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

Re: testimony of Papias

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.