The Elders of Papias never existed

[Giuseppe]

At any case, why do you think that Papias deliberately mentioned 7 Elders? Implicit in the view of Papias's choice as "deliberate" is the false assumption that he omitted deliberately other names of his knowledge.

So your view is that he just happened to know the names of exactly seven?

Yes. They became 7 of 12 Apostles only after Papias.

And there is also (in my source that has to remain anonymous) a sound argument for a short interpolation in Papias shortly after the mention of the 7 Elders. But I will talk about it not today.

[Giuseppe]

The sense of the interpolation (of which I will talk nextly) makes it more solid the my thesis that Papias knew only 7 Elders and therefore (by extension) not the our Gospels.

[Ben C. Smith]

At any case, why do you think that Papias deliberately mentioned 7 Elders? Implicit in the view of Papias's choice as "deliberate" is the false assumption that he omitted deliberately other names of his knowledge.

So your view is that he just happened to know the names of exactly seven?

Yes. They became 7 of 12 Apostles only after Papias.

So the number 7 is not symbolic in this case? It is just the number of names Papias happened to know?

And there is also (in my source that has to remain anonymous) a sound argument for a short interpolation in Papias shortly after the mention of the 7 Elders. But I will talk about it not today.

What the hell? What kind of cloak and dagger nonsense is this? I was just going to ask for your source, but here you are telling me that s/he has to remain anonymous.

[Ben C. Smith]

Or are you saying that Papias got the (symbolic seven) names from texts or traditions before him?

[Giuseppe]

It is just the number of names Papias happened to know?

precisely. Papias knew only 7 Elders. It is only a mere assumption the idea that the source of Papias (as opposed from Papias) had invented deliberately 7 names (for the symbolism of the number 7).

After 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.

What the hell? What kind of cloak and dagger nonsense is this? I was just going to ask for your source, but here you are telling me that s/he has to remain anonymous.

I mean the modern (living) source. When it's time (not today) I will reveal the his/her sound argument for a short interpolation in the Papias's words.

[Ben C. Smith]

After 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 I am open to the idea, for sure. But I think you (as usual) display much more confidence in the thought than I do.

[Joseph D. L.]

As usual, Giuseppe has to bullshit his way out.

[Giuseppe]

After 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.

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.

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").

In addition, Jerome (who repeats Eusebius on Papias in this point, in De Viris Illustribus 18), betrayes a lot of insistence when he says that Papias proves the existence of two Johns (respectively: the "Apostle" and the "Elder"). This insistence raises the doubt.

John the Presbyter contemporary of Papias is an invention designed to justify the difference between the fourth gospel (attributed to John the apostle) and the Revelation "of John" (as outcome of the criticism raised by Denis of Alexandria in History of Church 7:25).

Therefore Papias knew only 7 Elders. He ignores even the term "apostle". Papias didn't know the our Gospels where the 12 are mentioned.

Therefore all the our Gospels were written after Papias. And since Papias is contemporary of Marcion of Sinope...

[Ben C. Smith]

After 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.

[Ben C. Smith]

John the Presbyter contemporary of Papias is an invention designed to justify the difference between the fourth gospel (attributed to John the apostle) and the Revelation "of John" (as outcome of the criticism raised by Denis of Alexandria in History of Church 7:25).

Dionysius of Alexandria ably argues against the apostolic authorship of the apocalypse of John without resorting to the invention of a second John from some ancient source like Papias; he simply says that it was a different John. And the church fathers overall had knowledge of many, many texts claiming to be apostolic whose apostolic authorship they denied (the gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Philip, for example), and they just called them fraudulent. Easy peasy. They had no need to invent a second Thomas or a second Peter or whatnot.

No, Eusebius' tentative attribution of the apocalypse to "John the elder" is simply a "crime of opportunity," so to speak. Papias knew of two Johns, which in and of itself is hardly a strain, and Eusebius took advantage.