Strongest evidence that Papias knew the Fourth Gospel of Saint John

[Giuseppe]

The strongest evidence that Papias knew John is the fact of the correspondence between the disciples named in Papias's prologue and the appearance of these disciples in John.1 Six of the seven disciples whom Papias names in his prologue (all except Matthew) are also found in John's Gospel. (These six disciples are Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, and John.) Further, Papias lists their names in precisely the order in which these characters are introduced in John. Richard Bauckham remarks that "this striking correspondence is unlikely to be coincidental."2 Rather, Papias must have constructed his list by consciously drawing on John's Gospel. Two suggestions have been proposed as to exactly how Papias did this: (1) Papias went through the Gospel of John, noting each time a new disciple was named, and then made sure that the disciples in his prologue were listed in the same order in which they appear in John; (2) Papias listed first the disciples who are named in John 1:35-51 (Andrew, Peter, and Philip) and then the disciples who are named in John 21:2 (Thomas and the sons of Zebedee), omitting Nathanael (who is named in both 1:46 and 21:2) each time.

Each of these explanations accounts for the fact that the disciples in Papias's prologue are named in the same order in which they appear in John by postulating that Papias was familiar with John and was consciously dependent on the Gospel in constructing the list of disciples in his prologue. Since no one has proposed that John might be dependent on Papias or that their agreement is due to reliance on a hypothetical common source, the only realistic alternative is to postulate that the correspondence is simply fortuitous. Although Bauckham writes that the correspondence is unlikely to be coincidental, judgments about what is or is not coincidental can be rather subjective. In this case, however, there is a simple statistical principle that can add greater objectivity to Bauckham's statement.

In an effort to discover the quantifiable probability that this correspondence is by chance, I consulted with Kevin Carlin, a mathematician with a doctorate from Yale University. He confirmed that if it is given that Papias and John are each going to name the same six disciples (i.e., if we take it for granted that they are going to name the same six disciples), then, on the basis of the conditional probability theorem, the probability that each will name the same disciples in the same order is 720:1. In other words, the odds are 99.86 percent (719/720) that the correspondence is not by chance. …

https://www.questia.com/library/journal ... rth-gospel

[Peter Kirby]

Is one implication that Mark is not "in order" (to Papias) because of disagreements with John?

[davidmartin]

Agreed, how striking and it can't be co-incidence

There is another alternative explanation
What if early Christianity was divided into groups/branches named after apostles?

"what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew"

So he might be identifying these groups in a previously recognised order, a grouping that both he and the gospel of John knew:
1. Andrew and Peter. In the gospel of mary it is Andrew and Peter who together oppose her words
2. Philip and Thomas
3. James and John
4. Matthew

Andrew and Peter is associated with the gospel of Mark (Papias says Mark was Peters interpreter)
Philip and Thomas are more prominent among gnostic writings, but maybe a church who exalted these early on might get the 2nd placement
James and John - the gospel of John and Johannine community coming to prominence a bit later
Matthew - he mentions last, maybe due to recent gospel of Matthew requiring him to mention it, and fast becoming the main gospel of orthodoxy

So these could be the previously recognised separate churches that together the willing among them formed into a single orthodox church in the 2nd century
If there's any truth to this there would surely be other references outside Papias. So could it be the earlier church structure we are seeing here in both Papias and G. of John?

[Giuseppe]

Is one implication that Mark is not "in order" (to Papias) because of disagreements with John?

I don't know but what I can know by simple inference is that:

• Papias, being a proto-Catholic, knew a catholicized version of GJohn;

• By the time of Papias, therefore, proto-John was already catholicized;

• Therefore this makes Papias definitely a contemporary of Marcion and/or marcionites.

[Bernard Muller]

I think Papias had read all the 4 canonical gospels, and the one to the Hebrews (according to Eusebius), and (definitively) Revelation.
For gMatthew the evidence would be:
Mt 13:8-9 "Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."
Papias: "But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city;"
Notes:
1) gMark has a saying similar to Mt 13:8 but with the quantities in reverse order.
2) to Ben: it does not look here that Papias put Paradise into the heavens.

One more piece of evidence about Papias knowing gJohn:
Jn 14:2 "“In My Father's house are many mansions; ..."
Papias: "and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions:""

I figure if Papias read the gospels, and got aware of all the differences and conflicts between them, he certainly would not rely on them.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

2) to Ben: it does not look here that Papias put Paradise into the heavens.

He also did not put Paradise in the nether realm. I told you all along that Paradise was routinely located either on the earth or in the heavens.

[Giuseppe]

I figure if Papias read the gospels, and got aware of all the differences and conflicts between them, he certainly would not rely on them.

hence you agree with me that Papias lived in a time when all the differences and conflicts were all eclipsed and exorcized, which makes Papias at least a contemporary of Marcion.

[mlinssen]

I think Papias had read all the 4 canonical gospels, and the one to the Hebrews (according to Eusebius), and (definitively) Revelation.
For gMatthew the evidence would be:
Mt 13:8-9 "Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."
Papias: "But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city;"
Notes:
1) gMark has a saying similar to Mt 13:8 but with the quantities in reverse order.

For most people that would be a straight pointer to Mark writing one thing, then Papias doing his, and then Matthew combining the both with naturally letting Papias prevail over the numbers of Mark

But that would put Matthew in around 100 CE, wouldn't it?

[Bernard Muller]

to mlinssen,

For most people that would be a straight pointer to Mark writing one thing, then Papias doing his, and then Matthew combining the both with naturally letting Papias prevail over the numbers of Mark

But that would put Matthew in around 100 CE, wouldn't it?

That would put Papias doing his thing towards the end of the 1st century. That's a bit early for Papias to be active, isn't it?
And that solution to the problem is rather complicated and unevidenced. I doubt most people would buy it.
And when do you think "Matthew" wrote his gospel?

Cordially, Bernard

[mlinssen]

to mlinssen,

For most people that would be a straight pointer to Mark writing one thing, then Papias doing his, and then Matthew combining the both with naturally letting Papias prevail over the numbers of Mark

But that would put Matthew in around 100 CE, wouldn't it?

That would put Papias doing his thing towards the end of the 1st century. That's a bit early for Papias to be active, isn't it?
And that solution to the problem is rather complicated and unevidenced. I doubt most people would buy it.
And when do you think "Matthew" wrote his gospel?

Cordially, Bernard

Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60– c.130 AD.

I haven't put much rethinking into the latest developments but all of the NT comes well after 70 CE I think, though I'm still unsure about Paul. Mark in 80, LukeMatthew in 100-120?
If the epicentre of the movement is Jerusalem then I'd expect written events to reflect real events, the trouble just is that both are unreliable witnesses

Did John get added after Bar Khokba, when everything Judean was over for good? Or was that when Jews en masse started flooding Christianity in its contemporary form, naturally criticising the already present "Gentiles" and hijacking/ claiming the movement for themselves, necessitating LukeMatthew to be written?
And did John get slapped on in the decades afterwards, possibly as late as 200?

I've never indulged myself in details around all that, it is all retrofitted fiction. When exactly it became that is not so relevant to me

And that solution to the problem is rather complicated and unevidenced. I doubt most people would buy it.

Why is it rather complicated?
How is it "unevidenced", is your solution evidenced then?
And what is the value of the rhetorical I doubt most people would buy it, is that a Christian tic?