Bowen-Hinman Debate Argument 2:Papias
I shall not hesitate to set down for you along with my interpretations all things which I learned from the elders
with care and recorded with care, being well assured of their truth. For unlike most men, I took pleasure not in those that have much to say but in those that preach the truth, not in those that record strange precepts but in those who record such precepts as were given to the faith by the Lord and are derived from truth itself. Besides if ever any man came who had been a follower of the elders,
I would inquire about the sayings of the elders; what Andrew said, or Peter or Philip or Thomas, or James, or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples;
and what Aristion says, and John the Elder, who are disciples of the Lord. For I did not consider that I got so much from the content of books as from the utterances of living and abiding voices..."
There are a few more points in Hinman’s post on Papias that I want to specifically address.
Does that [i.e. the view that Papias only had contact with John the Elder and not John the Apostle] weaken the case for the connection to Jesus? I don’t think so because Aristion and elder John knew Jesus, they are called disciples. He probably knew both [i.e both “Johns”] but if he only knew they [sic] latter two they were disciples.
No, because three reasons
(1) even if true the testimony it handed down through an oral tradition that knew how to preserve the Iliad word for word for a thousands years; more in the Hebrew context it preserved the ideas that became the Talmud.
(2) I've given examples of Papias use of disciple and also Others after him they always mean one who heard the actual words
(3) we know specifically from fragments of Papas that he held that Elder John was a hearer of Jesus', your own source Baukham thinks he wrote the Gospel of John.
The word “disciples” does NOT imply personal, face-to-face conversations with the teacher in question. Hinman has not provided an argument showing that the word “disciples” has this meaning, nor that Papias uses the word with this meaning. Given that we have only a few fragments of second-hand quotes of Papias, I doubt that there is sufficient evidence available to construct a plausible argument for this claim.
Hinman: let's remember when Bradeley wrote that my post (the one you are reading) wasn't up yet so he didn't know the points I just made, which disprove what he just said,
There are indications from Eusebius that Papias had extended contact with the Elder John and with other disciples. Eusebius writes “in his writings he trasmits other narratives of the words of the Lord which came form [sic] the afore mentioned Aristion and others which came from John the Elder” moreover he goes on, “the elder used to say this also: … ” And here Eusebius is quoting Papias. This phrase “the elder used to say…” indicates a personal acquaintance in more than one meeting.
Hinman: Baukham, Bowen's own source, tells us that Euebius did not like papias and had doctrinal biases that led him to spin the evidence against EJ being a true hearer of Jesus.
Eusebius was a good historians in some ways. He does not deserve the reputation of atheist rhetoric gives him, the "pious fraud" thing, but his job was spin doctor for Constantine. What spin doctors do is put a spin on evidence, that is what he did.
The phrase “the elder used to say…” does NOT imply “personal acquaintance” nor does it imply that the speaker had ANY meetings with “the elder”. This should be fairly obvious, but if not, one can simply refer to a quote from Irenaeus, which was provided by Hinman in his post on Papias:
Hinman: Yes I'm afraid it does it would require total blindness to ignore that. The one passage he gives the statement by Jesus not in the New Testament, attributes to Elder John who told Papias that statement. How did he know it?: BECAUSE THEY KNEW HOW TO MEMORIZE. THAT'S WHAT ORAL CULTURES DO!
Just as the Elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord, recalled hearing from him how concerning these times he used to teach that the Lord would say: … (part of a quotation by Hinman from Against Heresies 5.33.3-4, emphasis added)
By Hinman’s logic the phrase “he used to teach that…” implies that Irenaeus had personal, face-to-face conversations with John “the disciple of the Lord” (i.e. John the Apostle). But clearly, Irenaeus did NOT have any such conversations,
Hinman, all of that is disproved by Baukhm. Elder John wrote the Gospel of John so Papias had access to the guy who wrote John. No? then you ready to impeach Baukham?
don't forget Baukham argues specifically that elder was used in way antithetical to the use Bradley makes of it, it as not suited to a faceless group of transmitters but reserved for one big heavy dude. (Jesus and the Eye Witnsses 420-425)
Moreover we have seen that he uses the term elder of Apostles as well as non apostles. While it is reserved for major heavyweights it's not indicative of either Apostle or non apostle except by context.
Moreover, he changes tenses when he speaks of Aristion and Elder John, the [sic] he speaks in present tense, as though he’s still in contact with them.
Use of the present tense could indicate that Aristion and John the Elder were still alive at the time that Papias was inquiring the followers of Aristion and John the Elder about their knowledge of the sayings of the Apostles. The translation by Bauckham says Papias was asking about what Aristion and John the Elder “were saying”, which is compatible with the idea of refering to a time in the past when Papias was inquiring about the words of Aristion and John the Elder who were (at that time in the past) still alive. That time in the past might be several years or even a decade prior to the time Papias got around to writing his book.
Hinman: No! He does not say that he says the opposite you are drawing that inference from his choice of translation; he used one with the brackets because it slanted the issue in favor of an Elder John, It also glossed over the present tense casting it in the light of a past present, "they were saying." The Greek is present, :they are saying," Baukham dates the quote to late first early second before 110. Bradley tried to stretch the date to as late as 130 but Baulkham clearly does not accept that, 420-25.
Maier translation "...disciples of the Lord were still saying." the actual Greek does favor a continuing action in present time.[Paul L. Maier, Eusebius The Church Hisotry, Grand rapids, Mi:Kregel, 1999. 126]
…and he [i.e. Papias] moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. … (part of a quote from Eusebius provided by Hinman)
Note that this does not appear to be a quotation of Papias by Eusebius, but rather an interpretation of Papias by Eusebius. Since we are not given the exact words of Papias, we are being asked to rely on Eusebius to correctly interpret the words of Papias.
Hinman: no two other sources:
(1) several fragments of Papias not dependent upon Eusebius
(2) Irenaeus who studied with Polycarp and knew Papias, He asserts that he knew Papiasdid now Elder John talked with him and quoted him often, see it all on my pages omn my apologetic site the Religious A Pori.
Irenaeus. Against Heresy
These things Papias, the hearer of John, who was a companion of Polycarp, a man of ancient time, testifies in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him.
He tells us he was hearer of John and he studied with Polkycarp so yo guessed it, the next one will just be an extension of this one,
Youtube interview of NT Write on Papias