Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:33 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:13 pm
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:09 pm
toejam wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:08 pmThe point in my last post was that your attempt to argue that Papias' "elder" was a myth invented by Papias because Papias isn't more specific about him is terribly weak. It's so weak that the reverse argument would be just as strong (i.e. that if Papias were too specific, then that too would be rounded up as a point in favor of Papias' invention of the elder).
taken as an isolated bit,
surely the old age of the "elders" seems to be not a myth invented by Papias. But considered in the light of the fact that Ireneus said that Jesus died 50 years old (!), then the "elders" of Papias raise more than a suspicion of myth-making. Only ask yourself: why all this stress on the old age?
Where else would you get your traditions? Papias getting them from people older than he was is about as suspicious as a fisherman buying bait.
If Papias has made John and Aristion up, then we will need better evidence than that a person would seek out older people to learn about the past. That is just a silly objection.
ETA: Irenaeus making Jesus older than usual
is suspicious, because sources from before Irenaeus make Jesus about 30 when he was crucified, so Irenaeus must have had some reason to make the change. But no contingency like that (at least not that you have presented) affects Papias getting his information from "elders."
I would disagree. Papias's claim that he received traditions from ''elders'' may be comparable,
mutatis mutandis, to Paul's claim that Jesus was ''born by woman''.
Any man is born by woman, so where is the precise point of Paul?
Nonsense. Irenaeus claims traditions from "the elders," too, and in his case we can be sure that they existed; Papias is one of them! You have to call those people
something, and "elders" is an obvious and common thing to call them. Paul did not in any way have to specify that Jesus was "born of a woman," except to combat some heresy.
Also, Papias'
main use of the term "elders" is for the disciples themselves. (The easiest way to read the grammar is to take the series of accusative interrogative pronouns (τί) as standing in apposition with "words," or λόγους, also an accusative.) But the disciples are
already contemporary with Jesus, by definition, so to call them "elders" cannot serve your preferred purpose.
ETA: In fact, Giuseppe, think about what it would mean,
on your own terms, that Papias called the disciples "elders." His words imply that they are already dead (since he talks about "what they said," past tense). If they all died young, then Papias can be writing shortly after their passing, thus decreasing the chronological distance between himself and Jesus. But, if they died old, as emphasized by "elders" on your reading, then that actually
increases the chronological distance between himself and Jesus, since more years have to pass in order for them all to die.