Papias and the disciples of the Lord.

[Secret Alias]

Another version of the John on his lap story assumes that Ignatius is the boy in the gospel narrative.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another version of the John on his lap story assumes that Ignatius is the boy in the gospel narrative.

I remember that variant. But where is that story? I have no memory of where to find it.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another version of the John on his lap story assumes that Ignatius is the boy in the gospel narrative.

I remember that variant. But where is that story? I have no memory of where to find it.

Oh, here it is (well, at least one reference). Nicephorus, History of the Church 2.35. Ignatius is said to be the child (ὅν ἔτι νήπιον) like whom one must be to attain the kingdom. Seems perhaps related to the epithet Θεοφόρος, understood in a passive sense ("borne/carried by God") rather than in an active sense ("bearing/carrying God").

[Charles Wilson]

Ignatius is said to be the child (ὅν ἔτι νήπιον) like whom one must be to attain the kingdom.

Thanx for that, Ben.

See what I mean? Everything that might tie into a previous story must be re-explained, rewritten...Transvalued.
"It simply cannot be a story about...you know...THOSE people..."

[Ben C. Smith]

See what I mean?

Rarely if ever.

[gmx]

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, 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 [in Greek mss., not in Syriac mss.]}, say.

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".

Firstly, I find this early corroboration of central Christian tradition / narrative significant. Thoughts?

Secondly, what can be gleaned from the absence of Paul from the list? I'm not sure what value can be placed on the reference to Hierapolis in Colossians 4:13, whether the epistle was written by Paul or not?

Thirdly, what can be inferred from Eusebius' inconsistent / incongruous / contradictory statements about Papias? Particularly, the tension between verses 3 & 11, and again between 13 & the quotation that follows it...

3 [...] [Papias speaking] For I did not rejoice, like many, over those who speak many things, but [rather] over those who teach the truth, nor over those who relate strange commands [...]
11 And the same man sets out other things also as having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things.
13 For indeed, that his mental capacity was very small, as is proven from his words, is apparent.

And the man Papias of Heirapolis, who was also particularly skillful in scripture, sacredly presided over his city.

[DCHindley]

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, 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 [in Greek mss., not in Syriac mss.]}, say.

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

Thirdly, what can be inferred from Eusebius' inconsistent / incongruous / contradictory statements about Papias? Particularly, the tension between verses 3 & 11, and again between 13 & the quotation that follows it...

3 [...] [Papias speaking] For I did not rejoice, like many, over those who speak many things, but [rather] over those who teach the truth, nor over those who relate strange commands [...]
11 And the same man sets out other things also as having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain strange parables of the savior and teachings of his, and certain other more mythical things.
13 For indeed, that his mental capacity was very small, as is proven from his words, is apparent.

And the man Papias of Heirapolis, who was also particularly skillful in scripture, sacredly presided over his city.

I think Papias's work was so popular among earlier Christians that Eusebius had to acknowledge this, while chiding him for holding millennial beliefs (the KoG will be an earthly kingdom lasting a "1,000" years = into perpetuity). Eusebius makes it sound like poor Papias did not have the mental horsepower to perceive what was as plain as day to 4th century Christians like him, that the KoG is a *spiritual* kingdom in heaven. "Relax, Constantine ..." he was saying "... this kingdom will not compete with you for your kingdom!"

Papias himself was an early storyteller, laying down foundation myths for the newly consolidating Christian movement (100-200 CE). It has been my contention for a long time that when gentile entered Christian consciousness established itself in this same period, they had only the vaguest of ideas about the days before the Wars with Rome (ca. 66 - 135 CE), especially the branch of the movement centered about Jesus' physical family.

So they began to form/adopt foundation myths that allowed them to "explain away" (to themselves first, then anyone else who'd listen) the appearance that there had been a schism in the movement between the Judean core and the gentile faction. Hegesippus is another storyteller, of a later time, but a mythmaker just the same.

The difference was that Papias was relaying what he had heard from ol' timers of the 2nd generation of Jesus followers, rather than what he had found written to date (pro'lly one or more of the gospels), while Hegesippus was spinning yarns about things he learned speaking with his hosts as he meandered his way to Rome on business, and where he remained for a while, but hyped to the max with details that I think he got from completely unrelated sources he was collecting as well.

Of course, Papias had to commit to writing what these folks relayed to him verbally, and it is unclear whether he kept a note-book or recollected the stories from memory. There would be a little spin put on them, but the traditions are closer to the sources (Jesus' disciples & apostles) than Hegesippus' sources. Heggie did keep note books which he worked up near the end of his life into the work he calls his "Memoirs" but he certainly seems to have went much farther than Papias did in "gilding the lily," so to speak.

DCH

Edit: 8/29/2021: Spelling errors

[John2]

DC wrote:

... but he [Hegesippus] certainly seems to have went much farther than papias did in "gilding the lily," so to speak.

I like what you are saying about Papias (particularly in your first paragraph), but I'm still having issues with your take on Hegesippus. To me he seems like the next best thing we have after Paul, James, 1 Peter, Jude, Mark, Matthew and Revelation. Eusebius mentions his sources and they included the Gospel of the Hebrews and oral traditions (like Jewish Christians and Papias), and I suspect that he is earlier than (and may have been known to) Luke/Acts as well.

So what's another example of something you think is "gilding the lily" in Hegesippus? I think the last ones you gave were James going into the Holy of Holies (which to me is based on Epiphanius' interpretation and not Hegesippus) and the account of James' stoning (which to me seems in keeping with the procedure for stoning and descriptions of near anarchy in the priesthood in the Talmud). The more I look at Hegesippus the more refreshing he seems to me as far as being a BS-free source (or as BS-free as possible given the subject matter).

[Ben C. Smith]

So what's another example of something you think is "gilding the lily" in Hegesippus? I think the last ones you gave were James going into the Holy of Holies (which to me is based on Epiphanius' interpretation and not Hegesippus) and the account of James' stoning (which to me seems in keeping with the procedure for stoning and descriptions of near anarchy in the priesthood in the Talmud).

What part of the temple could both (A) be called τὰ ἅγια and (B) be forbidden to everybody except for James (τούτῳ μόνῳ)?

[MrMacSon]

Papias, writing around 100 AD (naturally, up for debate)...

He mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John & Matthew, and alludes to the fact that there are others of equal stature. To me, this is consistent with Papias being conversant with the notion of "a named group of core disciples", possibly "the twelve".

Firstly, I find this early corroboration of central Christian tradition / narrative significant. Thoughts?

What if Papias was contemporaneous with very early Christian narrative-tradition?

ie. what if it all had started mid-2nd century? say 135-150 a.d./c.e.?