Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Again, Eusebius wrote long afterward. People that long ago, from his perspective, could be called elders and disciples, without being ones who had known Jesus.
A person living in the time of Trajan and Hadrian--as Hadrian for example did, I repeat--is not extraordinary.
Aristion and Aristo can be one individual.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 3:50 pm Again, Eusebius wrote long afterward. People that long ago, from his perspective, could be called elders and disciples, without being ones who had known Jesus.

But "elders" and "disciples of the Lord" are Papias' words.

A person living in the time of Trajan and Hadrian--as Hadrian for example did, I repeat--is not extraordinary.
Aristion and Aristo can be one individual.

I agree that it's not extraordinary for someone to have lived in Trajan's reign and Hadrian's reign.. But it would be extraordinary for someone who was already called an "elder" before 110 CE (according to Eusebius' timeline) and "an ancient man" (according to Irenaeus, who was born c. 130 CE) to have lived beyond the Bar Kokhba war.

Papias wrote later than Eusebius, long after, imperfectly estimated; I already mentioned Charles E. Hill, and there are others who also observe this.
According to more than one analysis, e.g., by S. C. Carlson and by Luke J. Stevens, Eusebius did not have all five books of Papias, but relied on snippets.
Eusebius--need I say it in this forum?--was not infallible.

4. "If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I [Papias] questioned him in regard to the words of the elders..."
There is a distinction, here, between elders and followers of elders.

Not everyone uses elder identically nor even consistently. Nor disciple. My dear Dad is my elder, even though, sadly, he died young.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:08 am
Papias wrote later than Eusebius, long after, imperfectly estimated; I already mentioned Charles E. Hill, and there are others who also observe this.

I'm not following you. How could Eusebius cite Papias if "Papias wrote later than Eusebius, long after"?

I haven't read Hill, but after poking around a bit I found some things about him that appear to contradict your statement. For example, Gregory writes (The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus, pg. 37):

Nevertheless, if Hill were correct that Papias is the source on whom Eusebius draws for his account of the origins of the Fourth Gospel ...


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

According to more than one analysis, e.g., by S. C. Carlson and by Luke J. Stevens, Eusebius did not have all five books of Papias, but relied on snippets.

Maybe, maybe not, but in EH 3.39.13 Eusebius encourages others to check Papias for themselves (and again highlights "the antiquity of the man"):

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

Eusebius--need I say it in this forum?--was not infallible.

I haven't suggested this. But Eusebius' citations of earlier writers that we can check tend to line up with them.

4. "If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I [Papias] questioned him in regard to the words of the elders..."
There is a distinction, here, between elders and followers of elders.

Right. Papias calls people who followed Jesus "elders" and the followers of these "elders" taught Papias, is how it looks to me.

Not everyone uses elder identically nor even consistently. Nor disciple.

But Papias' usage of "elders" and "disciples of the Lord" is consistent. He calls people who followed Jesus "elders" and "disciples of the Lord." And he names these "elders"/"disciples of the Lord" in the same sentence (Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, Aristion and John the Elder) and their followers taught Papias.

4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him [i.e., a "follower of the elders"] 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, say.

I can see how you, John2, misread my sentence (whether or not via a garden path fallacy). Perhaps I should have written it differently, to prevent your misreading.
Here is the sentence:
"Papias wrote later than Eusebius, long after, imperfectly estimated; I already mentioned Charles E. Hill, and there are others who also observe this."

A reader needs to read beyond "long after" in order to understand the sentence.
In other words, Eusebius guessed a date for the writing of Papias. But Eusebius was mistaken in his poorly-informed claim. Actually, Papias wrote at a later time than Eusebius, later in his own time, ineptly, and perhaps officiously, imagined.

Recall also that Irenaeus and Eusebius did not agree about Papias.
That should also be a red flag.

To quote from the Foreword by John Polhill (page ix) to the book Papias and the New Testament by Monte Allen Shanks (2013):
"Also to be noted is that Eusebius' comments are not to be taken uncritically."

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 4:08 am
According to more than one analysis, e.g., by S. C. Carlson and by Luke J. Stevens, Eusebius did not have all five books of Papias, but relied on snippets.

I haven't seen Carlson's or Stevens' arguments, but one thing I think goes against this idea is that Eusebius appears to have had more of Papias than he cites (or maybe he had more "snippets" than he cites, but I would need to see what Carlson and Stevens say about this). In the "snippets" of Papias that Eusebius cites, Aristion and John the Elder are mentioned only once, but in EH 3.39.7, Eusebius says that Papias mentioned them "frequently by name" and gave their traditions.

Maybe Eusebius had other "snippets" of Papias that he didn't cite, but it seems simpler to me to suppose that he had all of Papias' writings and cited what he found useful from them (and it would explain why he encouraged others to check Papias for themselves to see how "dumb" Eusebius thought he was).

7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

By all means, read Carlson and Stevens before declaring them mistaken.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2024 12:07 pm
I can see how you, John2, misread my sentence (whether or not via a garden path fallacy). Perhaps I should have written it differently, to prevent your misreading.
Here is the sentence:
"Papias wrote later than Eusebius, long after, imperfectly estimated; I already mentioned Charles E. Hill, and there are others who also observe this."

A reader needs to read beyond "long after" in order to understand the sentence.
In other words, Eusebius guessed a date for the writing of Papias. But Eusebius was mistaken in his poorly-informed claim. Actually, Papias wrote at a later time than Eusebius, later in his own time, ineptly, and perhaps officiously, imagined.

That was confusing wording and now I understand what you are saying. But what makes you (or anyone else) think Eusebius was wrong about when Papias wrote? And what about Ireneaus? Was he too wrong to call Papias "an ancient man"?

Recall also that Irenaeus and Eusebius did not agree about Papias.
That should also be a red flag.

I assume you are referring to EH 3.39.1-2, where, after citing what Irenaeus says about Papias being a "hearer of John," Eusebius goes on to clarify that Papias did not hear from the apostle John but rather from John the Elder.

1. ... Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him. These are the words of Irenæus.

2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

I used to think that Irenaeus confused Papias' John the Elder for the apostle John, but Bauckham has persuaded me that he wasn't confused, and I'm not even sure anymore if Eusebius thought that Irenaeus was confused, rather than just clarifying what Irenaeus said, since Irenaeus only calls him "John" in that citation.

So if EH 3.39.2 is all we have to go on (as far as "red flags" go), I question that. (Ben disagrees with Bauckham but discusses the issue in detail and gives all the relevant citations from Irenaeus here: viewtopic.php?t=3206).

If this is the only disagreement (assuming it even is one) that Eusebius and Irenaeus had about Papias, I don't see it as a "red flag," but just as a difference of opinion about the identity of Papias' John the Elder, something that has stumped people since antiquity.

To quote from the Foreword by John Polhill (page ix) to the book Papias and the New Testament by Monte Allen Shanks (2013):
"Also to be noted is that Eusebius' comments are not to be taken uncritically."

Well, sure, but who's taking Eusebius uncritically?

I didn't say that Carlson and Stevens were mistaken, only that i haven't seen their arguments and that the idea that Eusebius only had snippets of Papias made me think of Eusebius' remark that Papias mentioned Aristion and John the Elder "frequently by name" even though they're only mentioned once in Eusebius' citations of Papias.

Some other things that come to mind as I think about the idea that Eusebius only had snippets of Papias is EH 3.39.11-12 and 16:

11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.

12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.

And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

I assume Carlson and Stevens address these things and I'll see what I can dig up, but in the meantime, if you have any citations of them or arguments of your own that you care to post, feel free to do that.

Hoping to move on from uncritical readings of Eusebius and too-restrictive definitions of elders and disciples, I'll mention that, in addition to Carlson's book, Monte A. Shanks, Papias and the New Testament (2013) has a useful section on history of scholarship on Papias. One thing that stands out is the great range of proposed dates. Date estimates for his birth, for the--durational--period of his hearing traditions, and date estimates for his book. See also Robert W. Yarbrough, "The Date of Papias: A Reassessment," JETS (1983) 181-191, based on his MA thesis of 1982.
For history of scholarship on Aristo of Pella, Harry Tolley's PhD dissertation is the current go-to source.
By the way, I said Aristo of Pella, but in real life, some just called him Ariston, just like some say Papias of Hierapolis and some say just plain Papias. Same with Papias' informant, just Aristion. Maybe the same as Ariston.