Page 6 of 6

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:28 pm
by andrewcriddle
Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:15 pm
Surely Matthew is not the original. Matthew is clearly not a Jewish (or Jewish Christian for that matter) text. This is where faith gets in the way of lucidity.
Are you suggesting that Greek Matthew was based on something like the Aramaic/Hebrew gospel of the Hebrews ? (As distinct from the other way round.)

Or are we radically misunderstanding each other ?

Andrew Criddle

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:30 pm
by Secret Alias
No I am just saying that canonical Matthew is a faux 'Jewish' or Hebrew gospel. Whatever Hebrew gospel there was it was independent of canonical Matthew. If Origen is citing from it (Hebrews), it ain't canonical Matthew. Moreover if I am allowed to indulge in my own pet theories the fact that Matthew is the storage place of the Marcionite 'antitheses' (Matt 5:17f) which the author of Against Marcion thinks was 'cut' from Marcion's gospel demonstrates clearly that this ain't no Jewish gospel. I admit that my own theory of the artificiality of the fourfold gospel is difficult to prove. But 'faux' Matthew (from an allusion in Papias) lines up with 'faux' Marcion (= Luke). Isn't Enoch the 'faux' Pentateuch? It happens all the time.

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:41 pm
by Secret Alias
I think that we are far too willing to avoid the idea that the methodology by which let's say the Acts of Paul or the Apocalypse of Paul was created (i.e. out of the rib of older material or references) extended to other canonical texts like Matthew. It's canonicity isn't proof of its authenticity. Messi finished outside 'the canon' of third place (i.e. to stand on the podium). Messi was not the fifth best player this year. He was arguably once again the best player in the world and certainly better than fifth best. Just wasn't chosen.

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:54 pm
by perseusomega9
Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:41 pm
I think that we are far too willing to avoid the idea that the methodology by which let's say the Acts of Paul or the Apocalypse of Paul was created (i.e. out of the rib of older material or references) extended to other canonical texts like Matthew. It's canonicity isn't proof of its authenticity. Messi finished outside 'the canon' of third place (i.e. to stand on the podium). Messi was not the fifth best player this year. He was arguably once again the best player in the world and certainly better than fifth best. Just wasn't chosen.
But how can you say that when http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org ... its-second gjohn was apparently transmitted with great fidelity lol

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:40 pm
by Secret Alias
Case of people asking the wrong questions

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:17 pm
by perseusomega9
No shit, but they have an evangelical paradigm to uphold so

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:20 pm
by gmx
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:11 am
gmx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:44 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:57 am
gmx wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:49 am
And as I've remarked previously, of the quotations we have from Papias' Expositions.... very few seem to have anything to do with the "sayings of the Lord". They're about Philip and his daughters, or Judas and his entrails, or as Eusebius says, "some other more fantastical things". If Papias' 5 volumes was primarily concerned with the sayings of the Lord, why is it only Papias' tangential content has been preserved ?
What we get from Eusebius on Papias is pretty much what we would expect, I think: the weird stuff (the bits about the millennium, for example), the first stuff (Papias being the earliest extant writer to link Peter with the gospel of Mark, for example), the unique stuff. I do not know why we would expect Eusebius to quote Papias quoting the gospels; that is not his usual tactic elsewhere. Nor would we expect Eusebius to quote Papias' interpretations at any length, Papias being a chiliast and all. Eusebius does sometimes quote writers quoting from more obscure New Testament books, especially the ones being debated in his own time (the Apocalypse, James, Jude, 2 Peter), but the gospels (along with the Pauline epistles) he regards as bedrock. No need to establish their authority in the church!
I take your point Ben but I'm not completely convinced. Eusebius records Papias' statements about Mark and Peter and Matthew because it strengthens the authority and antiquity of the apostolic succession. I'm sure there would have been similar value in the earliest recorded interpretations of the Lord's words for the similar weight of their antiquity.
I guess I am not sure what part of Eusebius' approach is giving you that impression; to me it does not sound like something Eusebius would do at all.
That seems a little dismissive.
Ben wrote: He mainly quotes writers for what they can offer that is either unique or the earliest extant instance of something in Christian history
Would Papias, if indeed he wrote five volumes concerning the sayings of Jesus, not count as the earliest Christian exegete? Given that he was a "truly ancient man", would his testimony concerning the sayings of Jesus not meet Eusebius uniqueness criteria purely due to the remoteness of the witness and proximity to the supposed events?

Re: Did Papias report not the "sayings of the Lord" but "the oracles concerning the Lord"?

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:53 am
by Ben C. Smith
gmx wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:20 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:11 am
gmx wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:44 am
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:57 am
gmx wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 4:49 am
And as I've remarked previously, of the quotations we have from Papias' Expositions.... very few seem to have anything to do with the "sayings of the Lord". They're about Philip and his daughters, or Judas and his entrails, or as Eusebius says, "some other more fantastical things". If Papias' 5 volumes was primarily concerned with the sayings of the Lord, why is it only Papias' tangential content has been preserved ?
What we get from Eusebius on Papias is pretty much what we would expect, I think: the weird stuff (the bits about the millennium, for example), the first stuff (Papias being the earliest extant writer to link Peter with the gospel of Mark, for example), the unique stuff. I do not know why we would expect Eusebius to quote Papias quoting the gospels; that is not his usual tactic elsewhere. Nor would we expect Eusebius to quote Papias' interpretations at any length, Papias being a chiliast and all. Eusebius does sometimes quote writers quoting from more obscure New Testament books, especially the ones being debated in his own time (the Apocalypse, James, Jude, 2 Peter), but the gospels (along with the Pauline epistles) he regards as bedrock. No need to establish their authority in the church!
I take your point Ben but I'm not completely convinced. Eusebius records Papias' statements about Mark and Peter and Matthew because it strengthens the authority and antiquity of the apostolic succession. I'm sure there would have been similar value in the earliest recorded interpretations of the Lord's words for the similar weight of their antiquity.
I guess I am not sure what part of Eusebius' approach is giving you that impression; to me it does not sound like something Eusebius would do at all.
That seems a little dismissive.
Why? I am not sure what you mean.
Ben wrote: He mainly quotes writers for what they can offer that is either unique or the earliest extant instance of something in Christian history
Would Papias, if indeed he wrote five volumes concerning the sayings of Jesus, not count as the earliest Christian exegete? Given that he was a "truly ancient man", would his testimony concerning the sayings of Jesus not meet Eusebius uniqueness criteria purely due to the remoteness of the witness and proximity to the supposed events?
Eusebius does tell us about Papias' exegesis. He tells us more about Papias than he does about most figures from the same time period or earlier. Eusebius makes clear that he is not a fan of Papias' exegesis, asserting that he was of small intelligence.