tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2813387497500184906..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: How Much Should We Trust Papias?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8778333595179575342011-01-20T18:09:15.538-05:002011-01-20T18:09:15.538-05:00Ron,
Papias' relationship to that passage is ...Ron,<br /><br />Papias' relationship to that passage is an issue I haven't studied much. I don't have much to say about it.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16839257710810394962011-01-20T15:33:20.716-05:002011-01-20T15:33:20.716-05:00Funny you should ask "How Much Should We Trus...Funny you should ask <b>"How Much Should We Trust Papias?"</b><br /><br />Some folks in other circles are also asking the same question, but for theological reasons.<br /><br />Papias provides some of the earliest references for the <b>Pericope Adulterae</b>.<br /><br />Around that issue, the debate is hovering somewhere between the idea that the <b>Pericope Adulterae</b> was, <i>an original fragment (ala Papias's reference) later taken out (by Alexandrian influence) so as to not be too soft on adultery</i>, or <i>a later scribal edition, not authentic at all</i>.<br /><br />This debate, of course, breaks down on theological lines, and it is into that fray that Papias is being shoved.<br /><br />Accordingly, there are some who are asking this self-same question, but with a purpose. <br /><br /><i>(Incidentally, I'm not suggesting this was your motivation for asking, just to be clear - I just wanted to point out that this debate is taking place elsewhere.)</i>ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17472488722854002692011-01-20T08:15:18.890-05:002011-01-20T08:15:18.890-05:00Thanks for all those links Jason
(even the ones wi...Thanks for all those links Jason<br />(even the ones with Dave :),<br /><br />I especially like the link you gave on another thread-<br /><br />http://www.ccpca.net/news/the_disciple_jesus_loved_bbr_18%272_2008.pdf<br /><br />I also disagree with Eusebius and Bauckham on many points here. <br /><br />I agree with you that the author of John was likely "the disciple Jesus loved" <br /><br />I grant that argument as being more probable as well. While Bauckham is a mere possibility. <br /><br />Now, as another Papias side issue- what do you think of Ehrman on Papias here-<br /><br />https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://dare.ubn.kun.nl/bitstream/2066/76519/1/FORMATTED.%2520JD%2520PUNCH%2520FINAL%25203.4.10a.pdf<br /><br />On page 45 Ehrman questions Papias transmission of the Pericope Adulterae. <br />Do you think this was another of Papias "dubious traditions"?Ron Van Brenkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15623171051016737306noreply@blogger.com