@@tomasrocha6139and quite evidently they have not constituted at all a demonstration of the un-reliability of the papian fragments, and have constituted a “demonstration” in as the original commentator said, a fallacious sense conveyed with intellectual dishonesty, and ad hom’s against St Papias, rather than dealing with his historical witness.
Papias is not the only witness for traditional authorship. Virtually ALL of the external evidence, supports traditional authorship. Internal evidence is substantially weaker. Unless you have an atheistic ax to grind like Ehrman or Carrier, you would not conclude anonymous authorship.
The problem is that none of the ‘external evidence’ is any earlier than the late 2nd century, and even then it is reliant upon Papias, who we have reason to think was unreliable.
@@davethebrahman9870 Well, no not really. We weigh the evidence and all the other considerations when trying to find out if something is true, but we don’t default to something being false if there is a reasonable and more plausible explanation as to how something might be true. Take the 2nd Papias example. Absent any reason to suppose Papias is wrong, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
I dont get whats so objectionable about the second passage, seems to be a pretty typical ancient utopianism why does Erhman and Carrier object so strongly to such a run of the mill passage?
Some omissions and some problems. David claims we don't know the context of Papias's Judas claim. But, apart from his preface, we don't know the context of any of Papias's statements, because his work is lost. All we have are short fragments. David is kind of shooting himself in the foot here. His appeal to the possibility of ekphrasis in Papias's description of Judas is irrelevant, because nothing about ekphrasis demands that what is described is fabricated, and nothing in David's source text (Zeichmann) says anything of the kind. David is grasping at straws with this one. David curiously neglects to mention that the grape saying looks suspiciously similar to a saying in 2Baruch, although one of his own sources points this out, stating that Papias and Irenaeus didn't have their facts together (Hill 2010, p. 75). Instead, David appeals to Bauckham and argues that the grape saying is multiply attested, because Irenaeus claimed it came from the elders and from Papias. But this is the same Irenaeus who claims Jesus was 50 on the basis of apostolic tradition, while we really know he invented this out of reading the Gospel of John. Irenaeus isn't a reliable source, and as Eusebius pointed out, he misread Papias. On this point about Eusebius, David admits Papias doesn't claim to have heard directly from the apostles. But he argues that when he heard from those who heard from the apostles, this is compatible with Papias also hearing from the apostles. This argument grasps at straws, however. Had Papias learned directly from the apostles, he wouldn't fail to say so. He wouldn't have instead advertised that he heard from those who heard the apostles. David's polemic against Eusebius also curiously ignores the distinction Papias makes between what was *said* by those, including John, and what Aristion and John were *saying.* Why would Papias list John among the 'said' group if he really meant to include him among the 'say' group to indicate he was still alive? He didn't have to mention him the first time. This is some evidence of a different John being referred to. It was a pretty common Jewish name. More could be said, for sure. But this just goes to show what I've found every time I've examined David's claims. They're unreliable, omit information, are outdated, clutch at straws, misrepresent sources, etc. Welcome to the new face of apologetics (nah, really, this is actually how apologetics has always been).
The second quote from Papias(The one with the vines) it s actually very similar with a quote from 2 Baruch 29:5 (I just discover your channel this is why I commented after a year )
Eusebius considered Papias a total idiot in early Christian writings. You dont need Ehrman or Carrier to know Papias isnt reliable. All you need is another church father who actually knew the guy, Eusebius. Maybe I missed it but you left out this crucial part that leads scholars to agree with this church father that hes not reliable. Maybe you didnt actually know this? or maybe I missed this in your video. Either way, your missing this crucial part, unless I missed it.
Edward Feser's The Last Superstition is a great critique of new atheism. Josh Rasmussen's Hoe Reason Can Lead to God and Richard Swinburne's Is There a God? are great introductory books on the existence of God. On the topic of science and faith, just about any book by John Lennox is great. God Undertaker might be a good one to begin with.
Ed Feser’s blog is a great resource also as he digs in deep responding to atheist blogs, and addresses common atheist talking points, for example, his response to the common “one less god than you” is possibly the best I've ever read.
One of these days I plan to do a video of my own on this subject. But for now, here are my added thoughts in defense of Papias. Excavations at Pompeii have revealed streets with relatively high stepping stones allowing chariots to pass through. So Papias’ account of Judas being so bloated that he was not able to pass through where a chariot could go may not have been an exaggeration. It should be noted that there is a scientific explanation for how a body can bloat, following a failed strangulation attempt. If the above is true, than the comment on how even Judas’ head was larger than what was required to pass through those stepping stones would than likely be a humorous comment. As for the long lasting stench where Judas died, various concoctions (dead fish, etc.) used for Jewish exorcism rites down through the years could easily explain how a bad smell could last for decades. Finally, the description of bountiful grapes are not so problematic when one reflects on the comment from Eusebius about Papias being (literally in the Greek) “small minded.” It is possible to understand it as a double entendre put down. Small grapes with intense flavor for wine making fits in nicely with the concept of a person being able to easily grab hold of a single cluster that will cry out, in a land of Narnia like manner, “pick me pick me!” 💫✨
@@davethebrahman9870 which part is “stretch”? If Christianity is true, God could easily make plants more sentient than they are now. Heck, I suspect in a few years with our current rate of technological growth, we will be able to create instruments capable of translating chemical changes within plants that can help determine when a fruit’s optimal physiological ripeness is taking place. As for smaller berries tasting better, that would be due to the grapes having a larger skin juice ratio. Once again, bioengineering will likely make it happen soon, as kind of a sneak preview of what is to come.
@@davethebrahman9870 If you've been to pompeii you'll see for yourself fat people unable to pass through the wagon wheel passages delimitated by the tall stepping stones. But if you don't fix your moronic epistemology you'll never know the world correctly, only through your blatantly biased incoherent excuse for an epistemology
"Excavations at Pompeii have revealed streets with relatively high stepping stones allowing chariots to pass through. So Papias’ account of Judas being so bloated that he was not able to pass through where a chariot could go may not have been an exaggeration." This is what happens when one is essentially unfamiliar with logic and reasoned thought and ignorant of ancient realities. Did Judas live in Pompeii? I missed that back in school and certainly did not see any notice to that effect in Pompeii on the three occasions I have been there. Those streets in Pompeii are actually quite wide [2 1/5 to 4 1/2 meters wide] compared to say some of the streets in the older sections of Naples [Neopolis} or Rome. But you are correct that in Pompei there are high curbs and pavements with stones set into the street level to allow one to cross. The reason is that Pompeii did not have a sewer system and used the streets as their sewer. If you had gone to say Herculaneum, just down the road a few kilometers, you would have seen a quite different situation with no high curbs and pavements set upon the streets. So, in Pompeii, no one would have been walking between those stone blocks on the roadways as they would have been literally wading through human excrement, fish guts, and horse dung, among other things. They would have been walking on the lovely surfaced pavements along with everyone else. But if they had been walking on the street surface those stepping stones would have come up about a foot to a foot and a half from the surface of the street. That being said, 1st Century CE Palestine did not typically boast lovely cobblestoned streets and high curbed pavements to walk upon in the villages of Galilee or most of the country for that matter. So, Judas would have been walking through villages where the roadways were mud in winter and dust in summer. Papias was just talking out his arse and no amount of cherry-picking on your part is going to change that. Not to mention that in 1st Century CE Palestine, chariots were obsolete military equipment that had not been used for centuries. The Romans used cavalry, not chariots. To transport items they used carts and a standard cart of that time used two mules or horses unless it was an ox cart. In either case, they typically used two mules or horses which means the cart would have been about five feet in width and if an ox cart, it would have been slightly wider. This is why Roman military roads of the time were typically of standard widths to allow passage of Roman military columns and carts, not chariots.
The creator of this channel didn't identify who he is or his background. Hi creator, what is your name and background. thanks! Just trying to find out who you are
Thank you. I watched more of your videos and you seem to be very fair in your research. I wasn't sure your angle at first. I appreciate what your'e doing@@faithbecauseofreason8381
Perhaps I wasn’t following closely enough, but I didn’t catch any positive evidence for why we should put much stock in what Papias wrote (assuming that the other authors accurately quoted Papias).
The video is certainly more concerned with answering objections to the reliability of Papias than with building a positive case for his reliability. But as I pointed out at the end, Papias isn't really the source of the information pertaining to the authorship of the Gospels anyway. He's just the transmitter of that information to us from John the elder (who I have previously argued is John the apostle). And we have at least some reason to believe that Papias is a reliable transmitter of information. For example, Irenaeus cites him in addition to several other elders for the tradition concerning Jesus and the saying about the vines and grapes. So at least this statement seems to have been corroborated in other sources. And as Charles Hill notes in the final quotation in the video, we have no reason to doubt that Papias relays information accurately.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 "And we have at least some reason to believe that Papias is a reliable transmitter of information. For example, Irenaeus cites him in addition to several other elders for the tradition concerning Jesus and the saying about the vines and grapes." I'm not sure I follow. The fact that Papias and multiple others repeated the same purported saying of Jesus does suggest that it was in circulation and that perhaps Papias didn't just make it up (I don't see any reason to accuse Papias of outright fabrication). But I don't see it really saying much in terms of his reliability. For example, let's say we have some early Mormon diaries, and all of them say that Joseph Smith discovered and translated golden plates. Would that give us reason to believe that the diary writers are reliable transmitters of information? "And as Charles Hill notes in the final quotation in the video, we have no reason to doubt that Papias relays information accurately." Papias is an ancient person about whom we know very little. We do not have copies of any of his works. I think that's enough to merit skepticism. It doesn't mean we should assume he's lying or incorrect, but we also shouldn't just assume he can be trusted.
@@Electricalpenguin so there's a distinction between reliably transmitting information and the truth of that information. Papias functions as the former (as do the Mormons in your example). Information can be passed on accurately without being true. I am only defending Papias as being a reliable transmitter of information. The question then becomes, how trustworthy is Papias' source of information?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I agree, there is a distinction between the reliability of the transmitter and the truth of the transmitted information. Would you say that, in my Mormon example, the fact that the diary writers all told the same story is evidence of their reliability as transmitters? "The question then becomes, how trustworthy is Papias' source of information?" Yup. I see that you have a video on Papias' source, so I will have to watch that at some point. Signing off for tonight, but appreciate your quick responses to my comments!
@Electricalpenguin yes, I would think it more likely that they were all getting this information from a common source and accurately relaying it than that they all independently made this up.
Don’t your arguments show that papius is unreliable? At best in your arguments he is using techniques that show he isn’t a recorder of history but more a polemicist
The claims of scripture to divine authority are marred by its ignorance of scientific fact, its deformations of history, and its extortionist notion of morality. There is nothing to recommend faith.
There was also one objection to St. Papas namly that He said that Gospel of Matthew Was written orginaly in hebrew but through secular evidence we know this to be false. Could you replay to that as Well?
This is an excellent video, which has, unfortunately, a teeming horde of braindead atheists bringing up stock-objections that have been utterly destroyed by scholars countless times in the past. Let's be frank, the likes of Ehrman will never, ever allow a witness to the gospels as early as Papias to be taken seriously, because, treated as he should be, he is too grievous a threat to the braindead husk of form criticism that dominates NT scholarship to this day.
That was a rather weak defense of Papias reliability. Ekphrasis is typically a detailed description but rarely a fabrication of traits or an invention of facts. Almost like in a caricature for grotesque effect. Just like in a caricature, after reading an Ekphrasis, one should be able to reconstitute or easily guess what object, fact or person the author intended to describe in the first place . What “fact” did Papias had in mind when making his elaborate “recounting” of Judas’ death? Was it 1- Judas’ hanging as described in the story outlined in Matthews? Or 2- Judas’ accidental death as described in the story of Acts (Acts 1:18) or he is maybe describing another phantasmagorical narrative which lines up with neither Matthews or Acts. Papias is relaying an invented story and trying to understand the so-called “context” as it is suggested in your piece is a distraction from that stubborn fact. Papias is NOT reliable
The descriptiom given for papias about Mark and Mathew dont match with the gospels mixed with greek mithology (according to Justin Martyr) that we know as Mark and Mathew. It seems he had contact more simple jewish ones And it could likelly that Jesus offered great things for the new god's kingdom on earth like the old testament offered. That explain why papias writings were considered heretic and no preserve because he was milleniarist, he belived in a new kingdom of God here on earth and not in the plato's idea of heaven in the greek version of the gospels.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I just watched it, you have great videos topics ,it seems Papias was very well connected with early christian, with Policarp and the apostle john, if was in contact with early ideas and early gospels versions, how could he get as wrong being millennialist? That suggest thoses early gospels were too different to the canonical ones. Eusebius, wrote the following concerning Papias in his work Ecclesiastical History III, 39); “Among other things he says that a thousand years will elapse after the resurrection of the dead and there will be a corporeal establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on this earth.” .This qoute suggest Papias Early gospels were linked with the old testament idea of a new kingdom of god, here on earth and not the platonic heaven as the hellenized canonical gospels. it is also consistent with Jesus offering easy wine and food in the new kingdom of god on earth. I would love to read your analisis of this........Grettings from Costa Rica!
We don’t even have Papias, so we don’t know precisely what he wrote, nor how he claimed to know it. He seems to have been more interested in gathering stories allegedly passed down, rather than engaging in any sort of critical analysis. The written gospels he describes don’t seem to be the same as our gospels. It’s a very shaky foundation for the enormous claims made for the gospels.
We can know with a high degree of confidence what he wrote because we know that Eusebius copies his sources accurately (at least when his citations can be checked). I've addressed your other concerns in previous videos.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 We do not know at all that Eusebius copied sources accurately. Even if we did, we have no way of knowing that his copy of Papias was accurate. There are diffences between his quotations of Papias and those of Irenaeus. We know that Eusebius was extremely uncritical in his use of sources, as witnessed by his acceptance of the forged correspondence between Jesus and Abgar of Edessa.
@@davethebrahman9870 LMAO look at how idiotic your bias is! How many times have you checked that youtube accurately trabsmits your comments to other devices? 2, or 4 maybe? A rational non biased person would conclude that what youtube does is maintain the comment across devices. Same with Eusebius.
@@davethebrahman9870 it doesn't matter if he was uncritical. It only matters that he's passing the information on accurately. And I've already given good reasons to think that he does.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 That doesn’t make any sense. If we know that he is unreliable where we can check him, how can we rely upon him when we can’t?
So what is your viewpoint on Papias' claim that John the Evangelist not only met Marcion but also had read his 'contraria', by which Papias probably meant Marcions Antitheses? Doesn't this push at least Johns gospel into the second century?
Ehrman & Carrier, both intellectually dishonest, are committing a bald-faced _ad hominem_ against Papias. And we're supposed to think that's academic.
Demonstrating a historical source is unreliable is not an ad hominem.
@@tomasrocha6139and quite evidently they have not constituted at all a demonstration of the un-reliability of the papian fragments, and have constituted a “demonstration” in as the original commentator said, a fallacious sense conveyed with intellectual dishonesty, and ad hom’s against St Papias, rather than dealing with his historical witness.
Papias is not the only witness for traditional authorship. Virtually ALL of the external evidence, supports traditional authorship. Internal evidence is substantially weaker. Unless you have an atheistic ax to grind like Ehrman or Carrier, you would not conclude anonymous authorship.
He isn't the only witness, but he is the earliest and, therefore, the most important
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I am merely pointing out that the weight of evidence SUPPORTS Papias' testimony.
@davidkea1607 yes, I agree. And in the longer video from which this segment comes, I defend the totality of the Patristic witnesses.
There is nothing else possibly earlier than the late 2nd century.
The problem is that none of the ‘external evidence’ is any earlier than the late 2nd century, and even then it is reliant upon Papias, who we have reason to think was unreliable.
Basically if you use an ounce of charity, the critique of Papias amounts to nothing
‘Charity’ is not a tool of critical enquiry.
@@davethebrahman9870 Of course it is, unless your goal from the outset is to try and disprove literally everything.
@@sneakysnake2330 Yes, that’s how we arrive at reliable knowledge.
@@davethebrahman9870 Well, no not really. We weigh the evidence and all the other considerations when trying to find out if something is true, but we don’t default to something being false if there is a reasonable and more plausible explanation as to how something might be true. Take the 2nd Papias example. Absent any reason to suppose Papias is wrong, why not give him the benefit of the doubt?
@@sneakysnake2330 What you are describing is ad hoc attempts at reconciliation. That is not the right way to approach historical documents.
I dont get whats so objectionable about the second passage, seems to be a pretty typical ancient utopianism why does Erhman and Carrier object so strongly to such a run of the mill passage?
It's not characteristic of what is claimed of Jesus elsewhere.
Some omissions and some problems.
David claims we don't know the context of Papias's Judas claim. But, apart from his preface, we don't know the context of any of Papias's statements, because his work is lost. All we have are short fragments. David is kind of shooting himself in the foot here.
His appeal to the possibility of ekphrasis in Papias's description of Judas is irrelevant, because nothing about ekphrasis demands that what is described is fabricated, and nothing in David's source text (Zeichmann) says anything of the kind. David is grasping at straws with this one.
David curiously neglects to mention that the grape saying looks suspiciously similar to a saying in 2Baruch, although one of his own sources points this out, stating that Papias and Irenaeus didn't have their facts together (Hill 2010, p. 75). Instead, David appeals to Bauckham and argues that the grape saying is multiply attested, because Irenaeus claimed it came from the elders and from Papias. But this is the same Irenaeus who claims Jesus was 50 on the basis of apostolic tradition, while we really know he invented this out of reading the Gospel of John. Irenaeus isn't a reliable source, and as Eusebius pointed out, he misread Papias.
On this point about Eusebius, David admits Papias doesn't claim to have heard directly from the apostles. But he argues that when he heard from those who heard from the apostles, this is compatible with Papias also hearing from the apostles. This argument grasps at straws, however. Had Papias learned directly from the apostles, he wouldn't fail to say so. He wouldn't have instead advertised that he heard from those who heard the apostles. David's polemic against Eusebius also curiously ignores the distinction Papias makes between what was *said* by those, including John, and what Aristion and John were *saying.* Why would Papias list John among the 'said' group if he really meant to include him among the 'say' group to indicate he was still alive? He didn't have to mention him the first time. This is some evidence of a different John being referred to. It was a pretty common Jewish name.
More could be said, for sure. But this just goes to show what I've found every time I've examined David's claims. They're unreliable, omit information, are outdated, clutch at straws, misrepresent sources, etc. Welcome to the new face of apologetics (nah, really, this is actually how apologetics has always been).
Wait, who's side are u on here? I'm a little confused 😅
The second quote from Papias(The one with the vines) it s actually very similar with a quote from 2 Baruch 29:5 (I just discover your channel this is why I commented after a year )
Eusebius considered Papias a total idiot in early Christian writings. You dont need Ehrman or Carrier to know Papias isnt reliable. All you need is another church father who actually knew the guy, Eusebius. Maybe I missed it but you left out this crucial part that leads scholars to agree with this church father that hes not reliable. Maybe you didnt actually know this? or maybe I missed this in your video. Either way, your missing this crucial part, unless I missed it.
Oh so you think that Eusebius was right about everything now? If not then I don't know why you would uncritically accept his biased opinion of Papias.
L Usebius
thanks for this, i was listening to apaulogia and he was also basing his argument on the doubtfulness of papius
What books do you recommend for critiquing atheism and non Christian religions and books the deal with science and faith 😊
Edward Feser's The Last Superstition is a great critique of new atheism. Josh Rasmussen's Hoe Reason Can Lead to God and Richard Swinburne's Is There a God? are great introductory books on the existence of God.
On the topic of science and faith, just about any book by John Lennox is great. God Undertaker might be a good one to begin with.
Ed Feser’s blog is a great resource also as he digs in deep responding to atheist blogs, and addresses common atheist talking points, for example, his response to the common “one less god than you” is possibly the best I've ever read.
One of these days I plan to do a video of my own on this subject. But for now, here are my added thoughts in defense of Papias.
Excavations at Pompeii have revealed streets with relatively high stepping stones allowing chariots to pass through. So Papias’ account of Judas being so bloated that he was not able to pass through where a chariot could go may not have been an exaggeration.
It should be noted that there is a scientific explanation for how a body can bloat, following a failed strangulation attempt.
If the above is true, than the comment on how even Judas’ head was larger than what was required to pass through those stepping stones would than likely be a humorous comment.
As for the long lasting stench where Judas died, various concoctions (dead fish, etc.) used for Jewish exorcism rites down through the years could easily explain how a bad smell could last for decades.
Finally, the description of bountiful grapes are not so problematic when one reflects on the comment from Eusebius about Papias being (literally in the Greek) “small minded.”
It is possible to understand it as a double entendre put down.
Small grapes with intense flavor for wine making fits in nicely with the concept of a person being able to easily grab hold of a single cluster that will cry out, in a land of Narnia like manner, “pick me pick me!” 💫✨
That’s a huge stretch.
@@davethebrahman9870 which part is “stretch”? If Christianity is true, God could easily make plants more sentient than they are now.
Heck, I suspect in a few years with our current rate of technological growth, we will be able to create instruments capable of translating chemical changes within plants that can help determine when a fruit’s optimal physiological ripeness is taking place.
As for smaller berries tasting better, that would be due to the grapes having a larger skin juice ratio. Once again, bioengineering will likely make it happen soon, as kind of a sneak preview of what is to come.
@@davethebrahman9870 If you've been to pompeii you'll see for yourself fat people unable to pass through the wagon wheel passages delimitated by the tall stepping stones.
But if you don't fix your moronic epistemology you'll never know the world correctly, only through your blatantly biased incoherent excuse for an epistemology
"Excavations at Pompeii have revealed streets with relatively high stepping stones allowing chariots to pass through. So Papias’ account of Judas being so bloated that he was not able to pass through where a chariot could go may not have been an exaggeration."
This is what happens when one is essentially unfamiliar with logic and reasoned thought and ignorant of ancient realities. Did Judas live in Pompeii? I missed that back in school and certainly did not see any notice to that effect in Pompeii on the three occasions I have been there. Those streets in Pompeii are actually quite wide [2 1/5 to 4 1/2 meters wide] compared to say some of the streets in the older sections of Naples [Neopolis} or Rome. But you are correct that in Pompei there are high curbs and pavements with stones set into the street level to allow one to cross. The reason is that Pompeii did not have a sewer system and used the streets as their sewer. If you had gone to say Herculaneum, just down the road a few kilometers, you would have seen a quite different situation with no high curbs and pavements set upon the streets.
So, in Pompeii, no one would have been walking between those stone blocks on the roadways as they would have been literally wading through human excrement, fish guts, and horse dung, among other things. They would have been walking on the lovely surfaced pavements along with everyone else. But if they had been walking on the street surface those stepping stones would have come up about a foot to a foot and a half from the surface of the street.
That being said, 1st Century CE Palestine did not typically boast lovely cobblestoned streets and high curbed pavements to walk upon in the villages of Galilee or most of the country for that matter. So, Judas would have been walking through villages where the roadways were mud in winter and dust in summer. Papias was just talking out his arse and no amount of cherry-picking on your part is going to change that.
Not to mention that in 1st Century CE Palestine, chariots were obsolete military equipment that had not been used for centuries. The Romans used cavalry, not chariots. To transport items they used carts and a standard cart of that time used two mules or horses unless it was an ox cart. In either case, they typically used two mules or horses which means the cart would have been about five feet in width and if an ox cart, it would have been slightly wider. This is why Roman military roads of the time were typically of standard widths to allow passage of Roman military columns and carts, not chariots.
The creator of this channel didn't identify who he is or his background. Hi creator, what is your name and background. thanks! Just trying to find out who you are
Hello. My name is Dave. I'm a Christian. I'm a college student with an interest in the deeper questions.
Thank you. I watched more of your videos and you seem to be very fair in your research. I wasn't sure your angle at first. I appreciate what your'e doing@@faithbecauseofreason8381
Perhaps I wasn’t following closely enough, but I didn’t catch any positive evidence for why we should put much stock in what Papias wrote (assuming that the other authors accurately quoted Papias).
The video is certainly more concerned with answering objections to the reliability of Papias than with building a positive case for his reliability. But as I pointed out at the end, Papias isn't really the source of the information pertaining to the authorship of the Gospels anyway. He's just the transmitter of that information to us from John the elder (who I have previously argued is John the apostle). And we have at least some reason to believe that Papias is a reliable transmitter of information. For example, Irenaeus cites him in addition to several other elders for the tradition concerning Jesus and the saying about the vines and grapes. So at least this statement seems to have been corroborated in other sources. And as Charles Hill notes in the final quotation in the video, we have no reason to doubt that Papias relays information accurately.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
"And we have at least some reason to believe that Papias is a reliable transmitter of information. For example, Irenaeus cites him in addition to several other elders for the tradition concerning Jesus and the saying about the vines and grapes."
I'm not sure I follow. The fact that Papias and multiple others repeated the same purported saying of Jesus does suggest that it was in circulation and that perhaps Papias didn't just make it up (I don't see any reason to accuse Papias of outright fabrication). But I don't see it really saying much in terms of his reliability. For example, let's say we have some early Mormon diaries, and all of them say that Joseph Smith discovered and translated golden plates. Would that give us reason to believe that the diary writers are reliable transmitters of information?
"And as Charles Hill notes in the final quotation in the video, we have no reason to doubt that Papias relays information accurately."
Papias is an ancient person about whom we know very little. We do not have copies of any of his works. I think that's enough to merit skepticism. It doesn't mean we should assume he's lying or incorrect, but we also shouldn't just assume he can be trusted.
@@Electricalpenguin so there's a distinction between reliably transmitting information and the truth of that information. Papias functions as the former (as do the Mormons in your example). Information can be passed on accurately without being true. I am only defending Papias as being a reliable transmitter of information. The question then becomes, how trustworthy is Papias' source of information?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I agree, there is a distinction between the reliability of the transmitter and the truth of the transmitted information. Would you say that, in my Mormon example, the fact that the diary writers all told the same story is evidence of their reliability as transmitters?
"The question then becomes, how trustworthy is Papias' source of information?"
Yup. I see that you have a video on Papias' source, so I will have to watch that at some point.
Signing off for tonight, but appreciate your quick responses to my comments!
@Electricalpenguin yes, I would think it more likely that they were all getting this information from a common source and accurately relaying it than that they all independently made this up.
Don’t your arguments show that papius is unreliable? At best in your arguments he is using techniques that show he isn’t a recorder of history but more a polemicist
The claims of scripture to divine authority are marred by its ignorance of scientific fact, its deformations of history, and its extortionist notion of morality. There is nothing to recommend faith.
This has literally nothing to do with the video
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 It sets all the agenda for "reliable."
Has nothing to do with science
@@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt All things are susceptible to science. Crime seeks exception.
@@markwrede8878 how do u scientifically prove something isn't inspired by an unchanged being
There was also one objection to St. Papas namly that He said that Gospel of Matthew Was written orginaly in hebrew but through secular evidence we know this to be false. Could you replay to that as Well?
Already did
th-cam.com/video/HVGv8afUTbg/w-d-xo.html
This is an excellent video, which has, unfortunately, a teeming horde of braindead atheists bringing up stock-objections that have been utterly destroyed by scholars countless times in the past. Let's be frank, the likes of Ehrman will never, ever allow a witness to the gospels as early as Papias to be taken seriously, because, treated as he should be, he is too grievous a threat to the braindead husk of form criticism that dominates NT scholarship to this day.
It's interesting that so many of the objections which skeptics are bringing up in the comments were literally addressed in the video
That was a rather weak defense of Papias reliability. Ekphrasis is typically a detailed description but rarely a fabrication of traits or an invention of facts. Almost like in a caricature for grotesque effect. Just like in a caricature, after reading an Ekphrasis, one should be able to reconstitute or easily guess what object, fact or person the author intended to describe in the first place . What “fact” did Papias had in mind when making his elaborate “recounting” of Judas’ death? Was it 1- Judas’ hanging as described in the story outlined in Matthews? Or 2- Judas’ accidental death as described in the story of Acts (Acts 1:18) or he is maybe describing another phantasmagorical narrative which lines up with neither Matthews or Acts. Papias is relaying an invented story and trying to understand the so-called “context” as it is suggested in your piece is a distraction from that stubborn fact. Papias is NOT reliable
Take your pills.
@@apo.7898 Stay off yours, they are obviously not working Lol
@@lewkor1529 It seems you are emotionally invested on the issue.
@@apo.7898 (It seems) you are wrong...Get a life!
The descriptiom given for papias about Mark and Mathew dont match with the gospels mixed with greek mithology (according to Justin Martyr) that we know as Mark and Mathew. It seems he had contact more simple jewish ones And it could likelly that Jesus offered great things for the new god's kingdom on earth like the old testament offered. That explain why papias writings were considered heretic and no preserve because he was milleniarist, he belived in a new kingdom of
God here on earth and not in the plato's idea of heaven in the greek version of the gospels.
I've already dealt with this objection in a previous video
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I just watched it, you have great videos topics ,it seems Papias was very well connected with early christian, with Policarp and the apostle john, if was in contact with early ideas and early gospels versions, how could he get as wrong being millennialist? That suggest thoses early gospels were too different to the canonical ones. Eusebius, wrote the following concerning Papias in his work Ecclesiastical History III, 39); “Among other things he says that a thousand years will elapse after the resurrection of the dead and there will be a corporeal establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on this earth.” .This qoute suggest Papias Early gospels were linked with the old testament idea of a new kingdom of god, here on earth and not the platonic heaven as the hellenized canonical gospels. it is also consistent with Jesus offering easy wine and food in the new kingdom of god on earth. I would love to read your analisis of this........Grettings from Costa Rica!
We don’t even have Papias, so we don’t know precisely what he wrote, nor how he claimed to know it. He seems to have been more interested in gathering stories allegedly passed down, rather than engaging in any sort of critical analysis. The written gospels he describes don’t seem to be the same as our gospels. It’s a very shaky foundation for the enormous claims made for the gospels.
We can know with a high degree of confidence what he wrote because we know that Eusebius copies his sources accurately (at least when his citations can be checked). I've addressed your other concerns in previous videos.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 We do not know at all that Eusebius copied sources accurately. Even if we did, we have no way of knowing that his copy of Papias was accurate. There are diffences between his quotations of Papias and those of Irenaeus. We know that Eusebius was extremely uncritical in his use of sources, as witnessed by his acceptance of the forged correspondence between Jesus and Abgar of Edessa.
@@davethebrahman9870 LMAO look at how idiotic your bias is! How many times have you checked that youtube accurately trabsmits your comments to other devices? 2, or 4 maybe? A rational non biased person would conclude that what youtube does is maintain the comment across devices. Same with Eusebius.
@@davethebrahman9870 it doesn't matter if he was uncritical. It only matters that he's passing the information on accurately. And I've already given good reasons to think that he does.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 That doesn’t make any sense. If we know that he is unreliable where we can check him, how can we rely upon him when we can’t?
So what is your viewpoint on Papias' claim that John the Evangelist not only met Marcion but also had read his 'contraria', by which Papias probably meant Marcions Antitheses? Doesn't this push at least Johns gospel into the second century?
Where does Papias claim that? Did archaeologists find a new fragment of his writings or something?