Dating Papias

[Ben C. Smith]

But as I said, I still don't believe that anyone from 110ish authentically claimed that a Gospel was identified with Mark, and that said Mark was an associate of Peter. Even if Eusebius is attributing that claim to writings of Papias, I still don't believe him. Either Papias didn't actually write that, or Papias wrote much later than Eusebius indicates.

I do not presume to date Papias precisely or even accurately, but I think he fits very nicely (A) in between the composition of Mark and Matthew on the one hand and Luke and John on the other, (B) before the gospel texts were called "gospels," at least widely, and (C) after the composition of 1 Peter and 1 John. I think that Eusebius himself probably represented his quotations of Papias accurately enough, but also that his quotations of Papias contain at least one interpolation (not by Eusebius himself, but by a scribe very soon after Eusebius' time). I have found that most of the issues with Papias filling a role like this in early Christian history stem from misunderstandings of what he, his predecessors (John, Aristion), or his successors (Irenaeus, Eusebius, the Muratorian canon, Victorinus, and so on) are really saying. YMMV.

[gryan]

What I'm listening to this morning:
by Stephen Carlson
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/w ... 0437231767

[hakeem]

What I'm listening to this morning:
by Stephen Carlson
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/w ... 0437231767

There is a blatant omission in the Stephen Carson podcast. It is not just the writings attributed to Irenaeus and Eusebius which mention Papias. Carlson failed to admit that writings attributed to Jerome mentioned Papias.
The mention of Papias by Jerome is very significant because this writer appeared to be quoting the preface of Papias which contradicts the claims of Eusebius about Papias.

[John2]

The mention of Papias by Jerome is very significant because this writer appeared to be quoting the preface of Papias which contradicts the claims of Eusebius about Papias.

What does it matter that Jerome (or anyone else, ancient or modern) interprets the identity of the John that Papias mentions differently than Eusebius?

[hakeem]

The mention of Papias by Jerome is very significant because this writer appeared to be quoting the preface of Papias which contradicts the claims of Eusebius about Papias.

What does it matter that Jerome (or anyone else, ancient or modern) interprets the identity of the John that Papias mentions differently than Eusebius?

The contradictions between the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome with respect to Papias must matter.

[John2]

The mention of Papias by Jerome is very significant because this writer appeared to be quoting the preface of Papias which contradicts the claims of Eusebius about Papias.

What does it matter that Jerome (or anyone else, ancient or modern) interprets the identity of the John that Papias mentions differently than Eusebius?

The contradictions between the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome with respect to Papias must matter.

But how do they, is what I'm asking. To me it just looks like three guys with different opinions about the identity of someone Papias mentions named John (and which isn't clear to modern scholars either).

[hakeem]

The contradictions between the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome with respect to Papias must matter.

But how do they, is what I'm asking. To me it just looks like three guys with different opinions about the identity of someone Papias mentions named John (and which isn't clear to modern scholars either).

So why does your opinion matter?

[MrMacSon]

... which isn't clear ...

[John2]

The contradictions between the writings attributed to Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome with respect to Papias must matter.

But how do they, is what I'm asking. To me it just looks like three guys with different opinions about the identity of someone Papias mentions named John (and which isn't clear to modern scholars either).

So why does your opinion matter?

I'm not certain who the John is that Papias mentions, but I'm beginning to lean towards the possibility that Irenaeus and Jerome could be right, and what I think about anything at all matters to me because I'm interested in trying to make sense of Christian writings.

But why does it matter to you that Irenaeus and Jerome differ with Eusebius?

[John2]

... which isn't clear ...

What does the identity of the John in Papias not being clear mean to you?