Talk:Papias of Hierapolis

Image
Why has someone posted the image of St. Nektarios on the page dedicated to Papias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:A9A:11FE:D533:869:963B:DB83 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
Papias can be seen only through the eyes of Irenaeus and Eusebius. Some NPOV balance needs to be achieved. I have worked on this entry as a historian, not as a religionist or partisan. A certain amount of dust had been thrown up that distracted the logical assumptions. Notice that no overt suggestion has been breathed that the treatise of Papias has been suppressed. Perhaps a full subsection on just why so many agree that this has in fact happened is in order.

Some of the Papias entry is in the form of questions. I have heard recently that "an encyclopedia is for answers not for questions." I hope the grown-ups will understand that an NPOV entry on Papias must be mostly questions.

I have removed this editorial here to Discussion, where such asides are always welcome:
 * "That we will never know. We can only guess. Such is the way when examining surviving documents from the ancient past. The "truth" of the material is left up to the reader. Critically studying the ancient past is not everyone's cup of tea. One must be able to treasure the "unknown" and be able to accept and enjoy the value of uncertainty). Papias was also a pioneer in the habit, later so general, of taking the work of the Six Days (Hexaemeron) and the account of Paradise as referring mystically to Christ and His Church (so says Anastasius of Sinai)."

[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 01:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I have removed to Discussion the following new edit:
 * But then, to our present day knowledge, Eusebius wrote the one and only history of the early church. It would seem the past had little value to few, if any, potential early Christian historians. Their concern was (like today?) immediate salvation.

This is misleading because the User is unaware of Hegesippus and other chroniclers of the history of the early Christian church, and also apparently thinks that Papias' lost work was a work of history: to the contrary, Papias' fragments show intense concern with immediate salvation, for the Last Judgment seemed immanent. I hope no feelings are wounded. Wetman 22:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2 Sept 2004: Hi Wetman, No hurt feelings. I am just trying to say I do not think it is unusual for Papias' writings to be lost. Many ancient books are lost, as you have just stated. I have my doubts about them being hidden away. if that is what you are getting at. Still a lost copy may be lying around somewhere, just waiting to be found. We are fortunate that ancient books were copied at all, (by monks?) especially if they gave a pagan point of view, or when they made fun of everything. ( I am thinking about Lucian of Samosata, a personal favorite).Kazuba


 * Yes, just a coincidence, just a coincidence. Wetman 18:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to what I remember about Livy's History of Rome, of his 142 books we only have 35. A critical ancient historian knows, or should know, you can not find the "truth" in the remote, unknown, ill-document, bias, selective ancient past. These modern writers? who specifically say this or that "really happened" are legends in their own minds. They quote from each other and multiply like rabbits. The unfaithful are just as gullible as the faithful. Critically studying the ancient past is not everyone's cup of tea. Yep, you gotta enjoy uncertainty and relish the unsolvable. There's a lot of it! When viewing the ancient past it is wise to be cautious, not construct emotional dead-end convictions.Kazuba

I moved this to Talk:Papias, because it is inaccurate and non-encylcopedic.


 * Loss of Papias' Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord


 * To a mere observer of Church history, it seems extraordinary bad luck that Papias' treatise had not survived, not even to be quoted in any later Patristic writings. There are no further direct quotations from Papias after Eusebius, unless an epitome of Papias' work based on Philip of Side (5th century) has anything to add that was not simply gleaned from Eusebius' Hisory. Philip of Side makes a clear distinction between John the Apostle and John the theologian. (this needs confirming)


 * Papias' treatise had a wide circulation in the 2nd century, for Irenaeus was quoting from it, from his copy in Lugdunum (Lyon) in Gaul. What a loss for the early Church is this unfortunate coincidence, that all copies of the work should have been lost, every single one. For there must have been more than a few copies of such direct testimony with such unbroken provenance. Can it be possible that such a work was not considered extremely interesting and worthy of copying? That there was not a copy preserved in the Vatican Library? "For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains," Papias says, and yet he had material that urgently needed to be preserved, and it filled five books.


 * No conclusion can be reached, but the questions are seldom asked in mainstream Christian traditions.

First, Papias was quoted by people after Eusebius, including Anastasius of Sinai, c. 700. Second, the loss of ante-Nicene Christian literature is so common that it is pointless to posit some kind of conspiracy theory as what this passage seems to imply. User:Stephen C. Carlson 21:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The suggestion being made here would seem for most honest readers to be implying that Anastasius of Sinai was quoting from a text of Papias that he had in front of him, thus suggesting that the text had survived so late, and supporting the subtly false assertion "Papias was quoted by people after Eusebius." (Papias is quoted in Wikipedia too, after all.) Whereas, is it not true, friends, that Anastasius' "quotations" from Papias merely repeat what was to be found in Eusebius?  What a loss for the early Church is this unfortunate coincidence, that all copies of the work should have been lost, every single one. For there must have been more than a few copies of such direct testimony with such unbroken provenance.--to quote text suppressed in the article.  --Wetman 05:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Anastasius does not repeat what Eusebius says about Papias. (Philip of Side largely does, which is why I didn't mention him.) Stephen C. Carlson 19:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Wetman, if you're still out there, "supressed" makes it sound like someone deliberately kept his work drom being used. Certainly, from a critical perspective, we have no way of knowing anything other than that we don't have copies. Spiker 22 (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

John the Apostle or "John the Presbyter"
This text has been suppressed in the entry. Let it stand here temporarily as a reminder of this undiscussed issue concerning Papias' apostolic inspiration: "Irenaeus was doubtless conflating the presbyter John, Papias' source, with the apostle John and with the author of the Gospel of John. If he was not, his subsequent interpreters certainly have confused these Johns." --Wetman 10:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Boy, that whole topic is a can of worms. No matter how that issue is discussed, the word "doubtless" ought not be a part of it -- even for Irenaeus's views. User:Stephen C. Carlson 10:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Doubtless", when inserted in a statement, brings, ironically, a note instead of doubt. Doubtless most attentive readers have noted this. --Wetman 05:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If one reads the fragments of Papias, he seems to imply that he was not a hearer of the apostles. Yet he says that he was a hearer of John the Elder. It is possible for one to infer from this that John the Apostle was not John the Elder. Further writers state that John's Gospel was dictated to Papias by John. If Papias was not a hearer of the apostles, then one can infer that John's Gospel was dictated by John the Elder not John the Apostle. That would explain why none of Papias's works has survived. Outside of the Nag Hammadi library most of the ancient Christian writings opposed to orthodoxy have not survived. One can infer that there was an attempt to suppress and destroy anything that didn't conform to the Church's position (That's why the Nag Hammadi writings were hidden). Barney Hill (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to assume, by inductive logic, that anyone other than John wrote the gospel. Why would "some" second century writers know more about the account than what the gospel itself shows? John did not refer to himself (in fact he was not reffed to by name at all in the Gospel of John) in the gospel as a sign of humility. This is also a unique first-person writing form, and might as well have been a finger print.. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of external links
The external links to the fragmentary texts of Papias have been suppressed and replaced by "English translations of the surviving fragments of his writings can be found in links at the Ante-Nicene Fathers." The edit summary reads "removed extenal links per External links" When the Wikipedia reader clicks on Papias at that page, he/she is returned here. This is a disservice to the reader, so I am reverting this attempt, apparently in the interests of a "cleanup", with which the same editor has labelled this article. --Wetman 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the actual edit:  Umm, you're conflating a couple of issues there.    One is pretty unequivocal: Those links fail the guideline and should be removed.  The other is about the text surrounding the links, thus sofixit.  The bit you've resotred doesn't have to do with the links. -  brenneman (t) (c)  08:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The external link to the article "Papias" in Catholic Encyclopedia; the link to Papias' texts at www.earlychristianwritings.com; Fragments of Papias at the Patristics In English Project, www.seanmultimedia.com &mdash;there must be some mistake; my reading is that this recently-arrived editor finds that they "fail" the guideline. A guideline after all is a guide to common sense. The only other issue is the "Clean-Up" tag: a few words about what needs cleaning up, in this new editor's POV, would guide those of us who have been contributing to the evolving text during the past year or so. --Wetman 09:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose that we could begin with the contributions of User:137.240.136.82 (talk • contribs), as that is my entry point into this page. I saw a large number of external links to the same site, and very little else.  This is unususual behavior for a good-faith editor, to put it mildly.  I, of course, examined the links.


 * It should be noted that Wikipedia is neither a web directory nor a hub for study. The fact that an external link does contain information is not the only criterion for inclusion.  There are also the questions of NPOV, abuse by commercial entities, and accuracy.


 * I apologise if my curt edit summary offended, however I stand by my removal of these links.


 * brenneman (t) (c) 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The deleted links are to texts by Papias: they scarcely need to be defended as relevant or useful to the Wikipedia reader. This editor has also deleted links to relevant text at the following articles: Pope Cornelius, Anthony the Great, Macarius of Egypt, Jerome, Eusebius of Caesarea, Desert Fathers,  Charismatic Movement (to text of John Wesley); Arcadius, etc etc, as well as to a range of other subjects: see [|User contributions] . All deleted as "linkspam". Questions of "NPOV, abuse by commercial entities, and accuracy" can scarcely apply under the circumstances, if the links have been deleted without being assessed. What shall we do about this? --Wetman 10:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I may have to retract my compliment about your civil approach based upon that call-to-arms. Again, I apologise if the word "linkspam" offended, however almost all of these were links to a single commercial site placed by a single anonymous user with very little other contributions.  The links were assessed, as well as looking at the home pages and "about us" of the sites.
 * And aren't I part of "we"?
 * brenneman (t) (c) 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "We" are all of us who have contributed to this article. Following up one of the deleted links, at http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_homepage.html, I find this heading: "Patristics in English (P.I.E.) Project: an online initiative whose goal is to translate all existing patristic texts up until the year 1000 into English and then distribute them freely via the Internet." Apparently there is something objectionable to User:Aaron Brenneman in texts that are coming from this source. I'm at a loss, being a determined reverter of vandalism and foolishness myself. The links merely link to the relevant text. What is objectionable in this source for the texts, as User:Aaron Brenneman hints? For an example of linking to relevant texts, the reader may want to look at Epistle to the Galatians for a typical example, one that has several external links apparently of just the kind this User objects to . --Wetman 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm right here (*waves*).  The manner in which you are conducting this discussion is uncivil and I'm asking you to redact. -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The deleted extern links are - according to the rules - allowed. I can understand Aaron's concern about someone promoting their website. But at the same time, the links do contain relevant and useful information and dont contain overt banner adds (at least on the linked page) or POV agendas. Just a straight text. Unless there is somthing better, why not keep the links. --Stbalbach 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Papias and Gospel of Thomas
Sorry Ari, I can not accept conservative christian rewriting of history. Thomas is mentioned by Papias himself. Eugnostos (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it seems all you accept is rewriting history. If you wish to argue that Papias mentions Thomas please find a source that states it. So, where does Papias mention Thomas so we can move on? --Ari (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick search of Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1 confirmed what I said. A Thomas is only mentioned once, and it has nothing to do with a gospel of Thomas. The fragment states "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things﻿ Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice"" --Ari (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Eugnostos, the Gospel of Thomas probably wasn't even written by Papias' time. Even if it did exist: why would Papias, a millennialist Christian, quote from something that shows his perceived future king as an abuser of power, and a cruel murderer? Just look at Isaiah 9:7. Gnostic beliefs aren't supported in any way by the Bible; quite the opposite. 1 Peter 5:7 --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Matthew
The entire discussion of the Hebrew/Aramaic origins of Matthew is misplaced. This should be in an article on the gospels, Matthew, or possibly a totally separate article. All that needs to be noted here is that Papias made the comments. It seems the reader could be forwarded to another article for further information.

Elsteve9 (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Further, the quality (particularly the age) of many of these sources needs to be updated. Considering the speed at which the field of Biblical studies moves as a field, it is surely unacceptable to have six or so references to before 1950, and one more from 1974. This sort of sourcing would have earned me a nice failing grade in graduate school. It is surely unacceptable in an encyclopedia.

Elsteve9 (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Papias is not canonized as saint in Orthodox Church, so you cannot generalize this. If one wishes to point that in Catholic Church is maybe a saint, than it should say that specifically in a note at the end of the paper. (dragos-mihai.rusu 11:19, 15 May 2012 UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Papias of Hierapolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910155741/http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias to http://www.chronicon.net/index.php/papias

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed
>Papias himself knows several New Testament books, whose dates are themselves controversial,

The idea that Papias, himself, knows New Testament books, is precisely what is debated. His source, relationship to it in transmission, the substance of his testimony and his credibility are at issue. The works he describes don't match our Matthew and Mark and characterizations of his testimony like the above appear more interested in securing apostolic provenance for the Gospels than carefully examining the reliabilty of what he said. Spiker 22 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)