John2 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 10:48 amwhich is in doubt, as per Shanks;
Norelli reports the voice of an expert about the Armenian writer who disagrees about a his possible confusion on Papias.
It is already an established fact that GJohn is post-100 CE. Only apologists, I think, can claim still that GJohn is from first century.
ADDENDA: the Armenian writer reports the word "aloe" as mentioned by Papias. The source of Papias can only be (the same of) GJohn insofar the term "aloe" appears only in GJohn. And obviously Papias was worthy for quote only in virtue of the his knowledge of the Gospel Tradition. Surely not for other reasons.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
[44] You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Well, Giuseppe, that didn't last long...
I believe that this verse is applicable to Nero, whose real father was one of the worst people ever to walk the planet. Britannicus is not allowed to state his case to become Emperor. He is later killed by Nero.
John 3: 16 should now be read with the ironic intensity that it deserves.
John2 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 10:48 amAssuming that it even does refer to Papias (which is in doubt, as per Shanks; https://books.google.com/books?id=YCxTA ... 22&f=false), what does it have to do with the gospel of John? So what if Papias (or whoever) "report that there are fifteen kinds of aloe in India"?
Indeed, most modern critical scholars reject this as a reference to Papias in the first place, based on the work of recent European scholars:
Michael J. Kok, The Beloved Apostle, page 60: "Ulrich Körtner (Papias, 34-36), William Schoedel ("Papias," 260), and Enrico Norelli (Papia, 124, 394-411, 492-98) have cast critical suspicion on the authenticity of the Armenian fragments. .... ...Vardan may have confused Papias with the fourth-century Alexandrian geographer Pappos."
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:55 am
Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.
No, he and Bartlet are correct that "in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica [in which Papias is mentioned], Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four" and thus that "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110."
Eusebius is often rewriting 'history', or even outright invents it. He is an unreliable 'witness' to early (first or second century) Christianity.
John2 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 10:48 amwhich is in doubt, as per Shanks;
Norelli reports the voice of an expert about the Armenian writer who disagrees about a his possible confusion on Papias.
It is already an established fact that GJohn is post-100 CE. Only apologists, I think, can claim still that GJohn is from first century.
ADDENDA: the Armenian writer reports the word "aloe" as mentioned by Papias. The source of Papias can only be (the same of) GJohn insofar the term "aloe" appears only in GJohn. And obviously Papias was worthy for quote only in virtue of the his knowledge of the Gospel Tradition. Surely not for other reasons.
Well, for you it is "an established fact" that John is post-100 CE then, and you can view my position (which is open to the idea that it could be dated 80-100 CE) however you like. And assuming for the sake of discussion that Vardan Vardapet is referring to Papias (which I don't buy but will gladly allow you), the only person I see using the word "aloe" in regards to the gospel of John here is Vardapet.
Last edited by John2 on Wed May 01, 2019 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:55 am
Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.
No, he and Bartlet are correct that "in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica [in which Papias is mentioned], Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four" and thus that "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110."
Eusebius is often rewriting 'history', or even outright invents it. He is an unreliable 'witness' to early (first or second century) Christianity.
What? Eusebius is awesome (to have as a resource). Imagine where we'd be if he hadn't assembled the various sources that he did. Okay, so he's an orthodox Christian and consequently has an orthodox Christian viewpoint and "spin" on everything. Oh, no. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hegesippus rules. Papias rules. I'm glad Eusebius cited them.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:55 am
Matthews in Philip, Apostle and Evangelist (pg. 30-31) is probably wrong.
No, he and Bartlet are correct that "in the third book of the Historia ecclesiastica [in which Papias is mentioned], Eusebius nowhere goes beyond Trajan's time, and in fact still treats this period at the start of book four" and thus that "Eusebius . . . saw no reason . . . to infer from internal evidence that Papias wrote after rather than before A.D. 110."
Eusebius is often rewriting 'history', or even outright invents it. He is an unreliable 'witness' to early (first or second century) Christianity.
He is biased and does not always interpret his sources very well, and he is quite uncritical in which information he accepts and passes on. But outright invention? I would have to see the argument. The few I know of are either speculation or extremely localized, or both.
ETA: I hasten to add that of course I have seen the arguments for Eusebius having invented the Testimonium Flavianum. And I have seen an even more speculative argument for an episode having been invented in book 10 of History of the Church. I am not sure what to make of either of these cases, because in other cases, ones which we can check, we can confirm that he did not invent the episode or the text (whether or not it is legendary or historical is a separate matter). And of course there are many bits that we are unable to check. So, on the one hand, we have many verifiable pieces of older information being passed on; on the other hand, we have a couple of episodes or texts for which arguments have been made for Eusebian invention, but which are not verifiable as such apart from the argument.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 1:18 pm
Eusebius is often rewriting 'history', or even outright invents it. He is an unreliable 'witness' to early (first or second century) Christianity.
... outright invention? I would have to see the argument.[/quote]
The 'Testimonium' Flavianum. The Bishops Lists. Possibly Hegesippus or aspects of 'him' ...
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 12:53 pm
Eusebius is often rewriting 'history', or even outright invents it. He is an unreliable 'witness' to early (first or second century) Christianity.
What? Eusebius is awesome (to have as a resource). Imagine where we'd be if he hadn't assembled the various sources that he did. Okay, so he's an orthodox Christian and consequently has an orthodox Christian viewpoint and "spin" on everything. Oh, no. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hegesippus rules. Papias rules. I'm glad Eusebius cited them.
Yes, Eusbeius assembled various 'sources'.
John2 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 1:14 pm
he's an orthodox Christian
bwahahahaha - orthodoxy didn't exist in Eusebius' time.
