- The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures Study
- The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures Fulfilled
- The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures Verse
- The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures In The Bible
Estimated Range of Dating: 110-140 A.D.
Fragments of a Faith Forgotten G. Available in PDF, epub, and Kindle ebook. This book has 473 pages in the PDF version, and was originally published in 1900. A fascinating read from G. Mead, this book is one of the best about Gnosticism. Even though this was written before the Nag Hammadi discoveries, it explains.
- Fragments of a Dialogue Between John and Jesus 320. A Fragment of an Unknown Gospel with Johannine Elements 321. The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians 322. The Book of John the Evangelist 323. The Apocryphon of John 324. A Gospel Fragment From the Strasbourg Coptic Papyrus 325. The Acts of John 326. The Greek Acts of John, after Prochorus the.
- Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was an Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived circa 70–163 AD. It was Papias who wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books.
Chronological List of Early Christian Writings
Online Text for Fragments of Papias
Roberts-Donaldson English Translation: Fragments of Papias
External Evidence: Papias (Greek and English)
Online Resources for Fragments of Papias
Roberts-Donaldson Introduction
Wace Introduction
Handbook of Patrology: Papias and the Presbyters
Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Papias
Offline Resources for Fragments of Papias
Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings
Information on Fragments of Papias
I consider the fragment X of the Roberts-Donaldson collection of fragments to be completely suspect as the alleged words of Papias.
Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):
According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times,” who wrote a volume in “five books” (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius’ skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste – perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) – for Papias’ chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being “a man of exceedingly small intelligence” (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius’ analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias’ chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet’s date for Papias’ literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Schoedel writes about the comments of Papias (op. cit., v. 5, pp. 141-142):
What the fragments have to tell us about Mark and Matthew is information that Papias himself traces to “the presbyter” (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15-16). Eusebius separates the statements about Mark and Matthew, but they may have originally followed one another and certainly seem closely related. Perhaps the simplest reading of the statement on Mark is that Mark served as Peter’s interpreter (possibly in the role of methurgaman, or oral translator) and wrote down what he heard Peter say of the words and deeds of Jesus and that his writing is defective in “order,” though not in accuracy or fullness of recollection, because Peter naturally referred to the Lord’s logia in a random manner. Some have suspected that Papias did not have in mind the gospel of Mark that we know, but the arguments are tenuous. On another point, Kurzinger has attempted to show that Papias was speaking not of translation from the native language of Peter but of presentation of the reports of Peter (an interpretation which he applies also to Papias’ statement about Matthew); but this seems to push a rhetorical approach to Papias’ terminology too far (Schoedel 1967: 107; Kortner 1983: 203-4). On the other hand, an interpretation in rhetorical terms is somewhat more likely when it comes to the suggestion that Papias meant to say that Peter spoke “in chria-style” rather than “as needs (chriai) dictated.” But the point that is debated more than any other is what Papias had in mind when he said that Mark did not write “in order.” It is perhaps most likely that Papias was measuring Mark by Matthew (who is said by Papias to have made “an ordered arrangement” of the materials) – or perhaps more generally by Papias’ own conception of what ought to be included in such an account – and that he had in mind completeness of information as well as “order” in the narrow sense of the term. In any event, Papias is defending Mark in spite of perceived deficiencies.
Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred “the living voice” to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. The testimony of Papias concerning Matthew is more problematic. Eusebius says that Papias also “made use of testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise from that of Peter” (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.17).
Remember the discovery of the “Jesus tomb”? The “crucifixion nails”? Noah’s Ark? Each of these supposed finds was at the center of a brief but intense media frenzy in recent years. These discoveries, often suspiciously timed around major Christian holidays like Easter, might prompt interesting discussions about the historical reliability of the Bible, but rarely turn out to be legitimate archaeological finds.
Christianity Today is reporting on another recent (possible) discovery of special interest to Christians: an alleged early fragment of the Gospel of Mark. Daniel Wallace, the professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who earlier this year announced the find, claimed during a debate that the fragment is the earliest known New Testament text. (You can read Wallace’s account of the debate and the surprising announcement at the Parchment & Pen Blog.)
This would certainly be exciting news if it’s confirmed. However, the CT article describes the very cautious reaction this announcement has received from scholars:
Other New Testament scholars won’t get a chance to study this gospel portion until it is published in a book about a year from now. They are admittedly skeptical, since the alleged fragment would be almost two centuries older than the current oldest copy of Mark….
“I won’t believe it until I see it,” said Simon Gathercole, editor of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.
The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures Study
Peter Head, a New Testament research fellow at Tyndale House, a British residential center for biblical research, is likewise eager to get a look at the fragment before rendering an opinion….
Biblical scholars are increasingly frustrated with sensational finds, often announced during the Christmas and Easter seasons. Magazines, book publishers, and cable channels seem more interested in pumping up sales and viewers than in assuring that discoveries stand up under scholarly scrutiny.
The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures Fulfilled
Healthy skepticism seems like a reasonable response to sensational claims—better to wait for a scholarly consensus before splashing the news across magazine covers. If the find is genuine, it could add significantly to our understanding of the New Testament and its formation… but let’s make sure it’s true before we get too excited.
The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures Verse
This is a topic that we’ve discussed at times in the past—see our earlier post about how to respond to sensational archaeological claims. For more specific reactions to the Mark fragment announcement, see some helpful words of caution at The Biblical World.
The Fragments Of Papiasrejected Scriptures In The Bible
Related posts: