Dating Papias

[hakeem]

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?

I will let you answer your own question.

....I'm interested in trying to make sense of Christian writings.

[John2]

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?

I will let you answer your own question.

....I'm interested in trying to make sense of Christian writings.

But how does Irenaeus and Jerome having a different opinion than Eusebius not make sense to you? Do you think the identity of Papias' presbyter John is clear enough to expect that everyone (ancient and modern) should have the same opinion?

[MrMacSon]

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

Either or both of the two Johns in Papias? See https://deanfurlong.com/papias-john-elder/

and see https://deanfurlong.com/martyr-apostle-john-papias/

and https://deanfurlong.com/evangelist-elder-zebedee-john/

[MrMacSon]

The 4th-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.) critically records that Papias derived his material not only from John the Evangelist but also from John the Presbyter, through whose influence he had infected early patristic theologians with a false Judeo-Greek millenarianism, the apocalyptic teaching that Christ would reappear to transform the world into a 1,000-year era of universal peace, and had implicated Christ in fantastic parables. Eusebius’ antipathy to Papias consequently led him to edit severely the latter’s text and preserve only short excerpts.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Papias

[John2]

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

Either or both of the two Johns in Papias? See https://deanfurlong.com/papias-john-elder/

and see https://deanfurlong.com/martyr-apostle-john-papias/

and https://deanfurlong.com/evangelist-elder-zebedee-john/

Right, it isn't clear if Papias is referring to one or two Johns and there are a variety of opinions (ancient and modern) as to who he or they may be.

[hakeem]

The 4th-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.) critically records that Papias derived his material not only from John the Evangelist but also from John the Presbyter, through whose influence he had infected early patristic theologians with a false Judeo-Greek millenarianism, the apocalyptic teaching that Christ would reappear to transform the world into a 1,000-year era of universal peace, and had implicated Christ in fantastic parables. Eusebius’ antipathy to Papias consequently led him to edit severely the latter’s text and preserve only short excerpts.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Papias

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus also claimed many persons believed in the 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth.

Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

He is said to have published a Second coming of Our Lord or Millennium. Irenæus and Apollinaris and others who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints, follow him. Tertullian also in his work On the hope of the faithful, Victorinus of Petau and Lactantius follow this view.

So John in revelation, Justin Martyr, Cerinthus, John the presbyter, Papias, Irenaeus, Apollinaris, Tertullian, Victorinus, Lactantius and others believed in the 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth.

Nobody believed in the Pauline teaching of the second coming where the resurrected Christians would meet Jesus in the air? Didn't anyone hear Paul preach in Rome, Coirinth, Philippi, Galatia, Thessalonica, Ephesus and Colosse?

Again, we see that supposed early Christian writers were not influenced by the so-called Pauline Epistles.

1 Thessalonians 4:17

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Revelation 20

they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

[davidmartin]

It is clear that the Pauline character was a very late invention in an attempt to change earlier doctrines of the Christian cult

and yet that doesn't explain hell which Paul did not preach
if he were invented later he would preach what the later church believed but he does not preach hell
thus, it stands to reason that Paul was earlier and it was the later church that eventually accepted hell
that does not mean that the later church didn't attempt to smooth over and harmonise differences with Peter as we see in Acts
what are you trying to prove,

What you say doesn't make sense. In the very Epistles themselves the letter writer claimed he persecuted those who preached the faith-- the very faith he tried to destroy

AMP Galatians 1.23

they only kept hearing, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the [good news of the] faith which he once was trying to destroy.”

AMP 1Corinthians 15:9

For I am the least [worthy] of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I [at one time] fiercely oppressed and violently persecuted the church of God.

It is impossible for the persecutor of the faith to be the first to preach the faith. Impossible.

Ah, I didn't say Paul was first to preach the faith only that using hell as a guide his theology is different from later theology, and i think earlier
To me hell is just such a perfect clue into the dating of stuff
Now maybe you could argue that hell was a very late doctrine and Paul could still be fictional or 2nd century. Sure, i don't agree with that, but it would still make 'hell' an earlier doctrine or at the very least identify a branch of the church that didn't believe in it. I think hell get's ignored on here but to me its a foundational, key piece of information that absolutely has to be considered

[hakeem]

Ah, I didn't say Paul was first to preach the faith only that using hell as a guide his theology is different from later theology, and i think earlier
To me hell is just such a perfect clue into the dating of stuff
Now maybe you could argue that hell was a very late doctrine and Paul could still be fictional or 2nd century. Sure, i don't agree with that, but it would still make 'hell' an earlier doctrine or at the very least identify a branch of the church that didn't believe in it. I think hell get's ignored on here but to me its a foundational, key piece of information that absolutely has to be considered

The belief in hell by Jews predated all NT writings by hundreds of years. References to "hell" are found multiple times in the OT.

Psalm 9:17

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Josephus in" War of the Jews" claimed the Essenes, Pharisees and also the Greeks believed that the souls of bad people would be punished eternally in Hades.

Wars of the Jews 2.8.11

..... they [the Essenes] allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments.

And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demi-gods; and to the souls of the wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades.

War of the Jews 2.8.14

They [the Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.

If the so-called Paul was really a Pharisee as claimed in the Epistles it is most likely that he believed there was a place called hell.

[davidmartin]

Hakeem, all the reference to hell are really to Sheol in the Hebrew scriptures
This Sheol is nothing like the hell concept in any way that warrants equating with hell

But what you said about the Essenes as per Josephus, and that the concept appears in the Qumran community (Dead sea scrolls) I admit is so
What does this mean?
It means that the concept of hell was a later development within Judaism
It was never there originally

Paul never mentions hell, the gospel of John never mentions hell, the gospel of Mark does so in one place (likely copied from Matthew)
Just as the original Jews did not believe in hell, neither did the original Christians. That's my thesis and it's not hard to defend, i don't even need to try, it defends itself

Thus, the doctrine of hell in Christianity is taken from the later developments within Judaism, but there is every reason to doubt it was originally there in the earliest forms of Christianity. Since Mark effectively omits it, and so does Paul and so does the Odes of Solomon and the gospel of John
The only writings that affirm it are Revelation and Matthew (Luke yeah, the Luke that is very late) - so my point stands. Matthew is not early and Revelation is hardly representative of the other NT material

Prove to me that hell was always there in Judaism - you cannot!

[hakeem]

Hakeem, all the reference to hell are really to Sheol in the Hebrew scriptures
This Sheol is nothing like the hell concept in any way that warrants equating with hell

But what you said about the Essenes as per Josephus, and that the concept appears in the Qumran community (Dead sea scrolls) I admit is so
What does this mean?
It means that the concept of hell was a later development within Judaism
It was never there originally

Paul never mentions hell, the gospel of John never mentions hell, the gospel of Mark does so in one place (likely copied from Matthew)
Just as the original Jews did not believe in hell, neither did the original Christians. That's my thesis and it's not hard to defend, i don't even need to try, it defends itself

Thus, the doctrine of hell in Christianity is taken from the later developments within Judaism, but there is every reason to doubt it was originally there in the earliest forms of Christianity. Since Mark effectively omits it, and so does Paul and so does the Odes of Solomon and the gospel of John
The only writings that affirm it are Revelation and Matthew (Luke yeah, the Luke that is very late) - so my point stands. Matthew is not early and Revelation is hardly representative of the other NT material

Prove to me that hell was always there in Judaism - you cannot!

I just showed you that based on the writings of Josephus the Pharisees and Essenes believed in a place of eternal punishment for the wicked.

I just showed you that a place call "hell" is mentioned multiple times in the OT.

The belief in 'hell ' or the concept of a place of everlasting punishment ] by Jews predates all NT writings including the Epistles.

Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.3

They [the Pharisees] also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again..

Psalm 16:10

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Look at Philippians 3. If the Pauline writer was really a Pharisee then he must have believed or had a concept of hell or a place of eternal punishment.
Philippians 3:5

Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee