Is it from Papias' writings?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by Bernard Muller »

The following does not state directly it is from Papias (as drawn from Irenaeus AH, Book V, Chapter XXXVI, 1-2).
As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shah enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions:" for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
Irenaeus did not say that was from Papias, but it is implied by "As the presbyters say"/"The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles" and "Papias" is mentioned three chapters earlier (XXXIII, 4). And again the apologetic slant is obvious when the author tried to reconcile the different (believed) locations of the future home of Christian elects.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote:The following does not state directly it is from Papias (as drawn from Irenaeus AH, Book V, Chapter XXXVI, 1-2).

....

Irenaeus did not say that was from Papias, but it is implied by "As the presbyters say"/"The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles" and "Papias" is mentioned three chapters earlier (XXXIII, 4). And again the apologetic slant is obvious when the author tried to reconcile the different (believed) locations of the future home of Christian elects.
Such a passage cannot be considered on its own without consulting all the other passages in Irenaeus in which he attributes sayings to anonymous elders (presbyters): http://textexcavation.com/eldertraditions.html. Do they all belong to Papias? Or only the ones that come within three chapters of Papias having been named? The question is not an easy one to answer.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by Secret Alias »

Yes this is an important question. But just having ancients say it is from person X doesn't mean it is from person X either. This is what always seem to escape people's attention. Many of the works of Tertullian are actually retreads of older writers. Irenaeus seems to be a hodgepodge of older opinions pasted together by some author whose only real interest in monarchian authority. Similarly the treatise behind Adamantius, Methodius and Maximus go back to some earlier source. The same concept lies behind the gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke, the gospel of Marcion, the gospel of the Hebrews go back to some source despite the various surviving attested 'authors.' The list goes on and on. Ignatius is another example (the story of his 'posthumous' composition of epistles is known to Lucian). It's all lies and misrepresentations. How can this be? What situation would allow for this scale of 'misunderstanding.' That's the real early Church (not the story of Acts). Deal with it. Stop pretending we are dealing with peer-reviewed and thus 'reliable' publications.

Indeed I love this myth that somehow this or that pre-Nicene figure wrote something and then it was 'hermetically sealed' from the second he wrote it - when everything that has come down us suggests the exact opposite. The irony of Tertullian writing a treatise against Marcion the alleged great 'corrupter' of scripture - and having to confess at the beginning and end that he wrote his treatise, an 'apostate' got a hold of it changed it AND THEN HE GOT IT BACK AGAIN AND MADE FURTHER CHANGES AGAIN TO ALLEGEDLY RESTORE IT AGAIN TO ITS PRISTINE SHAPE - is among the most ridiculous things ever written in the history of literature. Would anyone believe 'Homer' if something similar was written at the beginning of the Illiad and the end of the Odyssey? The only thing which exceeds it in incredulity is the fact that scholars and amateurs at this forum push these statements aside and convince themselves that 'it's no big deal' we can still work with this butchered text to reconstruct the text of another alleged corrupter!

When we talk about Papias it is equally incredible that Irenaeus could take Papias's statement about Matthew and not even mention that it was from Papias, distort its original meaning and then employ another corruption to be the basis for our traditional understanding of the origin of Matthew. How many times does this have to happen before certain members of this forum see it is a pattern?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by robert j »

Secret Alias wrote:Indeed I love this myth that somehow this or that pre-Nicene figure wrote something and then it was 'hermetically sealed' from the second he wrote it - when everything that has come down us suggests the exact opposite. The irony of Tertullian writing a treatise against Marcion the alleged great 'corrupter' of scripture - and having to confess at the beginning and end that he wrote his treatise, an 'apostate' got a hold of it changed it AND THEN HE GOT IT BACK AGAIN AND MADE FURTHER CHANGES AGAIN TO ALLEGEDLY RESTORE IT AGAIN TO ITS PRISTINE SHAPE - is among the most ridiculous things ever written in the history of literature. Would anyone believe 'Homer' if something similar was written at the beginning of the Illiad and the end of the Odyssey? The only thing which exceeds it in incredulity is the fact that scholars and amateurs at this forum push these statements aside and convince themselves that 'it's no big deal' we can still work with this butchered text to reconstruct the text of another alleged corrupter!

... Yes this is an important question. But just having ancients say it is from person X doesn't mean it is from person X either. This is what always seem to escape people's attention. Many of the works of Tertullian are actually retreads of older writers. Irenaeus seems to be a hodgepodge of older opinions pasted together by some author whose only real interest in monarchian authority. Similarly the treatise behind Adamantius, Methodius and Maximus go back to some earlier source.
At least we agree that the works of the patristic heretic hunters are unreliable.
Secret Alias wrote:The same concept lies behind the gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke, the gospel of Marcion, the gospel of the Hebrews go back to some source despite the various surviving attested 'authors.' The list goes on and on. Ignatius is another example (the story of his 'posthumous' composition of epistles is known to Lucian). It's all lies and misrepresentations. How can this be? What situation would allow for this scale of 'misunderstanding.' That's the real early Church (not the story of Acts). Deal with it. Stop pretending we are dealing with peer-reviewed and thus 'reliable' publications.
As I have acknowledged before, we have very different basic assumptions about Paul’s letters and gMark, thus making much in the way of discussion and debate not worth the effort.

Regardless, I’m going to add a different point of view here --- on the reliability of a handful of authentic letters from Paul and of gMark.

Sure these works have been stepped-on by later editors. The tracks are evident in a few interpolations in Paul, and some additions to gMark (like after 16:8). But if later editors had carte-blanche, if they had a free-hand to change the early documents to suit their favored doctrines --- we would have a very different picture.

If the editors had a free hand, all the documents, at least those accepted into the cannon, would be more like Acts --- they would be smooth as a Ken doll. They would, like Acts, frame the rough patches into a kumbaya celebration of the faith.

If the editors had a free hand, the proto-catholic author of 2 Peter would not have had to accept the difficult letters of Paul as received (2 Peter 3:15-16). He would not have had to warn the reader about the letters being difficult to understand, and that some people were twisting the meaning. Nay --- if the editors had a free hand, they could have just changed the letters.

But they chose a different route. Copies must have been out-and-about at the time --- and in the hands of fervent supporters --- making wholesale re-writes too risky. They chose a different route --- they tried to tame Paul and the variant gospels with Luke-Acts, with some catholic epistles, and by warning about difficult material --- and they wrote seemingly endless polemic tracts attacking those with different interpretations.

The vast majority of critical scholars have weighed the evidence and come down on the side of a handful of letters of Paul as coming from the desk of a single personality in the mid 50’s --- and of gMark as the first of the written tales of a Jesus on earth, and composed after the works of Paul.

If one sees ---
Paul as the first to write of a heavenly Jesus Christ as derived from allegorical readings of the Jewish scriptures. And Mark bringing Paul’s heavenly Jesus down to earth in recent times, with lots of help from the LXX, in a fictional tale making Jesus more accessible to all. And later authors adopting gMark to suit their own purposes.
--- Then most all is accounted for regarding the origin of the Christian faith.

One issue left unresolved in such a solution is this --- can we take Paul at his word? Were there Judean assemblies in Christ before Paul? Did Cephas, James, and John exist as a Jerusalem leadership group and as Paul’s predecessors in Christ? Did Paul actually make the second visit to Jerusalem as he described in Galatians 2?

Or did Paul concoct all or part of those in support of his entrepreneurial missions? IMO, that’s the big question.
Last edited by robert j on Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by robert j »

Bernard Muller wrote:The following does not state directly it is from Papias (as drawn from Irenaeus AH, Book V, Chapter XXXVI, 1-2).
... The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
Irenaeus did not say that was from Papias, but it is implied by ...
Sure, I get it, whether such a passage was derived from Papias or not holds some academic interest.

But big picture --- case in point --- such musings as found in Irenaeus never cease to amaze me. Musings by the patristics about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin about a passage from Paul (1 Corinthians 15:25-28). A passage that may reflect nothing more than Paul’s fertile imagination --- and something he managed to tease from the scriptures.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Interestingly there are similar passages in Clement of Alexandria.
Stromateis Book 6
Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel. For these taken up in the clouds, the apostle writes, will first minister [as deacons], then be classed in the presbyterate, by promotion in glory (for glory differs from glory) till they grow into "a perfect man."
................................................................................
Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed. To the point Solomon says, "For there shall be given to him the choice grace of faith, and a more pleasant lot in the temple of the Lord." For the comparative shows that there are lower parts in the temple of God, which is the whole Church. And the superlative remains to be conceived, where the Lord is. These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel -- the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to "a perfect man," according to the image of the Lord. And the likeness is not, as some imagine, that of the human form; for this consideration is impious. Nor is the likeness to the first cause that which consists in virtue. For this utterance is also impious, being that of those who have imagined that virtue in man and in the sovereign God is the same. "Thou hast supposed iniquity,' He says, " [in imagining] that I will be like to thee." But "it is enough for the disciple to become as the Master," saith the Master. To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught.
Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is it from Papias' writings?

Post by Secret Alias »

This is why we love Andrew. Thank you so much!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply