Did Papias exist?

[John2]

When it appears Papias knew the presbyter rather than the apostle, it's not overwhelming especially that his whole writings were not copied

I don't think it's out of the question that Irenaeus could be right that the presbyter John was the apostle John (i.e., the pillar John mentioned in Gal. 2:9) and that thus Papias was in contact with an actual follower of Jesus (or with people who were). I'm kind of on the fence about it at the moment and need to revisit this question.

But the idea this presbyter John was writing the likes of 1/2/3 John and Ariston wrote the longer ending to Mark, i like that thought.

Me too, only in the former case I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the pillar John wrote 1, 2 and 3 John (and bearing in mind what 1 John 1:1 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands").

[John2]

as long as we don't go all credulous on their claims i'm sure we're good

You can think whatever you like about what Irenaeus and Eusebius say about Papias and I will do the same and that seems good to me.

of course, to paraphrase a comment of mine years ago to you, "you have yet to read an apostolic father quote you didn't grab by the balls and believe with much gusto"

I don't recall that comment, but there are plenty of "apostolic father" quotes that I don't "believe with much gusto." You just don't buy the ones that I do, is all.

[davidmartin]

When it appears Papias knew the presbyter rather than the apostle, it's not overwhelming especially that his whole writings were not copied

I don't think it's out of the question that Irenaeus could be right that the presbyter John was the apostle John (i.e., the pillar John mentioned in Gal. 2:9) and that thus Papias was in contact with an actual follower of Jesus (or with people who were). I'm kind of on the fence about it at the moment and need to revisit this question.

But the idea this presbyter John was writing the likes of 1/2/3 John and Ariston wrote the longer ending to Mark, i like that thought.

Me too, only in the former case I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the pillar John wrote 1, 2 and 3 John (and bearing in mind what 1 John 1:1 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands").

This is why I accept the letter of the proselyte Mary to Ignatius as being possibly authentic:
"The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith,(2) and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour"

I see this as being the exact same woman of 2 John and referencing the pillar John, so they can't be the same person
As you can see the woman here specifically says there are different kinds of 'Christianities' or beliefs about Jesus - this would not have been forged, but she is supportive of him and wishes him well as part of the greater Christian movement. This sort of thing makes the history of the movement 'come alive' that this thing was genuine in it's origin and not mythological or invented

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Hmm yes i like the 'dueling' churches idea!

Thanks

Such things really happened. Eusebius (Church History, Book V, chapter 24) reported that the Asians were really proud of it.

1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 2. We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. 3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

The Ephesians also claimed that the Virgin Mary came with John to Ephesus and lived there until her "death". Those guys!

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

When it appears Papias knew the presbyter rather than the apostle, it's not overwhelming especially that his whole writings were not copied

I don't think it's out of the question that Irenaeus could be right that the presbyter John was the apostle John (i.e., the pillar John mentioned in Gal. 2:9) and that thus Papias was in contact with an actual follower of Jesus (or with people who were). I'm kind of on the fence about it at the moment and need to revisit this question.

But the idea this presbyter John was writing the likes of 1/2/3 John and Ariston wrote the longer ending to Mark, i like that thought.

Me too, only in the former case I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the pillar John wrote 1, 2 and 3 John (and bearing in mind what 1 John 1:1 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands").

It seems very likely to me that "the" John of Papias, mentioned by Irenaeus, should be the apostle John. In order to somehow save this dubious claim, Eusebius turned him into the elder.

[Ben C. Smith]

When it appears Papias knew the presbyter rather than the apostle, it's not overwhelming especially that his whole writings were not copied

I don't think it's out of the question that Irenaeus could be right that the presbyter John was the apostle John (i.e., the pillar John mentioned in Gal. 2:9) and that thus Papias was in contact with an actual follower of Jesus (or with people who were). I'm kind of on the fence about it at the moment and need to revisit this question.

But the idea this presbyter John was writing the likes of 1/2/3 John and Ariston wrote the longer ending to Mark, i like that thought.

Me too, only in the former case I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that the pillar John wrote 1, 2 and 3 John (and bearing in mind what 1 John 1:1 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands").

It seems very likely to me that "the" John of Papias, mentioned by Irenaeus, should be the apostle John. In order to somehow save this dubious claim, Eusebius turned him into the elder.

I am pretty sure that Irenaeus thinks of "the" John of Papias as the Apostle John, the Revelator and Evangelist, but I am also pretty sure that Papias himself has no such thing in mind.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The Anti-Marcionite prologue of GJohn

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4

This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet still in the body, as the Heiropolitan, Papias by name, dear disciple of John, transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated.

These things Papias too, who was a earwitness of John and companion of Polycarp, and an ancient man, wrote and testified in the fourth of his books. For there are five books written by him. And he adds, saying[/u]: But these things are believable by the believers. And, he says, Judas the traitor did not believe and asked: How therefore will such generations be brought to completion by the Lord? The Lord said: Those who come into those [times] will see.

Back to the five books of Papias. The total number of books seems to be more important to Irenaeus than the title of Papias work which he did not mentioned.

Irenaeus thought that numerology is wrong, but highlights the five as a particularly important number.

AH, III, 24.4: But that this point is true, that that number which is called five, which agrees in no respect with their argument, ... Soter is a name of five letters; Pater, too, contains five letters; Agape (love), too, consists of five letters; and our Lord, after blessing the five loaves, fed with them five thousand men ... Moses delivered the law to the people in five books. Each table which he received from God contained five commandments ...

Irenaeus himself states that he wrote his work in five books.

AH, IV, 41.4: I shall, with God's aid, furnish thee with the complete work of the exposure and refutation of knowledge, falsely so called; thus practising myself and thee in [these] five books for presenting opposition to all heretics.

Maybe this all has to do with the fact that we have five Johannine NT-writings.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

It seems very likely to me that "the" John of Papias, mentioned by Irenaeus, should be the apostle John. In order to somehow save this dubious claim, Eusebius turned him into the elder.

I am pretty sure that Irenaeus thinks of "the" John of Papias as the Apostle John, the Revelator and Evangelist, but I am also pretty sure that Papias himself has no such thing in mind.

Very understandable. But you can only quote a Papias-fragment from Eusebius for that, right?

[John2]

This is why I accept the letter of the proselyte Mary to Ignatius as being possibly authentic:
"The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith,(2) and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour"

I see this as being the exact same woman of 2 John and referencing the pillar John, so they can't be the same person
As you can see the woman here specifically says there are different kinds of 'Christianities' or beliefs about Jesus - this would not have been forged, but she is supportive of him and wishes him well as part of the greater Christian movement. This sort of thing makes the history of the movement 'come alive' that this thing was genuine in it's origin and not mythological or invented

I hadn't heard of this letter purporting to be from Mary to Ignatius, but it looks like the Mary here is Jesus' mother ("the Christ-bearing Mary"), which strikes me as being rather implausible. Perhaps the first part of the letter that identifies Mary as "Christ-bearing" (Ignatius to Mary) was added to the second part you cited above and the latter could be older in the manner you suggest, but I don't know.


https://www.biblestudytools.com/history ... -mary.html

[davidmartin]

This is why I accept the letter of the proselyte Mary to Ignatius as being possibly authentic:
"The things which thou hast heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true. Believe them, cling to them, and hold fast the profession of that Christianity which thou hast embraced, and conform thy habits and life to thy profession. Now I will come in company with John to visit thee, and those that are with thee. Stand fast in the faith,(2) and show thyself a man; nor let the fierceness of persecution move thee, but let thy spirit be strong and rejoice in God thy Saviour"

I see this as being the exact same woman of 2 John and referencing the pillar John, so they can't be the same person
As you can see the woman here specifically says there are different kinds of 'Christianities' or beliefs about Jesus - this would not have been forged, but she is supportive of him and wishes him well as part of the greater Christian movement. This sort of thing makes the history of the movement 'come alive' that this thing was genuine in it's origin and not mythological or invented

I hadn't heard of this letter purporting to be from Mary to Ignatius, but it looks like the Mary here is Jesus' mother ("the Christ-bearing Mary"), which strikes me as being rather implausible. Perhaps the first part of the letter that identifies Mary as "Christ-bearing" (Ignatius to Mary) was added to the second part you cited above and the latter could be older in the manner you suggest, but I don't know.


https://www.biblestudytools.com/history ... -mary.html

I think i'm wrong about what i said 'of that Christianity which thou hast embraced'
Different translations phrase it quite differently and make my conclusion dependent on the translation, i've no evidence what the correct translation is
No-one thinks it is genuine but what if it is some female church elder and through luck it got preserved
The other letter from her shows some multi-layered scriptural readings that are quite clever and intricate. not at all the usual church father thing that would be invented, that was good enough for me to include it as a possible witness. Like she comments on the Nicolaitens, references Paul and touches on some controversies that appear in the gospels (which disciple is the greatest), i thought it fascinating but, no-one gives this letter a second thought due to all the controversy around Ignatius's letters it's not surprising i guess