Dating Papias

[perseusomega9]

^ I meant to quote that time

[John2]

But I accept your tacit admission that there is nothing in the Papian quotatians that date him.

What I cited above is Eusebius' summation of what Papias says in EH 3.39.4:

4. 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, say.

[perseusomega9]

and there is no dating there, unless YOU (John2) are harmonizing it with a predetermined dating scheme.

[hakeem]

But the first person to mention any gospels by name is Papias (Mark and at least three versions of Matthew) and he is presented as writing before Justin's time. That Justin doesn't name any gospels makes sense if he used a harmony like his student Tatian did. And in that case it would be quite fitting to call them memoirs of the "apostles and those who followed them" rather than by their individual names (just like Tatian's harmony was called "of the four" rather than "Mark, Matthew, Luke and John").

The claims in the fragments of Papias regarding gMark and gMatthew have been rejected as BS.

Mark and Matthew wrote no Gospels.

Again, the date of writings attributed to Papias cannot be confirmed likewise the history of Papias.

It is known already that the Church or Christians invented authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for the sole purpose of making it appear that the Christian religion predated the so-called heresies when it was the very opposite.

The Christian religion is in fact a late mutilation of other religions.

[John2]

and there is no dating there, unless YOU (John2) are harmonizing it with a predetermined dating scheme.

Papias is claiming to have known people who had been followers of "the disciples of the Lord," which places him one generation removed from them and fits Eusebius' chronology of writing no later than Trajan's time, as Gundry discusses here.


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

[perseusomega9]

again, you have not been able to provide any dating markers from 'Papias'' quotations. Do you really not see the problem?

[perseusomega9]

you SERIOUSLY don't find the double use of 'disciples of the Lord' as problematic?

[John2]

again, you have not been able to provide any dating markers from 'Papias'' quotations. Do you really not see the problem?

If Papias knew people who had known "the disciples of the Lord" then it would make sense that Eusebius places him no later than Trajan's time.

[perseusomega9]

If.

If Papias wrote that.

But we don't have Papias, we have what Imperial Propaganda author Eusebius says Papias said, even if he's quoting accurately, that's still ASSUMING his record is accurate.

You still have yet to weigh on the double, extraneous, and redundant use of 'disciples of the lord'.

And that's assuming you know* what 'disciples' of the Lord means.

*IF you're not harmonizing it with the NT claims.

[John2]

you SERIOUSLY don't find the double use of 'disciples of the Lord' as problematic?

It is curious and Ben has an interesting thread about it ("I find the second instance of "disciples of the Lord" to be suspicious on several grounds").


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3226