How EARLY CHURCH divisions destroyed HISTORY

by TerryWalstrom 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TerryWalstrom

  I understand what you're saying, jhine.

  I take it (John 21:25) as expressing an estimation of how many things were said and done by Jesus which were never written down in contrast to the few things which were.

  First century Christians were apocalyptic in their expectations. They believed Jesus when he told them they would 'by no means' complete the circuit of cities preaching the coming Kingdom of God before He returned.

  Millions then living would never die. (Wee joke)

  Each new generation of Christian believers had a slightly more 'evolved' story to believe as the passage of time kept falsifying claims of "soon" for the return of Christ.

  THE NEED FOR WRITING THINGS DOWN must have seemed wholly unnecessary at first--but--as time passed--more and more so.

  We know the stories of Jesus and His teachings were constantly changing because they were transmitted orally among the Jewish Messianic Christians until the Bishop of Hieropolis took the trouble to interview and write down current teachings from those who had been taught by disciples and Apostles.

  STILL WITHIN THE FIRST CENTURY, the tales were so wild and divergent few Gentile Christians could believe them. The first church historian, Eusebius, thought most of what Papias (the Bishop who conducted the interviews) reported was goofy nincompoopery.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Concerning the disambiguation of JOHN THE APOSTLE and JOHN (the Presbyter or writer of Revelation) we read:

  From wiki:

  After quoting Papias, Eusebius continues:

  It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

  This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.

  And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

  Eusebius identifies John the Presbyter as the author of the Book of Revelation, the canonical status of which he disputed as he disagreed with its content, especially the Chiliasm implied in the "millennial kingdom".

  The view of Eusebius was taken up by the Church Father Jerome in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men). In Chapter 9, which deals with the Apostle John and his writings, he ascribes to him both the Gospel and the First Epistle, and continues to say:

  The other two [Epistles] of which the first is "The elder to the elect lady and her children" and the other "The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth," are said to be the work of John the presbyter to the memory of whom another sepulchre is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist.[2]

  In Chapter 18, discussing Papias, Jerome repeats the fragment quoted above and continues:

  It appears through this catalogue of names that the John who is placed among the disciples is not the same as the elder John whom he places after Aristion in his enumeration. This we say moreover because of the opinion mentioned above, where we record that it is declared by many that the last two epistles of John are the work not of the apostle but of the presbyter.
• 

  kepler

  Terry,

  As you note: Enter our hero Papius ( episkopis or ‘bishop’) of Hierapolis,... "bishop" from 98-117 AD.

  -----------

  Odd, is it not, that the institution of bishop and the other institutional trappings of the church would be established so early? Especially, if we are called on to give more weight of one early bishop's recollections of the early days than that of others. I would say that his testimony is there, but there are other sources and developments that contradict what he is saying - which is about par for the course.

  Under different circumstances, Carl Sagan once noted that decades ago drawing from the fact that Venus was hotter than Earth and it had heavy clouds, some concluded that was life under the clouds - and others went so far to say that it harbored dinosaurs. If you want to see where the dinosaurs come in, consider the inferences surrounding the possibility that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. No one's has a copy but it must have had "The Name".

  Pappias was by no means the only victim of censorship. Most of the critics of what became orthodoxy we know of largely from not very kind summaries of other writers. But distinct from most of those who wrote voluminously, we have Pappias's own disregard for the word in print - rather his reliance on oral tradition. Since the testimony of Pappias is hearsay evidence, late in his life and what he claimed he had heard from others, then what we have is something like the accounts of children and grandchildren of people who were in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Their parents or their grandparents' neighbors saw or claimed... In each case we do not know how the information is filtered. Or for that matter, which oral traditions Pappias shifted to the top of the stack over others.

  What if "their " oral tradition, the other bishops, contradicted that obtained from Pappias? And how do we know that it does or does not?

  Pappias had contemporaries who were bishops and "church fathers" with similar or better credentials in matters of speaking of the early days. One of these with which Pappias can be contrasted is Ignatius Bishop of Antioch who wrote a number of letters (some spurious but others uncontested) that included his beliefs on theological matters and his views on Paul, Peter and John, not to mention Jesus. As to when he was born (35-50 AD) and died ( 98-118), the brackets are rubbery, yet they seem to indicate he was at least as close to the creation as Pappias.
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  The (Catholic) Church became a self-appointed clearinghouse of VALID vs INVALID

  writings. It was the gatekeeper of orthodoxy.

  Which writings were "inspired" and which weren't? Were any?

  These are portentous matters.

  What I find fascinating about Papias is what sets him apart from all the others.

  Papias asked questions and got answers. He conducted interviews and wrote down his process. When you compare this process with his contemporaries, the distinctions mark a difference.

  In my personal view, every speaker got their favorite chewy nugget from somebody ELSE. It is ALL hearsay. But--wouldn't it be delicious to discover what wide disparity and divergence had entered the teaching, the story and the biography of Jesus so very early on?

  In Math class, you are instructed to "show your work." Why? Because the 'answers' are beside the point--the process by which the student works out the chain of logic tells the teacher the important thing: state of mind+quality of reasoning.

  I like Papias. I don't like Eusebius. An honest historian allows ALL the evidence to be seen. I think we don't have Papias works because they were held back or destroyed--or--made to appear worthless.

  But the greater question is this:

  Why are these authorities in the Early Church so high-handed and peremptory rather than humble, modest, and open-minded?
• 

  fulltimestudent

  kepler: Odd, is it not, that the institution of bishop and the other institutional trappings of the church would be established so early?

  There are even earlier mentions. 1 Timothy 3, for example, which outlines the qualifications for church officials described there as episkopoß (Episkopos), for which "bishop" became the general term used in the early church. Paul listed qualifications that match the qualifications for overseers in the household codes that were in general circulation in his day. (So the qualifications were NOT established by holy spirit).

  We also have the Letters of Ignatius, that were written after his arrest (about 110 CE), and on his way to Rome for execution. In his letter to the group of Christians in Magnesia, Ignatius wrote (Ch 6, verse 1):

  "I urge you to aim to do everything in godly agreement. Let the bishop preside in God's place, and the presbyters take the place of the apostolic council, and let the deacons (my special favourites) be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ."

  and, in Ch 7, verse 1:

  " ... so you must not do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Do not, moreover, try to convince yourselves that anything done on your own is commendable."

  In the letter he wrote to the church in Smyrna, he does warn those appointed to such offices:

  " Let no one's position swell his head, for faith and love are everything ..."

  And note, (out of interest to us, who have suffered for it), that in the letter to the Smyrneans, after discussing the observable diversity of religious ideas (heresy) in the early church, Ignatius tells the Smyreans: (Ch. 7, verse 2)

  "The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk to them neither in private nor in public."

  So (in modern terms) - do not talk to apostates !!! ( Is the GB reading Ignatius ???? ROFL)

  And, confirming the growing authoritarianism in the church. In Smyrneans 8:1, Ignatius writes in part:

  "Nobody must do anything that has to do with the church, without the bishop's approval."

  Here we see the development of an authoritarian church determined to eliminate variant teachings and enforce a unity of official belief. Opposed to free thinking, Ignatius saw the church order of church officials as one way to enforce that unity of thought.

  The tradition adopted by the JWs is similar.

  
  

  Kepler: Especially, if we are called on to give more weight of one early bishop's recollections of the early days than that of others. I would say that his testimony is there, but there are other sources and developments that contradict what he is saying - which is about par for the course.

  Of course, Kepler. Terry sees two strands of thought developing, but a close reading of early church documents reveals a much greater diversity. Whatever Jesus taught, was developed by followers in a myriad different ways.

  The real tradition of early Christianity is diversity, not unity
• 

  kepler

  Full Time Student:

  "The right thing to do, then, is to avoid such people and to talk to them neither in private nor in public."

  So (in modern terms) - do not talk to apostates !!! ( Is the GB reading Ignatius ???? ROFL)

  Interesting parallel, but it still places the GB in a difficult position. Their claim is that nearly 1900 years and suddenly an invisible miracle happens. They become "bishops" and all the old rules apply to them.

  I would cite Ignatius of Antioch that THEY (the GB) should not be talked to in private or public.
• 

  Mephis

  The Didache (c.100 but possibly a lot earlier or a bit later) also has the same kind of message. It effectively sets out shunning. "But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents." (chapter 15) I'd be cautious about trying to imply too much doctrinal rigidity (eg Polycarp heading to Rome c.150), although clearly gnosticism and 'judaising' were pushing things too far for 'orthodoxy'.
  
• 

  TerryWalstrom

  Here is a copy and paste from Bart Ehrman's blog (I'm a subscriber) following up on his recent discussion of

  Papias and the Early Church.

  (I urge you--if you have in-depth interest in these matters--to subscribe to Ehrman's Blog. All subscription funds go to feed the hungry.)

  _____________________________

  (4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
  

  Papias and the Eyewitnesses

  I have been discussing the writings of Papias, his lost five-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. Scholars of the New Testament have long ascribed huge significance to this work, in no small part because Papias claims to have ties to eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. In my view this championing of Papias is misguided. I say something about that in my new book on Jesus Before the Gospels (or whatever we end up calling it); I will probably be going into a more sustained analysis in my scholarly book that I’m working on next on memory and the historical Jesus.

  The excitement over Papias as a link to our eyewitnesses is based largely on the following passage that is quoted from his writing by Eusebius in his early-fourth-centuryChurch History. This was written about 200 years after Papias, but Eusebius had read Papias’s book and so could quote from it. In his discussion of the book Eusebius mentions the references to Papias in the writings of Irenaeus, from around 180 CE, just 40 or 60 years after Papias.

  Here is what Eusebius says:

  ************************************************************

  There are five books written by Papias in circulation, entitled “An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.” Irenaeus remembers these as the only ones Papias wrote, as he somewhere says, “And Papias as well, an ancient man — the one who heard John and was a companion of Polycarp – gives a written account of these things in the fourth of his books. For he wrote five books.” [cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33.4]

  Thus Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface of his work, makes it clear that he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles. Instead, he declares that he received the matters of faith from those known to them. As he says:

  “I also will not hesitate to draw up for you, along with these expositions, an orderly account of all the things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth. For unlike most people, I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth, and not those who recalled commandments from strangers, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself.

  But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice.”

  THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs very little money, and all of it goes to charity!

  … 7. This Papias, whom we have just been discussing, acknowledges that he received the words of the apostles from those who had been their followers, and he indicates that he himself had listened to Aristion and the elder John. And so he often recalls them by name, and in his books he sets forth the traditions that they passed along. These remarks should also be of some use to us.

  But it would be worthwhile to supplement these remarks of Papias with some of his other words, through which he recounts certain miracles and other matters, which would have come to him from the tradition.

  We have already seen that the apostle Philip resided in Hieropolis with his daughters [see Eccl. Hist. 3.31]; but now I should point out that Papias, who was their contemporary, recalls an amazing story that he learned from Philip’s daughters. For he indicates that a person was raised from the dead in his own time. Moreover, he tells another miracle about Justus (also called Barsabbas), who drank deadly poison but suffered no ill-effects because he was sustained by the grace of the Lord.

  … 11. And he sets forth other matters that came to him from the unwritten tradition, including some bizarre parables of the Savior, his teachings, and several other more legendary accounts.

  Among these things he says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a thousand-year period, during which the Kingdom of Christ will exist tangibly, here on this very earth….

  ***********************************************************

  There is a lot that can be said about this intriguing passage. Here let me just make a couple of points:

  • Irenaeus, around the year 180 CE, claimed that Papias was a companion of the disciple of Jesus, John the Son of Zebedee. But Eusebius, who actually read Papias’s book, claims that this is incorrect. Based on what Papias himself said, Eusebius points out that Papias was not a follower of any of the apostles. He got his information from others. In other words, Irenaeus was trying to make Papias out to be more of an authority than he was. That is very much the tendency in the early Christian tradition (and among conservative Christian scholars today), to claim direct connections with eyewitnesses where there weren’t any.
  • Eusebius himself is skeptical of much of what Papias says: he speaks of the “bizarre parables” that he claims Jesus spoke and of the “legendary accounts” found in his writings. So not even Eusebius thought that Papias could be trusted to convey the truth about Jesus’ life and teachings, despite Papias’s claim to have connections with eyewitnesses.
  • The quotation of Papias himself makes it clear what these connections were, that is, what his sources of information for the teachings of Jesus and his disciples were: he interviewed people who came into town who knew the “elders” who knew the apostles who knew Jesus. He heard from these people what the elders were saying that the apostles had said. And so in Papias we don’t have a first-hand report of Jesus’ teachings. We have a fourth-hand report. At best.
  • When Papias indicates that he knew what the disciples taught, then, it was not because he knew them, or knew those who knew them. He met those who knew those who said they knew them.

  I have said more about Papias in various other posts I have made over the past couple of years, and don’t need to go into further detail at this point. Suffice it to say that it would be absolutely spectacular if his Expositions would ever turn up in full.