Talk:Gospel of John/2021/July

Archives

Papias and Ptolemy (Gnostic)

The article says that Ireneaus is was the first to assign the authorship to John. But, this is a mistake. Papias (~120) was the first, then and the Ptolemy (gnostic) (140-160) who assigns him to an apostle. I tried to correct this error but a man has eliminated it, he did not like the references, if someone can look for sources that are accepted it would be very kind. it is very necessary. my sources are the following: Ptolemy (Gnostic): http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ptolemy.html

Papias: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/fragments-of-papias-12534 [Fragment 18]

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/anti_marcionite_prologues.htm

http://ardownload.catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-EN/024.anti_marcionite_prologues.html;query=;brand=default Tuxzos22 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure these sources are reliable. I’m gonna tag some people. What do you think Tgeorgescu and Karma1998.CycoMa (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

anyway there are probably more sources. That is why I asked that they be found. Tuxzos22 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa:@Tuxzos22: I don't know, honestly. I knew Papias of Hierapolis stated that John Mark had written Mark and that Matthew the Apostle had "collected the sayings of the Lord" (maybe he's referring to the Q source?), but I don't know wether he speaks of John.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph B. Lightfoot in Essays on the Work Entitled "Supernatural Religion" 1883

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/18191/pg18191.html

http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/lightfoot/supernatural/index.htm

Chapter VI (Call: Papias of Hierapolis II) ¿Page 210? refers to the passage that I speak of the passage that I sent.🤷🏼‍♂️ Tuxzos22 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightfoot accuses him of anachronism, which I do not doubt, however, it was not Papias who committed it, it was the anonymous author, then he gives the argument that Eusebio's silence invalidates that Papias was a scribe, then he gives the possibility What layers Papias said by chance and that Eusebio didn't realize. However, these last two things are very subjective, in my opinion. I don't know if that invalidates the edition of this article (in which there are doubts). Tuxzos22 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxzos22: That seems highly unlikely... the authenticity of Papias's works quoted by Eusebius is universally accepted.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]