Did Papias exist?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:35 am

I think it's compelling in the sense that Eusebius is writing a compendium and grabbing things willy nilly like Epiphanius. So it would make sense that in the process of manufacturing this book that having elements 'ready at hand' which compare and contextual material to other material makes sense. But the bit about Papias's encounters with living voices seems to be first hand to me at least. He seems to exhibit intimacy with not only this section from Papias but this section is relation to other sections of the book(s).

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:57 am

Just as another aside, the perplexing reference in the Letter to Theodore, where it certainly sounds like Clement is 'riffing' off of Papias:
You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations. For these are the "wandering stars" referred to in the prophecy, who wander from the narrow road of the commandments into a boundless abyss of the carnal and bodily sins. For, priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, "of the deep things of Satan", they do not know that they are casting themselves away into "the nether world of the darkness" of falsity, and boasting that they are free, they have become slaves of servile desires. Such men are to be opposed in all ways and altogether. For, even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith.

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things, being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt (ἅλας) loses its savor.
Now what are the things they keep saying? Clearly this is something well known, like Papias's words were apparently well known as Irenaeus and Clement both know and echo them.

Irenaeus on the one hand says that the 'followers of Mark' are kabbalists who take an interest in numbers and criticizes them for that interest. One of the words apparently they take an interest in is 'blessing' (baruch):

but pre-eminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which in the Hebrew tongue is expressed by Baruch, [a word] which also contains two and a half letters. From this fact, therefore, that the more important names, both in the Hebrew and Greek languages, do not conform to their system, either as respects the number of letters or the reckoning brought out of them, the forced character of their calculations respecting the rest becomes clearly manifest.

Irenaeus is often inaccurate in his renderings. The reality is that 232 both equates to 'the word of the Lord' and 'the blessing' (habarakhah) and 'eternal God' as well as 'salt.' Was Papias a person at all or was he God speaking through the various 'new prophets' it's not clear. But consider this for a moment:
The things they keep babbling/saying over and over about the divine-inspired according to Mark gospel

Τῶν τοίνυν θρυλουμένων περὶ τοῦ θεοπνεύστου κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγελίου


θρυλέω , (θρῦλος)
A. [select] make a confused noise, chatter, babble, “τὴν νύκτα θρυλῶν καὶ λαλῶν” Ar.Eq.348; θρυλέοιμι trisyll., Theoc.2.142.
II. [select] c. acc., repeat over and over, “θρυλοῦσ᾽ ἅ γ᾽ εἰπεῖν ἤθελον” E.El.910; “τὰ τοιαῦτα οἱ ποιηταὶ ἡμῖν ἀεὶ -οῦσιν, ὅτι . . ” Pl.Phd.65b; “τὰ μυθώδη . . , ὰ πάντες -οῦσιν” Isoc.12.237; “ὃ πάντες ἐθρύλουν τέως, δεῖν . . ” D.1.7, cf. 19.156; [τὴν τριήρη] θρυλήσει will keep talking of it, Id.21.160: abs., “καθάπερ πάλαι θρυλῶ” Epicur.Nat.109 G.; περὶ ἀγαθοῦ θ. Id.Fr.423: c. inf., PSI5.452.20 (iv A.D.):—Pass., to be common talk, τὸ -ούμενον, τὸ . . πανταχοῦ θ. E.Fr.285.1, cf. Isoc.Ep.6.7, Theopomp.Com.35, Antiph.246.2; “τὸ θ. ποτε ἀπόρρητον” D.2.6; “ἡ ὑπὸ πάντων θρυλουμένη εἰρήνη” Id.19.273; τὰ μὲν παλαιὰ καὶ θ. Anaxipp.1.4; “περὶ τεθρυλημένου πολλοῖς” Arist.Rh.1415a3; αἱ τεθρ. καὶ κοιναὶ γνῶμαι ib.1395a10; “τὰ θ. περὶ τὸν βάτραχον” Id.HA620b11; τινῶν λόγων ὑπὸ τῆς μητρός μου θρυλησθέντων (sic) UPZ144.45 (ii B.C.).
The juxtaposition between babbling and divinely-inspired may imply that those who are saying the things about Mark are members of the new prophesy movement.

The prophets in their oracular utterances do not merely say that they have heard certain messages from God; they demonstrably report the popular conversations (τοῦ λαοῦ θρυλούμενα), replying to objections voiced, as if they were officially recording questions from human sources. (3.9.38)

At the very least Clement uses this word to describe things the Carpocratians said before:

καὶ ὅτι θεομαχεῖ ὅ τε Καρποκράτης ὅ τ' Ἐπιφάνης, <ὃς> ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πολυθρυλήτῳ βιβλίῳ τῷ Περὶ δικαιοσύνης λέγω (Epiphanes 36 in that notorious book, I mean On Righteousness) (3.2.9.3)

some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. τὰ μὲν ψεύδεται παντελῶς, τὰ δέ, εἰ καὶ ἀληθῆ τινα περιέχει, οὐδ᾽ οὕτως ἀληθῶς παραδίδοται. Συγκεκραμένα γὰρ τἀληθῆ τοῖς πλάσμασι παραχαράσσεται ὥστε, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῆναι.

I have to admit I've never understood the 'salt is corrupted' reference. The verb for corruption, μωρανθῆναι in its aorist passive infinitive form makes no sense to me unless the 'salt' is the holy spirit. But why is that so? The answer might lie in gematria because 'salt' no less than 'Papias' has the value of the 'Eternal God.'

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:35 am
I think it's compelling in the sense that Eusebius is writing a compendium and grabbing things willy nilly like Epiphanius.
One thing that does not grab me yet from Stevens' argument is his treatment of Eusebius' source. He argues that this source was defending the apostolic origins of the gospels and needed from Papias only his discussions of Matthew and Mark, even though, ex hypothesi, Papias also wrote about Luke and John. Now, prima facie, one would imagine that Mark and Luke, not Mark and Matthew, are the pair whose apostolicity needs defending. Stevens makes a decent case for Matthew needing it, too, based on patristic statements that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; the existence of a Greek Gospel of Matthew would thus need explained. But what about Luke? Stevens suggests that we cannot expect anything in Papias to make Luke seem apostolic, but that does not track for me. In Mark's case, Papias connects the gospel with Peter; in Luke's case, patristic testimony connects it with Paul. So we are left wondering whether Papias did not know that the gospel of Luke was connected with Paul; alternatively, perhaps a connection with Paul was not enough for Papias, since Paul himself was not an eyewitness. But, if either of those is the case, then why would Papias have mentioned the Gospel of Luke?? Eusebius' putative source is not the only patristic writer trying to connect the gospels to the apostles; Papias himself is doing that very same thing. He even traces his own oral sources back to the apostles. Moreover, Bauckham has argued fairly persuasively that the testimonies from 1 Peter and 1 John which Papias used (according to Eusebius) were specifically (at the very least) those parts of each epistle which deal with eyewitness testimony (1 Peter 5.1, 13; 1 John 1.1-3). In short, if Papias mentioned Luke, then Papias probably connected Luke with an eyewitness to Jesus; either that or he considered Paul to be good enough. In either case, it is hard for me to imagine Eusebius' source having no interest in such a thing from an early writer like Papias.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:02 am

That's a very persuasive argument I think regarding whether or not Luke was present in the alleged source.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:14 am

How I see it.

1. in chapter 35 he is using Hegesippus. "But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ." Hegesippus and its chronology form the basis for the first three books.
2. in chapter 36 - he feels compelled to contextualize what was going on in the rest of the world at that time so he must have consulted his chronograph.
At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many. Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ.
He proceeds to grab some information on Ignatius but then proceeds to grab Papias's work too. It wouldn't make sense to have a pre-packaged 'source' here. Maybe elsewhere. But look at his last words that end the chapter:

"These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated." [καὶ ταῦτα δ' ἡμῖν ἀναγκαίως (we thought it necessary) πρὸς τοῖς ἐκτεθεῖσιν ἐπιτετηρήσθω].

I know it's not proof. It's possible he used both original sources and secondary ones. But here it sounds like he's grabbed Papias.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:16 am

ἐκτίθημι (inf.
A. [select] “-τιθεῖν” IG7.235.41), fut. -θήσω: pf. “-τέθεικα” UPZ 62.4 (ii B.C.):—set out, place outside, “πυκινὸν λέχος” Od.23.179; expose on a desert island, S.Ph.5; expose a new-born child, Hdt.1.112, Ar.Nu.531, etc.; “τὸν παῖδ᾽ . . ἐξέθηκε δωμάτων” E.Ion 344:—so in Pass., τέθνηκε . . θηρσὶν ἐκτεθείς ib.951; expose, “ἑαυτὸν βέλεσι” Polem.Cyn.7:—Med., ἐκτίθεσθαι λείαν εἰς Βιθυνούς export it thither, Plu.Alc.29.
II. [select] set up, offer for a prize, “λέβητας ἐκτιθεὶς φέρειν” S.Fr.378; “ἆθλα” Plb.15.9.4.
b. [select] fix or grant allowances, rates of pay, etc., PSI5.498 (iii B.C.), PEdgar2.4 (Pass.), etc.
2. [select] exhibit publicly, post up, νόμους πρὸς τοὺς ἐπωνύμους Decr. ap. And.1.83, cf. Lex ap.D.24.23; “ἔκθεμα” PPetr.2p.44 (iii B.C.); “ὀνόματα εἰς στοάν” SIG577.28 (Milet., iii/ii B.C.):—Pass., ὅπως ἐκτεθῶσι [οἱ νόμοι] IG22.487.6, etc.
3. [select] expose for sale, D.C.46.14 (Pass.).
III. [select] set forth, expound, “τὴν πρόθεσιν” Arist.Rh.Al.1437b35; “κατὰ γένος” Thphr.Char.Praef.3:—also Med., “λόγους καθόλου” Arist.Po.1455b1; “τὴν ἑαυτῆς ἐρημίαν” D.S.12.18, etc.
2. [select] Philos., predicate separate existence of a thing, explain by means of abstraction, Arist.Metaph. 1086b10.
IV. [select] Med., set forth, select particular instances of a rule, [“ποιεῖν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν] τῶ ἐκθέσθαι” Id.APr.28a23:—Pass., τὸ ἐκτεθέν ib.30a11.
2. [select] set out terms in syllogistic form, ib.48a1, al.
3. [select] isolate in thought, Id.SE179a3.
4. [select] pick out for separate treatment, Id.Ph.235a28.
5. [select] ἐ. καθόλου set out in general form, Id.Po.1455b1.
ἐπιτηρ-έω ,
A. [select] look out or watch for, “νύκτα” h.Cer.244 ; “σιτία” Ar.Ach. 197 ; Βορέαν ib.922 ; “καιρόν” Plu.Publ.17 ; “ἐπετήρουν ἀπιόντας αὐτούς” Th.5.37 ; “τὴν θεράπαιναν” Lys.1.8 ; ἐ. τὸ βλάβος watch to detect it, Ar. Ra.1151 ; ἐ. ὅταν.., ὁπόταν.., Id.Ec.633, Eq.1031 ; “ὁπότε..” X.HG 2.2.16 ; “τί παρ᾽ ὑμῖν ἐψήφισται, τοῦτ᾽ ἐπετήρουν” D.19.288 : c. inf., “ἰδεῖν τι” Gal.15.661:—Med., Hld.5.20.
II. [select] keep an eye on, “τινά” App.BC4.39:—Pass., to be kept under surveillance, POxy.1413.10 (iii A.D.).
2. [select] supervise, PAmh.2.77.8 (ii A.D.):—Pass., PFlor.1.16 (ii A.D.), etc.

I take it that this is an 'addition' to Hegesippus. Maybe I am wrong. Which he has done on his own initiative.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:22 am

In Demonstration

But a great deal could be said on these points, and with sufficient leisure one could deal with them more exhaustively. Suffice it to say now, that we must hold to the truth, that the prophecies have only been fulfilled after the coming of Jesus our Saviour (ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων μακρὸς ἂν εἴη λόγος, ἐπ’ οἰκείας σχολῆς ἐντελέστερον ἀποδοθησόμενος ’ τό γε μὴν παρὸν ἐπιτετηρήσθω ὅτι τὰ προηγούμενα οὐδ’ ἃλλοτε ἢ μετὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐπληροῦτο).

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:38 pm

Worth mentioning The Papias (Greek: παπίας) was an eunuch official in the Byzantine court, responsible for the security and maintenance of the buildings of the imperial palace in Constantinople.

History and role
The term is etymologically connected to πάππος or παπᾶς ("father, priest"). It is first attested in a seal dated to ca. 550–650, and next recorded in the chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor for the year 780.[1] There were three papiai, all eunuchs: one for the Great Palace itself, and two others for its adjuncts, the Magnaura and the palace of Daphne (created by Michael III).[1][2] The "papias of the Great Palace" (παπίας τοῦ μεγάλου παλατίου, papias tou megalou palatiou) was a very important official: usually holding the rank of protospatharios,[3] he was the concierge of the palace and responsible for its security. He held the keys to the doors of the palace (and of the palace prison) and opened them every morning together with the megas hetaireiarches.[4] He thus controlled physical access to the imperial quarters, and was an important element in any conspiracy against the emperor's life.[1][5] It is possible that the other two papiai (the παπίας τῆς Μαγναῦρας and παπίας τῆς Δάφνης) were possibly subordinate to the papias of the Great palace initially.[6]

Like all senior palace functionaries, the papias of the Great Palace also fulfilled certain ceremonial duties. Aside from the ritual unlocking of the palace doors, he for instance formally ended the daily imperial audiences by rattling the keys, the symbol of his office. At ceremonies for the promotion of officials, he censed the main audience hall of the Chrysotriklinos and the emperor, and on 1 August, he carried a cross in procession through the streets of the capital, visiting the most wealthy citizens and receiving donations.[1][7] In the Palaiologan period, the megas papias ("Grand Papias") was a senior honorary title.[1]

Subordinates
The papiai were in charge of an extensive staff detailed to the cleaning, lighting and general maintenance of the each palace, aided by a deputy, the Deuteros (Greek: δεύτερος, "second one"), who was separately responsible for the safekeeping of imperial furniture and insignia.[3][8] The subordinates of the papias included:

the diaitarioi (διαιτάριοι [τοῦ μεγάλου παλατίου]/[τῆς Μαγναῦρας]/[τῆς Δάφνης], under a domestikos (δομέστικος [τοῦ μεγάλου παλατίου]/[τῆς Μαγναῦρας]/[τῆς Δάφνης]). They were chamberlains responsible for the various rooms (δίαιται, diaitai) of the palace. They were also known as hebdomadarioi (ἑβδομαδάριοι), apparently because they worked in weekly shifts.[9]
the various lower servants: loustai (λουσταί, "bathers") responsible for the baths, the kandelaptai (κανδηλάπται, "candle-lighters") in charge of lighting, the kamenades (καμηνάδες) or kaldarioi (καλδάριοι, cf. caldarium) in charge of heating, and the horologoi (ὡρολόγοι) in charge of clocks. The functions of another category, the zarabai (ζαράβαι), is unclear.[1][3]
Nicolas Oikonomides also adds the minsourator (μινσουράτωρ), an official in charge of the emperor's tent on campaign, to the subordinates of the papias.[1] Similar staffs must have also existed for the papiai of the Magnaura and the Daphne Palace.

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Papias% ... ce)/en-en/

In Theodore the Confessor Michael is released τῆς ἐκ τοῦ παπίου φρουρᾶς (whereby de Boor’s ἐκ τῆς reads certainly better), not ‘from the prison by the papias’, but at best ‘from the papias’ prison/surveillance’.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

davidmartin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by davidmartin » Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:40 pm

some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. τὰ μὲν ψεύδεται παντελῶς, τὰ δέ, εἰ καὶ ἀληθῆ τινα περιέχει, οὐδ᾽ οὕτως ἀληθῶς παραδίδοται. Συγκεκραμένα γὰρ τἀληθῆ τοῖς πλάσμασι παραχαράσσεται ὥστε, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῆναι.

I have to admit I've never understood the 'salt is corrupted' reference. The verb for corruption, μωρανθῆναι in its aorist passive infinitive form makes no sense to me unless the 'salt' is the holy spirit. But why is that so? The answer might lie in gematria because 'salt' no less than 'Papias' has the value of the 'Eternal God.'
Gospel of Philip

The apostles said to the disciples, “May our entire offering be provided with salt.” For they called wisdom salt. Without it an offering is unacceptable

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13348
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Did Papias exist?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:45 pm

The name Papias is likely Scythian:

In the Scythian tongue, Hestia is called Tabiti; Zeus (in my judgment most correctly so called) Papaeus ( ὀνομάζεται δὲ σκυθιστὶ Ἱστίη μὲν Ταβιτί, Ζεὺς δὲ ὀρθότατα κατὰ γνώμην γε τὴν ἐμὴν καλεόμενος Παπαῖος) Earth is Apia; Apollo Goetosyrus; the Heavenly Aphrodite Argimpasa; Poseidon Thagimasadas. It is their practice to make images and altars and shrines for Ares, but for no other god.

Post Reply