Fragments of Papias
INTRODUCTION
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor, is in many respects an interesting, if not irritating, figure in early
Church history. Little known to us because of scantiness of data, he was yet highly esteemed, much talked about, and amply quoted in the first centuries.
The date of Papias's birth is unknown, but it is safe to say that he was born before the year 80.* Eusebius relates that he was "a hearer of John, a friend of Polycarp, a man of the primitive age." * The John just mentioned is undoubtedly the Apostle, and Papias may well have acted as his amanuensis.* If we may judge of him by the few fragments that are extant, we must picture him to ourselves as a man with an alert mind, a strong desire for knowledge not expressly conveyed by the Gospels, a pronounced flair for the curious, and no capacity for great thoughts. We know nothing of his career or character as a bishop. Equally unknown are the time, the place, and the manner of his death.
Papias is best remembered by the student of primitive Christianity as the author of five books, entitled Exegesis of the Lord's Gospel.* Of the value or contents of this work we can form no adequate idea. But the fact that it contained
"interpretations " seems to indicate that its purpose was to illustrate the words of the Gospels by a sort of running commentary based upon such explanations as had come to his knowledge "from the presbyters," that is, disciples of the
Tue FRAGMENTS OF PaPIAs Lord. His interpretations, he tells us, were interwoven with sundry oral traditions obtained from responsible persons. One extract from his Exegesis, usually printed as Fr. 2, has won him a permanent place in the history of the New Testament
Canon. His remarks on the Gospel of St. Matthew and on what " the presbyter" had to say about that of St. Mark, are precious. Unfortunately, he has also the distinction of being the first expounder, in our extant literature, of chiliasm or millenarianism.' It is mainly on this ground that Eusebius, a sturdy opponent of chiliastic speculations, characterizes him as "a man of very mediocre intelligence." * Fr. 1 graphically illustrates the dreams of the defenders of this strange error by describing a miraculous vintage in the millennium.
In Fr.
3 the gruesome account of the end of Judas the traitor shows to what extent Papias, in spite of his passion for " the truth," was ready to admit into his "interpretations" grotesque legendary matter. By way of palliation it should be borne in mind that the authenticity of some of the excerpts has been seriously questioned.
On the whole, therefore, his Fragments do not make pleasant reading. Just the same, we must be grateful to him for the few things in his extracts which are real contributions to our knowledge of the Christian mind in the century following the death of the Apostles.
It may be well to approach the interpretation of Fr. 2 by examining verse 4 first. It tells us three things: first, the names of some of those persons who informed Papias about " the sayings and doings of the Lord "; secondly, the channel by which he obtained this information; thirdly, the reason why he considered oral information superior to written records:
"I took for granted that book knowledge would not help me so much as a living or still surviving voice."
INTRODUCTION
The reason just given is an answer to the question why Papias, in his quest of "the truth," was not content with either the Gospels or the written records left by other writers.
Which these were we have no means of knowing. He was, of course, acquainted with the whole New Testament, even if we cannot trace this"acquaintance in every detail. But he shared the Greek feeling about books in general.' They have their say, but, in case of doubt, leave the reader in the lurch; they make statements, but answer no questions. He therefore looked for "a living voice" and found it in utterances made orally by competent men. Such were the Apostles or "any other disciples of the Lord." But at the time of his inquiry, or the date of composition, the Apostles were dead
(with the exception of John), and so was the greater number of the Lord's immediate disciples; consequently, he " carefully gathered " their utterances through the medium of men that had been " closely associated" with them. 'Those utterances were the " living voice" or, in the case of " Aristion and the presbyter John," the still " surviving voice."
It is now important to realize that Papias calls his informants " presbyters." In the New Testament and in early
Christian literature, the term " presbyter " is somewhat vague in its connotations. By itself it means "an elderly person "; later it came to designate a person who, by reason of his age, possessed rank and influence in his community. It is so used by the Pharisees who accused Our Lord's disciples of " going against the tradition of the Elders " (Matt. 15.2). On the lips of the early Christians it designated a man of influence, considered qualified to do important Church work, as in Acts
15. 2 ff. and in 16. 4. It has perhaps an even wider meaning in Acts 11. 30, where it seems to include the Apostles. Another connotation attaching to the term is that of "a man of sf
Tue FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS
the older generation." It follows, then, that we are justified in identifying Papias's " presbyters " as disciples of the Lord regardless of whether they were also Apostles or not. After all, a man's competence as a witness to what Jesus did or said is sufficiently guaranteed by his having been a disciple of the Lord.
Now, Papias inquired of persons " closely associated " with these " presbyters,' not what the intermediaries themselves knew or thought about the sayings and doings of the Lord, but what they had heard from " the presbyters." 'The statements of the presbyters in general came to the knowledge of Papias through intermediaries; those of Aristion and " the presbyter John " reached him in two ways; first, through the medium of their followers; secondly, directly, by word of mouth. This is the reason why John is mentioned twice and Aristion is mentioned by name.
Papias's condensed report of his manner of obtaining information is tantalizing (like some other of his statements), and its wording is not very lucid. But although he fails to name his intermediaries, we may suspect who some of them were. Papias was a friend of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, who, like Papias, was a disciple of the Apostle John. Could he not tell Papias what he had heard from John? Ignatius of Antioch was brought up under the eyes of three illustrious
Apostles, Saints Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, and, of course, of many other disciples of the Lord: could he not pass on to Polycarp, when he visited Smyrna, and through him to Papias, what he had learned about Christ while still at Antioch? We do not know of any personal meeting between Ignatius and Papias; but it is not absurd to suppose that Papias made a point of meeting this great light of the Asian
Church on his trip from Smyrna to 'Troas, which was not at any extraordinarily great distance from Hierapolis even for
INTRODUCTION
those days. The Evangelist Philip, one of the seven deacons of the Church of Jerusalem, was certainly "closely associated" with the Apostles, if not also a disciple of the Lord: could he not during his stay at Hierapolis * communicate to Papias such information as Papias may have asked for?
Whether Papias ever met any of the Twelve Apostles, besides John, we do not know; but surely, after the destruction of Jerusalem, we should suppose that many men and women went westward to preach the Gospel in the Province of Asia.
Ephesus, the capital of Asia, at any rate, was not only the key point for the valleys of the Cayster, the Meander, the Hermus, and the Caicus, but also a veritable beehive of Christian missionary activity. Some of the cities in this territory were made famous by the letters of Ignatius: Magnesia,
Tralles, Philadelphia, Troas; others are known to us from the Epistles of St. Paul: Colossae, Laodicea, Hierapolis. It would be a wonder if a man of Papias's inquisitive mind had shut himself up in Hierapolis, instead of availing himself of his many opportunities of meeting men acquainted with the disciples of the Lord! He certainly travelled to Ephesus to meet and be the hearer of St. John. Verse 3 of this passage suggests that he also met some who delighted in talking too much; but it was not to these that he turned for reliable information. His great purpose was to meet men qualified
"to teach the truth." After declaring his readiness Cin verse 3.) to set down, along with his interpretations, all the information about the Gospels which he had " carefully gathered from the presbyters," he states the reason why he relied on those men exclusively: the object of his search was not " the longest accounts" or "the commandments of others," but " the truth " and information about "the commandments of the Lord."
Tue FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS
He then proceeds in verse 4 to explain by what channel he had obtained the statements of "the presbyters."
Its opening words are rendered by some scholars:
" And so, too, — when anyone, etc.," under the impression that he describes a second group of informants, distinct from the presbyters in verse 3. That the words may bear this sense cannot be questioned; but, if this is the sense intended, there arises the question whether there were enough Apostles and immediate disciples of the Lord at Papias's time and in his surroundings to make a separate group. The same scholars suppose that information from the first group was obtained by word of mouth,° while that of the second was received from persons "closely associated with the presbyters."
It seems more reasonable, therefore, if not imperative, to assign to € in verse 4 its usual adversative meaning, as though
Papias wished to say: "No, I did not listen to men given to much talking, etc., but only to men qualified to testify to what the presbyters had said."
After saying in verse 3 that, in gathering material for his work, he relied on "the presbyters" for authentic information, he might have gone on to tell who the presbyters were, but he chose to give first the reason (od ydp) why he had selected these men exclusively. Then, in verse 4, he names some of the presbyters referred to in verse 3, and characterizes all of them as " disciples of the Lord." But, since at the time of inquiring or at least of writing, these men were no longer among the living, he had to state by what method he obtained their information: he consulted their friends and followers. Only two of the presbyters were consulted both directly and indirectly, Aristion and " the presbyter John." *°
It is fortunate for us that Papias identified this John as " the presbyter," for had he omitted to do so, we should be puzzled
INTRODUCTION
II! to know whom he meant. The sense of the whole clause is:
"the presbyter John whom I have just mentioned with the Apostles." 'This, surely, is a reasonable way of removing that stumbling block of so many interpreters. It is, however, also possible, if not in fact probable, that 6 zpeoBvrepos in this context means, not "the presbyter," as Eusebius explains, but, simply, "the Old Man John."** Any reader of St.
John's second and third Epistles knew at once whom Papias meant. The expression was a sort of affectionate nickname for the aged and dearly loved Apostle."
Regarding verse 15, it is needful to remember that John's statement is an answer to some persons in his entourage who had belittled, or at least deplored, the relative brevity of the Gospel according to St. Mark. We wonder who these persons were. But we shall not go wrong if we include among them
Papias, the very man who wrote this extract.
Papias, in a sense, was not satisfied with any of the Gospels that tell of " the deeds and sayings of the Lord." Was not this the reason for his search for more complete information among the "presbyters "? Naturally to a man of his inquisitive mind the second Gospel was least satisfactory in this respect. John takes occasion to tell the critics that, although Mark did not write with that completeness which might have been desirable, yet his Gospel has one advantage peculiar to itself: it is from start to finish a faithful summary of what he has heard from St. Peter—one of those very " presbyters" mentioned in 2. 4!—and should therefore commend itself to Papias and other critics. The proper interpretation of this extract hinges exclusively on the much-disputed words ov pévrou rdééet, which are generally rendered "though not in order," although scholars are puzzled to know just what order (chronological and any other) can possibly be meant. The puzzle
Li2
Tue FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS
vanishes into thin air if we assign to rade a meaning often expressed in the Koine and even in Modern Greek: ' verbatim, with full detail, without any gaps in the narrative.' In addition to this acceptation of rdgvs, it is instructive to examine the extract in the light of contemporary literature."
For the rest, I may refer the reader to a somewhat extensive exposition of the fragment, published elsewhere."
It is difficult for us to gauge the genius of this Apostolic Father.
His mind was capable of lodging two extremes.
Possessed of a real passion for " the truth" about the words and deeds of Our Lord, he deserves our admiration. He had not himself seen or heard Christ, but he felt that His message must be preserved. It was largely preserved in the Gospels; yet how much there was that never found its way into the inspired accounts! Being a disciple of St. John, he had no doubt frequent opportunities to be made aware of this fact
(John 21.25). He therefore turned to well-authenticated traditions handed down by " the disciples of the Lord," and since the number of these men was rapidly decreasing, he appealed to their immediate followers. In Papias's opinion, then, tradition was a rule of faith as well as the New Testament, that is, a lawful way of knowing " the commandments given by the Lord to be believed and stemming directly from the Truth." And yet, our admiration for Papias is tinged with sadness, for he evidently swerved from his original purpose and permitted accounts of "a rather mythical nature" to creep into his writings. As a result, Fr. 2 stands out as practically the sole monument to his greatness—such as it is.
Later ages were more discriminating in sifting the chaff from the wheat. His chiliastic dreams, in particular, were vigorously opposed by the best minds in Christendom.
¢ t
INTRODUCTION
LE3 The text used for the present translation is that of F. X.
Funk, revised by K. Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen Vater, 1. Teil CTiibingen 1924) 133-40. Bihlmeyer limits his collection to extracts from, and references to, Papias's lost work.
The following moderf translations may also be mentioned:
Bosio, G., I Padri apostolici 2 (Corona Patrum Salesiana, ser graeca 14, Turin 1942) 249-85.
Hennecke, E.,—Ficker, G., in E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (and ed., Tiibingen 1924) 129 f.
Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers (ed. by J. R. Harmer, London 1898) 525-35.
PAPIAS Prey [Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5. 33. 3-4 (§ 4 in Greek: Eusebius, Hist. eccl.
3. 39. 1)] When; too, creation, once made new and liberated, will produce an abundance of food of every kind from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the earth. This is in accord with what presbyters* who saw John, the Lord's disciple, remember having heard from him, namely, what the Lord. taught concerning those times when He said:
2 "A time is coming when vineyards spring up,' each having ten thousand vines, and each vine ten thousand branches, and each branch ten thousand shoots; and on every shoot will be ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape, when pressed, will yield twenty-five measures of wine.* 3 And when anyone of the saints takes hold of one of their clusters, another cluster will cry out: 'I am better. Take me; use me to bless the Lord.'
In like manner a grain of wheat will grow ten thousand heads, and every head will contain ten thousand grains, and every grain will yield ten pounds of clear, pure flour; but the other fruit trees, too, as well as seeds and herbs, will bear in proportions suited to each kind; and all animals, feeding on these products of the earth, will become peaceable and friendly to each other, and be completely subject to man."
Papras
4 To this state of things Papias, too,—a man of the primitive age, a hearer of John and companion of Polycarp—bears written testimony in the fourth of his books; actually, there
™ are five books composed by him.' And then he adds:
5 " These things are believable to believers." And when Judas, the traitor, refused to believe and asked, " How, then, will such growths be brought about by the Lord?" the Lord, he says, replied: "Those will see who will then be living."
Fr, 2 [Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3. 39] Of Papias, five books in all are in circulation. They bear the title Exegesis of the Lord's Gospel.' Irenaeus, too, makes mention of them, suggesting that they were the only works written by him. He says as follows:
" To this state of things, etc."
2 Thus far Irenaeus.
For himself, however, Papias indicates in the preface to his treatises that he was in no way a hearer or eyewitness of the holy Apostles, but had received the matters concerning the faith from their acquaintances. He points this out by the language he uses:
3 "I shall not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, all the information I have ever carefully gathered from the presbyters." I carefully committed it to memory and vouch for its truth. In fact, unlike most people,
I did not care for men who gave the longest accounts,' but for men whose teachings were true; nor yet for men who reported the commandments of others, but for such as related those given by the Lord to be believed and stemming directly from the Truth.' 4 But when someone turned up who had been closely associated with the presbyters, it was the words of the presbyters that I would ascertain:
' What did Andrew
Papias say? What Peter? What Philip? What Thomas or James?
What John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples?' *° [also ascertained ** what Aristion and the presbyter
John, disciples of the Lord, had to say. I simply took for granted that book knowledge * would not help me so much as a living or still surviving voice."
5 Here, by the way, it is worth while to call attention to his twice listing the name of John. The first of the two men he classes with Peter, James, Matthew, and the rest of the Apostles, plainly indicating that he means the Evangelist; then, by breaking the narrative to make room for others, he places the second John ** in a group outside the number of the Apostles, in which he puts him after Aristion and expressly calls him a presbyter. 6 Incidentally, therefore, this device proves the truth of the story of those who have maintained that there were two persons in Asia who bore the same name, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus,** each of which is to this day said to be John's. It is necessary to note this, for it is likely that the second of the two men, unless one should prefer the first, has seen the apocalyptic vision which goes by the name of John. 7 Furthermore, the same Papias of whom we are now speaking, confesses having received the words of the Apostles from persons closely associated with them, but adds that he had been a personal hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At any rate, he often mentions them by name, and in his writings quotes their traditions.
Let this statement of ours not be wasted on the reader.
8 It is worth while, however, to add to Papias's sayings already quoted, other statements of his, in which he recounts some other events of a strange character, purporting to have reached him by tradition. 9 For example: it has been shown earlier in the narrative that Philip the missionary ** lived in
Papras
Hierapolis with his daughters; but it now remains to be told that Papias, who was their contemporary, relates that he had received a marvellous tale from Philip's daughters, namely, the rising of a dead man in his own time, and again another marvellous event in connection with Justus surnamed Barsabas—how he drank a deadly poison and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no untoward consequences.
10 That after the Ascension of the Savior the holy Apostles proposed this Justus together with Matthias and prayed for the choice by lot of the one who was to fill up their number in place of the traitor Judas, is related as follows in the Acts: They proposed two men, Joseph, called Barsabas and surnamed
Justus, and Matthias; and they offered the following prayer.'® 11 The same writer published other accounts purporting to have reached him by an unwritten tradition, as well as some strange parables and teachings of the Savior, and certain other things of a somewhat mythical character.
12 Among these he says that there will be a millennium" after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in material form. I believe that he assumed these things by twisting the Apostolic interpretations without duly considering that the language employed therein was figurative and implied a hidden meaning. 13 He certainly appears to have been a man of very meagre intelligence, as anyone would say that judged him by his own words. For all that, he is also partly responsible for the fact that ever so many ecclesiastical writers after him, on the plea of the man's antiquity, held the same opinion as himself, as, for example, Irenaeus and whoever else has expressed like views.
14 In his work he also hands down the aforesaid Aristion's explanations of the Lord's words and the traditions of the presbyter John, to which we refer those interested in
PAPIAS research. For the moment, however, it must suffice to add to his previously quoted sayings a tradition which he relates regarding Mark, the author of the Gospel, in the following words:
15 " This, too, the presbyter ** said: When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down, though by no means verbatim,"® as much as he accurately remembered of the words and works of the Lord; for he had neither heard the Lord nor been in His company; but he subsequently joined
Peter, as I said. Now, Peter did not intend to give a complete exposition of the Lord's ministry, but delivered his instructions to meet the needs of the moment. It follows, then, that Mark was guilty of no blunder if he wrote, simply to the best of his recollections, an incomplete account. For of one matter he took forethought—not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify the account in any detail."
This account, then, is the result of Papias's inquiries about Mark. 16 Concerning Matthew he has made the following statement:
" Matthew, at any rate, used the Hebrew language *° in his exposition of the Gospel, and each one translated it as best he could."
17 The same writer has availed himself of testimonies from the First Epistle of John and from that of Peter. He has also published another story about a woman who had been accused before the Lord of many transgressions," a story which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. Let this bare minimum be borne in mind by us, in addition to the extracts given.
Papias
ee [Apollinaris of Laodicea, text reconstructed from various sources:
A. Hilgenfeld, " Papias von Hierapolis," Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol.
18 (1875) 262-65] ~ ~ From Apollinaris." Judas did not die by the halter, but, after being taken down, lived on before choking to death.
The Acts of the Apostles makes this plain: After he had fallen head foremost, his belly burst open and his bowels gushed out. Papias, John's disciple, relates this incident more clearly when he says as follows in the fourth book of his
Exegesis of the Lord's Gospel:
2 " Judas's earthly career * was a striking example of impiety. His body bloated to such an extent that, even where a wagon passes with ease, he was not able to pass; no, not even his bloated head by itself could do so. His eyelids, for example, swelled to such dimensions, they say, that neither could he himself see the light at all, nor could his eyes be detected even by a physician's optical instrument: to such depths had they sunk below the outer surface. His private part was larger and presented a more loathsome sight than has ever been witnessed; and through it there oozed from every part of the body a stream of pus and worms to his shame, even as he relieved nature.
3 After suffering an agony of pain and punishment, he finally went, as they express it, to his own place; ** and owing to the stench the ground has been deserted and uninhabited till now; in fact, even to the present day nobody can pass that place without holding his nose.
So abundant was the discharge from his body and so far over the ground did it spread."
PAPIAS Fr. 4
[Andrew of Caesarea, In Apoc. c. 34, serm. 12: PG 106. 325] Papias says verbatim as follows:
" To some of them "— evidently, of the angels who had formerly been holy—" He assigned also the duty of presiding over the orderly arrangement of the earth, and enjoined them to preside well." And next he says:
" And it happened that in the end their charge came to nothing." *° Pres [Andrew of Caesarea, Praef. in Apoc.: PG 106.217 B]
Regarding, however, the divine inspiration of the book (the Apocalypse of John), we think it a waste of time to spin out the discussion any further, since those blessed men,
Gregory the Theologian, I mean, and Cyril," and in addition Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus—all of them men of the older generation—bear additional testimony to its trustworthiness.
Fr. 6
[Anastasius of Sinai, Anagog. contempl. in Hexaém. 1: J. B. Pitra, Anal. sacra 2 (1884) 160] We take occasion from statements made by the excellent
Papias of Hierapolis, the disciple of (the Lord's) bosom friend," by Clement, by Pantaenus the Alexandrian priest, and by the most learned Ammonius *"—those ancient and preconciliar exegetes,"* who understood the whole of the Hexaémeron as an allegory referring to Christ and the Church.
Paprias I21 rr 7 [Anastasius of Sinai, Anagog. contempl. in Hexaém. 7: PG 89.961 D] The older of the ecclesiastical exegetes, therefore—I mean, of course, Philo the philosopher and contemporary of the Apostles, and the famous Papias of Hierapolis, the disciple of John the Evangelist .
. and their associates, interpreted the story of Paradise allegorically with reference to the Church of Christ.*° Fr. 8
[Maximus Confessor, Schol. in Dionys. Areop. De caelesti hierarchia
2: PG 4. 48 D]
Those who practice Godlike guilelessness ** were called by them "children," as also Papias shows in the first book of his Exegesis of the Lord's Gospel, as well as Clement in his Pedagogue."
Fr. 9
[Maximus Confessor, Schol. in Dionys. Areop. De ecclesiastica hierarchia 7: PG 4. 176 C]
This he says, vaguely referring, I think, to Papias, who was then bishop of Asia and flourished at the same time with the divine Evangelist John. This Papias spoke, in the fourth book of his the Lord's Gospel, of the pleasures derived from the enjoyment of foods in the Risen Life, .
. and Irenaeus of Lyons says the same thing in the fifth book of his Against Heresies and cites the afore-mentioned Papias as witness to his statements.*°
i22 Papt1as Fr. 10
[Stephen Gobarus, cited by Photius, Biblioth. cod. 232: PG 103.
1104 A] Nevertheless, Stephen approves neither of Papias of Hierapolis, bishop and martyr, nor of Irenaeus, the holy bishop of Lyons, in the passages where they say that " the kingdom of heaven " means the enjoyment of certain material foods.™*
Fr. 11
[Philip of Side, Hist. Christ.: C. de Boor, Texte und Untersuchungen 5.2 (1888) 170] Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, a disciple of John the theologian * and friend of Polycarp, wrote The Lord's Gospel in five books. There he gave a list of Apostles and, after enumerating Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, recorded as " disciples of the Lord" Aristion and another John, whom he also called " presbyter." * As a result, some believe that <this> John is the author of the two short Catholic Epistles, which circulate under the name of John, their reason being that the men of the primitive age accept the First Epistle only. Some have also erroneously believed the Apocalypse to be this man's work. Papias, too, is in error about the Millennium, and so is, in consequence,
Irenaeus.
2 Papias says in the second book that John the Evangelist and his brother James were slain by the Jews."
The aforesaid Papias related, alleging as his source of information the daughters of Philip, that Barsabas, the same Justus that passed the scrutiny, was forced by the unbelievers to drink snake poison, but was in the name of Christ preserved unharmed. He relates still other marvellous events, in par-
Papas
ticular the rising of Manaemus's mother from the dead."
Regarding those who were raised from the dead by Christ, he says that they survived till Hadrian's time.
Z7¥Fr. 12
[Georgius Hamartolus, Chronicon (cod. Coisl. 305):
H. Nolte, Theol. Quartalschr. 44 (1862) 466 f.] After Domitian, Nerva was emperor for one year. He recalled John from the island "*° and left him free to settle in Ephesus. He was then the only survivor of the twelve disciples, and, after composing the Gospel named after him, received the honor of martyrdom. 2 For Papias,"* bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen John with his own eyes, says in the second book of The Lord's Gospel that he was slain by Jews. Thus, together with his brother, he evidently made good Christ's prediction concerning them, as well as their own confession and assent regarding this matter. For when the Lord had said to them, Can you drink the cup which I have to drink? they eagerly assented and agreed to it, and He continued: You will drink the cup which I have to drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which I have to be baptized." And this is very plausible, since it is impossible for God to utter a falsehood. 3 The learned Origen," too, vouches for the truth of this account in his interpretation of the Gospel according to Matthew, intimating that he had this information from the successors of the Apostles. And furthermore, the well-informed Eusebius says in his Ecclesiastical
History: "* "Thomas was allotted Parthia, while John received Asia as his share, among whose people he spent and ended his life at Ephesus," a.
PAPIAS brs [Vatican Codex Alexandrinus 14: J. B. Pitra, Anal. sacra 2 (1884) 160] Here begins the discussion of the Gospel according to John.
John's Gospel was made public and given to the Churches by John while he was still in the flesh. An inhabitant of .
Hierapolis by the name of Papias, John's beloved disciple, has stated as much in the exoteric,** that is, the last, portions of his five books. 2 [He made a correct copy of the Gospel at the dictation of John. Of course, the heretic Marcion, who had been censured by John on the ground of different doctrine, was rejected by him.** He had delivered to him writings or epistles from the brethren who lived in the Pontus.]
as Oe ERS ae ere -