Dating Papias

[John2]

Whether Papias existed or not, to judge from what Eusebius says about him and the context he places him in (Trajan's time) and the writings he is said to have known (Mark, Matthew, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation), I think he wrote (or is presented as having written) no later than Trajan's time.

Your statement is quite contradictory. What Eusebius said about Papias is of no historical value if he [Papias] did not exist.

What I'm saying is that whether Papias existed or not he is presented as writing no later than Trajan's time, just like whether Jesus existed or not he is presented as existing in Tiberius' time. But if you don't think Papias existed then of course the account has no historical value for you.

And furthermore, there is no evidence that there were Gospels called according to Mark or Matthew in the time of Trajan.

Well, if you discount Papias then I suppose not.

Justin Martyr writing in the time of Antoninus c 138-161 CE appeared to have no knowledge of Gospels called according to Mark or Matthew.

All that means to me is that Justin did not name the gospels of Mark or Matthew (or any gospels) and not that they didn't exist. As Hurtado writes:

First, in one crucial statement in Justin’s Apology (66:3), he refers explicitly to “the memoirs [same word] which are called gospels.” So, this suggests that Justin’s “memoirs” are what he and fellow Christians of his time knew as “gospels,” not some other kind of text. That is, this statement suggests that “memoirs of the apostles” was simply a particular term that Justin used to refer to what he and fellow believers called “gospels.”

Second, if we examine Justin’s references to these “memoirs of the apostles,” he often quotes from them, and what he quotes is recognizable, most often from the Gospel of Matthew, but also sometimes from Luke and (less obviously) the other familiar Gospels. Indeed, these references include narrative material, including references to the narratives of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion and resurrection (e.g., Dialogue with Trypho 101:3; 102:3; 103:6; 104:1; 105:1, 5-6; 106:1, 3, 4; 107:1). So, we’re not dealing with something like a sayings-collection, but narratives of Jesus’ birth, ministry, passion and resurrection.


https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

Well, what purpose did it serve Irenaeus to say things about Jesus that was not supported in the NT?

In the NT , Jesus crucified when he was about thirty old but in Irenaeus "Against Heresies" Jesus was crucified when he was an old man about to be fifty years old.

But that is Irenaeus' interpretation of the NT (i.e., John 8:57).


AH 2.22.6:

But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad, they answered Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old.

John 8:57:

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

[Charles Wilson]

But that is Irenaeus' interpretation of the NT (i.e., John 8:57).

AH 2.22.6:

"But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad, they answered Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham? Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, You are not yet forty years old..."

John 8:57 (RSV):

[57] The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"

Compare with:

John 2: 19 - 21 (RSV):

[19] Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

Here is massive Indirection. Whether intentional or not by the Authors of GJohn is for another day. Verse 21 tells me it is. YMMV. "Forty Six Years" is a "Time Marker" for the time leading up to the Passover of 9 CE. 9 (CE) + ( - 46) years yields (- 37) => 37 BCE. What happened in 37 BCE? From the ever-Politicized Wiki-P:

"Romans conquer Jerusalem from the Parthians. Herod the Great becomes king of Judea and Ananelus is installed as High Priest; both positions are seized from Antigonus II Mattathias after a five-month siege. Thousands of Jews are slaughtered by Roman troops supporting Herod."

This complicated Mess has to be covered over and Transvalued. It certainly has been. For the Priesthood, where the Coup originates, the Coup against the Herodians and Romans will be successful, and the Herodian temple will be no more. Bilgah Serves this Passover in 9 CE, as they did in 4 BCE. Immer rotates in on the Sabbath and a New Temple will be dedicated. This gives the reason for verse 19. The entirely Political has been Transvalued into the story of a savior/god, loyal to Rome.

The early attempts to hide this lead to the "Existence-is-not-a-Predicate" problem: "How about if we make '46 years' about the TEMPLE of his body. Yeah, that'll do it..."

No, it won't.

CW

[MrMacSon]

... As Hurtado writes:

First, in one crucial statement in Justin’s Apology (66:3), he refers explicitly to “the memoirs [same word] which are called gospels.” So, this suggests that [these] “memoirs” are what [Justin] and fellow Christians of his time knew as “gospels,” not some other kind of text. That is, this statement suggests that “memoirs of the apostles” was simply a particular term that Justin used to refer to what he and fellow believers called “gospels.”

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

There's nothing noteworthy in this statement of Hurtado's.

Second, if we examine Justin’s references to these “memoirs of the apostles,” he often quotes from them,1 and what he quotes is recognizable, most often from the Gospel of Matthew, but also sometimes from Luke and (less obviously) the other familiar Gospels. Indeed, these references include narrative material, including references to the narratives of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion and resurrection (e.g., Dialogue with Trypho 101:3; 102:3; 103:6; 104:1; 105:1, 5-6; 106:1, 3, 4; 107:1). So, we’re not dealing with something like a sayings-collection, but narratives of Jesus’ birth, ministry, passion and resurrection. https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

¹ It's debateable whether Justin quotes from them. He says things that are similar and sometimes identical to verses in the gospels, most often Matthew, but Justin never says were these things come from.

Yes, Justin makes reference to references to the Jesus’ trial, crucifixion and resurrection but he never makes reference to narratives of them by others.

[davidmartin]

What does this matter?
Even without Papias the gospels can't be much later than the time of Trajan for Ireneous to wrote what he wrote
So all that saying Papias is fictitious does is date them at the upper bound (70 - 120) within a generally agreed 50 year period!

What's more interesting is Justin and Papias don't consider them to be scripture
Justin calling them 'memoirs' and Papias preferring the 'living and abiding voice'

This fits my theory that the gospels were only accepted as scripture later on, after other writings such as Paul and Hebrews, etc

[Ben C. Smith]

It's debateable whether Justin quotes from them. He says things that are similar and sometimes identical to verses in the gospels, most often Matthew, but Justin never says were these things come from.

He says that a lot of them come from the Memorabilia of the Apostles. The issue is not whether Justin is quoting from texts about Jesus; he clearly is. The issue is what those texts looked like (or did not look like).

[Secret Alias]

By the title I thought for a minute it would be a confessional from one of Philip's virgin daughters about going on a date with Papias. Disappointed ...

[davidmartin]

By the title I thought for a minute it would be a confessional from one of Philip's virgin daughters about going on a date with Papias. Disappointed ...

The date was probably going ok till she prophesied his writings wouldn't survive, and thought she was being mean, poor Papias. After that he probably just sat there picking at his food.

[hakeem]

The texts of the Memoirs of the Apostles as found in writings attributed to Justin do show differences with the NT Gospels.

In Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXVIII it is claimed Jesus was born in a cave near the village of Bethlehem..

Dialogue with Trypho LXXVIII

But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ and placed Him in a manger, and here the Magi who came from Arabia found Him.

It is virtually certain that there was a cave birth story in the Gospels since in Origen's "Against Celsus" it is claimed the cave where Jesus was born can be seen at Bethlehem.

Origen's Against Celsus 51

With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes.

No cave birth story is found in the NT Canon.

Any writing which mentions Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke or John must be or most likely after Justin Martyr or after c 150 CE.

[perseusomega9]

... As Hurtado writes:

First, in one crucial statement in Justin’s Apology (66:3), he refers explicitly to “the memoirs [same word] which are called gospels.” So, this suggests that [these] “memoirs” are what [Justin] and fellow Christians of his time knew as “gospels,” not some other kind of text. That is, this statement suggests that “memoirs of the apostles” was simply a particular term that Justin used to refer to what he and fellow believers called “gospels.”

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

There's nothing noteworthy in this statement of Hurtado's.

Second, if we examine Justin’s references to these “memoirs of the apostles,” he often quotes from them,1 and what he quotes is recognizable, most often from the Gospel of Matthew, but also sometimes from Luke and (less obviously) the other familiar Gospels. Indeed, these references include narrative material, including references to the narratives of Jesus’ trial, crucifixion and resurrection (e.g., Dialogue with Trypho 101:3; 102:3; 103:6; 104:1; 105:1, 5-6; 106:1, 3, 4; 107:1). So, we’re not dealing with something like a sayings-collection, but narratives of Jesus’ birth, ministry, passion and resurrection. https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... e-gospels/

¹ It's debateable whether Justin quotes from them. He says things that are similar and sometimes identical to verses in the gospels, most often Matthew, but Justin never says were these things come from.

Yes, Justin makes reference to references to the Jesus’ trial, crucifixion and resurrection but he never makes reference to narratives of them by others.

Not only that but he seems to also quote GPeter and Infancy Gospel of James in the 'Memoirs', is this one book of 'Memoirs' he's quoting from? If so there's the interesting fact that his pupil, Tatian (deemed a heretic), supposedly wrote the Diatessaron. This is just probably the 'Memoirs' or a next edition of it.

[Ben C. Smith]

By the title I thought for a minute it would be a confessional from one of Philip's virgin daughters about going on a date with Papias. Disappointed ...

The date was probably going ok till she prophesied his writings wouldn't survive, and thought she was being mean, poor Papias. After that he probably just sat there picking at his food.