![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 01:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have removed to Discussion the following new edit:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Papias.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
>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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
[User:Wetman|Wetman]] 01:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have removed to Discussion the following new edit:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Papias.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
>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)