Dating Mark in 115 CE

[John2]

which 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.

The argument seems to be that a confusion between Pappos and Papias would not have occurred in Armenian.
Assuming FTSOA that this is correct it would still allow confusion in the Greek sources before translation into Armenian.

Andrew Criddle

That makes sense. But, in any case, I have read at least 3 different scholars (two of them are Shanks and MacDonald; the third is Bauckham, I think, though I would have to do some searching to be sure) who state that Norelli deems the Armenian fragments not likely to be Papian. If someone can quote something from Norelli (preferably translated into English, but even if not) to the contrary, I would be obliged.

But even if it is Papias, it would still have nothing to do with the gospel of John, only with the part about there being "fifteen kinds of aloe in India."

[Ben C. Smith]

But even if it is Papias, it would still have nothing to do with the gospel of John, only with the part about there being "fifteen kinds of aloe in India."

I agree. Vardan Vardapet does not attribute anything specifically about the Johannine aloe to Papias; he attributes there being 15 kinds of aloe in India to Papias (which, I must add, sounds like something a geographer or a natural historian would be rather more likely to write than an Asiatic church fellow).

[John2]

(which, I must add, sounds like something a geographer or a natural historian would be rather more likely to write than an Asiatic church fellow).

Right! (Though maybe he could have heard about it from followers of Thomas, if there is anything to his existence and the story of him going to India, but still, it has nothing to do with the gospel of John.)

[John2]

Regarding the existence of Thomas, he is at least mentioned by Papias in EH 3.39.4:

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.

[Ben C. Smith]

Regarding the existence of Thomas, he is at least mentioned by Papias in EH 3.39.4:

If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.

Papias seems to favor disciples who (later, in my current view) show up in John: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3205.

[MrMacSon]

... the point is 'sources' and their use by the likes of Eusebius (and Epiphanius) are, in my view at least, more saucy than 'sourcey' (or are even sorcery)

What does "saucy" mean in this context?

Added 'flavour'; and it's not always clear what all the ingredients might be and where they're from, or in what quantities (depending on the sauce's source, of course) [and it was a bit of poetic licence).

Okay, but why is it, then, that when we can check Eusebius' text against a real manuscript (whether it be of Polycarp or Irenaeus or Abgar or Clement) it always seems to come out pretty much verbatim? Eusebius' Greek text of the latter chapters of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, for example, lines up so well with the Latin translation that it is used as the Greek text for that letter (since the Greek manuscripts all break off in the middle). Are we back to conspiracy theories about groups of manuscripts being manufactured on behalf of Eusebius?

Nope (not previously, anyway).

But what is the provenance of these texts?

[Giuseppe]

But even if it is Papias, it would still have nothing to do with the gospel of John, only with the part about there being "fifteen kinds of aloe in India."

If even Vardan talks about the aloes in connection with John 19:39, even more so Papias would have talked very probably about there being "fifteen kinds of aloe in India" only in connection with John 19:39.

[Ben C. Smith]

... the point is 'sources' and their use by the likes of Eusebius (and Epiphanius) are, in my view at least, more saucy than 'sourcey' (or are even sorcery)

What does "saucy" mean in this context?

Added 'flavour'; and it's not always clear what all the ingredients might be and where they're from, or in what quantities (depending on the sauce's source, of course) [and it was a bit of poetic licence).

Okay, but why is it, then, that when we can check Eusebius' text against a real manuscript (whether it be of Polycarp or Irenaeus or Abgar or Clement) it always seems to come out pretty much verbatim? Eusebius' Greek text of the latter chapters of Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, for example, lines up so well with the Latin translation that it is used as the Greek text for that letter (since the Greek manuscripts all break off in the middle). Are we back to conspiracy theories about groups of manuscripts being manufactured on behalf of Eusebius?

Nope (not previously, anyway).

But what is the provenance of these texts?

The issues surrounding the provenance of these texts is similar to those surrounding that of most of the other ancient Christian texts. What specifically are you asking? The epistle of Polycarp, for example, is partly extant in medieval Greek manuscripts and fully extant in medieval Latin manuscripts, and is referenced by Irenaeus, by Eusebius, and by other Christian authors. So... never as much as we would like, but rather better than what we have for, say, Tacitus. Is this what you are asking about?

[Giuseppe]

In addition to Vardan's fragment, another argument for Papias preceding the Fourth Gospel despite of the his knowledge of Johannine tradition is the following:

1) Justin comes after Papias.

2) it can be proved that Justin knew the Johannine tradition but not the Fourth Gospel

3) therefore: also Papias knew the Johannine tradition but not the Fourth Gospel.

[andrewcriddle]

which 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.

The argument seems to be that a confusion between Pappos and Papias would not have occurred in Armenian.
Assuming FTSOA that this is correct it would still allow confusion in the Greek sources before translation into Armenian.

Andrew Criddle

That makes sense. But, in any case, I have read at least 3 different scholars (two of them are Shanks and MacDonald; the third is Bauckham, I think, though I would have to do some searching to be sure) who state that Norelli deems the Armenian fragments not likely to be Papian. If someone can quote something from Norelli (preferably translated into English, but even if not) to the contrary, I would be obliged.

The Norelli passage is here Norelli notes Siegert's objection to the suggested confusion of Papias and Pappos then goes on to say (my translation based on google translate)

however, his mention immediately after "the geographer", that is pseudo-Moses of Corene, points precisely in this direction: the same information is attributed to one and to the other.
In any case. therefore, it would be unwise to base any conclusions about Papias on this passage. For a criticism of Siegert, see Kortner, Papias 34-35 (which, I do not see on what basis, even wonders if it is not here the Latin lexicographer Papias)

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

See http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb ... edel1.html