes that the NT was written in the genre of historical fiction, so it wouldn't surprise me if he believes that Irenaeus' claim is also fictional.

[robrecht]

Oh, perhaps (though does Irenaeus identify which John he was referring to?). ...

That's precisely the point Eusebius focuses on. He doubts that John the evangelist wrote the Apocalypse and so he wants to associate Papias with John the presbyter instead of John the Evangelist. But most had assumed they were one and the same.

[OingoBoingo]

That's precisely the point Eusebius focuses on. He doubts that John the evangelist wrote the Apocalypse and so he wants to associate Papias with John the presbyter instead of John the Evangelist. But most had assumed they were one and the same.

Right, but you said that, "Eusebius also takes issue with Irenaeus' understanding of Papias' closeness to apostolic witnesses." in reference to John. Does Irenaeus specify which John precisely he thought Papias was referring to?

[robrecht]

Right, but you said that, "Eusebius also takes issue with Irenaeus' understanding of Papias' closeness to apostolic witnesses." in reference to John. Does Irenaeus specify which John precisely he thought Papias was referring to?

Irenaeus does not distinguish between two Johns so he is understood to be referring to John the apostle. Eusebius is the one who distinguishes between John the Apostle and John the presbyter.

[OingoBoingo]

Irenaeus does not distinguish between two Johns so he is understood to be referring to John the apostle. Eusebius is the one who distinguishes between John the Apostle and John the presbyter.

So, okay, I'm a little confused. In Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius, Eusebius says that Irenaeus said that Papias "was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp". Irenaeus does not specify who this John is (whether it the Apostle or the Presbyter). Does Irenaeus confuse these two anywhere else? Because if not, this doesn't sound so much like Eusebius is taking issue with Irenaeus, as much as clarifying who the "John" that Papias (by way of Irenaeus) associated with.

Is there another passage by Eusebius that leads you to believe that Irenaeus mixed up Johns?