I've always found the argument that "The Gospels must have been written late because the first time they are quoted is also late" to be rather absurd. Alexander The Great isn't quoted till over 200 years after his death, does that mean he must have lived earlier? Of course not!
That argument doesn't even work on its own terms. 1 Clement clearly quotes multiple gospels, and was written early enough that the author could refer to the temple sacrifices in the present tense. If someone is going to claim a late date for all of the gospels then they have to provide some sort of explanation for these quotes for their theory to even be viable.
@@stephengray1344 It gets even worse for the late date proponents... Paul quotes THREE Gospels in his letters, called them scripture, implying that they were already written, published, and circulating. All of the letters that Paul wrote were written, published, and circulating prior to the mid-60s. Yikes 🥵
@@darkwolf7740 At least some of those quotes are in the disputed letters, and the arguments for some Pauline letters being forgeries are independent of those for the late dating of the gospels. So it's not quite as bad for their case as you say.
My theories about the Papias comments and the gospels are threefold: 1) Papias is referring to our current ‘Mark’ when he speaks of ARISTION’ s ‘narrative’ on the logia of Jesus. Referring to a true narrative that was made to frame a selection of stories that have themes of missionary activity, opposition by Jewish authorities and Romans, miracles countering evil spirits and suffering martyrdom. Tradition links Aristion to being an ‘elder’ in Smyrna. Revelation and Acts both highlight these concerns around believers experiences in the Province of Asia. Papias seems to say that in his own early years the Elder Aristion and the Elder John (NOT John the apostle) were both alive, and not too far from his own Hierapolis that travellers occasionally relayed accounts of what they had been saying about their own memories of the apostles. talking about the apostles from personal memory and were themselves surviving personal followers of Jesus. This personal prominence and potential authority of authorship, would explain why our so-called ‘Mark’ would be incorporated in our ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’. The fact that Aristion was not an apostle might have given the authors more confidence about changing the order and wording of what they used in our ‘Mark’. 2) Papias is referring to our ‘John’ when he speaks of (John) Mark writing things from Peter’s perspective and not in (chronological) order. As the order of events and narrative of most events were strikingly not the same as the narrative in our ‘Mark’. Note the remarkable prominence in our ‘John’ of both Peter and his sidekick ‘the disciple who Jesus love’ the person supposedly the eyewitness ‘who wrote these things’. I identify this supposed originator and eyewitness with John Mark, called simply John twice in Acts ‘also called Mark’ in Acts and other NT texts, and called John the Elder by Papias at another point. Early on in the battle against the gnostics John Mark and John son of Zebedee were confused in the traditions and polemics. . 3) Papias’s ‘Matthew’ is the Sayings source that our ‘Matthew’ has later incorporated into his revision of our ‘Mark’.
While it it interesting to think about the identities of the writers of the 4 Gospels, just a note that (1) those identities don't have anything to do with their spiritual truth, or (2) when they were written, which is estimated to be 1st century, irrespective of their writers names. Whether an original Apostle, who were almost surely unable to read or write, physically wrote or even organized their writing, is hard to reconcile with aspects of them aside from the attributions of Papias (or others). We know that they Gospels originally circulated as intentionally anonymous, for whatever reason, and elements such as - in some cases - the writers' apparent unfamiliarity with the local geography by people who'd ostensibly lived there (in Nazareth) their entire lives or - in others - spectacular knowledge of the Septuagint, the Greek language, or Mosaic law - far beyond what fishermen would be expected to know, makes the original Disciples seem unlikely as the original writers. NONE of which as ANYTHING to do with the spiritual truth of Christianity NOR the contents of the Gospels.
Hello FBor, I got say, this is probably the best part of your 1:30h long video, becuase it actually shows some evidence that can contribute to Papias testimony being early and reliable, but I have some doubts... 1. Why would Eusebius not mention Papias here?: I watch the long video and I already know your answer "Eusebius didn't like the guy", and that's true... But, why would he not mention Papias in one part if the text and mention him in another part? If he really wanted to distance the early witness from Papias, he shouldn't have mention him at all! And, as Kevin from Nontraditional Catholic already pointed out, why would Eusebius use and quote Papias a bunch of times and simply decide not to use him here? It (seems that) would've been way more appropriate to either not mention him at all or cite his source. 2. Eusebius seems to be quoting more of tradition: If you take a look at the verse (I saw it both translated and in greek) you see that Eusebius actually says "as the tradition says", and seems to be recalling a genral tradition rather than a specific account. And also, in the verse 8 (or 9... the one after talking about the gospel of John), Eusebius says that the "logos" is unquestionable. The problem is that "logos" can mean a variety of things... It can mean "dogma", "speech", "tradition", "word", etc. The simpler explanation here seems to be that Eusebius is recalling some tradition or a dogma (as he says it's unquestionable). 3. I don't think the linguistic argument is that strong: While I do grant that it's interesting, I don't think it helps to much... Eusebius paraphrase uses a bunch of words, expressions and ideias that are not found in Papias (like calling the "logia" Gospels, and saying that Matthew preached before writing his account in his native language), and word use can be due to various reasons, as we tend to write similarly to the people whom accounts, sayings and sources we are reading. And also the part that Eusebius actually quotes from Papias is quite short, so I don't think it's wise to bet your coins into this analysis. I will try to find and read the whole article to see if a stronger case is made, but, just by the part quoted in the video, it doesn't seem that impressive. 4. In the end, we don't know who wrote it: Well, that's a fact... Eusebius simply doesn't mention he's source, and, to make it even worse, paraphrases it adding some of his own content, and, to make it even worse, we don't have the original sayings of Papias to base our knowledge. Maybe Eusebius was quoting Papias? Maybe. Maybe he was quoting some other author? Maybe. Maybe he was simply basing on the tradition that had been established for more than 100 years at the time he was writing he's account? Maybe. Conclusion: I don't think there's _compelling_ evidence to think that Eusebius is paraphrasing Papias specifically. Edit: I read the more in depth linguistic analysis and, despite interesting, I'm still agnostic about it. I'm a little more confident that maybe Eusebius really quoted Papias, but I not quite convinced... Again, it goes back to my point that "I may be, or it may not be". The argument relies on some very ambiguous words and expressions, some words used here and there and still relies on a relatively small number of samples for "Papian vocabulary". Interesting, but not convinced.
A few thoughts: "Why would Eusebius not mention Papias here?: I watch the long video and I already know your answer "Eusebius didn't like the guy", and that's true... But, why would he not mention Papias in one part if the text and mention him in another part? If he really wanted to distance the early witness from Papias, he shouldn't have mention him at all! And, as Kevin from Nontraditional Catholic already pointed out, why would Eusebius use and quote Papias a bunch of times and simply decide not to use him here? It (seems that) would've been way more appropriate to either not mention him at all or cite his source." Because in the quoted portion of text, the record names John as the author of his Gospel. But Eusebius is specifically interested in distancing Papias from knowing anything about John. That's the whole point of his discussion in EH 3.39. The point is not simply that Eusebius doesn't like Papias. The point is that Eusebius doesn't want Papias to have any legitimacy when it comes to his association with John the apostle. And notice that the question of why Eusebius doesn't name his source here applies regardless of who his source actually was. No matter who he is paraphrasing here, he chooses not to name them. If we accept that his source was Papias, at least we have some sort of explanation for why he chooses to leave the source unnamed. "Eusebius seems to be quoting more of tradition: If you take a look at the verse (I saw it both translated and in greek) you see that Eusebius actually says "as the tradition says", and seems to be recalling a genral tradition rather than a specific account." Not so! Eusebius uses the phrase katexei logoB here which, as various scholars have noted, he usually uses in reference to a written tradition. "The problem is that "logos" can mean a variety of things... It can mean "dogma", "speech", "tradition", "word", etc. The simpler explanation here seems to be that Eusebius is recalling some tradition or a dogma (as he says it's unquestionable)." Why is that simpler? Especially when this not usually how Eusebius usually uses this term? Surely the presumption is in favor of Eusebius' normative usage of the term? "I don't think the linguistic argument is that strong: While I do grant that it's interesting, I don't think it helps to much... Eusebius paraphrase uses a bunch of words, expressions and ideias that are not found in Papias (like calling the "logia" Gospels, and saying that Matthew preached before writing his account in his native language), and word use can be due to various reasons, as we tend to write similarly to the people whom accounts, sayings and sources we are reading. And also the part that Eusebius actually quotes from Papias is quite short, so I don't think it's wise to bet your coins into this analysis." I find it odd that you first say that there are elements in the paraphrase which are not found in the quotations from Papias but then immediately turn around and acknowledge that Eusebius doesn't actually quote much from Papias. Exactly! Papias certainly said more than what Eusebius quotes, and so if this paraphrase is from Papias, of course it will include things which are not found in the quotations explicitly attributed to Papias. As long as the information in the paraphrase doesn't contradict what is said by Papias, then Papias remains a possible candidate for this information. It is the similarities which need to be explained. As for your proposal as to why there are so many similarities (including the use of a rare term which Eusebius almost never uses except for in this paraphrase and then three times in the explicit quotation of Papias) that looks like a bare appeal to possibility. We want to know where Eusebius most likely got this information. So far, there is not a better candidate than Papias. So by inference to the best explanation, it is is perfectly legitimate to infer that Papias is Eusebius' source here. 4. In the end, we don't know who wrote it: Well, that's a fact... Eusebius simply doesn't mention he's source, and, to make it even worse, paraphrases it adding some of his own content, and, to make it even worse, we don't have the original sayings of Papias to base our knowledge. Maybe Eusebius was quoting Papias? Maybe. Maybe he was quoting some other author? Maybe. Maybe he was simply basing on the tradition that had been established for more than 100 years at the time he was writing he's account? Maybe.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Oh, thanks for the thoughtful response. I liked the way you answered my points, but it still left me with some questions... 1. Is there any evidence that Eusebius wants to distance the apostle John from Papias? I just find it odd that Eusebius connects Papias with Matthew, Mark and Peter, but, suddenly, does a complete nope for John. Your argument seems to rely on this point, so would there be some evidence? and 2. What are some scholars that say that Eusebius, probably, meant "written traditions". If I'm not mistaken, the article, that makes the whole literary analysis to connect this passage of Eusebius to Papias, says that the term used here refers, mostly, to all kinds of traditions, and only in a few cases it means, specifically, "written tradition" or "written document". EDIT: I read the article again and it says that when Eusebius uses "logos katexei" he is, in most cases, making reference to a written document, indicating, afterwards or in the context, the author of the account. Only in some instances he doesn't mention the author and "it does not seem possible to name the document referred to". Lawlor, the author of the analysis of Eusebius use of "logos katexei", says that "none of these is the use of documentary evidence excluded, or improbable". The footnote included (number 21) has a quotation saying "the expression is not CONFINED to oral tradition but may well include contemporary written authorities..." (emphasis mine). Well, again, I think it's relying to much on the "maybe he took that from Papias" and it still seems odd to not mention Papias when Eusebius is, allegedly, using him is a source. EDIT 2: I was reading through the article and couldn't help but notice that Hill argues that the Muratorian Fragment seems to quote from Papias and take inspiration from him. I wonder why you didn't include that in the video. Differently from the "Case for Early Papian Testimony in Eusebius", which I think is weak, the Muratonian Fragment one is way more robust and actually shows signs of "Papian Influence". I think that, if you want to argue that Papias knew who the author of John was, the MF (no pun intended) would help you way better. Extra thought: Couldn't Eusebius had gotten his information about the origin of the Gospel of John from a mixture of the MF, the gospel of John itself and Clement? (after all, he doesn't mention his source and seems to add some of his personal touches into it) And also, I want to clarify that with the whole "Eusebius doesn't quote Papias a lot and we can't know how Papias wrote stuff" I want to say that we simply don't have many of Papias original writings (or quotations) and, therefore, can't be sure of whether or not someone is taking inspiration from a document written by Papias. The fact is that, through my lens, we simply don't have enough data to make meaningful conclusions. Personally, I think that Eusebius in 3.24 is recounting traditions that he'd received and making a united account. Maybe (just maybe) some of that information did come from Papias... But can we be sure? Nope. Is there strong evidence of "Papian" dependence? No, in my opinion. (I don't want to appeal to academic consensus, but) That's why most scholars simply don't put that testimony as early. I thank you for your response though.
Hey, it is what the algorithm wants, you have to cut a little slack for that, there needs to be an interesting thumbnail to get attention so the algorithm will recommend the video
Here's my thing: I actually don't think that Papias challenges the anonymity of OUR Matthew or OUR Mark! And why not? Because Papias never quotes from them! So, all we know is that Papias says "Matthew wrote something" and "Mark wrote something" - meanwhile, contemporaries of Papias are quoting OUR synoptics and referring to them as the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" or the "Gospel of the Lord" (which should sound familiar to anyone who remembers Mark 1:1). I actually wouldn't be surprised if some "Hebrew Matthew" really did used to exist, and might be older than our Mark! But, it would seem that this Hebrew Matthew is not OUR Matthew. Papias's Judas story also makes me doubt that Papias had access to OUR Gospels, though he may have had access to other 1st century Christian stories that have also been lost to history. Also, how do we say that its most likely that Eusebius is talking about Papias here instead of some source that is now lost to history? I agree the Eusebius hated the guy haha ("a man of litte intellect" or whatever) - but he has no problem citing him other times! why would he suddenly be like "I can cite Papias like 4 times, but I draw the line at 5!!" I'm not sure I follow that one. And just knowing that 90%+ of all ancient texts are lost makes me wonder how we could possibly say with any confidence that this is Papias here, instead of some lost source? I'd be keen to get your thoughts!
I think that we should avoid positing any sources which are not known to exist in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Since we already know that there were two texts which were attributed to Matthew and Mark very early on and which have been incorporated into the New Testament, it seems to me that we ought to at least see if these are the texts which Papias is referencing if possible. And I really don't think that the objections to viewing these documents as canonical Matthew and Mark are very good.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 well I guess my whole point is that we have evidence that people before, during, and after Papias were quoting from the our Gospels without calling them by Matthew and Mark. So, without Papias having quoted from the works that he calls Matthew and Mark, I'm not sure how we can say with any confidence that he's talking about ours. In fact, it seems like we have reason to believe he's not talking about ours.
@@Nontradicath given that I do not believe that those reasons for thinking that he is not referring to our Gospels hold up, I think that the inference to the best explanation is that he is referring to canonical Matthew and Mark. That is the simplest explanation of the data. And we should demand very strong evidence before preferring a more complex hypothesis.
@NontraditionalCatholic I don't think this type of line of logic works church fathers (like Ireneus)had quoted other works like the prophets,or clement of Rome who cited 1 corinthians without citing the name does it follow that he had no idea who wrote them or the geography of 1 corinthians was unknown? No, it means that his audience most likely knew, and therefore, it was not necessary to cite the exact source
You may very well become one of the great New Testament apologists of our time, a role that is much needed!
I've always found the argument that "The Gospels must have been written late because the first time they are quoted is also late" to be rather absurd.
Alexander The Great isn't quoted till over 200 years after his death, does that mean he must have lived earlier? Of course not!
That argument doesn't even work on its own terms. 1 Clement clearly quotes multiple gospels, and was written early enough that the author could refer to the temple sacrifices in the present tense. If someone is going to claim a late date for all of the gospels then they have to provide some sort of explanation for these quotes for their theory to even be viable.
@@stephengray1344
It gets even worse for the late date
proponents...
Paul quotes THREE Gospels in his letters, called them scripture, implying that they were already written, published, and circulating.
All of the letters that Paul wrote were written, published, and circulating prior to the mid-60s.
Yikes 🥵
@@stephengray1344 If you read 1 Clement you will see that he does not quote any gospels.
@@darkwolf7740 At least some of those quotes are in the disputed letters, and the arguments for some Pauline letters being forgeries are independent of those for the late dating of the gospels. So it's not quite as bad for their case as you say.
@@seanhogan6893
1 Clem 13:2 quotes Matthew 7:2
1 Clem 15:2 quotes Matthew 15:8/Mark 7:6
1 Clem 16:1 alludes to Luke 22:26/Matthew 23:11
Nice
My theories about the Papias comments and the gospels are threefold: 1) Papias is referring to our current ‘Mark’ when he speaks of ARISTION’ s ‘narrative’ on the logia of Jesus. Referring to a true narrative that was made to frame a selection of stories that have themes of missionary activity, opposition by Jewish authorities and Romans, miracles countering evil spirits and suffering martyrdom. Tradition links Aristion to being an ‘elder’ in Smyrna. Revelation and Acts both highlight these concerns around believers experiences in the Province of Asia. Papias seems to say that in his own early years the Elder Aristion and the Elder John (NOT John the apostle) were both alive, and not too far from his own Hierapolis that travellers occasionally relayed accounts of what they had been saying about their own memories of the apostles. talking about the apostles from personal memory and were themselves surviving personal followers of Jesus. This personal prominence and potential authority of authorship, would explain why our so-called ‘Mark’ would be incorporated in our ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’. The fact that Aristion was not an apostle might have given the authors more confidence about changing the order and wording of what they used in our ‘Mark’.
2) Papias is referring to our ‘John’ when he speaks of (John) Mark writing things from Peter’s perspective and not in (chronological) order. As the order of events and narrative of most events were strikingly not the same as the narrative in our ‘Mark’. Note the remarkable prominence in our ‘John’ of both Peter and his sidekick ‘the disciple who Jesus love’ the person supposedly the eyewitness ‘who wrote these things’. I identify this supposed originator and eyewitness with John Mark, called simply John twice in Acts ‘also called Mark’ in Acts and other NT texts, and called John the Elder by Papias at another point. Early on in the battle against the gnostics John Mark and John son of Zebedee were confused in the traditions and polemics. .
3) Papias’s ‘Matthew’ is the Sayings source that our ‘Matthew’ has later incorporated into his revision of our ‘Mark’.
While it it interesting to think about the identities of the writers of the 4 Gospels, just a note that (1) those identities don't have anything to do with their spiritual truth, or (2) when they were written, which is estimated to be 1st century, irrespective of their writers names. Whether an original Apostle, who were almost surely unable to read or write, physically wrote or even organized their writing, is hard to reconcile with aspects of them aside from the attributions of Papias (or others). We know that they Gospels originally circulated as intentionally anonymous, for whatever reason, and elements such as - in some cases - the writers' apparent unfamiliarity with the local geography by people who'd ostensibly lived there (in Nazareth) their entire lives or - in others - spectacular knowledge of the Septuagint, the Greek language, or Mosaic law - far beyond what fishermen would be expected to know, makes the original Disciples seem unlikely as the original writers. NONE of which as ANYTHING to do with the spiritual truth of Christianity NOR the contents of the Gospels.
Hello FBor, I got say, this is probably the best part of your 1:30h long video, becuase it actually shows some evidence that can contribute to Papias testimony being early and reliable, but I have some doubts...
1. Why would Eusebius not mention Papias here?: I watch the long video and I already know your answer "Eusebius didn't like the guy", and that's true... But, why would he not mention Papias in one part if the text and mention him in another part? If he really wanted to distance the early witness from Papias, he shouldn't have mention him at all! And, as Kevin from Nontraditional Catholic already pointed out, why would Eusebius use and quote Papias a bunch of times and simply decide not to use him here? It (seems that) would've been way more appropriate to either not mention him at all or cite his source.
2. Eusebius seems to be quoting more of tradition: If you take a look at the verse (I saw it both translated and in greek) you see that Eusebius actually says "as the tradition says", and seems to be recalling a genral tradition rather than a specific account. And also, in the verse 8 (or 9... the one after talking about the gospel of John), Eusebius says that the "logos" is unquestionable. The problem is that "logos" can mean a variety of things... It can mean "dogma", "speech", "tradition", "word", etc. The simpler explanation here seems to be that Eusebius is recalling some tradition or a dogma (as he says it's unquestionable).
3. I don't think the linguistic argument is that strong: While I do grant that it's interesting, I don't think it helps to much... Eusebius paraphrase uses a bunch of words, expressions and ideias that are not found in Papias (like calling the "logia" Gospels, and saying that Matthew preached before writing his account in his native language), and word use can be due to various reasons, as we tend to write similarly to the people whom accounts, sayings and sources we are reading. And also the part that Eusebius actually quotes from Papias is quite short, so I don't think it's wise to bet your coins into this analysis. I will try to find and read the whole article to see if a stronger case is made, but, just by the part quoted in the video, it doesn't seem that impressive.
4. In the end, we don't know who wrote it: Well, that's a fact... Eusebius simply doesn't mention he's source, and, to make it even worse, paraphrases it adding some of his own content, and, to make it even worse, we don't have the original sayings of Papias to base our knowledge. Maybe Eusebius was quoting Papias? Maybe. Maybe he was quoting some other author? Maybe. Maybe he was simply basing on the tradition that had been established for more than 100 years at the time he was writing he's account? Maybe.
Conclusion: I don't think there's _compelling_ evidence to think that Eusebius is paraphrasing Papias specifically.
Edit: I read the more in depth linguistic analysis and, despite interesting, I'm still agnostic about it. I'm a little more confident that maybe Eusebius really quoted Papias, but I not quite convinced... Again, it goes back to my point that "I may be, or it may not be". The argument relies on some very ambiguous words and expressions, some words used here and there and still relies on a relatively small number of samples for "Papian vocabulary". Interesting, but not convinced.
A few thoughts:
"Why would Eusebius not mention Papias here?: I watch the long video and I already know your answer "Eusebius didn't like the guy", and that's true... But, why would he not mention Papias in one part if the text and mention him in another part? If he really wanted to distance the early witness from Papias, he shouldn't have mention him at all! And, as Kevin from Nontraditional Catholic already pointed out, why would Eusebius use and quote Papias a bunch of times and simply decide not to use him here? It (seems that) would've been way more appropriate to either not mention him at all or cite his source."
Because in the quoted portion of text, the record names John as the author of his Gospel. But Eusebius is specifically interested in distancing Papias from knowing anything about John. That's the whole point of his discussion in EH 3.39. The point is not simply that Eusebius doesn't like Papias. The point is that Eusebius doesn't want Papias to have any legitimacy when it comes to his association with John the apostle. And notice that the question of why Eusebius doesn't name his source here applies regardless of who his source actually was. No matter who he is paraphrasing here, he chooses not to name them. If we accept that his source was Papias, at least we have some sort of explanation for why he chooses to leave the source unnamed.
"Eusebius seems to be quoting more of tradition: If you take a look at the verse (I saw it both translated and in greek) you see that Eusebius actually says "as the tradition says", and seems to be recalling a genral tradition rather than a specific account."
Not so! Eusebius uses the phrase katexei logoB here which, as various scholars have noted, he usually uses in reference to a written tradition.
"The problem is that "logos" can mean a variety of things... It can mean "dogma", "speech", "tradition", "word", etc. The simpler explanation here seems to be that Eusebius is recalling some tradition or a dogma (as he says it's unquestionable)."
Why is that simpler? Especially when this not usually how Eusebius usually uses this term? Surely the presumption is in favor of Eusebius' normative usage of the term?
"I don't think the linguistic argument is that strong: While I do grant that it's interesting, I don't think it helps to much... Eusebius paraphrase uses a bunch of words, expressions and ideias that are not found in Papias (like calling the "logia" Gospels, and saying that Matthew preached before writing his account in his native language), and word use can be due to various reasons, as we tend to write similarly to the people whom accounts, sayings and sources we are reading. And also the part that Eusebius actually quotes from Papias is quite short, so I don't think it's wise to bet your coins into this analysis."
I find it odd that you first say that there are elements in the paraphrase which are not found in the quotations from Papias but then immediately turn around and acknowledge that Eusebius doesn't actually quote much from Papias. Exactly! Papias certainly said more than what Eusebius quotes, and so if this paraphrase is from Papias, of course it will include things which are not found in the quotations explicitly attributed to Papias. As long as the information in the paraphrase doesn't contradict what is said by Papias, then Papias remains a possible candidate for this information. It is the similarities which need to be explained.
As for your proposal as to why there are so many similarities (including the use of a rare term which Eusebius almost never uses except for in this paraphrase and then three times in the explicit quotation of Papias) that looks like a bare appeal to possibility. We want to know where Eusebius most likely got this information. So far, there is not a better candidate than Papias. So by inference to the best explanation, it is is perfectly legitimate to infer that Papias is Eusebius' source here.
4. In the end, we don't know who wrote it: Well, that's a fact... Eusebius simply doesn't mention he's source, and, to make it even worse, paraphrases it adding some of his own content, and, to make it even worse, we don't have the original sayings of Papias to base our knowledge. Maybe Eusebius was quoting Papias? Maybe. Maybe he was quoting some other author? Maybe. Maybe he was simply basing on the tradition that had been established for more than 100 years at the time he was writing he's account? Maybe.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Oh, thanks for the thoughtful response. I liked the way you answered my points, but it still left me with some questions...
1. Is there any evidence that Eusebius wants to distance the apostle John from Papias? I just find it odd that Eusebius connects Papias with Matthew, Mark and Peter, but, suddenly, does a complete nope for John. Your argument seems to rely on this point, so would there be some evidence?
and
2. What are some scholars that say that Eusebius, probably, meant "written traditions". If I'm not mistaken, the article, that makes the whole literary analysis to connect this passage of Eusebius to Papias, says that the term used here refers, mostly, to all kinds of traditions, and only in a few cases it means, specifically, "written tradition" or "written document".
EDIT: I read the article again and it says that when Eusebius uses "logos katexei" he is, in most cases, making reference to a written document, indicating, afterwards or in the context, the author of the account. Only in some instances he doesn't mention the author and "it does not seem possible to name the document referred to". Lawlor, the author of the analysis of Eusebius use of "logos katexei", says that "none of these is the use of documentary evidence excluded, or improbable". The footnote included (number 21) has a quotation saying "the expression is not CONFINED to oral tradition but may well include contemporary written authorities..." (emphasis mine). Well, again, I think it's relying to much on the "maybe he took that from Papias" and it still seems odd to not mention Papias when Eusebius is, allegedly, using him is a source.
EDIT 2: I was reading through the article and couldn't help but notice that Hill argues that the Muratorian Fragment seems to quote from Papias and take inspiration from him. I wonder why you didn't include that in the video. Differently from the "Case for Early Papian Testimony in Eusebius", which I think is weak, the Muratonian Fragment one is way more robust and actually shows signs of "Papian Influence". I think that, if you want to argue that Papias knew who the author of John was, the MF (no pun intended) would help you way better.
Extra thought: Couldn't Eusebius had gotten his information about the origin of the Gospel of John from a mixture of the MF, the gospel of John itself and Clement? (after all, he doesn't mention his source and seems to add some of his personal touches into it)
And also, I want to clarify that with the whole "Eusebius doesn't quote Papias a lot and we can't know how Papias wrote stuff" I want to say that we simply don't have many of Papias original writings (or quotations) and, therefore, can't be sure of whether or not someone is taking inspiration from a document written by Papias. The fact is that, through my lens, we simply don't have enough data to make meaningful conclusions.
Personally, I think that Eusebius in 3.24 is recounting traditions that he'd received and making a united account. Maybe (just maybe) some of that information did come from Papias... But can we be sure? Nope. Is there strong evidence of "Papian" dependence? No, in my opinion. (I don't want to appeal to academic consensus, but) That's why most scholars simply don't put that testimony as early.
I thank you for your response though.
So why did you put Bart Ehrman picture on the thumbnail? If he isn’t even in the video or spoken about really?🤷🏼♂️
did you watch the video????
He is the first person quoted. It's his concern that is being addressed throughout.
Hey, it is what the algorithm wants, you have to cut a little slack for that, there needs to be an interesting thumbnail to get attention so the algorithm will recommend the video
Here's my thing: I actually don't think that Papias challenges the anonymity of OUR Matthew or OUR Mark! And why not? Because Papias never quotes from them! So, all we know is that Papias says "Matthew wrote something" and "Mark wrote something" - meanwhile, contemporaries of Papias are quoting OUR synoptics and referring to them as the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" or the "Gospel of the Lord" (which should sound familiar to anyone who remembers Mark 1:1). I actually wouldn't be surprised if some "Hebrew Matthew" really did used to exist, and might be older than our Mark! But, it would seem that this Hebrew Matthew is not OUR Matthew. Papias's Judas story also makes me doubt that Papias had access to OUR Gospels, though he may have had access to other 1st century Christian stories that have also been lost to history.
Also, how do we say that its most likely that Eusebius is talking about Papias here instead of some source that is now lost to history? I agree the Eusebius hated the guy haha ("a man of litte intellect" or whatever) - but he has no problem citing him other times! why would he suddenly be like "I can cite Papias like 4 times, but I draw the line at 5!!" I'm not sure I follow that one. And just knowing that 90%+ of all ancient texts are lost makes me wonder how we could possibly say with any confidence that this is Papias here, instead of some lost source?
I'd be keen to get your thoughts!
I think that we should avoid positing any sources which are not known to exist in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Since we already know that there were two texts which were attributed to Matthew and Mark very early on and which have been incorporated into the New Testament, it seems to me that we ought to at least see if these are the texts which Papias is referencing if possible. And I really don't think that the objections to viewing these documents as canonical Matthew and Mark are very good.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 well I guess my whole point is that we have evidence that people before, during, and after Papias were quoting from the our Gospels without calling them by Matthew and Mark. So, without Papias having quoted from the works that he calls Matthew and Mark, I'm not sure how we can say with any confidence that he's talking about ours. In fact, it seems like we have reason to believe he's not talking about ours.
@@Nontradicath given that I do not believe that those reasons for thinking that he is not referring to our Gospels hold up, I think that the inference to the best explanation is that he is referring to canonical Matthew and Mark. That is the simplest explanation of the data. And we should demand very strong evidence before preferring a more complex hypothesis.
@NontraditionalCatholic I don't think this type of line of logic works church fathers (like Ireneus)had quoted other works like the prophets,or clement of Rome who cited 1 corinthians without citing the name does it follow that he had no idea who wrote them or the geography of 1 corinthians was unknown? No, it means that his audience most likely knew, and therefore, it was not necessary to cite the exact source