The drawbacks of overlooking oral tradition as an option.

[Ben C. Smith]

Unfortunately, I am not sure how much weight to accord to the Latin prologues.

[andrewcriddle]

Unfortunately, I am not sure how much weight to accord to the Latin prologues.

There is a discussion here https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/023_134.pdf

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Unfortunately, I am not sure how much weight to accord to the Latin prologues.

There is a discussion here https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jts/023_134.pdf

I should have guessed Bacon would have a learned answer to the question. Thanks.

[perseusomega9]

Irenaeus remains responsible for the carrying
back of Papias ·a generation earlier than he belongs to relatively to
the Apostle, and this is the first point for consideration.

The author of Andrew's linked piece is saying that Irenaeus dates Papias a generation to early correct?

[Ben C. Smith]

Irenaeus remains responsible for the carrying
back of Papias ·a generation earlier than he belongs to relatively to
the Apostle, and this is the first point for consideration.

The author of Andrew's linked piece is saying that Irenaeus dates Papias a generation to early correct?

In a relative sense, yes. The point is that Irenaeus draws a more direct connection between John and Papias than really existed. Bacon also seems to think, however (independently of this observation about Irenaeus), that Papias flourished in the middle of century II rather than at its beginning.

[DCHindley]

Irenaeus remains responsible for the carrying
back of Papias ·a generation earlier than he belongs to relatively to
the Apostle, and this is the first point for consideration.

The author of Andrew's linked piece is saying that Irenaeus dates Papias a generation to early correct?

In a relative sense, yes. The point is that Irenaeus draws a more direct connection between John and Papias than really existed. Bacon also seems to think, however (independently of this observation about Irenaeus), that Papias flourished in the middle of century II rather than at its beginning.

Ben, I'm having trouble following you. It's entirely possible that I have not read every post in this thread.

"The point is that Irenaeus draws a more direct connection between John and Papias than really existed." What did you mean by "more direct connection?"

I will say that I do think that Irenaeus telescoped things, maybe in emulation of Josephus who seemed to treat as a single man the two Samarian governors named Sanballat(sp?), when describing the origin of the Samaritans as a distinct people. Both of them may have just not wanted to loose the interest of Greek/Roman readers/hearers by seeming repetitious. It is only a suggestion.

"[Bacon said:] that Papias flourished in the middle of century II rather than at its beginning..." I'm kind of thinking you agree with him. What throws me about this telescoping thing is, why would Irenaeus want to do it in the first place? Was it to put a "spin" on the antiquity/authority of the tradition Papias had published, of which Irenaeus enthusiastically approved? I seriously don't know if I can believe that Irenaeus would deceive his readers in that way.

I have to assume that Irenaeus mainly preached to the choir, who would already know of Papias and his age from their hometown elders. So why make the tradition seem more ancient that it perhaps was? People would notice, but Eusebius doesn't seem to suggest that anyone didn't like Irenaeus.

Eusebius felt Irenaeus was just plain wrong about supporting Papias' tradition of a superabundant earthly end-age kingdom. They simply had not yet realized that these things said by Jesus were mere "figures," not to be taken literally. Duh. I'm pretty sure that E. also felt that Papias was a bit too willing to accept whatever the traveler said, and did not properly order his materials.

"Dumbass!" someone blurted out as he studied a new book by Irenaeus that had crossed his path. Wait a minute, maybe that was me saying that ...

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

Irenaeus remains responsible for the carrying
back of Papias ·a generation earlier than he belongs to relatively to
the Apostle, and this is the first point for consideration.

The author of Andrew's linked piece is saying that Irenaeus dates Papias a generation to early correct?

In a relative sense, yes. The point is that Irenaeus draws a more direct connection between John and Papias than really existed. Bacon also seems to think, however (independently of this observation about Irenaeus), that Papias flourished in the middle of century II rather than at its beginning.

Ben, I'm having trouble following you. It's entirely possible that I have not read every post in this thread.

"The point is that Irenaeus draws a more direct connection between John and Papias than really existed." What did you mean by "more direct connection?"

In reality, going by the excerpts that we have from Eusebius, Papias inquired of things that John the elder said, and this John the elder was not the same as John the apostle. To judge from Irenaeus, however, Papias was a direct hearer of John, and there is only one John in view: the apostle.

What throws me about this telescoping thing is, why would Irenaeus want to do it in the first place?

Because shortening the time between early tradents and the apostles was viewed as a way to demonstrate that the apostolic tradition, unlike the heresies, was transmitted faithfully down through the generations, with no gaps. This was a common thing among the fathers. Eusebius himself does it when it suits him. I doubt any deceit was intended. It was just all too easy to cut out the middlemen, especially when the likes of Papias did not name them.

[Ben C. Smith]

Specifically, Bacon is tracing the origins of the growing legend which calls Papias a disciple of John, then a dear disciple of John, and then the secretary of John while he dictated the gospel, and he thinks that Irenaeus is the source of the first stirrings of this legend:

Page 147: The ultimate source of his misinformation about Papias as a 'dear disciple' (discipulus carus) of John is manifestly Irenaeus. The same mistake is not likely to have been made independently by two or more individuals. There may have been several intermediate links between Irenaeus and the Prologue. Some are indeed demanded to account for the later exaggerations and blunders. For we have seen how Papias is advanced from the position of a disciple of John to that of an especially dear one, and finally to that of amanuensis of the Gospel (descripsit dictante Iohanne). The development is parallel to that of the tradition of Peter's relation to the Second Gospel. At first Mark is merely a former 'interpreter' of the Apostle, recording 'what he remembered' of Peter's discourses after his death. Next he is said to have written while Peter was still living, but without the Apostle's intervention. Finally, to clothe the Gospel with complete apostolic authority, Jerome declares it to have been written by Mark 'Petro narrante et illo scribente'. From the description of Papias as John's disciple, author of the Exegeses, given in the fifth book of Irenaeus, it was easy to draw the inference that Papias was in like manner the amanuensis for John's Gospel, even without the aid of the statement in the second book that 'the Gospel (of John) and all the Elders who had converse with John in Asia bear witness that John delivered this same thing (that is, the story of the Lord's age) to them("id ipsum tradidisse eis Ioannem") '. It is perhaps conceivable, but certainly not probable, that 'id ipsum' might be taken to refer to the Gospel just mentioned.