Appendix 1: Eusebius’s Marginalization of Papias
Appendix 1
Eusebius’s Marginalization of Papias
Introduction
A segment of New Testament scholarship in America has for more than a century based much of its conclusions regarding the first-century church and the origins of its literature on theories that have been criticized as being based on a philosophy of religion rather than the historical data.1 It now appears that within the last couple of decades some outside of American Evangelicalism are seriously considering these criticisms; one example of such consideration is Richard Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. A significant reason for the questionable presuppositions of some New Testament scholars regarding the origins of the New Testament is the lack of surviving literature immediately following the apostolic period. Time, persecutions, and ecclesiastical politics have unfortunately taken their toll on literature from this period, the result being that much of this material is no longer extant. One particular victim of these attacks is material from Papias the bishop of Hierapolis. Because Papias’s work is no longer extant he is often misunderstood. This misunderstanding can be largely attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the lack of critical investigation concerning his interpretation of Papias and other Papian material. The purpose of this appendix is to demonstrate that since there are serious flaws in Eusebius’s method, as well as theological bias on his part, then he should not be consider a credible witness to understanding Papias and his meanings. Consequently, he should not be uncritically followed with respect to interpreting Papias and his possible value as a witness to the apostles and their times.
Eusebius’s Value
Eusebius is without question an invaluable resource for gaining access to the historical events of the church and the Roman Empire from the time of Jesus of Nazareth to the end of the Diocletian persecutions. This appendix, therefore, should not be understood as an attempt to completely repudiate Eusebius as a valuable resource regarding the first three centuries of the church’s existence. He is indispensable because he documents events that occurred before his lifetime, and for gaining insights into how some in the church in his day interpreted those events. Fredrick John Foakes-Jackson wrote regarding Eusebius’s value that “This pioneer in our subject possessed two indispensable qualifications, an indefatigable power of research and an excellent library. He can be censured for his opinions, and criticised [sic] for his style, nevertheless, the Christian Church owes him a debt which can hardly be exaggerated; for without him its rise and progress could never be properly known, and many of his predecessors have been rescued from complete oblivion, to enjoy a fame to which their lives and writings had justly entitled them.”2
Similarly, William Bright wrote, “No reader of his history can ignore this: and no Christian ought to name him without cordially recognizing it in conjunction with his energy and industry in performance of an arduous and sacred task. These are merits which, in spite of literary defects, theological errors, and personal faults, have secured to Eusebius of Caesarea a high place among the great benefactors of Christendom—among the great benefactors of mankind.”3 It can hardly be overemphasized, therefore, that although Eusebius had questionable methods and at times biased perspectives, nevertheless, he is an important resource for understanding the history of the early church and its impact upon the Roman Empire.
Eusebius’s work is especially valuable in at least three important areas. First, he is important because if it had not been for him a significant amount of important historical material would not have survived to our time. Second, he exemplifies theologies that were commonly propagated by a segment of the church in his time. Finally, he is an example of the scholarship of his time. As Robert Grant has stated, “Eusebius’s work is important not just because of the documents he used but because of the ways in which he used them. These ways illuminate the history of the Christian Church in one of its most important transitions, a transition in which Eusebius himself played a prominent role.”4 Consequently, even though one may criticize Eusebius’s approach to his subject matter or how he employed and interpreted his materials, such weaknesses should not negatively affect his overall contribution to the church and students of history. Simply put, scholars both great and small occasionally make errors, and it would be unjust, not to mention ridiculous, if their peers judged them as completely unqualified because of such mistakes. What is true today, therefore, is equally true for Eusebius. With this in mind, I now turn to some of Eusebius’s observable weaknesses.
Eusebius’s Weaknesses
That Eusebius was at times biased in his interpretations of the events of his time or his treatment of his subject matter is not a secret to students of historiography. Norman F. Cantor and Richard I. Schneider, in their book How to Study History, used Eusebius as an example of the problems associated with researching “contemporary formal histories.”5 These authors employed Eusebius not as an example of inaccuracy with regard to the reporting historical events, but as an example of an author who portrayed his interpretation of the significance of those events as “truth” or “reality.” Cantor and Schneider implied in their discussion of Eusebius that he would be an extremely valuable source of information concerning events that occurred within the church during Constantine’s rise to power. Eusebius’s interpretation of the church’s history, however, should be critically evaluated and not necessarily perceived as accurate or truthful. Cantor and Schneider wrote concerning to the use of contemporaneous histories such as Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History that “Because of the contrived and conscious nature of treatises and contemporary histories, the student will be on his guard against accepting any statements at face value in these formal sources. He will look for implicit assumptions, hidden conflicts, and ulterior motives . . . you must avoid the temptation to engage in a simple literal-minded acceptance of the statements in this kind of material. Here too, you must consider the values and assumptions of the author. . . .”6 Even though the hazards regarding Eusebius’s interpretation of history have been transparently apparent to historians, they have not always been correctly recognized by New Testament scholars. Many of them, as well as some patristic scholars, have at times have relied too heavily upon Eusebius’s interpretation of Papias and his relevance to the history of the early church.7 This is a mistake because it assumes more about Eusebius’s use of Papias than is defendable.
One reason why scholars should be cautious in depending heavily upon Eusebius is that he is known to have used redacted material or to have misquoted his sources. An example of this type of error by Eusebius is observable in his Ecclesiastical History I.XI.6, in which he employed a text from Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews. Kirsopp Lake, regarding Eusebius’s quote of Josephus, observed that he modified Josephus’s text, the impact of which is that Josephus’s meaning has been “slightly altered.”8 John R. Frank stated on the subject of Eusebius’s freedom with his sources that
Another shortcoming of the work is found in Eusebius’ handling of his sources. A careful comparison of his History with the documents used as sources discloses several problems. When Eusebius paraphrases, he freely rewrites passages so as to alter the emphasis of the original. When he quotes extant writers directly, he often truncates the source and in many ways alters the meaning. Over fifty quotations, other than citations of Scripture, have been mutilated. In at least thirty-five instances the mutilation obscures the sense of the passage cited. One might also assume that citations from lost documents have been similarly mutilated or altered. In addition, Eusebius sometimes unknowingly used forged or altered documents, as when he failed to detect Christian interpolations in Josephus. Hence, although the History contains a wide range of important material, it cannot be taken at face value and must be studied critically.9
Frank’s exhortation to exercise caution with respect to Eusebius’s employment of lost material is especially apt concerning Eusebius’s handling of Papias since the vast majority of his writings are lost.
Not only are there examples of Eusebius using redacted sources, whether intentionally or unintentionally, there were also times that he employed unverifiable sources.10 This is especially true regarding his position that Papias was personally unfamiliar with the apostle John. Eusebius, in order to buttress his position, provided an “external source” that in his mind “proved” that there were two different “Johns” in Asia. His conclusion was “So that [Papias] hereby also proves their statement to be true who have said that two persons in Asia have borne the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which is still to this day said to be John’s.”11 And what was Eusebius’s source for this assertion? It appears to be Dionysius of Alexandria, an anti-chiliast author with whom Eusebius was quite familiar, which is observable by his extensive quotations of Dionysius in Ecclesiastical History VII.24–26.12 The context of Eusebius’s quote of Dionysius in book VII is Dionysius’s debate about the proper hermeneutical approach to the book of Revelation (a book that Dionysius did not “reject”) and its possible association with the heretic Cerinthus.13
Dionysius, in order to distance the book of Revelation from apostolic authorship, discussed both internal and external evidence concerning it, and concluded that it should be attributed to someone else rather than to the apostle John. Some of Dionysius’s arguments are weighty while others are not. After Dionysius’s discussion of John Mark as a possible author, Eusebius quoted Dionysius as stating, “But I think that there was a certain other John among those that were in Asia, since it is said both that there were two tombs at Ephesus, and that each of the two is said to be John’s.”14 It should be noted that Dionysius did not state that there was verifiable evidence that there were two Johns, but rather that he was basing his argument on nothing more than his own conjecture. Eusebius quoted Dionysius as having stated, “But I think . . .” and not “I know that there were two Johns because. . . .” And what did Dionysius provide to warrant his conjecture? He supplied only hearsay evidence from an unknown source or sources that there were apparently two tombs in Ephesus. What is more confusing is that Dionysius’s unnamed source(s) claimed that each of these two tombs was supposed to be the tomb of the apostle John—that is, not belonging to two different Johns who were both leaders in the church at Ephesus, but rather that both tombs were thought to be that of the John who was a son of Zebedee and one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus. It is ironic that not only was Dionysius vague about the identity of his source, but also that his source could only confirm confusion about which tomb was actually occupied by the apostle John the beloved disciple of Jesus. It is this confusion about the tomb of the apostle John that led Dionysius to conjecture that there were two different Johns in Ephesus.
Armed with Dionysius’s conjecture, Eusebius apparently felt the freedom to conjecture additionally that Papias was not an associate of the apostle John, but rather that he knew a different John, a conclusion that he argued was conclusively proven by Papias’s own preface.15 Such conjectures would not be tolerated in a court of law, nor would they be accepted by most reasonable historians, and they should not be given credence by New Testament scholars. Nevertheless, to a significant degree these very conjectures have provided a hearing to the theory that there were two different Johns functioning as leaders among the churches at Ephesus during the transition from the first to second century.16
What makes Eusebius’s conclusions especially egregious is his willingness to accept Dionysius’s conjecture in spite of Irenaeus’s contemporaneous witness to Papias and his writings. Dionysius was not born until the beginning of the third century (ca. 200), approximately forty-five years after the death of Polycarp. Irenaeus on the other hand was a disciple of Polycarp who was himself a “hearer” of the apostle John. Eusebius did affirm that Papias was a “contemporary” of Polycarp (see Ecc. Hist. III.36.1). He also provided evidence that Irenaeus lived during the later part of Papias’s life. Some scholars, however, have preferred Eusebius’s acceptance of Dionysius’s unsubstantiated conjecture and have chosen to marginalize Irenaeus’s memories as the vague recollections of a “child.”17 Irenaeus, however, in his letter to Florinus was adamant that his memories of Polycarp and his times were anything but the vague recollections of a small child but rather that of a diligent student—a claim that Eusebius was well aware of and incorporated in his own Ecclesiastical History.18 Eusebius himself referred to Irenaeus as a hearer of Polycarp in his “early youth.”19 The salient point for this appendix is that Irenaeus is either a better witness to Papian material than Dionysius and Eusebius, or he is at least their equal since he claimed to be familiar with Papias and his writings—which again is a point that Eusebius was aware of and chose to ignore (Ecc. Hist. III.39.1-2). Regarding the value of Irenaeus’s witness to Papias and his writings, Chapman concluded that “St. Irenaeus not only was acquainted with the work of Papias, but looked upon it as a fountain-head of apostolical [sic] tradition and of theological wisdom. He was certainly more familiar with it than was Eusebius, who despised it. His evidence is, therefore, from this point of view alone, at least equally important with that of Eusebius.”20
Another weakness of Eusebius was his tendency to castigate those who did not share his own theological biases.21 This weakness is magnified when confronted with reality that theology was not a particular strength of Eusebius. Consequently, he was often unjustifiably prejudicial towards those that found themselves on the wrong side of the aisle with respect to his personal theological convictions. It should not be forgotten that Eusebius not only defended and aggressively politicked for Arius,22 but that he also lobbied to dispose Athanasius of Alexandria. It was Eusebius’s inability to appreciate the theological import of Arius’s Christology and its impact upon the apostolic faith as revealed in the Scriptures that caused the synod of Antioch to provisionally excommunicate Eusebius in January 325. Consequently, because of the synod’s actions at Antioch, Eusebius had to defend himself at Nicea, and ultimately, albeit begrudgingly, affirm his support for what is now known as the Nicene Creed. Whether Eusebius was truly Arian one can only speculate, but as McGiffert has written, “It is a useless endeavor to clear Eusebius of all sympathy with and leaning toward Arianism.”23
An example of Eusebius’s prejudicial marginalization of someone who did not share his theological views is obvious in his treatment of Papias. Eusebius wrote in Ecclesiastical History that Papias “was a man of very little intelligence as is clear from his books.”24 What proof did Eusebius offer for Papias’s apparent lack of intellectual acumen? Primarily it was Papias’s convictions regarding a literal physical millennial kingdom rather than any apparent lack of grammar, vocabulary, or writing skills.25 Nevertheless, that Papias was literate and wrote a five-volume work that influenced men such as Irenaeus argues against him being a man of average intelligence. Ironically, modern scholars are generally sensitive to the inappropriate castigation of others for the sake of productive dialogue and healthy academic debate. Many scholars, however, for unknown reasons completely ignore Eusebius’s lack of objective treatment and demonstrable marginalization of Papias. They instead assume that his treatment of Papias is entirely trustworthy, as was the case with A. C. Perumalil, who wrote, “There is no reason to doubt the truth of the statement of Eusebius on Papias’ relation with the apostles.”26 Such uncritical acceptance of Eusebius’s commentary concerning Papias and what he meant, as well as his possible associations with certain apostles is not well defended. If, for example, I questioned another scholar’s intelligence on the basis that he or she was theologically “Arminian,” it is very likely that I would receive rebukes from my peers, and rightfully so. Many scholars, however, do not pause when confronted by Eusebius’s assessment of Papias; instead, they appear to take Eusebius at his word, concluding that he is the most reliable source for understanding Papias and his writings.
Consequently, Eusebius’s lack of objectivity while handling some of his sources is a glaring weakness of his Ecclesiastical History. Regarding this weakness, Doron Mendels wrote, “He was not an objective writer; indeed, objectivity does not appear to have been high on his list of priorities. Eusebius himself seems, unlike Thucydides, not even to have attempted to write an objective narrative.”27 Mendels later detailed why he assessed Eusebius so harshly, stating that “media scholars evaluate the sensationalism vs. impartiality factor by applying two subcriteria [sic], ‘balance’ and ‘neutrality.’ On both these counts, Eusebius would fail the test.”28 This is not to say that Eusebius did not think of himself as objective. Given the events that had transpired before his very own eyes, his commitment to Christianity, and his theological perspective, Eusebius probably felt he was completely objective while dealing with his sources, as well as accurate in his interpretation of their significance. Modern scholars, however, should not have this same confidence when dealing with certain topics that Eusebius addressed.
Finally, in order to appreciate why Eusebius felt justified in his handling of Papias it is important to discuss a significant purpose and weakness of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius’s approach to his “historical treatise” was not purely academic; it also possessed an apologetic aspect as well. McGiffert wrote concerning Eusebius’s apologetic purpose that
The reasons which led him to undertake its composition seem to have been both scientific and apologetic. He lived, and he must have realized the fact, at the opening of a new age in the history of the Church. He believed, as he frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had come to an end, and that the Church was now about entering upon a new era of prosperity. He must have seen that it was a peculiarly fitting time to put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had taken place within the Church during the generations that were past, to sum up in one narrative all the trials and triumphs which had now emerged in this final and greatest triumph, which he was witnessing. He wrote, as any historian of the present day would write, for the information and instruction of his contemporaries and of those who should come after, and yet there was in his mind all the time the apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of Christianity as a proof on its divine origin and efficacy.29
Eusebius made it clear in his preface that his purpose was not simply to record but also to interpret and convince (Ecc. Hist. I.1.1–3). An example of Eusebius’s apologetic purpose is observable in his statement, “To this I will add the fate which has beset the whole nation of the Jews from the moment of their plot against the divine word.”30 Eusebius was of the opinion that everything that the nation of Israel had experienced under Roman oppression was directly from the hand of God as punishment for their betrayal of the savior, and he contended for this position throughout Ecclesiastical History. The demise of Israel, however, did not mean the demise of God’s people, for in Ecclesiastical History Eusebius portrays the church as ever advancing in victory under the superintendence of God. He was, in the words of Bovon, “a theologian of salvation history, rather than of history as such.”31 Eusebius, therefore, in Ecclesiastical History ultimately attempted to convince his audience that the kingdom of God had finally come to earth as promised in the Scriptures, and it had literally come in a real and tangible way through the reign of his great advocate Constantine the Great.
Eusebius was, in a very real sense, the first theologian to propagate a “now not yet” eschatology within the context of complete political victory. Eusebius actually witnessed the transition of the Roman Empire from a pagan institution that mercilessly sought to eradicate Christians and their faith to a kingdom whose emperor proclaimed allegiance to the Lord of lords. Bovon aptly described Eusebius’s perspective on the significance of Constantine’s ascension as “The ‘already and not yet’ of the New Testament thus finds itself again in Eusebius. . . . [The] Christian faith is in the process of visibly conquering the world; already the kingdom of God is partly manifest in plain sight.”32 What was once a distant eschatological hope for Eusebius was suddenly an “objective” reality, and all that he had been taught through the allegorical hermeneutic of the Alexandrian school about the deeper meanings of eschatological prophecies was now daily being clearly displayed before his very eyes.
It is not in the purview of this appendix to recount Eusebius’s employment of biblical imagery of Constantine as a Christ-like type of hero for the faith, or the eschatological promises that he believed were fulfilled in Constantine’s “Christian” empire. Let it be sufficient for the moment to state that with Constantine’s ascension to the throne of the Roman Empire that nothing appeared on the horizon to indicate to Eusebius that he should vigilantly await the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Regarding Eusebius’s lack of concern for the literal return of Christ, Bovon wrote, “His indifference toward a future-oriented eschatology draws attention to the small role the second coming plays in his thought, to his negative disposition toward the book of Revelation, and to his hatred of millenarianism.”33 Barnes wrote in a similar vein that “The idea that a different John wrote Revelation derived from Dionysius of Alexandria, whose arguments against the traditional attribution to the apostle Eusebius quotes at some length. The cause of Eusebius’ unease can readily be diagnosed. Revelation breathes an atmosphere of persecution, with an oppressed minority in a hostile world hoping for a glorious vindication in heaven; Eusebius believed that God intended his Church to prosper on earth.”34 Given his Alexandrian pedigree and his anti-literal eschatology, it is not surprising that Papias suffered poor reviews from Eusebius. This is not to argue that Papias did not deserve some of these criticisms, for if students will survey the surviving Papian material it is more than likely that they will sense the need to lift an eyebrow. That being said, however, Eusebius should not be excused for his poor treatment of Papias and his witness to the close of the apostolic period.
A proper understanding of who Papias was for many scholars often appears to be settled by whether they find Irenaeus or Eusebius more convincing. If one believes that this issue can only be settled by ferreting out the possibilities based upon the statements of these two patristic figures then one may feel a degree of confidence in agreeing with one or the other. The truth is, however, that these two are not the only witnesses to Papias and his writings, although this often appears to be the case as one surveys literature that addresses the apostolic fathers and the origins of books in the New Testament. Since Irenaeus and Eusebius provide conflicting statements about Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, the principle of multiple attestations should play an important role in deciding who was correct about Papias and his witness to the apostolic period. Such evidence can be found in other Papian fragments.
A survey of this material reveals that there are at least fourteen different fragments from known authors and two anonymous sources that associate Papias with the apostle John. Given the previous analysis of the Papian fragments provided throughout this book and in this appendix only a few of the more important witnesses will be addressed at this point. The first witness to be discussed that associates Papias with the apostle John is Eusebius himself. In his Chronicle Eusebius wrote that Papias was a “hearer” of the apostle John. Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius reads roughly as follows, “John, the apostle, all the way to Trajan’s time, Irenaeus the most excellent bishop writes. Afterwards of whom his hearers became famous, Papias the bishop of Hierapolis and Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch.”35 It is interesting to note that Papias was listed as a “hearer” of the apostle John before Polycarp. Robert Grant questions whether this reference to Papias reflects Eusebius’s view of Papias or Jerome’s view, implying that Jerome inserted his own opinion regarding Papias while translating Eusebius’s work into Latin.36 Grant’s argument was not based on any textual variants but on Jerome’s descriptions of Papias in his treatise, De viris illustribus (hereafter, Illustrious Men). Grant, in order to support his conjecture, observed that in Illustrious Men Jerome only referred to Papias as “a Iohannis auditor—of the presbyter, not the apostle . . . and only Polycarp is Iohannis apostoli disciple.”37
It should not be ignored, however, that the descriptions of Polycarp and Papias are found in separate chapters of Illustrious Men, and nowhere does Jerome indicate that he intended to compare Papias’s and Polycarp’s relationship with the apostle John. Clearly, therefore, Grant has taken Jerome’s descriptions of the two out of their original context and has assigned to them meanings that Jerome never intended. Additionally, Grant failed to address the significance of Jerome’s description of Papias in his letter to Theodora, in which he described Papias as “the hearer of evangelist John.”38 Jerome’s description of Papias in Latin is: “et Papiæ, auditoris Evangelistæ Johannis.”39 Consequently it is clear that Jerome at one time believed that Papias was a “hearer” of the author of the Gospel of John.
Regarding Grant’s proposal that Jerome may have felt the freedom to redact Eusebius’s work, Alden Mosshammer has done an extensive study regarding the textual history of Jerome’s translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle, and concluded that:
For antiquity and continuity alone, the early manuscript tradition of Jerome has a strong claim to authentic representation of the original format of the Chronicle of Eusebius. Although Jerome did augment the text by entering some additional historical notices drawn from Latin authors, he gives no indication that he made any significant changes in the format of the original. On the contrary, he says that apart from his additions to the historical text he carried out the duties of the translator as faithfully as possible. . . . [To] preserve with great care the format and relative spacing of the original tables. Not only are significant changes unlikely, but there is also much in the organization of the tables as preserved in the oldest manuscript that answer directly to Eusebius’ chronographic purposes and much that suggests that it derives from Greek, rather than Latin, predilection.40
Given the absence of substantial evidence that Jerome significantly redacted Eusebius’s Greek portion of his Chronicle, it appears safe to conclude that the reference to Papias in Chronicle is authentic to Eusebius’s original composition. The question arises, however, why would Eusebius describe Papias as a hearer to the apostle John and then later defame Papias and reject him as John’s student? Ironically the most reasonable explanation may have been provided by Grant, who in his book Eusebius as Church Historian argued that
Beyond this, we must note that according to Irenaeus, cited in III.39.1, Papias was definitely a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp and an “ancient man.” This, as we have just seen, was the view of Papias which Eusebius accepted when he wrote his Chronicle. The link between Papias and John, author [of sic] the Apocalypse, was important for all who valued the literal interpretation of apocalyptic eschatology. Irenaeus was one of such enthusiasts. At one time Eusebius was another. . . . Eusebius changed his mind about the work and traces of the change are present in Book III of the Church History.41
It appears, therefore, that between the first edition of Eusebius’s Chronicle and his final edition of his Church History one can find evidence of development within Eusebius regarding Papias’s value as a witness to the apostolic period. If one chooses to disregard Eusebius’s conflicting attestations of Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, this would still leave Irenaeus and Jerome as witnesses to Papias’s relationship to the beloved disciple.
The last source to be discussed concerning Papias’s relationship to the apostle John is that of Philip of Side and his work Church History. What makes Philip an important witness to Papias and what he meant is that he was familiar with Eusebius’s conclusion about Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, as well as Papias’s five-volume work. Philip wrote regarding Papias that
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Theologian and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books on the sayings of the Lord. In them he made a list of apostles, and after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, he included among disciples of the Lord Aristion and another John, whom he also called “the Elder.” So, some think that this John is the author of the two short catholic epistles which circulate under the name John, because the men of the earliest period accept only the first epistle. And some have mistakenly thought that the Apocalypse was also his. . . . Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews.42
The salient observation from Philip’s quote of Papias is that although he was aware of Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias’s preface and his conclusion that Papias knew of a second John who Eusebius referred to as “the Elder,” Philip disagreed with Eusebius’s conclusion that Papias was not a disciple of the apostle John. What would lead Philip to such a conclusion? It is very possible that he came to this conclusion by his own study of Papias’s writings. Other Papian fragments also suggest that Papias indicated in his five-volume work that he knew the apostle John.43 As previously discussed, Philip is not the only early church writer whom came to this same conclusion, there are over a dozen other similar references that provide multiple attestations that Papias knew the apostle John and was a witness to the late apostolic period. In fact, as one surveys all of the Papian fragments it becomes obvious that Eusebius is in the minority regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. Given this data and the glaring bias that Eusebius displayed in his treatment of Papias, it is a wonder that anyone considers him a credible source with respect to Papias and his value as a witness of the church’s history in the last quarter of the first century.
Some Concluding Recommendations
Faced with demonstrable evidence of Eusebius’s weaknesses in his method and his biases for his own theological perspectives, and the fact that his treatment of Papias objectively displays these flaws, a few recommendations are justified. First, New Testament and patristic scholars should not uncritically rely upon Eusebius and his exegesis as providing the correct understanding of what Papias meant. Regarding Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias, James A. Kleist and Johannes Munck have aptly demonstrated that his interpretation of Papias was at least questionable if not certainly flawed.44 Secondly, New Testament and patristic scholars should not assume that Eusebius is the sole witness of Papian material. Thirdly, scholarship in both fields should consider the very real possibility that Eusebius’s opinion of Papias was not constant but changed as he wrote throughout the period of the church’s transition from an oppressed illegal religion to a protected institution of the state, which for Eusebius was a period that spanned decades. Fourthly, New Testament scholarship should remember that Eusebius was theologically biased and politically committed to an eschatology that no longer saw a need for Papias’s brand of chiliasm, but instead attempted to apply a “now more than ever” realized eschatology based upon a belief that the kingdom of God had come to earth through the reign of Constantine. Eusebius’s association and loyalty to Constantine can hardly be questioned. This loyalty wedded to Eusebius’s eschatology is but one of the reasons that led Eusebius to unjustly marginalize Papias and his witness to the apostolic period. We cannot afford, therefore, to assume Eusebius was simply an unbiased historian. Fifthly, scholarship should not assume that Eusebius was completely familiar with all of Papias’s writings. It should be noted that Eusebius quoted predominately from Papias’s preface, and reported only a few other smaller passages that contained the more spectacular events recorded in Papias’s writings. If one surveys the whole of the Papian fragments, one will discover other citations of Papias’s five-volume work that clearly contradict Eusebius’s conclusions. It is possible, therefore, that Eusebius did not closely examine the whole of Papias’s work, or that he had not even read it in its entirety. As many a professor and student can attest, Eusebius would not be the first scholar who missed a nugget of important information that was critical to his thesis simply because he failed to examine closely or to have completely read a source that he had already concluded was marginal.
In conclusion, regarding Eusebius’s value McGiffert has appropriately written,
The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful that there lived at the opening of the fourth century a man who, with his life spanning one of the greatest epochs that has occurred in the history of the Church, with an intimate experimental knowledge of the old and of the new condition of things, was able to conceive so grand a plan and possessed the means and the ability to carry it out. Had he written nothing else, Eusebius’ Church History would have made him immortal; for if immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting services, few possess a clearer title to it than the author of that work.45
Although this appendix has been rather blunt in its criticism of Eusebius, the fact remains that his service to the church will endure long after the echoes of his critics have subsided, and rightfully so. Nevertheless, New Testament and patristic scholarship should be reminded of William Bright’s insightful analogy, especially in the case of Eusebius’s handling of Papias, that Eusebius is the frame that contains the masterpiece, which we call the history of the early church—he is not the picture.46 Consequently, when researching Papias and his writings, limited as they are, Eusebius should not be viewed as the definitive resource for correctly interpreting Papias, or understanding his value as a witness to the church’s history at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century.
1. For examples of evangelical scholars that have competently addressed the Tübingen School and other similar approaches to the origins of the church and its early literature see Stein, Synoptic Gospels; Carson and Moo, An Introduction; Warfield, Inspiration and Authority.
2. Foakes-Jackson, Church History, 56.
3. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. ed. Bright, l.
4. Grant, Eusebius, 164.
5. Cantor and Schneider, Study History, 59.
6. Ibid., 62–63.
7. Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 233–35; Kümmel, Introduction, 241–44; Metzger, The Canon, 53–56. These citations are not referenced because these authors are right or wrong regarding their opinions about Papias; they are provided only as examples of scholars who discussed Papias while relying heavily upon Eusebius. In many instances, scholars attempt to debate Eusebius by employing only Eusebius. By doing so modern scholars fall right into Eusebius’s hands, and as a result they are no longer debating Papias’s significance on a level playing field.
8. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. I.11.4–9 (LCL 153: 81). For the significance of this redaction see Lake’s note 1, which begins on page 80.
9. Franke, “Eusebius of Caesarea,” 72. For examples of some of these infractions by Eusebius, as well as other errors, see William Bright’s introductory remarks to Eusebius, Ecc. Hist., xlvii–l.
10. Although McGiffert’s praise of Eusebius regarding his discrimination of “reliable and unreliable sources” has its merits, the fact remains that at times—as McGiffert admits—Eusebius chose poorly with respect to his use of certain sources. Eusebius’s writings, therefore, as with any other historical document should be confirmed by the principle of multiple attestations. For the entirety of McGiffert’s comments see his “Prolegomena” in Eusebius Church History (NPNF2 1:48–49).
11. Stevenson, Eusebius, 50–51.
12. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 140.
13. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 466.
14. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. VII.25.16 (LCL 265:202). In the Greek the name “John” is in the singular (καὶ ἐκάτερον Ἰωάννου). This is true in both Eusebius’s quote of Dionysius, and in Eusebius’s conjecture found in his discussion about Papias.
15. Gundry, Older Is Better, 58. Gundry argued that Eusebius was the first to make the unwarranted distinction between Papias’s apostle John and the character commonly referred to as “John the elder.”
16. Culpepper, John, 241–43.
17. Kümmel, Introduction, 241.
18. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. V.20.4-8 (LCL 153: 497-99).
19. Ibid., V.5.6 (LCL 153:448). The Greek term is “νέαν ἡλικίαν.” On the different uses of ἡλικία that referred to maturity beyond that of a mere child see Luke 2.52; John 9.21; and Eph 4.13.
20. Chapman, John the Presbyter, 41.
21. Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2:29.
22. Arius became a leading proponent for the theological position that Jesus the Son of God was not co-eternal with God the Father. This position is commonly referred to as “Arianism.” For the origins of this heresy and Arius’s relationship to it see González, The Story of Christianity, 1:158–67.
23. McGiffert’s “Prolegomena” in Eusebius Church History (NPNF2 1:13).
24. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.13 (LCL 153:297).
25. Altaner, Patrology, 113.
26. Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 333.
27. Mendels, The Media Revolution, 19. While there are problems with Mendel’s methods and conclusion; nevertheless, he is qualified to assess whether Eusebius was an objective writer and historian.
28. Ibid., 25.
29. McGiffert’s “Prolegomena” in Eusebius Church History (NPNF2 1:46).
30. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. I.1.2 (LCL 153:7).
31. Bovon, Early Christianity, 273.
32. Ibid., 278–79.
33. Ibid., 281–82.
34. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 140.
35. Eusebii Pamphili Chronici, 275–76. The text in Latin appears as follows: “Johannem apostolum usque ad Traiani tempora Hireneus episcopus permansisse scribit, post quem auditores eius insignes fuerunt Papias Hierapolitanus episcopus et Polycarpus Zmyrnaeus et Ignatius Antiochenus.”
36. Grant, “Papias in Eusebius,” 210.
37. Ibid.
38. Jerome Letter 75: To Theodora (NPNF2 6:156).
39. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 748.
40. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 67–68.
41. Grant, Eusebius, 131.
42. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 571–73. There are questions regarding the authorship of this fragment. For a more thorough discussion concerning this issue see the analysis of fragment 11 in this book.
43. Ibid., 584–85, see fragments 19 and 20.
44. Kleist, Papias, 105–13; Munck, “Presbyters,” 236–37.
45. McGiffert’s “Prolegomena” in Eusebius Church History (NPNF2 1:46).
46. Bright’s introduction in Eusebius Ecc. Hist., ed. Bright, l.