The Elders of Papias never existed

[Giuseppe]

I should read better the your points but I can already note that the your incipit is not promising well:

"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.

it is simply impossible that there are two John both named "The Elder". Papias can't be contemporary of one of them and in the same time be lived after the other of them. The simplest solution is the presence of only one John the Elder. There were many people named John but only one could be named the Elder in this context.

[Ben C. Smith]

I should read better the your points but I can already note that the your incipit is not promising well:

"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.

it is simply impossible that there are two John both named "The Elder". Papias can't be contemporary of one of them and in the same time be lived after the other of them. The simplest solution is the presence of only one John the Elder. There were many people named John but only one could be named the Elder in this context.

There is only one John entitled "the Elder." The first John is not entitled "the Elder." You misunderstand the difference between a descriptor and a title. The descriptor "the Elders" applies (potentially) to anyone older, or of a previous generation. The title 'the Elder" rests upon a single person as a special case.

[Giuseppe]

The first John is not entitled "the Elder." You misunderstand the difference between a descriptor and a title. The descriptor "the Elders" applies (potentially) to anyone older, or of a previous generation. The title 'the Elder" rests upon a single person as a special case.

The descriptor here is a title. Hence there is automatically a Thomas the Elder, a Philip the Elder, a Simon the Elder etc, in virtue of the only fact that they are called Elders.

Otherwise, why does Papias title the second John as Elder, if not for the simple reason that that John is from a previous generation?

Idem for Pliny the Elder. It is both a title and a descriptor to distinguish him from the grandson.

[Ben C. Smith]

The first John is not entitled "the Elder." You misunderstand the difference between a descriptor and a title. The descriptor "the Elders" applies (potentially) to anyone older, or of a previous generation. The title 'the Elder" rests upon a single person as a special case.

The descriptor here is a title. Hence there is automatically a Thomas the Elder, a Philip the Elder, a Simon the Elder etc, in virtue of the only fact that they are called Elders.

Nonsense.

Otherwise, why does Papias title the second John as Elder, if not for the simple reason that that John is from a previous generation?

Because he was known as "the Elder." Hence the distinction between a descriptor and a title, which you have proven yourself incapable of grasping.

Idem for Pliny the Elder. It is both a title and a descriptor to distinguish him from the grandson.

It may have begun as a descriptor, but it is now a title. People call him Pliny the Elder even if they have never heard of any other Pliny.

[Giuseppe]

There is a reason for the 7 being called Elders.

There is a reason for a John being called Elder.

That reason, given the immediate context, can only be one and the same: their being of a previous generation.

Hence we can't have two John called Elders in virtue of the same reason.

Your discorsue makes sense only if we ignore the immediate context, where the Elder is a onorific title derived from the relative antiquity of the person called so.

[Ben C. Smith]

Your discorsue makes sense only if we ignore the immediate context, where the Elder is a onorific title derived from the relative antiquity of the person called so.

Part of the point of a title is that context means little or nothing. The title sticks even when it is not needed in context.

[Giuseppe]

Your discorsue makes sense only if we ignore the immediate context, where the Elder is a onorific title derived from the relative antiquity of the person called so.

Part of the point of a title is that context means little or nothing. The title sticks even when it is not needed in context.

this seems to be a situation similar to decide what "brother of Lord" means in Gal 1:19. Is it a title or a descriptor of a distinct fact in the real world? In that case, the immediate context, at least for Carrier, requires that Brother means spiritual brother also in Gal 1:19.

Have you something of similar (to the Carrier's argument) from the immediate context in Papias to prove that that "second" John the Elder was really distinct from the "first" John mentioned in the list of 7 Elders (and as such an Elder of his own right)?

I would be curious if you can show some evidence in this sense.

But if you can't do so, then the default position has to be that the "first" John coincides with the "second" John.

Papias doesn't give a means to distinguish them, and so we also will not distinguish them.

[Ben C. Smith]

Your discorsue makes sense only if we ignore the immediate context, where the Elder is a onorific title derived from the relative antiquity of the person called so.

Part of the point of a title is that context means little or nothing. The title sticks even when it is not needed in context.

this seems to be a situation similar to decide what "brother of Lord" means in Gal 1:19. Is it a title or a descriptor of a distinct fact in the real world? In that case, the immediate context, at least for Carrier, requires that Brother means spiritual brother also in Gal 1:19.

Have you something of similar (to the Carrier's argument) from the immediate context in Papias to prove that that "second" John the Elder was really distinct from the "first" John mentioned in the list of 7 Elders (and as such an Elder of his own right)?

I would be curious if you can show some evidence in this sense.

But if you can't do so, then the default position has to be that the "first" John coincides with the "second" John.

You have the default position backwards. Two men having the same name, especially a common name like John, is no cause to overturn the way lists and titles normally work.

There are two lists: one of men described as elders and who spoke (in the past), and another of men who are speaking (in the present), only one of whom is entitled "the Elder." Two different lists; therefore, probably two different men named John. If he were called "the Elder Frank" in the text, nobody would ever equate him with anybody from the first list, and that is because the overlap of names is the only reason for the equation; and the sharing of a name as common as John is not enough to overcome the fact that there are, after all, two different lists.

Papias doesn't give a means to distinguish them, and so we also will not distinguish them.

Papias (A) puts them on two different lists and (B) gives one, and not the other, the title of "the Elder." Again, you are seemingly incapable of distinguishing between descriptors and titles. Admittedly, titles can start off as descriptors, but once they become a title, as we find in 2 and 3 John, their job as a descriptor is effectively over. People call the greatest general of all time "Alexander the Great" even when they themselves do not think he was all that great.

[Giuseppe]

If he were called "the Elder Frank" in the text, nobody would ever equate him with anybody from the first list, and that is because the overlap of names is the only reason for the equation

really, the text as it now stands gives a reason to distinguish John the Elder from the John mentioned in the list of the 7 Elders. John the Elder and Aristion are called "disciples of the Lord" and as such they are distinct people from the 7 Elders, who evidently are not mere "disciples of the Lord" but the his Apostles (even if Papias doesn't use nowhere the term "Apostle").

Here Papias assumes the existence of two groups who have to be revered: the 7 Elders and the "disciples of Lord".

I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — ... or by any other of the disciples of the Lord,

But then he introduces again the same group "disciples of the Lord" as if he had never introduced it before that moment:

and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say

So the latter quote has to be by need an interpolation. The his only function is to specify by name at least two of the previously anonymous "disciples of Lord": Aristion and John the Elder.

• "Aristion" seems a title more than a name: the Best One

.

• John the Elder seems not more a mere humble "disciple of the Lord" (humble when compared to the 7 Elders), but someone with authority equal to the authority of the 7 Elders despite of the his being a member of the second (inferior) group.

[Ben C. Smith]

But if you can't do so, then the default position has to be that the "first" John coincides with the "second" John.

Papias doesn't give a means to distinguish them, and so we also will not distinguish them.

You also wrote:

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).

It cannot be the interpolator, then, on your interpretation, who tried to divide John in two (in order to give the Revelation of John to a different John). Right? On your interpretation, calling the second John "the Elder" ensures his identity with the first John. So what was this interpolator of yours trying to do by naming the same John again (according to you), but next to Aristion this time and also in the present tense?