Chpater 1: Introduction
1
Introduction
The Need for Research
François Bovon suggested, “As the dividing line between Urchristentum and ancient Christianity becomes more and more artificial, New Testament scholarship and the discipline of patristics must join hands.”1 In theory his exhortation is commendable; however, it is unlikely that such a colloquium would bring a significant agreement or clarity to either field simply due to the diversity of approaches and presuppositions within each discipline. Nevertheless, this book is a modest attempt towards Bovon’s bold suggestion. A survey of New Testament and patristic studies concerning the origins of the apostolic writings finds a particular individual repeatedly referenced—he is Papias, an early second-century bishop of Hierapolis. Few if any patristic figures are quoted and/or marginalized as often as Papias, especially with the advent of “higher” critical scholarship. What makes this marginalization so intriguing is that very little can be objectively known about him and his work, yet he demands the attention of any scholar who desires to understand the origins of the New Testament.2
This book researches Papias and what his surviving literary fragments communicate about the apostolic writings, as well as what other patristic and medieval authors understood about him and what he meant concerning the origins of certain books of the New Testament. Its thesis is that the surviving “Fragments of Papias”3 are a valuable resource because they document that some of the New Testament writings originated from some of the original followers of Jesus Christ (i.e., the apostles). Regarding the importance of this thesis with respect to the Papian fragments, Clayton Jefford wrote,
Undoubtedly the most important materials from the witness of Papias related to reminiscences concerning the development of New Testament literature. It was Papias, for example, who preserved the tradition that Mark made note of the recollections of the apostle Peter as a written testimony to the words and deeds of the Lord. And it was also Papias who documented that Matthew recorded the sayings of Jesus in Hebrew in order that each person could translate them into their own language and context. Additionally, the witness of Papias provides a unique link between apostolic tradition and the post-apostolic church, since Eusebius argues Papias had heard John (the apostle) and was a companion of Polycarp. Such fragmentary traditions and testimony to ancient links between scattered Christians have gone a long way toward the development of historical assumptions about the evolution of our New Testament canon and the apostolic witness that it reflects.4
The surviving Papian fragments are also important because they reveal that Papias had an attitude of value and respect toward certain New Testament writings, and that his attitude was consistent with the attitudes of other known leaders of the early orthodox church (e.g., Polycarp). This thesis is worthy of focus because a segment of modern and post-modern scholarship, both liberal and conservative, has depended far too heavily upon Eusebius’s questionable interpretation of Papias’s preface in order to identify who Papias was, those that he might have known, and his knowledge of certain portions of the New Testament. The result of this limited and biased exposure enables some scholars to make conjectures about Papias that are at odds with other patristic statements concerning him, conjectures that ironically are also inconsistent with statements made by Eusebius himself.
This book surveys the selection of patristic and medieval literature commonly referred to as “The Fragments of Papias” in order to address the many misconceptions involving Papias’s knowledge of the apostolic writings. Its thesis regarding Papias’s value for obtaining a greater understanding of the development of the canonical New Testament is defended through a rigorous investigation of the Papian fragments, an investigation that had two goals in mind: The first was to identify the context in which Papias lived and those with whom he associated; and then having identified his proper place within the patristic period it examined his witness concerning the existence of certain New Testament writings and their origins. It is recommended that those who are familiar with Eusebius’s opinion of Papias and his exegesis of Papias’s preface read appendix 1 before proceeding with the rest of this book.
Method of Research
This effort relies significantly upon the Papian fragments as they are found in J. B. Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fathers, which was edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes in 1999,5 and the edition of the “Fragments of Papias and Quadratus” found in the Loeb Classical Library series.6 It does not, however, completely follow Holmes’s ordering of these fragments. This research also employs additional critical editions that supply and examine individual Papian fragments that are not found in either of these editions.7 As stated previously, this effort had two goals. The first was to discern the time frame in which Papias lived, while the second was to identify Papias’s knowledge and attitude towards any apostolic writings. Identifying Papias’s context is important for determining how close he was to the apostolic period and, consequently, the general trustworthiness of his knowledge and statements about their writings. Some argue that Papias’s proximity or lack thereof to the apostolic generation does not necessarily affect the trustworthiness of his testimony or of the traditions he received regarding the origins of the apostolic writings.8 The fact remains, however, that generally speaking the closer one is to an event or source the more credible that one is perceived, especially if his testimony is contemporaneous with the event to which he testifies. Regarding the importance of contemporaneous testimony in historical studies, James Donaldson wrote, “In regard to testimony, we set out with the principle, that the only proper historical evidence is contemporary testimony. . . . We receive the statements of contemporaries as true, unless there is some reason to look upon them as false. As we move away from the particular period into testimony of a later period, we are not warranted in rejecting it entirely, for the testimony of a later period may be and generally is the testimony of contemporaries handed down from one generation to another. But we must be more cautious.”9
Consequently, Papias’s proximity to the apostolic generation is valuable in determining his credibility as a witness to it and its literature; literature that eventually became part of the New Testament canon. Having determined the likely time period of Papias’s life and ministry, the second goal will be addressed, which is discerning his knowledge of and attitude towards the certain writings of the New Testament. This is accomplished by analyzing specific Papian fragments with special attention given to Papias’s employment, references, or allusions to New Testament passages, as well as his understanding of their origins and his attitudes toward them.10
The reason for predominantly employing the editions of Lightfoot and Holmes is that they provide the most comprehensive collection of Papian material since they not only include actual Papian quotes, but also many other patristic and medieval references and allusions to him and his writings. These additional citations are important because Papias’s work is no longer extant; therefore, this material provides an important witness to the church’s understanding and attitudes towards Papias, as well as their understanding of his writings.11 Although all Papian fragments are found in secondary sources, such as those found in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius, they remain valuable sources for discovering the church’s understanding of who Papias was and what he wrote. An added benefit of the editions of Lightfoot and Holmes, and Loeb Classical Library, is that they provide the Greek and Latin texts of the Papian fragments whenever possible.12
Holmes’s order of these fragments, however, is not be entirely employed because it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, inappropriately provides an unjustifiable aid to the bias that has for long plagued a proper understanding of Papias and his meanings. This is observable in Holmes’s decision to begin his compilation of the Papian fragments with three that were preserved by Eusebius, while Irenaeus’s reference to Papias is fourteenth, in spite of the fact that it is considerably earlier than those preserved by Eusebius. Instead, this book enumerates and discusses the Papian fragments chronologically.13
This survey, as stated earlier, also includes additional Papian fragments not included in Holmes’s edition. An example is the reference to Papias’s martyrdom in the Chronicon Paschale.14 Holmes did not include this Papian fragment from the Chronicon Paschale because he agreed with Lightfoot that the original source of this fragment did not actually refer to Papias, but instead was the product of a copyist’s error.15 Lightfoot, however, provided no textual support for his theory; therefore, his decision to reject this fragment is entirely based upon conjecture. Consequently, because his decision concerning this important fragment is tenuous at best, it is included and discussed in detail within the biographical chapter of this book (i.e., chapter 3). Additionally, any Papian fragment that only holds value for understanding Papias’s life receives greater focus in the biographical chapter of this book, and although they are also included within the chapter that lists all of the Papian fragments they do not there garner a significant amount of discussion.
This book, as mentioned previously, also focuses upon the life of Papias and his knowledge and attitudes towards writings that are now found in the canonical New Testament. It does not address the full spectrum of Papias’s theology embedded within these fragments, although this would be an endeavor worthy of greater attention.16 His theology is only addressed as it directly relates to his attitude toward and knowledge of any apostolic writings. Additionally, this book will only examine extensively the Papian fragments that significantly impact its thesis. Fragments that are ancillary and do not greatly impact its thesis will only be addressed briefly. This effort also ignores material that is generally referred to as “The Traditions of the Elders.”17 While these fragments are also valuable sources for understanding the theology and development of the early church, directly connecting them with Papias is tenuous at best—although it can be argued that in many ways they are consistent with theological tenants that are often associated with Papias.18 These fragments, however, provide little support or challenge to the thesis of this book; therefore, they are not included within the scope of its research. Lastly, unless otherwise stipulated, all references to the dates and/or centuries discussed in this book should be understood to be anno Domini, and all biblical quotations are taken from either the NASB or NIV translations of the New Testament.
1. Bovon, Early Christianity, 225.
2. It is acknowledged that to some this book’s title may appear rather anachronistic since one could infer from it that this study argues that the New Testament canon was “completed” by the middle of the second century AD. While that is a thesis worthy of research, it will not be the focus of this book. Instead, it focuses upon Papias’s witness to and attitudes toward certain apostolic writings that inevitably were included within the canonical New Testament. Consequently, this is a study that focuses upon a particular period in which the literature of the New Testament was developing into a canon.
3. Hereafter, this collection of literature or portions within it will regularly be referred to as “Papian fragments.”
4. Jefford, Apostolic Fathers, 25–26. It should be noted that the Papian fragment that Jefford alluded to does not say that Matthew wrote his Aramaic Gospel so that anyone could translate it into his own language and context, but rather that is was after he wrote his Aramaic Gospel that individuals later attempted to translate his work into their own language and context. Eusebius believed that Matthew initially wrote a Gospel for those of his own native tongue. See Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.24.6 (LCL 153:250–51).
5. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 562–90. Holmes has edited and revised several different editions of the Papian Fragments with similar titles. Consequently, hereafter, this particular edition will be footnoted as Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition. The ordering of the Papian material by Lightfoot and Holmes has its weaknesses since it is not chronological (e.g., Eusebius’s preservation of Papian material comes before Irenaeus’s reference to Papias). A more comprehensive explanation for the ordering of the Papian material in this book will follow.
6. Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25: 85–118).
7. Baker Academic recently published a 3rd edition of the The Apostolic Fathers, of which Holmes was again the editor. Holmes, however, changed the presentation of the Papian texts in this edition. Consequently, the format of the 1999 edition (referred to in this book as the “diglot edition”) is preferred for the purposes of this book. Nevertheless, the 3rd edition is regularly referenced and footnoted when appropriate.
8. For an example of some who concluded that Papias did not personally know any apostles but defended him as a credible witness to the origins of New Testament see Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 332–37. Vernon Bartlet believed that Papias converted to Christianity after the apostle John’s death but was still a credible witness to the origins of New Testament. Bartlet, “Papias,” 2:311. For an explanation of why a late date for Papias witness weakens his importance see Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias,” 181–86.
9. Donaldson, A Critical History, 1:10–11.
10. This subject has been briefly addressed by scholars such as Heard, “Papias’ Quotations,” 130–34; Schoedel, “Papias,” 235–70. It is hoped, however, that this book provides a more holistic and thorough approach to this topic, thus shedding greater light on this rather obscure period of the development of the New Testament canon.
11. While many of these fragments originate from the patristic period, a few are from the medieval period.
12. A few of the fragments are only available in Armenian and Arabic.
13. An aim of this book is to provide research that possesses the strengths of both the synchronic and diachronic approaches to this material.
14. Chronicon Paschale (PG 92:628). Hereafter, throughout this book the Chronicon Paschale will generally be referred to as CP.
15. Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, 147–49.
16. For an example of research that focused upon one aspect of Papias’ theology see Gregory, The Chiliastic Hermeneutic of Papias of Hierapolis.
17. For examples of these fragments see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 768–73. The Fragments of Papias, in vol. 5 of The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Schoedel, 124–27. Hereafter, this edition will be footnoted in the following manner: Schoedel, The Fragments.
18. There have been some who attribute certain of the fragments of the “elders” to Papias, but in most cases their attempts are largely based upon arguments from silence. For this reason Holmes aptly recommended that they be consigned to studies concerning Irenaeus. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 727. For examples of attempts to attribute some of these fragments to Papias see Hill, “Papias,” 311; Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 296–30;. Deardorff, “Is It Papias’ Logia?” 115–26.