Kapyong wrote:
Papias.
According to Eusebius in the 4th century, Papias [supposedly] wrote in early-mid 2nd century that he had heard that :
Mark had written down recollections of Peter, in Rome, but they weren't in order.
Matthew had written down the Sayings of Jesus in Hebrew (probably meaning Aramaic)
But he doesn't have the books, he didn't call them Gospels, and his descriptions do not match our Gospels well - G.Mark is not the recollections of Peter, and it is in order; G.Matthew is not Sayings but a narrative, and it was written in Greek.[/list]
MrMacSon & Kapyong,
I think it is important to note, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, that Eusebius' chronology appears to date Papias to the late first century, not the early-mid 2nd century, and secondly, the often-repeated late dating of Papias has been challenged on the basis of confusion over the names Papylas & Papias. Any dating of Papias to the mid-100s should be accompanied with a fairly indulgent caveat.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Kapyong wrote:
Papias.
According to Eusebius in the 4th century, Papias [supposedly] wrote in early-mid 2nd century that he had heard that :
Mark had written down recollections of Peter, in Rome, but they weren't in order.
Matthew had written down the Sayings of Jesus in Hebrew (probably meaning Aramaic)
But he doesn't have the books, he didn't call them Gospels, and his descriptions do not match our Gospels well - G.Mark is not the recollections of Peter, and it is in order; G.Matthew is not Sayings but a narrative, and it was written in Greek.[/list]
MrMacSon & Kapyong,
I think it is important to note, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, that Eusebius' chronology appears to date Papias to the late first century, not the early-mid 2nd century, and secondly, the often-repeated late dating of Papias has been challenged on the basis of confusion over the names Papylas & Papias. Any dating of Papias to the mid-100s should be accompanied with a fairly indulgent caveat.
Kapyong wrote:
Papias.
According to Eusebius in the 4th century, Papias [supposedly] wrote in early-mid 2nd century that he had heard that :
Mark had written down recollections of Peter, in Rome, but they weren't in order.
Matthew had written down the Sayings of Jesus in Hebrew (probably meaning Aramaic)
But he doesn't have the books, he didn't call them Gospels, and his descriptions do not match our Gospels well - G.Mark is not the recollections of Peter, and it is in order; G.Matthew is not Sayings but a narrative, and it was written in Greek.[/list]
MrMacSon & Kapyong,
I think it is important to note, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, that Eusebius' chronology appears to date Papias to the late first century....
Eusebius writes in the Chronicle:
Irenaeus and others report that John the theologian and apostle remained in life until the times of Trajan, after which his earwitnesses Papias the Heirapolitan and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, became known.
And he writes in History of the Church 3.34.1-3.36.2:
34.1 In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [= Trajan], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.
35.1 But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.
36.1 At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. 2 And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
But K don't you think that if you are (a) an atheist who (b) embraces radical positions like the gospels did exist until the latest possible date (or first attestation of their existence) that (b) might be prompted by (a)? I mean really. The first girl I ever dated was Jewish and overweight. That's a fact. I never mention her much or think about her much because quite frankly it was something of an embarrassment (not because she was overweight but because she shattered the narrative I had made for myself when I was growing up i.e. that I would have a Jewish wife). I am just saying that things are complicated. You can't just start from the assumption that the earliest attestation for something is the beginning of that something. I mean really, how many people's first sexual experience was with a member of their extended family? It's yucky but true. Ever see the Ted Danson movie Cousins? Not everything that happens in history makes it to public history. I'd say most of history up until fairly recently remained veiled in obscurity because it was private history.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The writers of Luke and Matthew knew of GMark, and some say so did GJohn. There may have been other gospels written -we know of quite a few later at least, and GLuke mentioned the 'many' before it, but not mentioned either by those various books. Some of those books have no reasonable need to mention them. But why didn't GLuke, GMatthew, or GJohn mention GMark or the others? These works weren't written in a vaccum - there must have been knowledge of other gospels and their contents. If you take the view that the 3 (or more) gospels after GMark didn't mention the others they knew about because they disagreed with parts of it, or conflicted, then perhaps that is part of the answer to a lack of widespread consensus: The likelihood that until Justin came along there were various books circulating and it was well known among the community that they conflicted with each other in some ways - some of which may have been considered very serious. What do you do with that problem? You try to form some kind of consensus - some kind of harmony.
Perhaps it took 50 years to come up with a harmony of sorts that was agreed upon more or less, and that's why Justin is the first to reference it. Of course the community would have known the basis for the harmony and perhaps not being perfectly comfortable having just one 'combination book' and the ambiguity that always would have, they took to adopting/maybe revising slightly/accepting what by that time they considered to be the basic, most authoritative works that mostly coincided with the harmony they were using: the 4 that made it into the NT.
Last edited by TedM on Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:24 am, edited 4 times in total.
gmx wrote:I think it is important to note, and I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, that Eusebius' chronology appears to date Papias to the late first century....
Eusebius writes in the Chronicle:
Irenaeus and others report that John the theologian and apostle remained in life until the times of Trajan, after which his earwitnesses Papias the Heirapolitan and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, became known.
And he writes in History of the Church 3.34.1-3.36.2:
34.1 In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [= Trajan], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.
35.1 But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.
36.1 At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. 2 And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
Trajan's third year should be about 101.
I was not aware of that. Very interesting. Thanks gmx and Ben.
TedM wrote:Perhaps it took 50 years to come up with a harmony of sorts that was agreed upon more or less, and that's why Justin is the first to reference it.
To be clear, Justin does not claim to be using a harmony. (I was not sure what you meant by "referencing" it.) That Justin used a gospel harmony is a scholarly reconstruction based upon his citations of materials parallel to the gospels, especially Matthew and Luke.
Hi Ben, I know Justin doesn't say he is using a harmony, he does refer to the 'memoirs of the Apostles' as opposed to the 'memoir of the Apostle', if I recall correctly. This implies that he knew he was referencing more than one memoir and more than one Apostle had written about Jesus (unless one thinks that they colluded together in writing one document. I do take 'Apostles' to be referring to who he though authored the memoirs as opposed to the idea that the phrase meant 'memoirs ABOUT the Apostles' since it really is more about Jesus' life than the Apostles' lives - not sure anybody is making that argument). In any case, my post above was based on the idea that Justin maybe called them the 'memoirs of the Apostles' because he was using what he knew to be a harmony or was at the least too uncertain to claim that any one particular Gospel should be named by its presumed author, and that the reason for this was likely the differences between co-existing gospels at that point in time. Since we know there were attempts to create a harmonization gospel around the time Justin wrote, this seems to be a reasonable position to me. Why harmonize unless there is a perceived NEED to harmonize?
Last edited by TedM on Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
That Justin used a gospel harmony is a scholarly reconstruction based upon his citations of materials parallel to the gospels, especially Matthew and Luke.
And a logical inference for open minded people given that his student Tatian was intimately associated with a 'harmony.' I know scholars distinguish between the two harmonies but as Crawford notes those who used this 'Tatian harmony' simply referred to it as 'the gospel' and - we may infer - had no means of distinguishing it from 'the gospel' of Tatian's tradition (i.e. the tradition of Justin).
The fact that FEW (rather than 'no') Johannine elements are found in Justin does not exclude a relationship between the two harmonies. One and perhaps the most obvious after the discovery of Mar Saba 65 is that the Johannine elements were only present in the 'secret' version of the gospel. It might also explain many of the odd statements (the plural form) that Justin uses occasionally to speak of the gospels.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
That Justin used a gospel harmony is a scholarly reconstruction based upon his citations of materials parallel to the gospels, especially Matthew and Luke.
And a logical inference for open minded people given that his student Tatian was intimately associated with a 'harmony.'
See?? I am actually in favor of the notion that Justin used a harmony of some kind. Or, at least, I have nothing against the idea, and am relying upon those who have done the spadework until I can do that work for myself. But as soon as I make sure, for no other purpose than pinpoint accuracy in our argumentation, that the record is clear that this proposition is an inference, not an actual claim from antiquity, I get treated to another lap of yours around the living room on one of your favorite hobby horses.
