Who Was Papias' Source?: Exploring The Identity of John the Elder
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2024
- Sources:
On the Historicity of Jesus - Richard C. Carrier
Jesus Before the Gospels - Bart. D. Ehrman
Who Wrote the Gospels? - Randel McGraw Helms
Papias and the New Testament - Monte A. Shanks
“The Authorship of The Gospel of Matthew: A Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” NTS 14, (1967) - Stewart C. Petrie,
The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? - Bernard Orchard
The Three Gospels - Martin Mosse
This was a well Presented video! Fantastic Job!
Given how little we know about Papias, from whom we have only a handful of short quotes from what is a much bigger work, it is rather bizarre how much effort skeptics put in to trying to discredit him, it seems the only explanation for this is that they regard Papias as a threat
Based on your statement I would suggest the exact opposite with a little amount we have on Papias I would be puzzled why there is extreme dependence by evangelical apologist...
@@greglogan7706 I don't know that there is extreme dependence. We know enough about him to make a pretty good case that he is an early witness to the authorship of the Gospels. That's mostly what apologists use him to establish.
@@greglogan7706there is no “extreme dependence”, he is mentioned first because he is chronologically first and then move on to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, he is merely one source mentioned as part of a much larger cumulative case
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
Right - I am suggesting that claim is false...
Unless you believe the 2020 election was stolen ...particularly based on the evidence supplied....
@@Michael-bk5nz
Chronologically first with respect to ???
Where does Clement of Rome fit into your schema?
Subscribed. This channel is very similar to Testify’s and I’ve learned a lot from Erik.
Great video.
I wouldn't however say that the past tense in "what Peter said, or ...." denotes that the speakers were all dead (some were, but John wasn't) but rather that Papias enquired of the followers of the Elders what the Elders had said. That necessarily referred to things they said in the past, before their followers related it to Papias. But then he relates what John (Elder and disciple) and Ariston (only disciple), being alive, told him themselves.
Here is part of the included quote by Monte Shanks, "It is recognized that come of these authors depended upon others for their knowledge of Papias's connection to the apostle. Nevertheless, some of the more credible witnesses of the apostle John's mentoring of Papias are Irenaeus, *Eusebius*, Jerome, and Anastasius of Sinai. The only person that questioned Papias's association with the apostle was *Eusebius*, who later in his life unashamedly and unjustifiably displayed gross prejudice towards Papias."
Shanks lists four "credible witnesses" of the apostle John's mentoring of Papias, but one of those four is *Eusebius*, who he says questioned that very association in the next sentence. That leaves Irenaeus (video shows a date of birth of 115, but he may have been born anywhere from there to 140; Papias died in 130). He also lists Jerome. Is this the Jerome that was born in the 4th Century? If so, I'd hardly call that a "credible witnesses". Anastasius of Sinai is a 7th century saint, so his opinion on the matter can hardly be considered as remotely valuable. He's a "credible witnesses" of the events of Papias's life like I am a "credible witness" as to whether Sophia Dorothea actually cheated on George I. So, are we down to one "credible" witness?
I'm interested in what your definition of "hearsay" is. I think that you and Carrier may have different definitions. Carrier seems t o be using a legal definition, "the report of another person's words by a witness". If that is his definition, then "the words of the elders" as relayed by "a follower of the elders" is exactly that definition hearsay.
You say, "In this quotation, Eusebius uses the word, "presbyter" or "elder" to refer to Andrew, Peter, etc." Aren't "presbyter" and "elder" two completely different words in the original here? If they are the same word in the original work, why are they translated differently in your quote? I believe that the Papias quote about the gospels specifies, "And the presbyter said this..." Are you saying that this could have been any "elder" and not specifically, "John the presbyter"?
You say that if Eusebius accepted Irenaeus's claim that Papias was a "hearer of John", then that would lend credence to Ireanus's millennial claims and that "his reason for doing so [objecting] is pretty blatant". But this would also seem to cut both ways. You could just as easily say that Irenaeus's "hearer of John [the disciple of the Lord]" claim about Papias was specifically to give Papias increased credibility because he agreed with Ireanus's millennial view.
One other question. The video says that that Papias periodically quoted other written sources and that Papias's citations of scripture are accurate wherever we can check them. Can you be more specific about the other written sources that Papias quoted and what fragments we have of Papias where these quotes appeared? How many times did Papias accurately cite scripture, and what were the scriptures quoted?
Presbyter abd elder are the same thing prysviterous
Have you read Fr. Stephen DeYoung’s article “John the Presbyter: Eusebius’ imaginary friend”. It’s a good article against Eusebius’ argument of two Johns.
I have not. Sounds awesome.
8:50 Wait a minute. You’re saying Papias used the past tense to refer to people who were dead, but the present tense to refer to people who were still alive. This means the “John” mentioned first (in the past tense, who was therefore dead) cannot be the “the Elder John” mentioned later (in the present tense, thus still alive), no?
True! It is likely that the ‘we’ who issued and endorsed the gospel of ‘John’ (in Ch 21) want the readers/audience to believe that it consists of the recollections and writings of John Mark. In my view this is the most likely ‘presumed author’ (who the first listeners will assume is the author)
‘ as John Mark is written up in the late 1st century/early 2nd century ‘Acts’ and the details imply he was was likely rich and lived in Jerusalem in a large house, with gatehouse and servants at the time of Jesus’ preaching. Based on Acts his house was a probable site (and indeed also the later traditional site) for the last supper, in the rich area of the Western Hill, and close to the Essene Quarter. If so, he would be present as the male host, and lying beside the main guest Jesus. Note that John Mark is simply called “John” twice in Acts 13:5 and 13:13 suggesting that even in the early second century this figure was known by either Mark or John. John Mark appears from Acts and Philemon and 1st Peter to have been well-known and thought to be ‘active’ in the Province of Asia (the likely place for ‘JOHN’s’ creation) . MARK is mentioned in three letters of supposed to be by ‘Paul” and and one forged to be ‘1Peter’. See the article by Pierson Parker (1960) ‘John and John Mark’ that vigorously defends this identification. This would enable John Mark to be Papias’ John the Elder, from what Papias says, a highly esteemed personal disciple of Jesus who is not an apostle and yet who supposedly knew what the apostles such as Andrew and Philip had said. This John the Elder was still alive in Papias’ youth and yet was talking about what he had heard apostles like Philip and Andrew ‘had said’, when all the apostles had apparently died.
Nothing in the text of ‘John’ itself or scanty traditions about the text precludes it being a work of the 90s CE. The most likely reason for Acts to mention John Mark several times with details about his relative age, residence, relatives, some travels with Paul and his relative Barnabas and also for including the ‘embarrassing fact’ of a missionary split with Paul that caused a separation with Barnabas, was that the intended audience for Acts knew well of such a figure existing. Legendary material can still cluster around named people who had some sort of existence. My point includes that, like Papias’ allusion to a John the Elder and Aristion alive in his youth who supposedly knew Jesus, a John Mark, alive in the Province of Asia is possible. ‘The Elder John’’s self-assured bossiness is more understandable in a John Mark than from completely unknown figures. The church traditions from the 3rd century on also frequently confused John Mark with John son of Zebedee.
True! It is likely that the ‘we’ who issued and endorsed the gospel of ‘John’ (in Ch 21) want the readers/audience to believe that it consists of the recollections and writings of John Mark. In my view this is the most likely ‘presumed author’ (who the first listeners will assume is the author)
‘ as John Mark is written up in the late 1st century/early 2nd century ‘Acts’ and the details imply he was was likely rich and lived in Jerusalem in a large house, with gatehouse and servants at the time of Jesus’ preaching. Based on Acts his house was a probable site (and indeed also the later traditional site) for the last supper, in the rich area of the Western Hill, and close to the Essene Quarter. If so, he would be present as the male host, and lying beside the main guest Jesus. Note that John Mark is simply called “John” twice in Acts 13:5 and 13:13 suggesting that even in the early second century this figure was known by either Mark or John. John Mark appears from Acts and Philemon and 1st Peter to have been well-known and thought to be ‘active’ in the Province of Asia (the likely place for ‘JOHN’s’ creation) . MARK is mentioned in three letters of supposed to be by ‘Paul” and and one forged to be ‘1Peter’. See the article by Pierson Parker (1960) ‘John and John Mark’ that vigorously defends this identification. This would enable John Mark to be Papias’ John the Elder, from what Papias says, a highly esteemed personal disciple of Jesus who is not an apostle and yet who supposedly knew what the apostles such as Andrew and Philip had said. This John the Elder was still alive in Papias’ youth and yet was talking about what he had heard apostles like Philip and Andrew ‘had said’, when all the apostles had apparently died.
Nothing in the text of ‘John’ itself or scanty traditions about the text precludes it being a work of the 90s CE. The most likely reason for Acts to mention John Mark several times with details about his relative age, residence, relatives, some travels with Paul and his relative Barnabas and also for including the ‘embarrassing fact’ of a missionary split with Paul that caused a separation with Barnabas, was that the intended audience for Acts knew well of such a figure existing. Legendary material can still cluster around named people who had some sort of existence. My point includes that, like Papias’ allusion to a John the Elder and Aristion alive in his youth who supposedly knew Jesus, a John Mark, alive in the Province of Asia is possible. ‘The Elder John’’s self-assured bossiness is more understandable in a John Mark than from completely unknown figures. The church traditions from the 3rd century on also frequently confused John Mark with John son of Zebedee.
True! It is likely that the ‘we’ who issued and endorsed the gospel of ‘John’ (in Ch 21) want the readers/audience to believe that it consists of the recollections and writings of John Mark. In my view this is the most likely ‘presumed author’ (who the first listeners will assume is the author)
‘ as John Mark is written up in the late 1st century/early 2nd century ‘Acts’ and the details imply he was was likely rich and lived in Jerusalem in a large house, with gatehouse and servants at the time of Jesus’ preaching. Based on Acts his house was a probable site (and indeed also the later traditional site) for the last supper, in the rich area of the Western Hill, and close to the Essene Quarter. If so, he would be present as the male host, and lying beside the main guest Jesus. Note that John Mark is simply called “John” twice in Acts 13:5 and 13:13 suggesting that even in the early second century this figure was known by either Mark or John. John Mark appears from Acts and Philemon and 1st Peter to have been well-known and thought to be ‘active’ in the Province of Asia (the likely place for ‘JOHN’s’ creation) . MARK is mentioned in three letters of supposed to be by ‘Paul” and and one forged to be ‘1Peter’. See the article by Pierson Parker (1960) ‘John and John Mark’ that vigorously defends this identification. This would enable John Mark to be Papias’ John the Elder, from what Papias says, a highly esteemed personal disciple of Jesus who is not an apostle and yet who supposedly knew what the apostles such as Andrew and Philip had said. This John the Elder was still alive in Papias’ youth and yet was talking about what he had heard apostles like Philip and Andrew ‘had said’, when all the apostles had apparently died.
Nothing in the text of ‘John’ itself or scanty traditions about the text precludes it being a work of the 90s CE. The most likely reason for Acts to mention John Mark several times with details about his relative age, residence, relatives, some travels with Paul and his relative Barnabas and also for including the ‘embarrassing fact’ of a missionary split with Paul that caused a separation with Barnabas, was that the intended audience for Acts knew well of such a figure existing. Legendary material can still cluster around named people who had some sort of existence. My point includes that, like Papias’ allusion to a John the Elder and Aristion alive in his youth who supposedly knew Jesus, a John Mark, alive in the Province of Asia is possible. ‘The Elder John’’s self-assured bossiness is more understandable in a John Mark than from completely unknown figures. The church traditions from the 3rd century on also frequently confused John Mark with John son of Zebedee.
I don't think there is anything wrong about saying
This is what Donald trump said
And this is what he says
If only the early church had seen fit to keep propagating Papias' writings.
That would have been nice
1:00 Hahaha, Papias literally is saying that he likes to hear directly from the Apostles and their students. This is as close as you can get to personally being taught by the Disciples. These "skeptics" aren't very skeptical of their own use of language for proof texting. John clearly taught Papias. Especially because John usually referred to himself as The Elder. Hahahaha
Ireneaus also has less reason for conjecture than Eusebius.... being that Ireneaus is part of the Yohannine school himself, as John's spiritual grandson. Hahahaha
At 6:31 Papias writes a long sentence where the Disciple John is named, and then within the same sentence is the presbyter John. Since John most certainly died at or before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD, this most likely is the younger John Eleaser or Lazarus. He became quiet the celebrated one later.
Why is it most certain that John died at or before 70 AD?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Because the Revelation does not contain the greatest world event in the first century in it's pages: The complete destruction of both the religious order and economy of the first century Capitol and Temple of that final wicked and adulterous generation of the covenant people of Israel!! Instead, it describes the events leading up to that traumatic event. And the measuring of a temple that IS NOT THERE in the text would be ridiculous! That temple was still there when John wrote the Revelation! But not after 70AD. The Apostle John was said by Jesus that, like his brother James, would suffer martyrdom as well.
Papias is not calling the apostles ‘the elders’. He says he wants to hear from others (travellers passing through Hierapolis?) what the elders, alive elsewhere, were saying about the apostles. I.e.what the elders were saying about what the apostles said. The two elders in particular he is interested in are Aristion ( there was a prominent Aristion associated with Smyrna) and John the elder (probably associated with Ephesus).
James was actually the one who Jesus loved.
that would be almost impossible. John would have died by then and Papias would have been able to qoute sayings from the gospels.
also Papias lived much later then the year 60.
Papias does quote from at least Luke in one place.
When do you think that Papias lived? The estimates I've seen range from between 60 AD to 130 AD.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Eisenman has c. 60 - 135 in his appendix.
In terms of what we know in history about Papias, Papias is estimated to have lived between 60-130 AD. If this number is correct, it’s hard to imagine that he knew any of the disciples as most of them would have been dead before Papias was an adolescent.
There are a handful of throwaway lines in Eusebius that refer to Papias as a “hearer of John” but we don’t have any specification for who this John is. However, Papias himself indicates that he did not directly meet any of the disciples.
Papias said “But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words…”
In this instance, the Elders probably refers to the disciples of Jesus. This means that Papias may have known companions of the Apostles but he probably didn’t know the Apostles themselves. Eusebius agrees with my interpretation of this line, as he says:
But Papias himself, in the preface of his work, makes it clear that he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles. Instead, he declares that he received the matters of faith from those known to them.
So we can be fairly certain that Papias did not know any of the Apostles.
That said, even if he did, that still wouldn’t be very strong evidence that the Gospels can be trusted. We don’t know what criteria Papias used to determine what was true and what wasn’t true and since in either case he wasn’t a witness of the events himself, he can’t determine how many women were actually at the tomb or whether or not Jesus actually said this or that phrase etc.
Just because someone was an eyewitness or knew an eyewitness, doesn’t mean they are 100% accurate in their reporting of events. Even if Papias knew one of the disciples, that wouldn’t shift the needle for me very much, if at all.
Papias is said to be a disciple of John the apostle and John is thought to have lived to have been quite old. So there are really no difficulties with Papias knowing him as Irenaeus clearly says that he did. As for your claims that Papias says he didn't see any eyewitnesses, this was addressed (and refuted) in the video.
Where are your historical evidences to support your claims that Papias was a disciple of John the apostle?
How could Irenaeus make such a wacky claim about Papias if Irenaeus was born roughly around the year 135CE. That’s probably 5 years after Papias passed away.
We have it on record that Papias lived between 60-130CE.
@thethinking-agnostic7130 they were cited in the video.
Irenaeus had access to Papias' writings as well as to Polycarp who knew Papias. He need not have acquired this knowledge as a result of directly meeting Papias.
Can we call him papi?
There's still no reason to take any of this folklore seriously. A highly gullible person asserting something a few hundred years after the fact does not a good source make.
John the Elder isn't a few hundred years after the events of the early first century.
I find it interesting that you'll use Eusebius when he benefits your case and then you'll disparage Eusebius when his words are detrimental to your case
I find it interesting that you'll ignore my reasons for doing so
Scholars: “We can’t trust anything from Eusebius…except the parts where he disparages Papias…oh, and the parts that say Papias wasn’t a hearer of any Apostles…” 🙄
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
I did not ignore your reasons - I was just impressed by your cherry -picking...
I will acknowledge there are complexities - and not all of your basic points are completely flatulent....
@@apologicablog
You have got to do better than operating at a 2nd grade level....
@@greglogan7706 you ignored them in your comment. That's all I have to go on.
Man Richard carrier has got to be the worst NT scholar in history . I’m gonna believe the opposite of whatever he says from now on , I think should be doing fine then .
Richard Carrier just pulls it out of his backside. I dont believe him at all