The Elders of Papias never existed

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:11 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 5:27 am So the interpolator meant to distinguish two Johns, but he added a phrase which equates them instead. This makes zero sense, and I am so glad it is not a position that I have to defend.
it makes sense, if the interpolator wanted to explain the "error" of who assumed the existence of only one John the Elder. Note that the phrase added by him serves to distinguish them (the second John is introduced as a distinct disciple, out the list) while the name + the title serves to clone the first John (mentioned in the list).
Why on earth is your interpolator wanting to do both things? Why does he both want to create a second John, as if there were two of them, and want to clone the first John, as if they were one and the same?
under the your view, there is clearly a problem: the your presumed interpolator of only the second formula "the disciples of Lord" started with the assumption that the text, as read by him, had not the second John the Elder as a "disciple of the Lord" (one included in the first formula "the disciples of Lord") and therefore he was moved to specify that also he, the second John the Elder, and Aristion, were "disciples of the Lord". This is a contradiction, because one can easily infer that the second John the Elder and Aristion were "disciples of the Lord" only in virtue of the first occurrence of the formula "disciples of the Lord". In other terms, the interpolator could avoid to do what he did because the text (without the second formula "disciples of Lord") supported already largely the his view that Aristion and the second John the Elder were disciples of the Lord, too.
I have no clue what you are saying here. I cannot fathom how far you are misreading my arguments (or the text itself; I cannot tell) to get to this level of gobbledygook.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by perseusomega9 »

:crazy:
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:19 am Why on earth is your interpolator wanting to do both things? Why does he both want to create a second John, as if there were two of them, and want to clone the first John, as if they were one and the same?
Because the first John (the original John mentioned in the list of Elders) was (assumed as) already dead by the time of Papias, and the interpolator wanted to create a second John the Elder who was contemporary of Papias. In this way he could introduce the first John as author of X, and the second John as author of Y, to correct a previous situation where X and Y were considered works by the same John the Elder (I go to memory).

Under the your view, the interpolator found this original text:


And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

Under the your view, the interpolator wanted to make "Aristion and the Elder John" as "disciples of Lord". The his goal was to show the Elder John as the Beloved Disciple of Jesus (if I understand you well) of the fourth gospel.
Hence the your interpolator added the part in red:

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, [the] disciples of the Lord, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

The contradiction in this your view is that the your presumed original text

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.


...had it already enough clear the fact that, in virtue of the first formula "disciples of Lord" (in blue above), Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of the Lord. Hence, there was no need at all for him to interpolate the second formula "disciples of Lord".

In my view, the original text was:

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

The interpolator wanted to invent a second John the Elder who was sufficiently distinct from the original John mentioned in the list of the Elders (and, as such, an Elder of his own right) to make him the author of works different from the works authored by the first John. Hence, if the interpolator had interpolated only the part in red, obtaining so:


And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

...then he would be able to mask perfectly the his pen under the my eyes 2000 years after.

But unfortunately for him, he betrayed himself by adding the restart:

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, [the] disciples of the Lord, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

a restart completely vain and without no utility at all.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:52 amThe contradiction in this your view is that the your presumed original text

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

...had it already enough clear the fact that, in virtue of the first formula "disciples of Lord" (in blue above), Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of the Lord. Hence, there was no need at all for him to interpolate the second formula "disciples of Lord".
At last: the source of your error. No, the text without the interpolation does not state or imply that Aristion and the elder John are disciples. That is not how the grammar works. If anything, without the interpolation, it would be implied that they are not disciples (this more exact implication is not from the grammar, but rather from the flow of the text).

At least I know now where you made the mistake. Carry on.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by Giuseppe »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:42 am
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:52 amThe contradiction in this your view is that the your presumed original text

And if anyone chanced to come along who had followed the elders, I inquired as to the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord had said, which things both Aristion and the elder John, are saying. For I did not suppose that things from books would profit me as much as things from a living and remaining voice.

...had it already enough clear the fact that, in virtue of the first formula "disciples of Lord" (in blue above), Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of the Lord. Hence, there was no need at all for him to interpolate the second formula "disciples of Lord".
At last: the source of your error. No, the text without the interpolation does not state or imply that Aristion and the elder John are disciples. That is not how the grammar works. If anything, without the interpolation, it would be implied that they are not disciples (this more exact implication is not from the grammar, but rather from the flow of the text).

At least I know now where you made the mistake. Carry on.
Surely about Aristion you are right. But John the Elder, even if he is saying things in the present (the time of Papias), being Elder, has to be from the previous generation, and this is in contradiction with the presence of another John (the Elder mentioned in the list, himself also from the previous generation).

Hence in the you view we would have two John the Elder and as such both from a previous generation, save the fact that the second John is made also contemporary of Papias.

I can't realize how one can receive the title Elder when he is still living. Only the dead people deserve the title Elder.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:04 amI can't realize how one can receive the title Elder when he is still living. Only the dead people deserve the title Elder.
:lol: You and your crazy ad hoc rules.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: The Elders of Papias never existed

Post by perseusomega9 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 5:58 am
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:50 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:45 am
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:47 amAfter Papias, these 7 names served to invent (by clonation) the names of 12 apostles occurring in the our Gospels. Corollary: the our gospels come after Papias.
Well, I have been toying for a while with the notion that the lists of the Twelve are later additions into the gospel texts, and possibly even the mentions of them, also.
So Eusebius (3:39, 3-4):

3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. ....

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 (eipen), 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 (legousin). For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Papias uses the past time (eipen) to mention the 7 Elders, while he uses the present time (legousin) to mention Aristion and the presbyter John.
Yes, I have written about that before.
It seems so that Papias is of a generation later than the 7 Elders. Inferably, the his contemporary Jean the Elder would be different from the John who is mentioned in the list of 7 Elders and who is by definition him also a "John the Elder": contradiction.
"Elder" is simply a title for the second John, as we find in 2 John [1.]1 and 3 John [1.]1. It is a title for other people in history, too.
This difficulty disappears once removed the entire reference to Aristion and the presbyter John (part red in the quote above). The part in red shows all the signs of an interpolation with restart (="the disciples of the Lord").
I disagree. The interpolation is just the second "disciples of the Lord," as I have argued, inspired by Bacon. If τοῦ κυρίου μαθηταί is a restart, then it leaves out λέγουσιν, and you lose your entire rationale for the restart.

Besides, Eusebius says that Papias refers back to Aristion and John the Elder by name a lot in his text, so their names are not likely to be part of the interpolation. And, if you think Eusebius is lying on that point, then there is little sense in taking his word for any of this, so you can rid yourself of the entire burden without having to create an interpolation.

I also have my eye on Armenian manuscript Etchmiadsin 229 (Matenadaran 2374), which has a note between Mark 16.8 and 16.9: "Of Ariston the Elder," which puts one in mind of how Papias refers to Aristion in the same breath as he refers to John the Elder. It has been suggested, therefore, that Aristion is the originator of the material in the long ending, and that Papias quoted him by name in that capacity, and that an Armenian scribe later compared what Papias had quoted from Aristion to the contents of the longer ending. Such a thing must probably forever remain a suggestion, but it makes sense that the longer ending of Mark should come from such a source.

There was no need to invent a second John to take credit (or blame) for the apocalypse. "John" was a common name.
Therefore Papias knew only 7 Elders. He ignores even the term "apostle". Papias didn't know the our Gospels where the 12 are mentioned.
This can be true even with the presence of Aristion and John. The seven are clearly in a class of their own, one to which Aristion and John do not belong.
On the 2nd 'disciples of the lord's, Vinzent in Marcion... discusses this passage and omits this second instance citing Abramowski 'Erinnerungen' 1983
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Post Reply