Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

testimony of Papias

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Dear friends, Here is, as promised, my analysis of the testimony of Papias. Best wishes, Yuri. ... TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS The idea that Papias was a proponent of
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 6, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear friends,

      Here is, as promised, my analysis of the testimony of Papias.

      Best wishes,

      Yuri.

      ---

      TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS


      The idea that Papias was a proponent of Jn is well accepted among
      patristic scholars. So could Papias' rather vague and somewhat dismissive
      comments about Mk and Mt have been motivated primarily by him judging the
      Synoptics somewhat unfavourably by the higher, for him, standard of Jn?
      This seems reasonable to me. This view in fact has been advanced by quite
      a few commentators.

      J|licher, Adolf, _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (in Verbindung mit
      Erich Fascher), T|bingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1931, 7th ed, pp. 283, 396;

      W. Bauer, _Das Johannesevangelium_, 3rd ed, HbNT 6 (1933): 241 f.

      And of course we also need to keep in mind that we only know what Papias
      said as it was reported by Eusebius. It is quite probable that Eusebius
      chose not to report some things that Papias said. Specifically, why do we
      hear nothing about Papias's attitude towards the gospel of John? There is
      a very curious silence there... This seems like an interesting and
      important question, and I think the answer is possible to find.

      But first, we will need to deal with the question of the man, or more
      likely men, named John. Papias was supposed to have been a disciple of
      "John". But which John? We may suppose that there were at least 3 men
      named John who would be relevant here.

      1. John the Apostle, the brother of James. These were the Boanerges
      brothers.

      2. John the author of Revelation. Most biblical scholars nowadays consider
      that the author of the Revelation was not also the author of the gospel,
      although in ancient times, the opinion on this was divided. While for the
      most part common authorship for these two documents was assumed, some
      ancient commentators already doubted this. We can note here especially
      Dionysius the bishop of Alexandria (latter half of the third century), a
      surprisingly perceptive literary critic, who purported to demonstrate
      conclusively that these two works could not have been written by the same
      author. Dionysius, while accepting that John Boanerges indeed wrote the
      gospel, also suggested that it was John the Elder who wrote the Revelation
      (Eusebius, vii. 25).

      3. John the Elder. While the identity of this personage is not entirely
      clear, we will see further what his role may have been.

      Now, Eusebius mentions both John the Apostle and John the Elder as being
      present in Asia Minor. According to Eusebius, Papias was a pupil of the
      former and a colleague of the latter, but such version of events doesn't
      seem historically valid on the whole.

      We have to keep in mind here that the authorship of the Fourth Gospel was
      an extremely important matter in the second century. Jn was a late
      arriving gospel for the Greater Church. Theologically it was substantially
      different from the Synoptics, which were older and better established, and
      there was some opposition to its canonisation. In these circumstances, it
      was exceedingly important to maintain that the author of Jn was none other
      than John the Apostle -- the apostolic authority of this gospel was
      crucial for its acceptance.

      And the apostolic authority of Jn was basically unquestioned in the
      patristic sources that came through to us. We only hear some distant and
      muffled echoes of some Christians questioning the apostolicity of Jn.

      Is this where the key to the solution of our problem may be? Is it
      possible that the reason Eusebius tells us _nothing_ of what Papias said
      about Jn -- and it cannot be doubted that Papias was familiar with Jn --
      is that what Papias said about Jn was perhaps too confusing and
      controversial for Eusebius? Is it possible that Papias may have said
      something about the authorship and/or apostolicity of Jn that Eusebius
      preferred not to quote?

      Could have Papias in fact said that Jn was written by _someone else_,
      someone other than John the brother of James? This is indeed how it seems
      to me.

      Alfred Loisy has analysed these very complicated questions in great detail
      (ORIGINS OF NT, p. 73ff). He has looked carefully into the question of who
      may have been the Elders on whose opinions Papias was basing his views
      about the history of the gospels, and who may have been John the Elder.

      There seems to exist rather persuasive evidence that John the brother of
      James was martyred early and never made it to Asia. Were the two brothers
      perhaps martyred at about the same time? We can see Mk 10:39 as evidence
      for this. But in this connection we will need to deal also with Acts 12:2,
      where only the martyrdom of James is recorded. Was the reference to the
      martyrdom of John omitted from this account by a later editor anxious to
      ensure that John Boanerges could perform service as the author of Jn? This
      is what Loisy thinks, and there is evidence from a variety of sources to
      indicate that this was so. In particular, the Syriac calendar from the
      fifth century commemorates John and James together as martyrs on Dec. 27
      (Locton, THEOLOGY, 5 [1922], 83; as cited by Schoedel, p. 119)

      [Schoedel, William R., _Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragment of
      Papias_, in Grant, Robert M., _The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation
      and Commentary_, 6 vols; New York: Nelson, 1964-68, vol. 5]

      So, seeing the unlikelihood of John the Apostle, and of John the
      Apocalyptist having been the mentors of Papias, this leaves us with John
      the Elder as the likeliest candidate.

      Patristic witnesses translated by Schoedel provide additional evidence for
      such a version of events.

      An epitome of Papias' work based on Philip of Side (fifth century) states,

      "Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, having been a hearer of John the theologian
      and companion of Polycarp, wrote five treatises on the DOMINICAL ORACLES.
      In them he made an enumeration of apostles, and after naming Peter and
      John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, recorded as "disciples of the Lord"
      Aristion and another John whom he also called "elder"." (p. 117-118)

      So this, as preserved by Philip, is what Papias probably said, and
      Eusebius may have omitted. If we accept these things as indeed having been
      said by Papias, this would explain quite a lot. So there would have been
      two apostles named John according to Papias -- the brother of James, plus
      John the Elder.

      And the same epitome continues further on,

      "Papias in the second treatise says that John the theologian and James his
      brother were slain by the Jews." (p. 119)

      Now, this is quite a statement. Papias, it seems, was well aware that John
      the brother of James was martyred early. And is it possible that he also
      thought that the gospel of John was written by another John -- not John
      Boanerges, although also apostle? Let's call this hypothesis #1.

      (It needs to be said that yet another interpretation is possible here, as
      noted by Schoedel. Let's call this hypothesis #2. Perhaps, according to
      Papias, John Boanerges _was_ martyred very early, but he wrote his gospel
      _also_ very early, perhaps ca. 44, i.e. at the time of Claudius? In this
      case Papias may have also believed that the Revelation was also written at
      about the same time. For my own part, I think this version is rather less
      likely, but it would still explain why Papias' account may have been
      censored subsequently by Eusebius -- it would have been too different from
      the version accepted by the Church in later times. And what would have
      been the role of the apostle John the Elder according to this reading?
      This would remain unexplained on this hypothesis? So, myself, I prefer the
      previous one.)

      In his commentary, Schoedel outlines these possibilities,

      [Hypothesis #1, i.e. John Boanerges did not write Jn, according to Papias]
      "... Eusebius either does not know or suppresses what Papias had to say
      about James and John." (p. 118)

      [Hypothesis #2, i.e. Jn written very early by John Boanerges] "Revelation
      and the Gospel of John, then, were regarded by Papias as early authorities
      (consequently in HE 3.39.15-16 John is the standard whereby Mark and
      Matthew are judged). Eusebius did not report all this because it flew in
      the face of the current traditions about John and his writings." (ibid)

      Is it any wonder that Eusebius would have suppressed such uncomfortable
      information had he found it in Papias? One can well see why he would have
      done so, since this would have contradicted the established orthodox
      traditions.

      To summarize, Papias probably did say something about the authorship of Jn
      in his commentary, and what he said was either unknown or, yet more
      likely, omitted by Eusebius. What Papias probably said [Hypothesis #1] was
      that John Boanerges was martyred early together with his brother James,
      and that Jn was authored by yet another John, viz. John the Elder whom
      Papias took to be also one of the 12. Since such an account would have
      come into serious conflict with the traditions of the Church that were
      solidifying soon after the time of Papias, it is entirely possible that
      this account of Papias was omitted by Eusebius.

      It should also be noted that John the Elder would have been an amazingly
      long-lived disciple of the Lord to meet Papias in person. A commentator
      may wonder if Papias indeed knew him personally. More likely, as Loisy
      notes, would have been that Papias simply received both the gospel and the
      tradition of John the Elder from the other Elders with whom he was
      familiar in his younger years.

      Earlier we've been discussing some vague traditions that Papias may have
      contributed to authoring Jn in some way. This, to me, could refer to the
      possibility that Papias may have been active in editing or expanding Jn.
      It seems quite clear on the whole that Jn had been substantially
      re-edited, and some additions were made to it before its final edition was
      accepted as canonical.

      (copyright 1998 by Yuri Kuchisky)
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... I think this is a possibility, Yuri. It s my opinion that an early Aramaic narrative lies imbedded, in translational Greek, within the largely
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 6, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
        >
        > Dear friends,
        >
        > Here is, as promised, my analysis of the testimony of Papias.
        >
        > Best wishes,
        >
        > Yuri.
        >
        > ---
        >
        > TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS

        > (It needs to be said that yet another interpretation is possible here, as
        > noted by Schoedel. Let's call this hypothesis #2. Perhaps, according to
        > Papias, John Boanerges _was_ martyred very early, but he wrote his gospel
        > _also_ very early, perhaps ca. 44, i.e. at the time of Claudius?

        I think this is a possibility, Yuri. It's my opinion that an early
        Aramaic narrative lies imbedded, in translational Greek, within the
        largely compositional Greek of 4G. This Aramaic "proto-John/signs"
        narrative, written sometime in the 40's PRIOR to Mark, could have
        been a foundation upon which John the Elder composed 4G. This would
        explain the "seams" in 4G and why some material in this high
        christological gospel seems more "primitive" than the parallels
        in the synoptics. If John the Elder did indeed die in 100 CE
        in his late 80's or early 90's, he could have known both John,
        the apostle and Papias. If he was one of the 70, it is technically
        correct that he was the last living disciple...just not one of
        the 12.
        Of course, in the post-apostolic rush to clamp onto the name of an
        apostle to give authority to any work, we cannot be sure that
        the young Zebedee brother wrote anything....or was literate. For
        all we know, the "core" of 4G might have been written by the tax
        collector feller.

        Great treatment, Yuri.

        Jack
        ______________________________________________

        taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

        Jack Kilmon
        jkilmon@...

        http://www.historian.net
      • Dennis C. Sullivan
        Thanks, Yuri! Excellent article! Jack Kilmon expressed the ideas that were going through my head as I read your observations. I m sure the JohnLITR newsgroup
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 6, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Yuri!

          Excellent article!

          Jack Kilmon expressed the ideas that were going through my head as I read
          your observations.

          I'm sure the JohnLITR newsgroup would enjoy reading your article sometime!

          Regards,

          Dennis Sullivan
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 98-12-06 16:01:08 EST, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 6, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 98-12-06 16:01:08 EST, yuku@... writes:

            <<
            "Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, having been a hearer of John the theologian
            and companion of Polycarp, wrote five treatises on the DOMINICAL ORACLES.
            In them he made an enumeration of apostles, and after naming Peter and
            John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, recorded as "disciples of the Lord"
            Aristion and another John whom he also called "elder"." (p. 117-118)

            So this, as preserved by Philip, is what Papias probably said, and
            Eusebius may have omitted. If we accept these things as indeed having been
            said by Papias, this would explain quite a lot. So there would have been
            two apostles named John according to Papias -- the brother of James, plus
            John the Elder.

            And the same epitome continues further on,

            "Papias in the second treatise says that John the theologian and James his
            brother were slain by the Jews." (p. 119)

            Now, this is quite a statement. Papias, it seems, was well aware that John
            the brother of James was martyred early. And is it possible that he also
            thought that the gospel of John was written by another John -- not John
            Boanerges, although also apostle? Let's call this hypothesis #1.
            >>

            Yuri, you speak twice in the above of a second John the "apostle". Is this
            really what Philip says? It looks to me from your citation that he thought of
            the second John as a disciple of Jesus, but not necessarily an apostle. Am I
            missing something?

            Regards,
            Leonard
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... You may be right, Leonard. I m not really sure, perhaps your interpretation is better. But then the question that comes next is What would be the
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 7, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sun, 6 Dec 1998 Maluflen@... wrote:

              > In a message dated 98-12-06 16:01:08 EST, yuku@... writes:
              >
              > <<
              > "Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, having been a hearer of John the theologian
              > and companion of Polycarp, wrote five treatises on the DOMINICAL ORACLES.
              > In them he made an enumeration of apostles, and after naming Peter and
              > John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, recorded as "disciples of the Lord"
              > Aristion and another John whom he also called "elder"." (p. 117-118)

              ...

              > >>

              > Yuri, you speak twice in the above of a second John the "apostle". Is
              > this really what Philip says? It looks to me from your citation that
              > he thought of the second John as a disciple of Jesus, but not
              > necessarily an apostle. Am I missing something?

              You may be right, Leonard. I'm not really sure, perhaps your
              interpretation is better. But then the question that comes next is What
              would be the significance of this? I don't think this would make much
              difference for my general argument.

              For my own part, I don't think apostles were known as apostles until
              post-Easter. They were probably all disciples when the historical Yeshu
              was still around.

              Regards,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
            • Yuri Kuchinsky
              Thank you, Jack and Dennis, for your kind words. On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote: [Yuri:] ... Yes, Jack, I think it is entirely possible that some of the
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 7, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Thank you, Jack and Dennis, for your kind words.

                On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                [Yuri:]
                > > (It needs to be said that yet another interpretation is possible here, as
                > > noted by Schoedel. Let's call this hypothesis #2. Perhaps, according to
                > > Papias, John Boanerges _was_ martyred very early, but he wrote his gospel
                > > _also_ very early, perhaps ca. 44, i.e. at the time of Claudius?
                >
                > I think this is a possibility, Yuri. It's my opinion that an early
                > Aramaic narrative lies imbedded, in translational Greek, within the
                > largely compositional Greek of 4G.

                Yes, Jack, I think it is entirely possible that some of the Greek gospel
                passages may be based on some early Aramaic narratives.

                > This Aramaic "proto-John/signs" narrative, written sometime in the
                > 40's PRIOR to Mark, could have been a foundation upon which John the
                > Elder composed 4G.

                But, just to be precise, this would rather be my Hypothesis #1 (John the
                Elder authoring Jn, according to Papias). Nevertheless, both #1 and #2
                would indicate that Eusebius omitted some commentary of Papias re Jn
                because it conflicted with Church traditions re Jn authorship that were
                firmly established later, and that are still accepted by conservative
                Christian commentators.

                Best regards,

                Yuri.

                Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... How would this fit in with the possibility that Papias himself was a contributor to the authorship of the Greek 4G? Jack
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 7, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                  > On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                  >
                  > [Yuri:]
                  > > > (It needs to be said that yet another interpretation is possible here, as
                  > > > noted by Schoedel. Let's call this hypothesis #2. Perhaps, according to
                  > > > Papias, John Boanerges _was_ martyred very early, but he wrote his gospel
                  > > > _also_ very early, perhaps ca. 44, i.e. at the time of Claudius?
                  > >
                  > > I think this is a possibility, Yuri. It's my opinion that an early
                  > > Aramaic narrative lies imbedded, in translational Greek, within the
                  > > largely compositional Greek of 4G.
                  >
                  > Yes, Jack, I think it is entirely possible that some of the Greek gospel
                  > passages may be based on some early Aramaic narratives.
                  >
                  > > This Aramaic "proto-John/signs" narrative, written sometime in the
                  > > 40's PRIOR to Mark, could have been a foundation upon which John the
                  > > Elder composed 4G.
                  >
                  > But, just to be precise, this would rather be my Hypothesis #1 (John the
                  > Elder authoring Jn, according to Papias). Nevertheless, both #1 and #2
                  > would indicate that Eusebius omitted some commentary of Papias re Jn
                  > because it conflicted with Church traditions re Jn authorship that were
                  > firmly established later, and that are still accepted by conservative
                  > Christian commentators.

                  How would this fit in with the possibility that Papias himself was a
                  contributor to the authorship of the Greek 4G?

                  Jack
                • Larry Swain
                  ... But it makes sense ony if you judge Papias words as being dismissive. And while many scholars have posited it so, as many have thought otherwise. I
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 7, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                    >

                    > TESTIMONY OF PAPIAS
                    >
                    > The idea that Papias was a proponent of Jn is well accepted among
                    > patristic scholars. So could Papias' rather vague and somewhat dismissive
                    > comments about Mk and Mt have been motivated primarily by him judging the
                    > Synoptics somewhat unfavourably by the higher, for him, standard of J
                    > This seems reasonable to me. This view in fact has been advanced by quite
                    > a few commentators.


                    But it makes sense ony if you judge Papias' words as being dismissive.
                    And while many scholars have posited it so, as many have thought
                    otherwise. I suppose we could get into a discusion of whose list of
                    authorities is longer, but it reminds me of soemthing we did as
                    teenagers. I would prefer actually dealing with the primary evidence.
                    I'll produce a short form of my article on this question if folks are
                    interested. But I argue in it that these comments are positive and
                    supportive rather than dismissive.

                    > And of course we also need to keep in mind that we only know what Papias
                    > said as it was reported by Eusebius. It is quite probable that Eusebius
                    > chose not to report some things that Papias said. Specifically, why do we
                    > hear nothing about Papias's attitude towards the gospel of John? There is
                    > a very curious silence there... This seems like an interesting and
                    > important question, and I think the answer is possible to find.

                    Perhaps we do. See: The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 49,
                    Issue 2: October 1998.

                    What Papias said about John (and Luke)

                    CE Hill

                    Pages 582-629

                    > But first, we will need to deal with the question of the man, or more
                    > likely men, named John. Papias was supposed to have been a disciple of
                    > "John". But which John? We may suppose that there were at least 3 men
                    > named John who would be relevant here.
                    >
                    > 1. John the Apostle, the brother of James. These were the Boanerges
                    > brothers.
                    >
                    > 2. John the author of Revelation. Most biblical scholars nowadays consider
                    > that the author of the Revelation was not also the author of the gospel,
                    > although in ancient times, the opinion on this was divided. While for the
                    > most part common authorship for these two documents was assumed, some
                    > ancient commentators already doubted this. We can note here especially
                    > Dionysius the bishop of Alexandria (latter half of the third century), a
                    > surprisingly perceptive literary critic, who purported to demonstrate
                    > conclusively that these two works could not have been written by the same
                    > author. Dionysius, while accepting that John Boanerges indeed wrote the
                    > gospel, also suggested that it was John the Elder who wrote the Revelation
                    > (Eusebius, vii. 25).
                    >
                    > 3. John the Elder. While the identity of this personage is not entirely
                    > clear, we will see further what his role may have been.

                    I argue in my article that there is one John, in the earliest levels of
                    the tradition.

                    > Now, Eusebius mentions both John the Apostle and John the Elder as being
                    > present in Asia Minor. According to Eusebius, Papias was a pupil of the
                    > former and a colleague of the latter, but such version of events doesn't
                    > seem historically valid on the whole.

                    I do have a question of methodology for you Yuri. To quote you when I
                    cited Eusebius: "You don't think Eusebius is historical do you"? or
                    words that effect. So my question is how do you deal with this source?
                    Is it historical? Or is it historical only when it fits your argument?
                    Or when one of your secondary sources cites it in support of their
                    argument?



                    > Is it any wonder that Eusebius would have suppressed such uncomfortable
                    > information had he found it in Papias? One can well see why he would have
                    > done so, since this would have contradicted the established orthodox
                    > traditions.

                    Why would this be uncomfortable information? Two other gospels are
                    accepted whose authors only have connections to apostles, and not to the
                    pen of an apostle, so why is the apostleship of the author of the 4th
                    gospel so much more important for 5th century writers? Why is John the
                    Elder (if such existed) who was an actual disciple of Jesus less
                    authoritative than Luke?
                    Irenaeus who is so important in this regard makes his list of bishops to
                    demonstrate the inviolable nature of his tradition and you suggest that
                    a man who heard the very words of Jesus and stands in good stead in that
                    tradition is less authoritative than Mark or Luke and so therefore
                    suspect? Doesn't quite make sense. yes, I know others scholars have
                    argued this and you are merely passing on the tradition and can easily
                    provide the citations. But can you answer the questions?

                    > To summarize, Papias probably did say something about the authorship of Jn
                    > in his commentary, and what he said was either unknown or, yet more
                    > likely, omitted by Eusebius. What Papias probably said [Hypothesis #1] was
                    > that John Boanerges was martyred early together with his brother James,

                    And the book of Acts is silent on the issue only mentioning James? And
                    Josephus as well? Doesn't quite add up.

                    > and that Jn was authored by yet another John, viz. John the Elder whom
                    > Papias took to be also one of the 12. Since such an account would have
                    > come into serious conflict with the traditions of the Church that were
                    > solidifying soon after the time of Papias, it is entirely possible that
                    > this account of Papias was omitted by Eusebius.
                    >

                    And would also have been ommitted by Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of
                    Alexandria, the Muratorian Canon, Origen et al? Unlikely.

                    > It should also be noted that John the Elder would have been an amazingly
                    > long-lived disciple of the Lord to meet Papias in person. A commentator
                    > may wonder if Papias indeed knew him personally. More likely, as Loisy
                    > notes, would have been that Papias simply received both the gospel and the
                    > tradition of John the Elder from the other Elders with whom he was
                    > familiar in his younger years.

                    Not at all. If he's young when he's a disciple, say 20, in 36, and if
                    he lives until he's 80, that puts him at the year 96. And Polycarp and
                    Papias know him the last 10-15 years of his life, which makes it
                    entirely believable that men who are old in the 150s (Polycarp anyway
                    who according the Martyrdom has known "Christ" for 80 years) would have
                    known an old man in 80s.
                    It all depends on how one dates Papias and Polycarp, and that differs
                    from scholar to scholar.

                    Larry Swain
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 98-12-07 13:00:09 EST, yuku@globalserve.net writes:
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 8, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 98-12-07 13:00:09 EST, yuku@... writes:

                      << (LEONARD)
                      > Yuri, you speak twice in the above of a second John the "apostle". Is
                      > this really what Philip says? It looks to me from your citation that
                      > he thought of the second John as a disciple of Jesus, but not
                      > necessarily an apostle. Am I missing something?

                      YURI: You may be right, Leonard. I'm not really sure, perhaps your
                      interpretation is better. But then the question that comes next is What
                      would be the significance of this? I don't think this would make much
                      difference for my general argument.

                      For my own part, I don't think apostles were known as apostles until
                      post-Easter. They were probably all disciples when the historical Yeshu
                      was still around.

                      LEONARD: OK, but my problem is your assumption that when a second John is
                      alluded to by Papias as a disciple of Jesus, could this not also be a post-
                      easter reference to discipleship? The terminology certainly (or at least
                      probably) was used in the post-Easter communities, a la Acts of the Apostles.

                      Regards,
                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Jack Kilmon
                      ... How about Greek-speaking John the Elder as one of the 70? John the disciple was probably martyred not too distant from his brother. All of them were
                      Message 10 of 10 , Dec 8, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Maluflen@... wrote:

                        > In a message dated 98-12-07 13:00:09 EST, yuku@... writes:
                        >
                        > << (LEONARD)
                        > > Yuri, you speak twice in the above of a second John the "apostle". Is
                        > > this really what Philip says? It looks to me from your citation that
                        > > he thought of the second John as a disciple of Jesus, but not
                        > > necessarily an apostle. Am I missing something?
                        >
                        > YURI: You may be right, Leonard. I'm not really sure, perhaps your
                        > interpretation is better. But then the question that comes next is What
                        > would be the significance of this? I don't think this would make much
                        > difference for my general argument.
                        >
                        > For my own part, I don't think apostles were known as apostles until
                        > post-Easter. They were probably all disciples when the historical Yeshu
                        > was still around.
                        >
                        > LEONARD: OK, but my problem is your assumption that when a second John is
                        > alluded to by Papias as a disciple of Jesus, could this not also be a post-
                        > easter reference to discipleship? The terminology certainly (or at least
                        > probably) was used in the post-Easter communities, a la Acts of the Apostles.

                        How about Greek-speaking John the Elder as one of the 70? John the disciple
                        was probably martyred not too distant from his brother. All of them were
                        called Talmuddaya so John the Elder would have indeed been the last
                        living disciple when he died in 100 CE...just not one of the 12 and
                        not cousin Yohanon.

                        Jack
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.