Chapter 2: A Survey of the History of Research

2

A Survey of the History of Research

Introduction

The assembling of the fragments of Papias into a single collection is not an original endeavor. It is not uncommon to find compilations of these fragments as part of larger works devoted to the writings of the apostolic fathers. Such works, however, often come with little or no critical analysis of Papian material. Commentary is provided in some cases, but as helpful as they may be they are consistently too broad or superficial to be of any in-depth aid to the researcher, although their bibliographies are extremely helpful. A comprehensive history of all the research touching upon Papias and his writings is not the purpose of this book. Such an endeavor would go well beyond its stated objective. Consequently, this book only surveys the essential publications and research germane to its restricted thesis, as well as a few additional critical works intimately related to its subject matter. While this chapter does provide evaluations and in some cases critiques of the theories and arguments of the scholars addressed in it, hereafter, in general, more substantial interaction with their positions will occur during times of direct analysis of the Papian fragments.

Primary Works

Philip Schaff reported that the seventeenth-century Jesuit Halloix was the first to write a “fanciful” biography on the life of Papias, which was published in 1633 and titled, Vita S. Papiae.19 Halloix’s book apparently comprised only several folios; regrettably, it was not available for the research for this book. In 1846 Martin Joseph Routh published a compilation of the Papian fragments in Latin in the first volume of the Reliquiæ Sacræ.20 Routh’s work contains a brief introduction that is followed by eleven Greek fragments, with a few Latin parallels, which is followed by a lengthy commentary on these fragments, which was also in Latin.

A brief treatment of Papian fragments, translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, was included within the first volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series. A. Cleveland Coxe provided an introduction to this material in the American edition of this series published in 1885, in which he stated that his collection largely depended upon Routh’s work.21 He placed Papias’s lifespan from 70–155, and believed that Papias knew both Polycarp and the apostle John.22 Coxe is one of the few scholars who included the fragment concerning Papias’s martyrdom in 163 found in the Chronicon Paschale, as well as Eusebius’s contradiction of himself in stating that Papias was both a “man most learned in all things” and someone of “small capacity.”23 His list of Papian material contains only ten fragments, about which he provided only a few comments in the form of footnotes.

A book by Edward H. Hall titled, Papias and His Contemporaries: A Study of Religious Thought in the Second Century was published in 1899. A legitimate question concerning this work is why Hall even mentioned Papias in his title at all since his book only tangentially discussed this apostolic father. Instead, his book was largely devoted to the assertion that Marcion as a significant and inspirational leader of the early church and that Gnosticism was a foundational component of Christianity. A more appropriate title for Hall’s book would have been Gnosticism and Its Influence upon the Early Church during the First Two Centuries. The appropriateness of this title is evident from the subject matter found in chapters 5 and 6, which are the last two chapters of the book and are comprised of more than a hundred pages. The titles of these chapters are “Theological Speculations” and “The Mystic Gospel” respectively. In these decisive chapters there is virtually not a single reference to Papias, but a prolonged explanation of Hall’s theory that Gnosticism had a deep and lasting impact the development of Christianity. Regarding Gnosticism’s influence upon Christianity Hall wrote, “Christianity had done its best, as we have seen, to purge itself of the virus of Gnosticism. But it was too late. It might cast out its Marcions and Valentines, but it could not undo the work they had wrought. Gnosticism had become bone of its bone. To read the pages of what was soon to be known as the New Testament is to come upon these hated doctrines again and again.”24

Hall did not argue that the apostolic fathers were defending the Christian faith against the heresies of Gnosticism,25 but rather that from the beginning Gnosticism was deeply embedded, and thus has been forever woven into the fabric of what is accepted today as orthodox Christianity. Concerning the second-century debates between the orthodox church and gnostic heretics, he contended that “at that time, it must be remembered, there could be no genuine heresy, for there was no established faith. No Councils had yet rendered their decisions. There was no accepted Christian canon.”26

Hall’s work, however, is not without its merits. His fourth chapter, titled “The Millennial Reign,” is a helpful survey of chiliastic theology as found in Jewish and Christian writings ranging from the first century BC through the second century AD. He believed that the preaching of Jesus and his followers was decidedly chiliastic, which in his opinion explains why chiliasm is so systemic throughout the New Testament. Concerning Papias’s chiliasm and his knowledge of any writings of the New Testament, Hall contended that there was warrant for believing that the book of Revelation was “well known to Papias.”27 Hall, however, only briefly acknowledged the Papian fragment embedded in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies V.33.3–4 for support of this assertion.28 Regarding Papias’s eschatology, Hall contended that his millennialism should not be surprising since it was the “prevailing” view during the late first century and early second century.29 Unfortunately, his treatment of Papian material in this chapter, as well as throughout his book, is sparse. The majority of Hall’s fourth chapter in fact deals with the millennial views of Jesus, Paul, and Irenaeus rather than that of Papias.

That Hall was convinced that Gnosticism was a foundational influence of the apostolic church is clearly evident in his third chapter, which is titled, “Two Learned Doctors.” In this chapter he speculated that Justin Martyr and Marcion were early leaders who vied for the soul of a confused and developing religion, arguing that both were perceived as peers by the church at large. Regarding Marcion’s integrity and fidelity to the authoritative texts of the church, or what Marcion argued most accurately reflected their autographs, Hall wrote, “Marcion was at worst a falsifier only in the sense in which Matthew and Luke can be called falsifiers. Everything indicates that he was a conscientious and scrupulous student of the early records, convinced that they were much corrupted, and anxious to purify them.”30

Hall analyzed in chapter 2, which is titled “Primitive Christian Literature,” some of the literature of certain apostolic fathers by providing brief surveys of First Clement, the epistles of Ignatius, The First Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistle of Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, and The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. He argued concerning these writings that many of them actually preceded the composition of the canonical Gospels, as well as other literature of the New Testament. Regarding his late dating of Gospel literature, whether canonical or spurious, Hall contended that the first “known” Gospel was the Gospel of Peter, which he believed originated from the “early part of the second century”!31 His thesis in this chapter was that the literature of the apostolic fathers reveals not just a developing canon drawn from the original writings by the apostles, but of evolving materials that had not yet solidified into what eventually became known as the canonical New Testament.

It is in chapter 1 that Hall devoted most of his attention to the subject of Papias, concluding that he was “an early investigator” of apostolic traditions, which is his title for the chapter. His treatment of Papias is largely superficial without any real investigation of his historical context, or a discussion of those who either knew him or had read his writings, with Eusebius being the lone exception. Concerning Papias’s five-volume work, Hall interpreted its title as Interpretations of the Lord’s Sayings.32 His defense for interpreting the word “λóγιον” as “sayings” is superficial and lacks an appreciation of its use when referring to teachings or pronouncements that were believed to be of divine origin.33 Hall discussed Papias’s context and how he should be understood by depended almost entirely upon Eusebius’s exegesis and evaluation of Papias. His discussion regarding Papias’s reference concerning the original writings of Mark and Matthew has some thoughtful insights regarding the church’s context in the first century, but in the end he contended that Papias’s reference to these writings provides today’s scholar with only limited information about the final composition of what are now recognized as the canonical Gospels of Mark and Matthew.34 Hall asserted concerning Mark’s original composition that Papias’s preface does not speak of the Gospel of Mark, but rather a disorderly arrangement of Peter’s sermons.35 Whereas with Matthew’s initial work, Hall affirmed that it was written in Hebrew, and that its relationship to the Greek Gospel that bears his name is unclear at best.36

In spite of the fact that Hall appears to have been the first person to attempt to address Papias’s place within the apostolic period in a lengthy book, he unfortunately strayed dramatically from his declared subject, and thus provided little original insight into the man, his context, his writings, and his views. Hall’s work reveals that he was deeply influenced by the presuppositions of the Tübingen School’s philosophy of religion rather than a disciplined approached to the historical data. His indebtedness to positions consistent the Tübingen school of thought is observable in his initial assertions found on the first few pages of his book,

The easiest questions to ask are sometimes the hardest to answer, especially where religions are concerned, whose infancy is so sure to be obscure and unrecorded, and which conceal so carefully the secrets of their early growth,—not intentionally, of course, but of necessity. Before the world has awoke to their significance, or the actors themselves become aware of the role they are filling, the incidents that attended their birth have already been lost, and it is impossible to recover them. In the case of Christianity, more than a century passed before it gained that consciousness of itself or sense of individuality which made its early hours sacred to its thought, or even the story of its founders. Then it was too late; too late, that is to recall with any vividness such far-away occurrences, or the personalities engaged in them. Even the twelve Apostles, with two or three exceptions, are mere names to us; still more the obscure chroniclers who so laboriously gathered for us, here and there, whatever had survived from distant half-forgotten times.37

Regrettably, any detailed analysis of the Papian fragments is conspicuously lacking in Hall’s three-hundred page book. What is often present is his lack of appreciation of historical evidence, as well as his twisting of the data. One example is his assertion concerning Eusebius’s statement regarding Papias’s knowledge of the Johannine writings. Hall contended that “this involves many assumptions: as that Papias actually cites 1 John by name, which Eusebius does not assert.”38 What Eusebius actually wrote was, “Κέχρηται δʼ ὁ αὑτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς,” which Lake translated as, “The same writer used quotations from the first Epistle of John.”39 If Eusebius did not believe Papias “cited” 1 John then what did Hall believe Eusebius was possibly attempting to communicate? Was it his position that since Eusebius failed to provide a direct quote from Papias citing a Johannine fragment with chapter and verse then one cannot confidently assert that Eusebius believed that Papias knew of John’s first epistle? Such a position shows that Hall possessed either very little knowledge of patristic handling of the Scriptures, or a modern standard for measuring literary dependence that is at best unwarranted or at worst biased.

Hall believed that Papias was an important apostolic figure, who was the “first church official to occupy himself in studying or collecting the records of the past.”40 He often asserted, however, that the historical data concerning Papias provided few facts from which historians and scholars could make solid conclusions. He was also convinced that Papias’s search for apostolic writings was in vain, writing that “in his search for materials Papias seems to have found no written documents which covered the ground, or none at least that carried official weight.”41 Given the totality of Hall’s convictions, one is left to wonder how he could make such sweeping conclusions while in his own opinion there appears to be only scant historical data from which to draw? With respect to his theories, however, a survey of disciplined scholars who came after him reveals that many of his conjectures could not withstand their more thorough investigations of the historical evidence. Consequently, Hall’s effort has received little attention from both his peers and current scholarship.

At the turn of the twentieth century Oscar de Gebhardt, Adolf Harnack, and Theodore Zahn published a small volume titled, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera.42 This work, along with other writings of the apostolic fathers, provides nineteen Papian fragments in only their original Greek and Latin texts. No introduction or analysis to Papias or his writings were provided. Similarly, Edgar J. Goodspeed also published an edition of thirteen Papian fragments in a work titled, The Apostolic Fathers: An American Translation.43 Goodspeed, following the Funk-Bihlmeyer edition,44 only provided a very brief introduction and did not provide any text of these fragments in their original languages, nor did he provide any critical commentary concerning them.

Another edition of the fragments of Papias was translated by James A. Kleist and published in 1948 as part of the sixth volume of Ancient Christian Writers series.45 This work was edited by Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe and produced by Newman Press. Kleist’s translation is typical of other treatments of these fragments in that he does not provide any texts in the original languages, although he does provide a helpful introduction to his edition. He believed that Papias knew the apostle John and was born before 80, and more probably sometime between 61 and 71.46 He also interpreted the title of Papias’s work as Exegesis of the Lord’s Gospel.47 It was his opinion, although without explanation, that Papias was familiar with the “whole New Testament,” and that he wrote after the deaths of most of the apostles, with the possible exception of the apostle John.48 Kleist thought that Papias’s attitude toward the written word was generally Greek, meaning that when given a preference he valued first person dialogue delivered with artful rhetoric rather than simply reading a manuscript that provided no opportunity for thoughtful discourse.49 Having authored a five-volume work, however, proves to a significant degree that Papias believed there was some merit and educational benefit to be found in the written word.50 His translation of Papias’s preface as found in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History III.39.1–17 is insightful and has much to commend it, although he understood the reference to “the presbyter John” as meaning “the Old Man John.”51 He also suggested that the pre-Papian tradition concerning Mark’s lack of “τάξει” should be interpreted as “verbatim” instead of “order.”52 Kleist assembled thirteen Papian fragments, giving some textual references for the more obscure fragments, while providing no commentary on any individual fragment.

Thomas Nelson and Sons also published a patristic series in 1967 containing the Papian fragments titled, The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary. The fifth volume of this series is titled Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, and was translated by William Schoedel. Schoedel provided a brief introduction, and some commentary contained within footnotes throughout his translation of the Papian fragments. He questioned Papias’s association with the apostle John because he doubted Irenaeus’s association with both Papias and Polycarp. Based upon a superficial analysis of Irenaeus’s description of his relationship to Polycarp, Schoedel concluded that “the fact remains that Irenaeus’s information of Polycarp is thin indeed.”53 Regarding Irenaeus’s knowledge of the apostle John, Schoedel believed that he seemed to have confused the apostle John with another highly debated character who is often referred to as “elder John.”54 He also questioned whether Polycarp and Papias were even close associates or that they shared common theological perspectives, basing his conjecture on the extant writings of the two.55 This is a common position of some scholars, which is largely based upon an argument from silence. Only meager fragments from Papias’s writings have survived along with a single epistle from the hand of Polycarp; consequently, such a small literary pool is an insufficient reservoir from which to definitively prove that these two bishops were in any sense theological opponents. Polycarp and Papias have always been historically linked together. Consequently, for one to conclude that these two leaders of the Asiaic church did not share the same basic theological perspectives one would have to reject Irenaeus’s personal testimony, as well as ignore the reality that their surviving works are completely different genres with different authorial purposes in order to meet the needs of different audiences. Consequently, in the absence of any objective statements implying hostility or tension between these two bishops, one should not assume or conjecture with any confidence that they were of different theological camps.

Schoedel contended that Papias knew three of the four Gospels, as well as 1 Peter and 1 John, while also asserting that he probably had no direct contact with “the apostles.”56 However, he dated Papias to have written his books ca. 110, which is early compared to some scholars, and does not prohibit the possibility that Papias might have had credible associations with some apostles. Schoedel also contended, contrary to Hall’s conjectures, that Papias’s work shows no knowledge of a gnostic threat.57 This too is an unwarranted but common assumption of some scholars that will be discussed later. His edition of Papian material contains sixteen fragments, which is followed with a section containing “The Traditions of the Elders.” He gave a reasonable explanation for his translation of the title of Papias’s work, which was, “An Exposition of Dominical Oracles.”58

Schoedel’s handling of Papian material in this series is generally very helpful. His analysis of Papias’s preface as preserved by Eusebius is especially thorough and will be referenced often throughout this book. It is unfortunate, however, that his remarks are restricted to only footnotes since many of his insights and conclusions deserve a more thorough examination. The format of his footnotes is equally ill-designed since they appear in the form of a running commentary with no clear identification of his progression to different Papian fragments. This format makes his treatment of Papian material difficult to follow. Schoedel republished and expanded his treatment of Papias and his writings in a chapter titled “Papias,” in Principat 27,1. Vorkonstantinisches Christentum; Apostolische Väter und Apologeten, which was published in 1993. He reaffirmed in this book many of his positions while also interacting with more current scholarship on the subject of Papias. He expanded his research to cover topics such as “Papias and the Canon;” some new Papian fragments that have been translated from Armenian sources by F. Siegert; the dating of Papias’s Exposition; the form and purpose of his work; and finally a section titled “The Theological World of Papias.” While this chapter greatly enhances Schoedel’s treatment of Papias, it ironically does not include majority of the fragments of Papias.59 Schoedel’s treatment of the Papian material in these two works is commendable. It is unfortunate, however, that they are provided in such disjointed formats, not to mention in two entirely different books.

Schoedel also contributed the article on Papias in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which provides the clearest explanation of his positions concerning this apostolic father.60 He clearly affirmed in this article his support of Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias’s preface, contending that the term “presbyter refers not to church officials but to followers of the disciples (notably John) who handed on the orthodox theological tradition.”61 The argument that this individual (i.e., the apostle John) who possessed the responsibility of preserving and transmitting orthodox traditions did not possess an “official” title or recognized status within the hierarchy of the church is a tenuous position at best, especially given that the biblical witness demonstrates that some apostles applied the term “elder” to themselves. The apostle Peter (1 Pet 5:1) and the apostle John (2 John 1; 3 John 1) both employed the term to themselves with the view that they possessed authority not only over other “presbyters” and leaders within churches, but over entire churches as well. While it may be true that they were not a certain type of “church official” (i.e., a local pastor of a specific congregation); nonetheless, they did consider themselves to be “presbyters.”

Contrary to his earlier decision, Schoedel translated the title of Papias’s work in the Anchor Bible Dictionary as “Exposition of the Lord’s Logia.”62 He provided no explanation for this change. He did comment, however, that Papias used the term “logia” in his title with the same sense as his reference to Mark’s recording of Jesus’ words and deeds, which Schoedel believed to be our canonical Gospel of Mark.63 Unfortunately, “logia” is not really a translation at all, but only a transliteration that does not provide today’s reader with a proper understanding of Papias’s meaning, or the impact that such a word would have had upon his audience, both secular and Christian. Given these weaknesses, therefore, “oracles” is a better translation of the word “logia.”64

It is in this article that Schoedel also provided one of the more objective overviews regarding Papias’s five-volume work, writing that

We do not know to what extent (if any) the shape of the book was determined by the written sources used by Papias (Mark and Matthew). We do not know what the scope or structure of the book was. We do not know whether the five divisions of the work represent anything more than perhaps an imitation of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, or some other collection. We cannot specify the genre of the work with any confidence (though perhaps the relevant parallel is offered by the apomnemoneumata—the memoirs—of antiquity). It is not known whether any polemical intent informs the writing of the work.65

If Papias’s preface is to be given any weight, however, it seems that a possible “polemical intent” for his work would be to accurately identify and explain the sayings of Jesus, which implies that in some settings that the proper interpretations of Jesus’ teachings were in flux. Schoedel’s admission offers a helpful reminder with respect to speculations about the content and purposes of Papias’s magnum opus, given the absence of any substantial material from his hand.

Schoedel also addressed the possible sources of Papias’s traditions, and while this will be a major topic throughout this book now would be an appropriate time to broach this subject. Schoedel confidently asserted that Papias’s reference to the “presbyters” is not a reference to the apostles, writing that,

Papias mentions “the presbyters”—or more precisely, those “who had actually attended the presbyters”—as his oral sources. . . . These lines from Papias’ preface can be read in a way that identifies the presbyters with the disciples. But it is more likely that Papias regarded the presbyters as followers of the disciples. If the latter is correct, Papias claims to have had his information from the disciples at third hand (sic). It is also possible to read the passage in a way that identifies the apostle John with the presbyter John. But this reading also seems very doubtful (Schoedel 1967: 98). Presumably, then, Aristion and the presbyter John were regarded as personal “disciples” of Jesus who were not among the twelve; and presumably John was called “the Presbyter” (whereas Aristion was not) to distinguish him from the apostle, who had just been named66

This interpretation of Papias’s preface originated with Eusebius (a writer whose native tongue was Greek) and is a commonly accepted by some. Consequently, to argue that this interpretation cannot possibly be correct would be a vain endeavor. Nevertheless, the essential question regarding Eusebius’s exegesis is whether it provides the most natural reading of Papias’s preface. Schoedel and others who accept Eusebius’s exegesis base their argument that Papias meant to distinguish the character known as “John the elder” from the apostle John upon Papias’s employment of the article ὁ before the term πρεσβύτερος. Generally speaking, their position is that Papias meant to distinguish John the elder from the previously mentioned apostle John by his employment of the article. What is so ironic about this position is that it is promoted in the face of normal Greek grammar that dictates that such syntax be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of Schoedel’s position. Incredibly, the use of an article (i.e., “ὁ” before “πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης”) would mean that Papias actually meant to identify “the presbyter John” as the same John from among the previously mentioned group of presbyters, which is an interpretation that even Schoedel himself recognized. Such syntax is referred to as an “anaphoric article.” Regarding this use of the article, Daniel Wallace wrote, “The anaphoric article is the article denoting previous reference. (It derives its name from the Greek verb ἀναφέρειν, ‘to bring back, to bring up.’) The first mention of the substantive is usually anarthrous because it is merely being introduced. But the subsequent mentions of it use the article, for the article is now pointing back to the substantive previously mentioned. It is the most common use of the article and the easiest usage to identify.”67

Arguing, therefore, that Papias was simply identifying the character known as John the elder from the apostle John, or that the article is a reference to his office and not a reference to the previously mentioned John is a poorly defended position. Regarding the syntactical use of simple identification with the article, Wallace wrote, “Simple Identification. Definition: The article is frequently used to distinguish one individual from another. This is our ‘drip-pan’ category and should be used only as a last resort. Pragmatically, unless the article fits under one of the other six categories of the individualizing article or under the generic use (or one of the special uses), it is acceptable to list it as ‘the article of simple identification.’”68 The salient point regarding this common use of the article with respect to substantives is that when scholars base their interpretations of Papias’s preface upon Eusebius’s exegesis, they ironically adopt the least defensible position because it ignores the common function of the article in the context of previously mentioned substantives. In reality, Papias’s employment of the article should lead the exegete directly back to the John who was a prestigious member of the previously mentioned group of presbyters who were also apostles.69 Schoedel is not alone in this unusual exegesis. Similarly, Johannes Munck failed to recognized Papias’s employment of the anaphoric article, stating that

But the attempts that have been made to identify John the apostle with “John the presbyter” must be rejected. It would be unnatural to describe the same person in this way with an interval of barely more than a line. There seems to be no reason for such an artificial device, when it would have been quite sufficient for Papias to have referred to the apostle together with Aristion. . . . We must assume that the other John, who was both a “disciple of the Lord” and a “presbyter,” but not an apostle (nor an apostle’s disciple) being the only duplicate in the list of names, had to be distinguished from his great namesake by a description that indicated that this was John the non-apostle.70

It defies explanation that people educated in Greek syntax might argue so confidently the exact opposite of what normal Greek syntax dictates regarding use of the definite article within the context of repeated substantives. Contrary to Munck’s confident assertion, what may seem “unnatural” to some would seem extremely natural, if not expected, to Papias’s audience. If the character known as “John the elder” was in fact simply a presbyter of a local church in Asia Minor and not the apostle John, then it would have been completely natural for Papias to have distinguish him by referring to the city of his bishopric (e.g., bishop John of Ephesus, or elder John of Smyrna), while in the process not employing a definite article at all.71 But if Papias wanted to identify John as a member of the previously mentioned apostolic colloquium, then identifying him as “the presbyter John” would be the most natural grammatical construction to do so. Although both Schoedel and Munck72 recognized the possibility that Papias was identifying the elder John as the apostle John, they both reject this interpretation and described it as “very doubtful” and “unnatural,” the result being that it is they, while relying upon Eusebius, who have unjustifiably and unnaturally distanced this important apostolic father from any associations with the apostolic generation.

Schoedel concluded his article with a discussion regarding “Papias and the New Testament.” He believed that Papias’s preface referred to the canonical Gospels of Mark and Matthew. He also rejected the theory that Matthew wrote his Gospel in an Aramaic style rather than in the Aramaic language.73 He insightfully discussed the possibility that other Gospels existed and may have competed for equal authority with the canonical Gospels. He also addressed the question of whether Papias knew of the other two canonical Gospels, concluding that the evidence that Papias knew of the Gospel of Luke “is fragile.”74 Regarding the question of whether Papias knew of the Gospel of John, Schoedel speculated that the possibility of the existence of the character commonly referred to as “John the elder” (i.e., a bishop named John who was not one of the twelve apostles) provides “legitimate” questions for “assessing claims made for the authorship of the various writings attributed to John in the NT.”75 Lastly, Schoedel briefly addressed the pericope adulterae and Eusebius’s claim that Papias made use of the epistles of 1 Peter and 1 John. Regarding Papias’s exposure to these two epistles, he concluded that, “It seems unlikely that the theology of either of these two writings influenced Papias deeply.”76 It seems rather odd that one who previously concluded that we know virtually nothing at all about the scope, genre, and purpose of Papias’s five-volume work would make such a confident assertion.77 What is knowable is that Eusebius, who presumably had access to Papias’s books, observed that Papias “used quotations” from Peter’s “prominent” epistle, thus indicating its existence.78 Whether Papias was influenced heavily, slightly, or negatively is simply unknowable, although one might infer from Eusebius’s comment that Papias derived some benefit from 1 Peter (as well as from 1 John). Schoedel also speculated that “Papias’ Christianity was evidently non-Pauline, but it was not necessarily anti-Pauline.”79 Similarly to his position concerning the possible influence or lack thereof of 1 Peter upon Papias, his assertion concerning Paul’s influence on Papias is entirely based upon silence because of the lack of available material from the hand of Papias, a paucity that Schoedel himself recognized. Regardless the speculative nature of a few of his positions, Schoedel is an important Papian scholar and many of his conclusions and theories are insightful and worthy of consideration; consequently, he is regularly referenced throughout this work.

Josef Kürzinger wrote a book in 1983 titled, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments. His book is the fourth volume of the Schriftenreihe der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt series from the University’s department of Philosophy and Theology. Kürzinger provided in this volume twenty-five Papian fragments,80 as well as an extensive bibliography of research published from 1960 to 1981 that to some extent concerned Papias and his writings.81 Kürzinger’s book begins with four chapters; each being a previously published article by Kürzinger on related issues concerning Papias’s comments on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

One of the more significant contributions from Kürzinger’s work is found in his third chapter titled, “The Statement of Papias of Hierapolis as to the Literary Form of the Gospel of Mark.” Kürzinger demonstrated in this chapter that as Papias discussed Mark’s Gospel he was engaging in literary and/or rhetorical criticism, which was a common academic practice within educated Grecian circles of his day.82 However, the contribution that Kürzinger is most noted for is his theory that when Papias discussed the “Erstgestalt” or “first-form” of Matthew’s Gospel, he did not mean that Matthew wrote in Aramaic, but rather that he composed his Gospel in Greek with a Jewish rhetorical style. He defended his position in this manner:

Wenn man beachtet, daß Papias in all seinen Ausdrücken in der Terminologie des zeitgenössischen hellenistischen Schrifttums sich bewegt, wird man keinen Zweifel mehr haben, daß er auch den Terminus διάλεκτος im Sinn der Rhetorick gebraucht. Nicht um das Interesse an der anderen Sprache geht es ihm, wenn er mit Ἑβραΐδι διάλεκτῳ die σύνταξις der Logien des Mt kennzeichnen will, also nicht etwa um das Aramäische oder Hebräische im Unterschied zum Grieshischen des Mk, sondern um die andere—ἑρμηνεία, eben jene, wie sie nach seiner Auffassung und Kenntnis der Literatur des Judentums eigentümlich ist.83

Some scholars find Kürzinger’s theory attractive, primarily because they believe it solves the problem of the relationship between the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew and Papias’s reference to an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. However, his theory does not adequately account for Eusebius’s understanding of the origin and language of Matthew’s initial Gospel. Eusebius wrote concerning it that “Yet nevertheless of all those who had been with the Lord only Matthew and John have left us their recollections, and tradition says that they took to writing perforce. Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.”84

Regarding this tradition Eusebius stated that it was not his assumption that Matthew had written an Aramaic Gospel, but rather that it was the church’s tradition that undoubtedly reached back into the first century as corroborated by Papias. Consequently, Kürzinger’s theory appears to not only be based upon questionable exegesis, but upon the assumption that later patristic scholars who read Papias and/or other early church sources concerning the origin of Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel (e.g., Eusebius, Irenaeus,85 and Jerome86) simply misunderstood those sources.

Kürzinger, in his second chapter, attempted to address Irenaeus’s understanding on the composition of Matthew’s first Gospel. He believed that while Irenaeus depended upon Papias for his understanding of this work, Irenaeus also had access to other sources knowledgeable about its origins.87 Irenaeus’s comments (albeit in Latin) about Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel can be found in Against Heresies III.1.1. Fortunately, however, his statements, which were originally written in Greek, have also been preserved in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History V.8.1–2.88 Irenaeus’s comments do not mention Papias or anyone else for that matter as his source for this tradition, whether literary or oral. Kürzinger’s position that Irenaeus had depended upon Papias as a source for his impressions about this early Gospel is certainly reasonable, his discussion, however, seems to imply that Irenaeus had relied exclusively upon Papias’s writings in order to form his opinions about Matthew’s early work. Consequently, he appeared to ignore the important fact that Irenaeus also had personally interacted with Polycarp, and probably others who were well aware of the church’s tradition regarding the composition of Matthew’s initial Gospel. Such an interaction would mean that Irenaeus’s understanding of this Aramaic work was not only based upon his reading of certain trustworthy sources (e.g., Papias), but also upon the private discussions he had and/or the public lectures he heard from at least one other apostolic father (i.e., Polycarp).

Concerning his theory that Matthew wrote his only Gospel in a Jewish literary style, Kürzinger himself acknowledged that at times Irenaeus understood the phrase Ἑβραΐδι διάλεκτῳ to refer to a spoken language rather than a rhetorical style. He argued, however, that with respect to Irenaeus’s comments about the composition of Matthew’s initial Gospel, modern scholars have simply failed to appreciate Irenaeus’s shift in meaning. Concerning this misunderstanding, Kürzinger wrote, “Gewiß, es finden sich bei Irenäus auch Stellen, in denen διάλεκτος in erster Linie den Sinn von Sprache hat. . . . Und da sich für Papias doch überzeugend die Verwendung von διάλεκτος als Ausdruck der Rhetorick aufzeigen läßt, wird ihn auch Irenäus so verstanden haben. Ja, man möchte aus dem betonten τῇ ἰδίᾳ αὐτῶν διαλέκτω | heraushörne, daß auch Irenäus damit die Besonderheit des Stils der—Εβραῑοι, das ist der Juden, im Auge hat.”89 The reason why many ancient and modern scholars have failed to appreciate the strength of Kürzinger’s theory regarding Irenaeus’s (as well as Papias’s) apparent shift in meaning is that his explanation simply does not reflect the most obvious interpretation of Irenaeus’s or Papias’s words. Moreover, since Kürzinger failed to provide other examples where similar shifts in meaning have occurred his position, while notable, has not received a considerable following. Concerning this particular theory of Kürzinger D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo wrote, “But however possible, it is not the natural way to read the passage, and it is certainly not what later church fathers understood. Without exception, they held that the apostle Matthew wrote canonical Matthew and that it was first written in Semitic. That is true, for instance of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, quoted in Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2), Tertullian (Adv. Marc., 4.2), Origen (quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.3–6), Eusebius himself (H. E. 3.24.5–6), and Jerome (De vir. ill. 3).”90

Kürzinger’s fourth chapter discusses the title and purpose of Papias’s Exposition. He additionally interacted with the work of well known scholars such as Preuschen, Schwartz, and Harnack. Kürzinger translated Papias’s title as: Sammlung der Logien über den Herrn.91 Although aware that ἐξήγησις is normally translated as “an explanation,”92 Kürzinger translated ἐξήγησις as “Sammlung,” which in English is usually translated “collection.” He based his argument for this translation upon Grecian linguistic usage, the rhetorical function of titles, and word ordering; nevertheless, his explanations failed to provide a satisfactory defense for this translation, for none of them sufficiently explains why ἐξήγησις should be interpreted as “a collection” instead of “An Exposition” of the Oracles of the Lord.93 Moreover, given that Papias already possessed or knew of at least two canonical Gospels, i.e., Mark and Luke94 (and more likely all four) what possible function would a simple “collection” of sayings from the Lord serve the Asiatic church. If Papias’s purpose, however, was to explain the history of the Lord’s oracles, as well as the meaning of specific sayings, then interpreting ἐξήγησις as “an explanation” would make perfect sense for the title of such a work.

While some of Kürzinger’s positions are debatable, his research has shed considerable light on Papias through his analysis of Papias’s preface as preserved by Eusebius. One of the more important contributions of his work is that it adequately demonstrates that Papias felt competent enough to discuss in rhetorical terms the credibility and value of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. Consequently, one could infer from Papias’s effort that he had achieved a respectable level of academic training. Such an inference is supported by the fact that Papias’s literary abilities enabled him to compose a five-volume work that not only influenced his own generation, but continued to influence Christian pastors, theologians, and apologists in the centuries that followed. Although Papias’s Exposition and the theology it contained fell out of favor with those who inevitably became important leaders in the later patristic era (e.g., Eusebius, Jerome, et al.), one should not conclude with Eusebius that Papias’s fall from favor necessarily proves that he was a man of little intellectual power or academic training.

A book titled Papias von Hierapolis by Ulrich H. J. Körtner was also published in 1983. Since Körtner’s work was published in the same year as Kürzinger’s it should not be surprising that he shows little awareness of Kürzinger’s book.95 Körtner’s compilation of Papian material contains twenty-two fragments.96 Similarly to this book, Körtner’s monograph attempts to address themes relating to Papias and the extant fragments of his writings. Unlike the book before you, however, Körtner supplied in Greek his own version of the collection of Papian fragments along with their translations in German. Unfortunately, however, his Greek texts are handwritten, which modern readers may find as somewhat of a distraction. Similarly to the Papian list of Lightfoot and Holmes, Körtner placed Eusebian material at the head of his compilation, while placing Irenaeus’s reference to Papias as his twelfth fragment. Körtner also provided a history of the many different editions of the fragments of Papias, beginning with Halloix’s edition and ending with the list of Funk-Bihlmeyer; additionally he compared the order of the fragments as they are found in each of these editions.97 He was of the opinion that Papias wrote much earlier then some assume, writing that “vor allem die Analyse der polemischen Funktion der Papiasbücher hat gezeigt, daß der Hierapolitaner eher um 110 n.Chr. als gegen Mitte des 2. Jh.s seine Darstellung der Jesusgeschichten geschrieben hat.”98 He also did not believe that Papias wrote his five-volume work before the compositions of the canonical Gospels.99 Believing that Papias wrote early in the second century, he contended that Papias was not a hearer of the apostle John but rather was a hearer of Eusebius’s John the elder, basing much of his position upon Eusebius’s exegesis and opinions about Papias.100 He additionally argued that Irenaeus also confused the son of Zebedee with Eusebius’s John the elder; thus confusing church historians and theologians for centuries to follow. He explained his theory in this manner, “Daß Andreas v. Cäsarea im 6./7. Jh. von einem Presbyter Johannes neben dem Apostel nichts weiß, ist nun andererseits leicht erklärlich, da schon Ireanäus den Presbyter Johannes mit dem Zebedaiden identifizierte, ferner schon Justin, Clemens Alexandrinus und Meilto v. Sardes den Apokalyptiker für den Apostel hielten.101 Clearly, therefore, Körtner’s view of Papias’s possible knowledge of the apostle John was significantly influenced by Eusebius, while also marginalizing Irenaeus’s personal testimony about Papias.102

Körtner should be commended for his monograph and his attention to detail with respect to important issues surrounding the fragments of Papias. Examples of such are his attention to exegetical and textual issues found within his list of twenty-two Papian fragments, and his word studies of significant vocabulary such as πρεσβύτερος and λóγια.103 Körtner also addressed many other issues regarding Papias, such as his chiliasm, the history of Christianity throughout the second century, and the “Johannine Circle,”104 just to mention a few. Although a reader may be distracted by the use of handwritten Greek texts found throughout his monograph, this should not cause one to regard his work lightly. Consequently, it is a helpful aid to any who wish to research Papian material.

More recently the Loeb Classical Library has added collections of the Apostolic Fathers to its series. Volume 25 contains a section devoted to Papian material under the title “Fragments of Papias and Quadratus,” which was translated by Bart Ehrman.105 Ehrman also provided a brief introduction to his translations in which he stated that Papias lived from 60 to 130. He translated the title of Papias’s five-volume work as, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord, which he believed to have been written between 110–140.106 Although without providing any detailed explanation, Ehrman doubted that Papias knew any of the Lord’s disciples. His introduction, however, does address Papias’s chiliastic theology and its relation to Irenaeus.107 Following the normal format for the Loeb series, Ehrman provided the Papian fragments in their original languages along with their English translations in a chronological order. He also provided brief notes regarding the textual families of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History with respect to chapter 39 of book three, which is where the majority of Eusebius’s discussion about Papias is found. Ehrman, as indicating by the title, also included a fragment from Quadratus that was also preserved by Eusebius together with his assembling of Papian material. The edition of the Loeb Classical Library Series is a particular helpful tool for anyone who desires direct access to the Greek and Latin texts of the more well known Papian fragments.

Lastly, but certainly not of the least importance, is the spectrum of work complied by J. B. Lightfoot, J. R. Harmer, and Michael W. Holmes.108 A three-volume work titled Supernatural Religion: An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation was anonymously published in England in 1874.109 This book and its subsequent revisions were most likely the efforts of Walter Richard Cassels, although he never publicly claimed responsibility for being its author.110 This particular book touched upon many topics dealing with the history of the early church and its leaders. In response to Supernatural Religion, J. B. Lightfoot wrote a series of articles addressing conjectures found throughout these volumes. These articles were published in The Contemporary Review in intervals, beginning in December 1874 and continuing until May 1878, and afterwards, with the help of J. R. Harmer, they were combined, edited, and published into a single volume work in 1889 under the title Essays on the Work Entitled “Supernatural Religion.”111 In response, the author of Supernatural Religion also wrote another work titled, A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot’s Essays, which was also published in 1889.112 Lightfoot’s Essays on the Work Entitled “Supernatural Religion,” contained two chapters solely dedicated to the subject of Papias and the assumptions made about him by the author of Supernatural Religion. Before his response to Supernatural Religion, Lightfoot had previously published a two-volume work, which was originally printed in 1869 and titled, The Apostolic Fathers Part I. S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertation, and Translations.113 This series was expanded in 1885 to five volumes with the addition of Lightfoot’s work on the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp.114 Material from and about Papias, however, was not included in any of these volumes. A couple of years after Lightfoot’s death, J. R. Harmer abridged Lightfoot’s work on the apostolic fathers into a single book. Along with Lightfoot’s writings, “Harmer also contributed the texts with translations of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Diognetus.”115 He was also responsible for introducing twenty Papian fragments into this volume, doing so by selecting fragments from and about Papias that Lightfoot discussed in Essays on the Work Entitled “Supernatural Religion.”116 Michael W. Holmes joined the work of Lightfoot and Harmer in 1989 when he revised and updated the English of their one-volume book.117 The need to revise Lightfoot’s version of The Apostolic Fathers also provided the opportunity to include expanded introductions and new information from discoveries of additional texts and material.118 Holmes also added within this new edition six new Papian fragments to the collection of Lightfoot and Harmer.119 Holmes was invited to reformat the single-volume version of The Apostolic Fathers into a diglot edition, a format that is a significant improvement to earlier editions of Lightfoot and Harmer.120 This edition is a significant improvement primarily because it allows the Greek texts to be immediately compared with their English translations without having to turn a page.121 The latest version of this work was released as a third edition in 2007.122 Holmes is to be commended for his part in keeping Lightfoot and Harmer’s work current and convenient for those interested in researching this earlier portion of the patristic period, as well as the development of the New Testament canon.

The influence of Lightfoot’s scholarship in New Testament and patristic studies can hardly be overestimated. It is his two chapters on Papias in his book Essays on the Entitled Supernatural Religion that are of significant importance to this subject. Lightfoot had no trouble believing that Papias in fact had been “a hearer of John.”123 Concerning the evidence of Papias’s relationship to John and his importance as a witness to the apostolic generation, Lightfoot wrote, “These two fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition. Papias, writes Irenaeus, was ‘a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp.’ On the latter point we may frankly accept the evidence of Irenaeus. A pupil of Polycarp was not likely to be misinformed here. . . . Yet, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of St. John, still his age and country place him in more or less close connection with the traditions of this Apostle; and it is this fact which gives importance to his position and teaching.”124

Lightfoot translated the title of Papias’s writings as “Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,” which he argued was composed ca. 130 or later.125 He also believed that not only did Papias personally know John the son of Zebedee, but that he also knew Eusebius’s “John the elder,” which Lightfoot believed was a name the primitive church gave this individual in “contradistinction” to the apostle John.126 The apostle John was not the only member of Jesus’ original twelve disciples that Lightfoot believed Papias had met. He also believed that Papias possibly knew the apostles Philip and Andrew as well.127 He estimated Papias to have been born ca. 60–70, and that he was slightly older than Polycarp.128 Lightfoot doubted, however, that Papias was martyred in 164 as indicated in the Chronicon Paschale, or that he had even lived to see the death of Polycarp,129 arguing that if Eusebius had any information regarding Papias’s death then he would have been obliged to provide it.130

Lightfoot was of the opinion that the dominant purpose of Papias’s magnum opus was to exegete and explain, or give commentary, on the sayings of Jesus found in a body of work already in circulation.131 What makes Lightfoot’s analysis interesting is that he believed Papias felt compelled to write his commentary of explanations in order to provide “correct interpretation of an existing narrative.”132 In other words, Papias was concerned with securing orthodoxy as he had received it from the apostles.133 Lightfoot did not ignore the fact that Papias had discussed oral traditions, rather he contended that Papias employed such traditions to “confirm and illustrate his explanations” of them.134 Consequently, he believed that if Papias’s work had survived to this day it would be “highly important” since it would have provided information about what the early church viewed as “false exegesis,” as well as exegesis that Papias viewed as “true.”135 Lightfoot speculated that gnostics were a possible major opponent of orthodox Christianity that provided imperfect or false exegesis on the oracles of the Lord.136

Lightfoot was also of the opinion that Papias possessed our canonical Gospels.137 More specifically, he understood Papias’s cryptic quote concerning Matthew’s original Hebraic Gospel to imply that it was translated and in circulation until an “official” Greek version of Matthew’s Gospel went public.138 Additionally, he believed that Papias’s reference to the “oracles of the Lord” not only referred to the Gospel narratives, but that it was also Papias’s affirmation that these narratives were commensurate with the rest of the Scriptures since the Greek term λóγιον was used by both Jewish and Christian authors to refer to the divine pronouncements of God before, during, and after the composition of the New Testament.139

Lastly, Lightfoot provided an insightful discussion regarding the pericope adulterae.140 He theorized that this pericope was not originally contained in John’s Gospel, but was later added by a “transcriber” who was familiar with Papias’s work and provided the pericope adulterae in the form of a “catena” as an illustration of Jesus’ statement in John 8:15, which was Jesus’ critical evaluation that Jewish leaders were unable to make proper moral judgments. His theory regarding the placement of this pericope as found in John’s Gospel is attractive, and while it will not be addressed in this book, his conjecture is worthy of further consideration.141 Lightfoot concluded his second chapter about Papias with a discussion on the subject of Papias’s possible awareness of the Fourth Gospel and the book of Revelation.142

Lightfoot’s treatment of Papias in these two chapters is insightful. While reading his work, however, it is important for the reader to look beyond its polemical nature. Lightfoot was not merely providing his research on Papias, he was also attempting to defend English Christianity from the quickly encroaching influences of the Tübingen School as promoted by the author of Supernatural Religion. Many of Lightfoot’s arguments are weighty, while others are as speculative as those of his adversary. Regardless of the polemic arguments found in Essays on the Work Entitled “Supernatural Religion, his work provides a wealth of information and ideas about the nature of Christianity at the close of the apostolic generation and the beginning of the second century. Consequently, both Harmer and Holmes have done Lightfoot a great service by adding “The Fragments of Papias” to the body of work he initiated.

Secondary Works

While the above primary works are essential to any research concerning the fragments of Papias, there are other works that also provide significant contributions to developing a proper understanding of Papias and his place in the patristic period. These secondary works may not deal directly with Papias, or they may only deal with a single element regarding him and/or his material. Their contributions, however, are valuable. One such work is Frank Grant Lewis’s book titled, The Fourth Gospel: Its Extent, Meaning, and Value, published in 1908. A better title for the book would have been Irenaeus’s Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel and Its Extent, Meaning, and Value, for one of Lewis’s primary focuses in his book was to analyze Irenaeus’s knowledge of the author of the Gospel of John, even though he clearly stated that he did not intend to answer a “single question” concerning its “authorship.”143 While this may have been his intent, nevertheless, his work has much to offer for answering this question. The “critical” issue for Lewis was: “Did Irenaeus have actual knowledge of Christian affairs in Asia at the close of the first century?”144 In order to answer this question, he systematically reviewed and analyzed all references to the Gospel of John in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies along with all references to any John found within the context of quotes, references, and allusions to the Fourth Gospel.145

On the basis of his research Lewis contended that Irenaeus clearly knew of the Fourth Gospel (including chapter 21); that he saw it as authoritative; and that it was the work of a John of Asia who lived during the late apostolic period. Consequently, Lewis argued that Irenaeus “recognized only one John of apostolic times,” and that this John was a “disciple of the Lord,” and an “apostle;” and finally, that he was “John, the son of Zebedee.”146 Regarding these observations and conclusions Lewis wrote, “This cumulation(sic) of evidence places Irenaeus’ opinion beyond doubt. The author of the fourth gospel was as certainly an apostle for him as though he had taken a page, to state, to argue, and prove the point. He would have been astonished if he could have known that any reader would ever think otherwise. One can hardly believe that those who have been in doubt about the matter have read Irenaeus.”147

Consequently, Lewis argued that “Accordingly, when we take into account that he (Irenaeus) recognized only one John other than John the Baptist and John Mark and that this one John, on the basis of Irenaeus’ own testimony rightly understood, was an ‘apostle,’ the conditions which his testimony as a whole imposes are satisfied only by the conclusion that the son of Zebedee was, for Irenaeus, the author of the fourth gospel.”148 Given the thoroughness of his research, however, some may have trouble accepting his theories regarding the final composition of the Gospel of John as it is known today.149 Regardless of these theories, Lewis concluded in the affirmative that because of his relationship with Polycarp, Irenaeus was a well versed and trustworthy witness to the affairs of the church in Asia Minor at the end of the first century.150 Lewis’s work, consequently, is not only a powerful tool for investigating Irenaeus’s attitude toward the Gospel of John or his knowledge of its author, but also for developing a clearer picture of Irenaeus’s relationship to the history of the church and its leaders at the close of the apostolic period.

John Chapman wrote in 1911 a book titled John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel, which was published by Clarendon Press. Chapman’s book attempted to answer the Johannine question by an analysis of Papias’s preface as preserved by Eusebius. His work largely focused upon what Papias meant by the word “presbyter.” In order to correctly understand Papias’s meaning, he argued that one must also investigate Irenaeus’s employment of the term.151 While this might be helpful for understanding the meaning of this word in the late second-century church, to rely exclusively upon Irenaeus for understanding Papias’s meaning has its perils. The most obvious problem with this approach is that it is clearly anachronistic since Irenaeus wrote after the period in which Papias ministered. Consequently, Chapman’s theory ignores the possibility of any morphological evolution in the term “presbyter” during one of most important periods of the church’s development.

Chapman, with respect to Papias’s use of this word, theorized that he did not employ it to refer to an office of the church but rather in a strictly general sense, such as when referring to one’s age. Chapman argued that, “It is clear that Papias means ‘οἱ πρεσβύτεροι’ in the etymological sense, not in the ecclesiastical, and the same use is common in St. Irenaeus.”152 Based upon this assumption, he concluded that for Irenaeus the term presbyter “never” referred to the apostles, but to their followers.153 Subsequently, he asserted that since Papias used this word with the same sense then he must have not known any of the apostles.154 Chapman was so confident in his position that he stated, “It seems that no parallel is to be found for the supposed πρεσβύτεροι = ἀπóστολος of Papias,”155 This is a conjecture that even Eusebius did not feel confident to assert.156 Additionally, Chapman failed to recognize that such a “parallel” existed well before the beginning of the second century as can be observed in 1 Peter 5:1, in which the apostle Peter referred to himself as a “fellow elder” (συμπρεσβύτερος), and described himself as one who possessed definitive authority over other presbyters because of his firsthand witness to the sufferings of Christ. The context of this passage, not to mention that of the entire epistle, clearly indicates that he perceived himself as an official of the church (both as an apostle, 1 Peter 1:1; and as an elder 1 Peter 5:1), and as one who possessed authority over the church, and who exercised control over her doctrines and traditions. First Peter 5:1, therefore, clearly demonstrates that Peter was not simply referring to himself as an elderly man. The same can be said for the use of the title “presbyter” in the second and third epistles of the apostle John.157 The author of these epistles identified himself in 2 John 1 as “Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρία,”158 and clearly perceived himself as one who possessed authority to distinguish between orthodoxy and heresy, and thus possessed the right to command others to adhere to correct doctrine (2 John 7–11). He also perceived himself as one who possessed the right to exercise authority over other leaders in the church (3 John 9–10). Regarding this author’s perceived authority, Harnack wrote, “Yet these letters were composed by a man who, whatever he may have been, claimed and exercised apostolic authority over a large number of the churches.”159 Consequently, it is indefensible to argue that the authors of these epistles only employed the term “presbyter” as a reference to their ages.

Ironically, the best argument against Chapman’s primary thesis, which was that Papias employed the term πρεσβύτεροι only in the “etymological” sense, was provided by Chapman himself, for in a footnote on page 19 he wrote, “It may be urged that the word ‘Presbyters’ in the sense of ‘Fathers’ might include apostles, in the mouth of a very early writer. It might but apparently it does not. It seems rather to have a technical meaning—primitive sub-apostolic witness who were not apostles nor disciples of the Lord but usually disciples of apostles. They are witnesses to tradition and links. The Apostles are not regarded as links; they are the authentic teachers, the originator of tradition and not a part of it.”160

Chapman severely damaged his own thesis by this very admission. If Papias employed the word “elder” with a “technical meaning,” then one is left to ask, what other possible “technical” sense could be meant? Chapman answered this question most adeptly when he admitted that in the environment of the early church an elder would be one who was an original “witness” to the church’s traditions. His argument that an apostle would never be referred to as an elder is simply indefensible since he himself contended that the apostles were the “authentic teachers” and “originators of tradition.”161 The title of elder as referring to an office of the church and as being applied to the apostles fits perfectly well with the biblical witness as found in 1 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.162 While Irenaeus, writing in the last quarter of the second century, and today’s scholars regularly feel the necessity to distinguish between the apostles and their disciples and associates, congregates of the church at the end of the first century would not have felt any such compulsion. In fact, it appears that the term “apostle” did not carry the same clout at the end of the first century as it did for Irenaeus, and as it does for today’s church. Ironically, at the end of the first century the church in Asia Minor had to deal with the problem of “false apostles” as indicated in Revelation 2:2. These types of imposters presented a problem for the church even as early as Paul’s own day (cf. 2 Cor 11:13). Additionally, the problem of false apostles was also a major concern for the author of the Didache.163 While it seems that the early church struggled with the problem of erroneously appointed itinerant “apostles,” (whether by self promotion or by rogue churches) there seems to be little evidence that one could designate themselves as an “elder,” nor is there evidence that “false elders” plagued the early church at the end of the first century.

Chapman recognized the possibility that Papias had received his knowledge of the “Lord’s actions and words” secondhand, meaning his sources were “disciples of the Lord.” Additionally, he also conceded that there is no compelling argument that Papias’s knowledge of Jesus’ activities and teachings was thirdhand.164 It is not uncommon to find some who assume that because Papias testified that he had known those who knew the “apostles” and “disciples of the Lord,” then he himself must not have known the “apostles” and/or “disciples of the Lord.” This is an unwarranted assumption as illustrated by the following equation demonstrating Papias’s possible relationship to any apostle, as well as other possible channels of communication by which oral traditions probably traveled to Papias. Allowing for “A” to represent the apostles, and “B” to represent their followers and contemporaries,165 and “C” to represent Papias: If group A knew group B, and group B knew C, then there is nothing that prohibits the possibility that C also knew group A; for if A and B were contemporaries, and group B and C were contemporaries then the possibility that C was a contemporary of group A becomes even stronger. In spite of this possibility, there are some who contend that Papias not only did not know any apostles, but that he also did not know any of their followers as well.166

While Chapman’s book provides some helpful insights, it is severely undermined by his unwarranted assumption that in order to understand Papias’s use of the term “presbyter” one must depend upon Irenaeus’s later use of the term. At times, however, even Chapman seems to contradict himself, as seen in his statement that “The whole question (of) what Papias meant, and what his readers would understand, depends upon their previous knowledge of who the Presbyters were. Examples will make this clear. For the possibly ambiguous word ‘Presbyter’ let us substitute first ‘disciple’, which will naturally be understood as equivalent to apostle, and then ‘bishop’, which will naturally appear to exclude the Apostles.”167 Such apparent contradictions and baseless assumptions can be found throughout his book. Consequently, although he is often cited by others with respect to Papian research, his arguments should not be uncritically accepted as the final word regarding the identity of the character commonly referred to as “John the elder,” or of Papias’s use of the word πρεσβύτερος.

A brief but salient article by A. F. Walls was published in 1967 titled “Papias and Oral Tradition,” in the twenty-first volume of Vigiliae Christianae. As the title suggests, the article focuses on Papias’s attitude towards oral traditions. Concerning Papias’s preface as preserved by Eusebius, Walls stated that “the frequent preoccupation of the modern reader of Papias with gospel origins has perhaps favored the assumption that in this famous passage Papias is expressing a uniform preference for oral as against written tradition and reflecting a contemporary lack of interest in the literary preservation of tradition.”168 Walls made several very important observations regarding the validity of this assumption; the first was that Papias was so concerned with preserving and explaining oral traditions, both from Jesus and others who saw him, that he wrote a book and, as Walls so aptly pointed out, “a very large one” at that.169 Nevertheless, Papias’s interest in oral traditions is hardly questionable. Papias’s preference for first-person rhetoric over written works is understandable given his Greek culture and the opportunities he had to listen to individuals who were both apostles and/or hearers of Jesus, as well as their followers. If given the choice between reading the Gospel of John or listening to the apostle John, very few would choose the former, whether that one be a first-century Greek speaking bishop of Asia Minor or a twenty-first-century American layman. Contending, however, that Papias disdained the written word and only valued the spoken word is a proposition doomed to embarrassment by the very quill of Papias.

A second important observation of Walls concerns Papias’s selection and subsequent preservation of material. The source of a tradition was essential for Papias because it was the guarantor of its orthodoxy. Regarding the value that he placed upon a tradition’s source and his desire for orthodoxy, Walls wrote,

[Papias] delights in those who teach the truth and in those who provide commandments given by the Lord to the faith, and deriving from the Truth itself. . . . That is, in orthodoxy and authenticity as guaranteed by pedigree—in fact, apostolicity. Instead of taking all traditions at face value, he has carefully noted the accounts of reliable people with known access to apostolic teaching. Papias, then, is thinking of works of whose apostolic origin there is no proof. With Matthew, Mark, and any other demonstrably apostolic work he is not here concerned. For Papias, what matters is the quality of the source, not whether it is oral or written. A written work known to be apostolic provides the “oracles of the Lord”, which may be taken as authentic, ready for exposition. . . . For him, authenticity meant apostolicity; and apostolicity was patient of historical verification. Far from being uninterested in the literary preservation of the tradition, he was wrestling manfully with the problems involved in it.170

Walls is not alone in the assertion that Papias valued literary sources. Schoedel in a similar fashion also agreed that Papias was not averse to relying upon written traditions, stating that “Papias discloses his preference for oral tradition in good rhetorical style as a preference for a ‘living and abiding voice’ (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.4), yet he clearly is also well disposed to his written sources.”171

Walls’s observations are important because they effectively challenge the notion held by some (e.g., Hall, Bauer) that orthodoxy was a late development in the early church. Some scholars have argued that orthodoxy developed late in the second century, for others orthodoxy was not identified until the late fourth century. Robert Stein, in reference to form critics Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius, explained that “For some form critics, however, a non sequitur often takes place that assumes that the Sitz im Leben that preserved and molded the gospel traditions also gave them their birth. As a result, the needs of the early church are seen not only as the preserver but also as the creator of the traditions. The tradition was not only to the church and for the church but also from the church.”172 Stein, however, concerning the biblical evidence validating such a hypothesis concluded that “[u]pon closer examination, there seems to be little objective evidence to support such a view.”173 It is true that the refinement of the parameters and nuances of orthodoxy was a constant challenge in the early church; nevertheless, discerning the spring from which it flowed seems to have been decided relatively early, as Walls observed and Papias’s preface verifies.

More recently, an important scholar for Papian research and the development of the New Testament is Richard Bauckham. Bauckham wrote an article in 1993 titled “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel,” and in 2006 he wrote a book titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel as Eyewitness Testimony, within which he also addressed the subject of Papias. Bauckham’s earlier article expands on Martin Hengel’s theory that the character known as “John the Elder” was actually the “beloved disciple and the author of the Fourth Gospel (as well as of the Johannine letters).”174 He, however, in contrast to Hengel contended that “In the present article, we shall proceed on the basis of the view that the Gospel portrays the beloved disciple, not as one of the twelve, but as a Jerusalem disciple of Jesus. This view is accepted by many of those recent scholars who hold that the beloved disciple is portrayed in the Gospel as a historical individual, not as a purely ideal figure.”175 Bauckham posited that one of the benefits of his theory, as opposed to that of Hengel’s, was that “it can explain the attribution to John the son of Zebedee, which eventually prevailed in the early church, as the result of an assimilation of John the Elder, a disciple of Jesus who was not one of the twelve, to the better known and more prestigious apostle John the son of Zebedee.”176 Bauckham, in harmony with Eusebius, depended upon Papias’s preface to support this theory, arguing that

In the period when the authorship of the Gospel by John the Elder was quite often canvassed, the possibility that he could also be the beloved disciple was rarely raised, even though it was usually rightly recognized that according to Papias he had been a personal disciple of Jesus. . . . In this article we shall argue that the best external evidence in fact supports the internal evidence in seeing the beloved disciple, the author of the Gospel, as the disciple of Jesus who was not one of the twelve. This coincidence with the best reading of the internal evidence strongly suggests that this external evidence is also reliable when it calls this disciple John, indicating a John of Ephesus who must be, not the son of Zebedee, but Papias’ John the Elder. . . . The only Church, so far as we know, which ever(sic) claimed to be the place of origin of the Fourth Gospel was Ephesus. This means that if any of the external evidence is of any value, the most reliable is likely to be that of writers who can witness to the local tradition of Ephesus and its neighbourhood in the second century. Such writers are Papias of Hierapolis and Polycrates of Ephesus.177

In the first half of his article, Bauckham attempted to explain Polycrates’s “erroneous” testimony regarding the authorship of the Gospel of John. Bauckham argued in a rather strained fashion that Polycrates implied that he was related to the “John” who leaned back upon Jesus during the Passover. Bauckham believed that Polycrates was quite proud of his familial pedigree of orthodox bishops, all of whom served in the early to mid second century (although he recognized that Polycrates never explicitly called them his “ancestors”). He postulated, however, that Polycrates, who wrote in the late second century, had to depend heavily upon the local tradition of the church in Ephesus to construct his ancestral heritage and “took it for granted” that his relative was the apostle John instead of a different John who was supposed to have been the elder of the Ephesian church.178

Armed with nothing but conjectures, Bauckham contended that the true identity of Polycrates’s John is in reality the unnamed disciple of John 18:15, but who was later identified as the “John” in Acts 4:6.179 To support this conjecture he cited a reference to an Ephesian bishop named “John” in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46, who was reportedly appointed to the bishopric of Ephesus by none other than the apostle John. It challenges the limits of reasonable objectivity to contend that Polycrates, (who presumably was quite proud of his “possible” family tree), was in error when he believed that his ancestor was the apostle John, but who in reality was the unnamed disciple in John 18:15, who is later identified as the “John” mentioned in Acts 4:6 (and who was also the “beloved disciple”), and that the seventh chapter of the Apostolic Constitutions (a fourth-century document) corrects the “erroneous” testimony of both Polycrates and Irenaeus regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

Having attempted to explain Polycrates’s confusion regarding his ancestors and the authorship of the Gospel of John, Bauckham turned his attention to Papias. His discussion regarding Papias and his meanings contains many insightful comments. He believed, in spite of Eusebius’s silence on the subject, that Papias was aware of the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation.180 He based his argument upon Papias’s listing of the apostles, which he aptly observed to be Johannine in chronology, and upon evidence drawn from other Papian fragments. He insightfully recognized that Eusebius’s quotations of Papias regarding the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark may have come from different contexts, but that Eusebius had probably brought them together thematically in a manner that was consistent with their original contexts.181 He also posited that Papias’s comments concerning these Gospels affirm that they were based upon eyewitness accounts, a thesis which is central to his recently published book. Bauckham contended, however, that Papias’s comments could be inferred to mean that he “appears to be acknowledging the fact that the Greek Gospel of Matthew which he and his readers knew had suffered something in the translation from Matthew’s original Hebrew. . . . Quite probably Papias went on to make this more explicit in a further comment which Eusebius omitted, because he did not like the notion that the Greek Gospel of Matthew used by the church diverged rather considerably from Matthew’s original Hebrew Gospel.”182

Bauckham’s conjecture that Papias “possibly” referred to our Greek Gospel of Matthew, and that Eusebius “probably” censored his reference, are completely based upon silence and, therefore, should not be uncritically accepted. His observations, however, about the proliferation of Greek Gospels produced from faulty translations of Matthew’s original Aramaic work is attractive because it does not contradict the historical record concerning the existence of “Gospel” literature during the last half of the first century. Regarding the existence of multiple literary accounts about Jesus, Bauckham posited, “From what we know Papias to have said about Matthew, it is clear that he thought there had been more than one translation of the original Hebrew Gospel into Greek. Probably he knew something about Greek Gospels, under the name of Matthew and related to our Matthew, which were used by Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria. He knew they exhibited major divergences from the Gospel of Matthew used in Hierapolis and neighbouring churches.”183

He supported this theory by an analysis of the vocabulary that Papias employed in his preface concerning the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Papias stated that Mark had been Peter’s interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής) while others had interpreted (ἡρμήνευσεν) Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel according to their ability or lack thereof. The possibility of there being multiple spurious or faulty gospels, or other gospels that may have competed with our canonical Gospels is not inconsistent with the historical record as preserved in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1–4) and Papias’s preface (τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων).184

If Matthew wrote a Gospel that contained the teachings and deeds of Jesus for an Aramaic speaking audiences, then such a document would certainly have been highly prized since it would be viewed as containing the actual words and teachings of the one whom the audience believed was both the Savior and Messiah. Such a document would have been perceived as significant—if not priceless for predominantly Greek-speaking diasporic Jews who had made pilgrimages to “the holy land” and had subsequently converted to Christianity. The result of such conversions would be that many would have acquired a copy of Matthew’s Aramaic work before returning home. Once such a document reached cities throughout the Diaspora, other Jews and “God fearing” Gentiles alike would certainly have desired to have it read to them (as well as possess their own copies). Understandably, they would have preferred to read or hear this document in their native tongue. The result would be that some unqualified (“as each was able”; [ὡς ἦς δυνατὸς ἕκαστος]), and/or possibly some unorthodox translators may have been employed for the purpose of translating Matthew’s text. Such a translation process would have at times required interpretative decisions to be made regarding the various possible meanings of the author’s text, whether intentionally or unintentionally. These translators may have been asked or hired to translate the entire document or possibly only small portions it. Given the differing and at times competing philosophical worldviews within the intellectual, academic, and spiritual milieu of both the Gentile and Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire during the first century, one can only wonder at the potential problems such a document would have caused young orthodox churches desiring to maintain fidelity to the actual teachings of the apostolic colloquium.185

Bauckham explained Papias’s statement about the fidelity of Matthew and Mark to their sources, and the apparent lack of fidelity of those who attempted to translate Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel in this manner, “Whereas Mark’s accuracy and scrupulosity in recording everything he had heard from Peter, leaving nothing out and falsifying nothing, is stressed, those who interpreted Matthew as best they could were evidently much less careful and competent.”186 Bauckham’s discussion focused predominantly upon the differences in the ordering of the material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. His analysis, however, introduces important questions concerning the impact that competing epistemologies and theologies could have had upon Christian communities during the last half of the first century.

A glaring weakness in Bauckham’s article is his frequent speculations with respect to what Papias may have said and what Eusebius might have censored concerning the Gospel of John and other books of the New Testament. His assertion that “Eusebius did not record everything his sources said about the origins of the Gospels” is not unreasonable.187 It is hardly questionable that Eusebius employed Papias’s preface to explain the origin and defend the authenticity of the Gospel Mark. Speculating, however, about what Eusebius might have censored or what Papias may have written concerning other Gospels, such as that of John and Luke, is simply an exercise in academic shadow boxing. Constantine Tischendorf has aptly argued that Eusebius’s silence with respect to what Papias may have said about the origin of the Gospel of John, and subsequently the origins of other New Testament books, is of little weight. Concerning Eusebius’s silence about the origin of John’s Gospel, Tischendorf wrote, “Now, it is difficult to conceive a statement more utterly groundless and arbitrary than this, that the silence of Papias as to the Gospel of John is a proof against its genuineness. . . . We have no right to conclude, from Eusebius’ extracts out of Papias’ book, that there was no reference to St. John’s Gospel in the entire book.”188 He buttressed this assertion by highlighting Eusebius’s references to Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, as well as his reference to Theophilus’s letter to Autolycus in order to explain Eusebius’s silence concerning certain New Testament books, writing that, “Eusebius only says one thing of Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians—that it contains passages taken from the First Epistle of Peter; and yet the letter is full of quotations from St. Paul! He also mentions (iv.26), that Theophilus, in his letter to his friend Autolycus, made use of the Apocalypse, and yet he does not so much as notice that these books contain a citation of a passage from the Gospel of St. John, and even with the name of the apostle given. Now, the blind zeal of the adversaries of the Gospel has either chosen not to see this, or has passed it over in silence.”189

Tischendorf cogently explained Eusebius’s silence by arguing that “no one in the early Church era doubted these writings [i.e., The Gospel of Luke, The Gospel of John, and the Pauline epistles], and so it never occurred to Eusebius to collect testimonies in their favor.”190 Tischendorf, therefore, has sufficiently explained the relevance of Eusebius’s silence by arguing that his primarily concern was with providing the origins of certain questionable catholic epistles, not with books that fell within his homologoumena (e.g., the Gospel of John). While today’s New Testament and patristic scholars desperately hunger for historical explanations of the origins of all the books of the New Testament, Eusebius and his audience, on the other hand, suffered from no such appetite. Consequently, Eusebius’s silence is a poor catapult from which to launch conjectures about what Papias may or may not have said about the Gospel of John or about any other New Testament books for that matter.

Bauckham also speculated about the possible relationship of the Muratorian Canon and the writings of Papias. He posited that the tradition found in the Muratorian Canon regarding the Gospel of John was possibly dependent upon Papias.191 His explanation highlighted several interesting similarities between existing Papian fragments and the Muratorian Canon, but very few of them can be objectively verified. Bauckham argued that because the Muratorian Canon distinguished the author of the Gospel of John as a “John” who was only one of the “disciples” from Andrew who was referred to as one of the “apostles,” then we should assume that the writer of the Gospel of John could not have been a son of Zebedee. While this distinction is interesting, it alone does not prove Bauckham’s thesis. Bauckham moved from his discussion of the Muratorian Canon to Irenaeus, whom he contended came to his understanding of the Gospel origins “by intelligent deduction rather than because he had additional information.”192 He is generally silent in this article, however, about Irenaeus’s confessed relationship to Polycarp, who was himself a student of the apostle John.

Bauckham concluded his article with these startling assertions:

The Fourth Gospel was never anonymous. As Hengel has shown, as soon as Gospels circulated in the churches, they must have been known with author’s names attached to them. The Fourth Gospel was known as John’s. In Asia, the tradition from Papias early in the second century to Polycrates at its end was that this John, the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel, was John the Elder, a disciple of the Lord but not one of the twelve, who had died in Ephesus. We known [sic] of no dissent from this tradition in Asia before the third century. . . .

The writings of Irenaeus help to show us why this ascription would prove acceptable. It has been commonly assumed and sometimes argued that Irenaeus identified the author of the Fourth Gospel with John the son of Zebedee. . . . Decisive evidence is surprisingly and significantly elusive, despite Irenaeus’ frequent references to the Fourth Gospel and its author. Irenaeus knew of John of Ephesus both from Papias and independently from Asian traditions he learned in Smyrna as a young man. . . . He refers to John (regarding him as the author of all Johannine writings, including the Apocalypse) sixteen times as “the disciple of the Lord” (and thirty-one times as just “John”), never as “John the apostle.”193

Although Bauckham is “technically” correct that Irenaeus never referred to the author of the Fourth Gospel as “John the apostle,” Bauckham failed to fully respect Irenaeus’s identification of the apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel in Against Heresies I.9.2. The descriptions within this passage clearly indicate that Irenaeus confidently believed that the John who authored the Fourth Gospel was in fact also an apostle, writing that “So that, according to them in all these terms John makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. For if he has named the Father . . . by thus speaking, (he) referred to the primary Ogdoad, in which there was as yet no Jesus, and no Christ, the teacher of John. But that the apostle did not speak concerning their conjunctions, but concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he also acknowledges as the Word of God, he himself has made evident. For, summing up his statements respecting the Word previously mentioned by him he further declares, “and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.”194

The entire context of Irenaeus’s statement makes it perfectly clear that he identified the author of John 1:14 as the John who was not only “the apostle” (in contradistinction to an “elder”) but who also had Jesus Christ as his “teacher.” Consequently, Lewis has more than adequately defended the conclusion that Irenaeus did in fact believe that it was John—a son of Zebedee and one of the original twelve disciples—that authored the canonical Gospel bearing his name.

Bauckham poorly defended his assertions by postulating that in the face of the gnostic threat Irenaeus was concerned to maintain the “apostolicity” of the “Scriptures” and orthodoxy as coming from “eyewitness tradition from the ministry of Jesus in his native Asia. . . . But since Irenaeus can treat the seventy as ‘other apostles’ in addition to the twelve (Haer. 2.21.1), there is no need to suppose he included the Fourth Evangelist among the twelve.”195 It was Bauckham’s position that the church has simply misunderstood Irenaeus as attributing the Gospel of John to the John who was an apostle and a son of Zebedee. Instead, it was Irenaeus’s intent to communicate that the John who authored the Fourth Gospel was in fact the “John” who Bauckham identified as Eusebius’s John the elder.

Bauckham’s article, “Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel” contains many insightful observations, although it is equally plagued with unwarranted conjectures. While Bauckham recognized that Papias’s preface could be interpreted in such a way that completely undermines his thesis that the Johannine writings are from a John who was not the son of Zebedee,196 he constantly assumes his own poorly defended premises and then continues to build on them. His article, however, is valuable to the discussion regarding the participation of eyewitnesses in the composition of the Gospels. Concerning this thesis, Bauckham is well versed and argues competently, and it is this thesis that is the central theme to his recently published book, to which I now turn.

Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a compelling answer to the many unwarranted assumptions of form critics who generally argue that the canonical Gospels originated from gospel traditions that developed over a prolonged period and were ultimately authored by those who had little credible knowledge of the events about which they wrote. While disagreeing with several of Bauckham’s presuppositions and conclusions, as a whole his work is impressive. Many of his arguments are well written and based upon a reasonable reading of the historical data. Consequently, his work is a breath of fresh air that is bound to have a considerable impact upon New Testament studies in the coming decades.

Bauckham devoted significant attention to Papias’s preface as preserved by Eusebius, giving considerable focus to his statements regarding the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. What makes his comments so salient is that he offered them in light of recent historical research that focuses upon the literary styles of ancient histories and biographies. His survey and synthesis of this research and its application to the Gospels sheds new light upon their purposes, as well as the possible purposes of Papias’s five-volume work. Bauckham addressed Papias and his statements regarding the origins of Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels in chapter 2, which he titled “Papias on the Eyewitnesses.” In this chapter he reaffirmed his unwarranted assumption regarding what Papias may have said regarding the canonical Gospel of Matthew.197 As previously explained, it was his opinion that Papias had written a rather a disparaging comment regarding the Greek translation of Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel, a Gospel that Bauckham believed was in circulation in Hierapolis. It was this statement about which Bauckham speculated that Eusebius did not approve of and, consequently, censored in his discussion of the origins of Matthew’s Gospel. There is, however, no record of Papias as having ever said anything disparaging regarding the canonical Gospel of Matthew. Bauckham also addressed the question of when Papias wrote his five-volume work, which he translated as, Expositions of the Logia of the Lord.198 Bauckham only transliterated the term “Logia” because he believed that its meaning is too “disputed.” He speculated, however, that it probably referred to the “accounts of what Jesus said and did.”199

Bauckham made an important observation regarding the debate concerning when Papias wrote his work, which was that as Papias wrote he was writing about an earlier period in his life, but while doing so he wrote as if it were in real time (i.e., employing the historical present). He explained his observation in this manner, “For our purposes it is much more important that, whenever Papias actually wrote, in the passage we shall study he speaks about an earlier period in his life, the time during which he was collecting oral reports of the words and deeds of Jesus.”200 This is an important observation because if correct, and there is no reason to demand that it is not, then it expands the time frame of Papias’s witness with respect to the origins of the apostolic writings.

The debate regarding when Papias wrote has been well documented by Robert Yarbrough, who explained that scholars estimate the date of Papias’s writings as early as AD 80 to as late as 160.201 One of Yarbrough’s main concerns in his article was to address the arguments of those who unnecessarily distance Papias from the apostolic generation. Regarding these attempts he wrote, “Thus Papias is important as an early witness to portions of the NT canon and their authors and to the life and development of the post-apostolic, or even late apostolic, Church. . . . The further removed temporally Papias is from the facts he relays, the less credible his testimony becomes.”202 Yarbrough contended that Papias wrote ca. 95–110 and not ca. 130 or later, a period which is adopted by a few scholars.203 Similarly, Bauckham also argued that the position that Papias wrote ca. 130 was based upon “unreliable evidence”;204 consequently, he apparently dated Papias’s work as having been written ca. 110.205

The opinion that Papias wrote ca. 110 generally rests on the rejection of the importance that some place on a historical reference made by Philip of Side and the significance of Papias’s use of present tense verb (i.e., λέγουσιν) as found in his preface. Regarding the historical reference made by Philip, those who attribute an early date to Papias’s writings are of the opinion that Philip’s reference is completely unreliable for pinpointing when Papias wrote.206 The historical reference in question is Philip’s statement that Papias referred to those who were resurrected by Christ as having survived “until the time of Hadrian.”207 It should be observed that Philip did not actually quote Papias, but rather he only summarized what Papias wrote, which was that some who were raised from the dead by Christ had survived until Hadrian’s “time.” Benjamin Bacon explained his hesitancy for trusting Philip’s statement in this manner:

It is perhaps not superfluous to add that the date once advocated on the basis of an alleged fragment of Papias in Philip of Side, declaring that some of the subjects of Jesus’ life-restoring power had “survived till the time of Hadrian,” has no value. It would indeed seem to be implied that the author of the statement was himself writing under a later emperor; but it is now generally recognized that Philip merely rests, as usual, on Eusebius, and that in transcribing the material of Eusebius regarding Papias and Quadratus, whom Eusebius reports as making statements of this kind immediately after his statements in regard to Papias, Philip of Side has confused the two. For in delivering his Apology to Hadrian at the time of the emperor’s visit to Athens (125 A.D.) Quadratus did in fact declare that some of these subjects of Jesus’ healing power had survived “even to our times.” These are the actual words of Quadratus given in the verbatim extract of Eusebius (HE, IV,3). Eusebius’ order is misleading; for he places the activity of Papias before that of Quadratus, dating the latter correctly in the reign of Hadrian.208

While not attempting to defend Philip as an great historian or denying that he depended heavily upon Eusebius, there is evidence that should encourage scholars to take a closer look at Philip’s treatment of Papias and his writings, for he shows knowledge of Papias’s work that is found nowhere in the extant writings of Eusebius. Philip stated that Papias’s reference to the martyrdom of James and John could be found in the “second book” of Papias’s five-volume work, which is a referent not supplied by Eusebius.209 He also stated that Papias wrote that it was “Manaim’s” mother who was raised from the dead, which again is a detail not documented by Eusebius. It can be argued that these references indicate that Philip had at least read some excerpts of Papias’s writings or possibly had access to an entire manuscript.

Regarding Bacon’s speculation that in a moment of confusion Philip attributed a statement to Papias that was originally made by Quadratus,210 it should be recognized that there is not sufficient evidence to date proving that it was not Quadratus who had depended upon Papias for his apologetic claim about the life-giving power of Jesus and the supremacy of the Christian faith rather than Papias depending upon Quadratus. Consequently, it is an argument from silence to postulate that Philip was simply confused about whether it was Papias or Quadratus who first made the statement concerning the longevity of those who had received Christ’s miraculous touch. Additionally, it is just as possible that neither depended upon the other, but rather that they both employed a popular polemic of the late first-century and early second-century church for proving the superiority of Jesus. The absences of more substantial textual evidence regarding this reference to Hadrian makes conclusions concerning it difficult. Contending, however, that Philip was confused with respect to everything that Papias wrote, and, therefore, is completely unreliable for providing aid concerning anything else he wrote is unwarranted. Philip at times may have been a poor historian and writer; however, that is not to prove that he was completely incompetent or that he provided no important historical data or independent witness regarding Papias and his writings.211

One last important observation should be made with respect to both Philip’s allusion to what Papias wrote, as well as Eusebius’s quote of Quadratus, which is that neither demonstratively stated that the recipients of Jesus’ miraculous power survived until the time of Hadrian’s “reign,” which is an inference some assume.212 Philip stated that Papias wrote that those who were raised by Jesus survived until “ὃτι ἕως Ἁριανοῡ ἔζω,”213 while Eusebius quoted Quadratus as contending before Hadrian that, “και εἰς τοὺς ἡμετέρους χρόνους τινὲς αὐτῶν ἀφίκοντο,”214 neither of which mentions Hadrian’s “reign” per se. Hadrian was born in 76 and was pronounced emperor in 117 at the age of 41. Using the resurrection of Jarius’s daughter for a yard stick (Mark 5:21–43), a girl born ca. 20 could certainly have survived until 76 or even to 100. Consequently, it is possible that both Papias’s and Quadratus’s focus was upon Hadrian’s “lifetime” rather than his “reign.” In the absence of any clear reference to Hadrian’s ascension to the throne, therefore, one should not assume with certitude that his reign was their intended point of reference. This is not to argue, however, that Papias must have written his work ca. 130 or later, or that he actually wrote sometime between 95 to 110, but only that there is no definitive reason to discount Philip as a viable witness to some of the contents in the writings of Papias. As Yarbrough has written, however, it does suggest that Philip provides no definitive aid in pinpointing the time in which Papias wrote, for if Papias was merely referencing Hadrian’s lifetime then a date of ca. 95–110 is still possible, as is a date after 117.

Placing the discussion of the dating of Papias’s work aside, Bauckham’s observation is still very important, which was that in his preface Papias appeared to have written about an earlier time in his life, rather than what was actually occurring in his life at the time of his writing.215 While it is possible that Papias wrote ca. 95–110 or sometime between 117–38, or possibly even later (although this seems less likely), if he wrote anytime between 95 through 138 it would make him a credible source for transmitting the traditions received from the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry regarding the origins of the books of the New Testament. Bauckham contended that the period which Papias was writing about was ca. 80, which in his opinion was the approximate time in which the Gospels of Matthew (presumably the Greek Gospel), Luke, and John were also written.216 This means that some of the traditions that Papias received, such as the origin of Mark’s Gospel, reached all the way back into the middle of the first century.

Bauckham rightly suggested that Papias was part of the second generation of the orthodox church.217 Some scholars fail to recognize that the apostolic generation reached until the end of the first century, ending with the death of the apostle John. There is also confusion as to whether Papias received his traditions and “stories” about Jesus’ ministry second or thirdhand. Bauckham argued that Papias received traditions regarding the Lord’s deeds and teachings directly from eyewitnesses of the Lord’s ministry.218 It is the position of this book that Papias was a leader in the generation that followed the apostles, and that he received his traditions of the contents the Lord’s teachings directly from some of the apostles (eyewitnesses), as well as from their disciples and contemporaries who knew the apostles but not the Lord (secondhand), as well as those who claimed to have known only the associates of the disciples of the apostles (thirdhand). Regarding this last group who claimed to have known some original apostles, whether they called themselves “apostles,” or prophets, or evangelists, or “elders”219 it was from this group that Papias rigorously evaluated their “messages” in order to see if they conformed to that which he had “carefully learned” and “carefully remembered” from his own firsthand exposure to certain apostles.220

Bauckham also made an unwarranted conjecture that has also been assumed by a few other scholars concerning Papias’s access to members of the apostolic colloquium (e.g., the apostle John). He assumed for no apparent reason that Papias’s travels were severely restricted, arguing that “Papias, living in Hierapolis, did not normally have the opportunity to hear these Asiatic elders himself, but when any of their disciples visited Hierapolis he asked what they were saying. In particular, of course, he wanted to hear of any traditions that the elders had from the Lord’s disciples: Andrew, Peter, and the others. The apparent ambiguity in Papias’s words really derives from the fact that he takes it for granted that the words of the elders in which he would be interested are those that transmit tradition from Andrew, Peter, and the other disciples of the Lord.”221

It is tenuous at best to assume that Papias avoided the well-worn road that allowed many to freely travel to from Hierapolis to Ephesus. That Papias interrogated those who visited his jurisdiction can hardly be challenged. Papias’s reference to his investigations, however, should not be understood to demand that he never left Hierapolis. Papias claimed to have “carefully learned” and “carefully remembered” the traditions of the apostles, thus “guaranteeing their truth.”222 He could hardly have made such a guarantee if he had to depend exclusively upon thirdhand sources that occasionally drifted through Hierapolis. If he was in fact a contemporary of those who were students of the last living apostle (e.g., as Polycarp was to the apostle John) who spent his final years in Ephesus, then it is almost certain that Papias would have made the same effort as Polycarp (who was the Bishop of Smyrna) to sit and learn at the feet of this most trustworthy eyewitness of life and ministry of Jesus, and in all probability he would have made multiple attempts. Why should any objective person contend that while others traveled Papias did not?223

It is also just as possible that the apostle John may have made a trip or two to enjoy the “healing” springs at Hierapolis. Hierapolis was not some back water town in Asia Minor, but rather it was a kind of resort town that lay only six miles from its slightly larger sister city Laodicea.224 The book of Revelation described the members of the Laodicean church as economically thriving. It appears that the people of Asia Minor often had business in that part of the region, and if not for business then some also traveled to Hierapolis for religious and/or health reasons.225 Within and around these two thriving cities there were at least three separate church networks within a day’s walk of each other, one in both Laodicea and Hierapolis, and a third in Colossae. Why, therefore, should we assume that the apostle John refrained from journeying to this particular area of Asia Minor? Jerome wrote that the apostle John “founded and built churches throughout all Asia” with Ephesus serving as his base of operation.226 Similarly, Eusebius recorded on the authority of Clement of Alexandria that after the apostle John returned from his banishment on Patmos he had a rather active ministry that required him to travel to “neighboring districts.”227 Regardless of whether the apostle John traveled to Hierapolis, there is no reason to think that Papias suffered under some form of “house arrest” that prohibited him from the firsthand education that he so dearly valued.228 Contrary to Bauckham’s assertion, therefore, it is unlikely that distance education was Papias’s only source for obtaining apostolic traditions, especially those originated from the apostle John.

Bauckham concluded his initial chapter on Papias (which is chapter 2) with a discussion focused on the purpose of Papias’s work. It is here that Bauckham cogently explained the value that authors of ancient histories placed upon sources that were firsthand or eyewitnesses to the subject matter of the historian. Bauckham believed Papias’s reference to “a living and surviving voice” was not metaphorical, but rather it was his assertion that he had access to eyewitnesses as he gathered material for his magnum opus, eyewitnesses who were still “surviving” as he wrote.229 The importance of this allusion, he contended, is significant with respect to distinguishing between what constituted “oral tradition” and what was regarded as “oral history.” Bauckham convincingly argued that Papias viewed his work as a historical endeavor, although he unnecessarily believed that Papias was “unable to interview participants directly.”230 It was his theory that the time between when the eyewitnesses of Jesus communicated their traditions concerning his ministry to their followers and when Papias’s gained access to those hearers of said “oral” traditions concerning Jesus was extremely brief, lasting no longer than the time it took for one to travel from Ephesus to Hierapolis. This brief period, Bauckham argued, is missed by those who hold to the “inappropriate model” developed by many form critics regarding the transmission of traditions within the first-century church.231 He ended this insightful chapter with a discussion of the concept of “tradition,” which he explained was often found in ancient histories as a reference to a “written record” rather than to the “collective and cross-generational nature of oral traditions.”232 In spite of a few of Bauckham’s unwarranted assumptions, such as Papias’s apparent distaste for travel, this early chapter provides research that effectively calls into question the traditional model of many form critics concerning the transmission and recording of “oral” traditions and histories of the early church.

Bauckham again focused upon Papias in chapter 9, devoting his attention towards Papias’s comments concerning the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark drawn from Papias’s preface. Bauckham’s discussion in this chapter may well be the most insightful discourse to date regarding this topic, a topic about which much ink has been vainly spilt. He initiated his discussion by addressing the manner in which Eusebius arranged Papias’s comments regarding the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. He rightly observed that it is not certain that Papias’s source concerning his tradition about Matthew’s Aramaic “Gospel” was in fact the “Elder John.” Eusebius’s contextualization of Papias’s comment on this work, however, suggests that the same person was Papias’s source for the origins of both Mark’s Greek Gospel and Matthew’s initial Aramaic Gospel.233 Bauckham also briefly addressed the “widespread view” that John Mark (Barnabas’s cousin) was the author of the Gospel of Mark. Concerning this view, he argued that “there is no reason to suppose that this was the John Mark of the New Testament.”234 While it is true, as Bauckham suggested, that the Greek name “Markos” and the Latin “Marcus” were common first-century names, and therefore, one cannot be “certain” that John Mark was the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Nevertheless, it is also a poorly defended position to assert that scholars have “no reason” to hold the opinion that the Mark found in 1 Peter 5:13 is not the same John Mark who helped compose what many believed to be the canonical Gospel of Mark.235 Regardless of Bauckham’s opinion concerning which Mark may have composed the Gospel bearing his name, he affirmed that it was the elder John who was Papias’s source regarding the origin of the “first” Greek Gospel, and that Papias only quoted the epistle 1 Peter 5:13 as “corroboration of what the Elder said.”236

Having established that “a” Mark authored the first Greek Gospel, Bauckham aptly discussed his function as a “translator” for the apostle Peter. His argument respects Papias’s vocabulary and broadly analyzes what part Mark may have played in assisting Peter in the composition of the “first” Gospel. He believed that Mark was primarily Peter’s interpreter (i.e., translator from Aramaic to Greek) rather than one who provided commentary on Peter’s messages. Concerning this important distinction, Bauckham wrote,

The Greek noun hermēneutēs is related to the verb hermēneuō, which Papias uses later in his statement about Matthew’s Gospel. Both words can refer to interpretation in the sense of either (1) translation from one language to another, or (2) explanation and exposition. Does Papias (reporting the Elder) mean that Mark acted as Peter’s translator or as an expositor who explained what Peter’s teaching meant? Although many scholars have opted for the latter possibility, what Papias goes on to say about Mark makes this option unlikely. The whole paragraph seems designed to assert that Mark reproduced in his Gospel exactly what he heard Peter say. This is how Papias excuses what would otherwise be a serious deficiency in Mark’s Gospel: its lack of “ordered arrangement.” Mark intended to do no more than write down what Peter said just as he recalled it. This emphasis coheres much more naturally with calling Mark Peter’s “translator” than with conceding Mark freedom to interpret what Peter said.237

Bauckham aptly recognized concerning the issue of how Mark may have functioned as Peter’s translator—whether during Peter’s preaching or in the process of composing Mark’s Gospel—that while Peter may have been bilingual (as many have suggested), that is not to say that he was as proficient as he wished, or as eloquent as Roman audiences may have demanded.238 Anyone who has ever attempted to preach or compose an important document into a non-native language to an unfamiliar audience knows that such a task can be very daunting. Regarding Mark’s primary role as Peter’s interpreter, Bauckham asserted that Mark functioned as such while helping Peter to transition his sermons from oral communication to a literary record. Bauckham wrote concerning Mark’s involvement in the “translation” of Peter’s preaching into a document(s) of some form that

Peter might be content with his own rough Greek in his oral teaching, but when it came to having his words recorded he preferred to express himself in his native Aramaic and allow Mark to translate into more accurate and readable Greek. It is worth recalling that even the Jewish historian Josephus, who could certainly speak Greek well, used secretaries to assist him with writing good literary Greek (C. Apion. 1.50). Mark’s Greek has no literary pretensions, but it could well have been sufficiently better than Peter’s for his role as translator to have been thought useful in recording Peter’s teaching in writing.239

It was Bauckham’s contention, therefore, that “Mark translated and wrote as Peter spoke,” but that when this material was finally brought together in the form of a Gospel it was “Mark, not Peter, (who) was responsible for the order in which they were compiled to form the Gospel.”240 Bauckham’s analysis of the relationship between Mark and Peter during the development of the Gospel of Mark is compelling. While it is difficult to be absolutely certain as to how these two related during the composition of the Gospel of Mark, Bauckham has cogently argued that Papias’s language affirms that the apostle Peter was the dominant source for the content of Mark’s Gospel, and that the source of this tradition was the individual that Papias referred to as “the Elder,” who Papias also stated was “a disciple of the Lord.”

Bauckham also made another interesting observation regarding Papias’s comment about the fidelity of Mark’s Gospel with respect to Peter’s teachings, which was that Papias employed language that was common for describing ancient historiography.241 It was Papias’s main concern to defend Mark’s fidelity to his eyewitness source, as well as to defend his integrity as Peter’s “translator.” The importance of Bauckham’s observation is that to a significant degree Papias viewed Mark’s work as a faithful history of Jesus’ life, and not simply as a theological treatise that originated from the mind of Mark, about which its historical basis had little purpose or value, let alone its accuracy. Some radical form and redaction critics speculate about what may have been the spiritual or moral needs of early communities for which the Gospels were original composed, or what might have been the spiritual milieu that generated these initial Gospel traditions. They fail to consider the very real possibility that in the minds of the Gospel writers a very pressing need of early Christian communities was to know with certainty what Jesus actually said and did, and, consequently, that an accurate history of his life was composed by them in order to meet this most essential need. Moreover, this primary purpose for the canonical Gospels is confirmed not only in Papias’s preface, but also in the preface of Luke’s Gospel as well (cf. Luke 1:1–4).

While Bauckham’s thesis regarding Papias’s comments about Mark’s fidelity to Peter’s traditions is compelling, there is one component of his position that some scholars may find objectionable, which is his position that the subject of the verbs “emnēmoneusen” and “apemnēmoneusen” (found in Papias’s preface regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel) may in fact be Peter and not Mark.242 Bauckham argued that Mark translated into writing what Peter remembered, rather than Mark wrote down what he remembered Peter to have preached. While Bauckham’s translation is grammatically “possible” (if for no other reason than he could conceive of it) it is not likely. The more natural interpretation is that it was Mark’s memory of Peter’s messages and teachings that was employed as he compiled the Gospel that bears his name.243 This, however, should not detract from Bauckham’s main thesis that Mark’s composition is an accurate history about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ with Peter being his eyewitness source. If Mark had participated in Peter’s ministry, either as an interpreter as Peter preached, or as Peter’s tutor who helped him translate or refine his original Aramaic message and its meanings into the appropriate Greek words and rhetorical style, then Peter was still Mark’s source for his Gospel, and Mark would have been an excellent source for recalling and recording Peter’s messages.

Bauckham’s perspective, which cogently wrestles with the historical data as found in Papias’s preface, is a refreshing alternative to the models promoted by radical form critics. While reading the research of some scholars one may get the impression that Mark authored his Gospel by remembering what he could from a few sermons that he had heard from Peter himself or from the rumors of others, as well as depending upon a few other written sources (e.g., “Q”), or oral traditions from different Christian communities. If Mark, however, regularly accompanied Peter over a prolonged period of ministry (e.g., several months or a year), functioning as his translator and aiding him as he recounted his oral “gospel” into another language, it would not be hard for Mark to have remembered what Peter had communicated to the church(es) in Rome and elsewhere.244 Peter would also not be the first itinerant preacher who often repeated his favorite stories and sermons, and the churches in Rome would not be the first orally dependent audience who demanded encore performances from important speakers. Such auditory repetitions would have certainly enhanced Mark’s ability to recall Peter’s memoralizations of Jesus’ life and teachings. Consequently, Bauckham’s view that Mark interacted closely with Peter to aid him with translating and communicating his “gospel” to the church(es) in Rome fits well with Papias’s testimony about the tradition he received concerning the origin of Mark’s Gospel.

Bauckham also addressed other issues involving vocabulary found in Papias’s preface. Similarly to other scholars, he understood the term “chreia” as a rhetorical term that should be interpreted to mean that Peter adapted his message for the purpose of educating Christian communities about Jesus rather than attempting to address their changing felt needs. Bauckham explained this assertion by stating that “In the light of Papias’s use of rhetorical terms elsewhere, this interpretation of pros tas chreias seems very likely correct, especially as we can see that it corresponds sufficiently to the short units of which Mark’s narrative is composed for Papias to have regarded Mark as a collection of Peter’s chreiai about Jesus.”245 This view is dramatically at odds with some who believe Peter continually “adapted” his messages to meet the changing “needs” of his differing audiences. Instead, Bauckham recognized that “chreia” was a rhetorical reference to the technical “form” of Peter’s teachings, which describes how his material was presented rather than a reference to the “evolution” of his gospel as he delivered it to various churches in the cultural contexts of different cities.246

Having addressed Papias’s reference to the “χρείας” of Peter (i.e., the manner in which Peter presented his “material”), Bauckham turned to Mark’s apparent lack of observable order (taxis, which in Greek is τάξις) in his Gospel. Regarding this apparent deficiency, he stated that “since he (Mark) was no more than a translator, he did not add to his material by investing it with artistic arrangement.”247 He continued to give an apt explanation regarding what first-century audiences generally expected with respect to acceptable literary styles for ancient biographies and histories, explaining that they valued data found in some form of orderly arrangement, which could have been either chronological or thematic. Recognizing this expectation, Bauckham argued that it was “because Mark was not himself an eyewitness of the life of Jesus that he was unable to supply the order that Peter had failed to give to his material.”248 The consequence of Mark’s fidelity to Peter’s testimonies, Bauckham explained, was that his Gospel lacked some aesthetic order.249 This explains Papias’s desire to compare and defend Mark’s Gospel with other Gospels that were apparently more appreciated for their artistic and rhetorical prowess.250 Bauckham spent the remaining portion of chapter 9 discussing Papias’s explanation of the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John, and his defense of their authority, while also providing an analysis of literary or rhetorical criticism concerning them. He was convinced that Papias knew of the Gospel of John,251 and contended that his comments about the Gospels of Mark and Matthew (as preserved by Eusebius) were his attempt to defend them as “histories” that contained eyewitness testimonies, while also explaining John’s desire to compose another more rhetorically acceptable biography of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is a ground-breaking endeavor that will significantly influence many discussions and investigations focused on the development of the New Testament. While some of his theories are questionable, his research concerning the composition of ancient histories and the Gospels is both commendably and valuable. Consequently, his contribution with respect to origins of the Gospels and their credibility should not be ignored by any wishing to understand their purposes and integrity. He has also brought greater illumination upon Papias and his purpose(s); therefore, Bauckham’s insights will contribute significantly to the discussions throughout this book.

Some Concluding Remarks

The amount of references to Papias in New Testament and patristic studies is immense, many of which appear in works where the average layman or disciplined researcher might not intuitively think to look. One such example is found in John R. W. Stott’s small commentary, The Epistles of John, which is part of the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series.252 Although Stott’s comments are brief, nevertheless they have merit and are worthy of consideration with respect to any study of Papias. Thus, it is a certainty that there are many other similar publications within which are countless other examples of salient discussions about Papias and his context. Nevertheless, to attempt to annotate and catalogue them all would render this book virtually unreadable. This being the case, I offer the sincerest of apologies to those that I have missed who otherwise should have been considered; and with this in mind I now turn to a brief biography of this great apostolic father.

19. Schaff, History of the Church, 2:693.

20. Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, 1: xl–44.

21. Fragments of Papias (ANF 1:151–55).

22. Ibid., 151.

23. Ibid., 152.

24. Hall, Papias, 199.

25. Hall recognized that Gnosticism existed in multiple forms rather than a single monolithic movement. Ibid., 186–87.

26. Ibid., 193.

27. Ibid., 123.

28. See the discussion on fragment 1 in this book, p. 106.

29. Ibid., 121.

30. Ibid., 94.

31. Ibid., 56.

32. Ibid., 5. There are many different translations of Papias’s title. This book will refrain from an in-depth discussion on its proper translation until chapter 4. Hereafter, for the sake of brevity and when appropriate, Papias’s work will generally be referred to as Exposition.

33. Ibid., 242. For a more comprehensive discussion of the significance of this word in both Jewish and Christian literature of the patristic period see Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 351–407.

34. Hall, Papias, 18–20.

35. Ibid., 13.

36. Ibid., 14–17.

37. Ibid., 1–2. Italics mine.

38. Ibid., 310.

39. A more literal translation would be, “The same [author] has employed testimonies from the prominent epistle of John.” Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.17 (LCL153: 298–99).

40. Hall, Papias, 4–5.

41. Ibid., 5.

42. Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 69–78.

43. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers, 261–71.

44. Ibid., xi. The Funk-Bihlmeyer edition is a critical text of the apostolic fathers published in German in 1924 and updated in 1956. Bihlmeyer, Die Apostolischen Väter, 133–40.

45. The Fragments of Papias, trans. James C. Kleist, 6:105–24. Hereafter, this edition of the fragments of Papias will be footnoted in the following manner: Kleist, Papias.

46. Kleist, Papias, 105, 204.

47. Ibid., 105.

48. Ibid., 107.

49. Ibid., 107, 204–5 n. 7.

50. A. F. Walls wrote a very insightful article regarding Papias’s obvious value and attitude toward the written word; see Walls, “Papias,” 137–40.

51. Kleist, Papias, 106–12. See also Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 21–24.

52. Kleist, Papias, 112.

53. Schoedel, The Fragments, 89–90. Schoedel doubted that Irenaeus had any real contact with Polycarp. Consequently, he argued that Irenaeus’s “misunderstanding” of the apostle John was based upon his misreading Papias.

54. Ibid., 90.

55. Ibid., 90–91.

56. Ibid., 91.

57. Ibid., 91–92.

58. Ibid., 96. Papias’s title and its possible interpretations are more thoroughly discussed in chapter 4.

59. Schoedel only provided Papias’s preface as preserved by Eusebius. Schoedel, “Papias,” 248–50.

60. Schoedel, “Papias,” in ABD 5:140–42.

61. Ibid., 140.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid., 142.

64. Again, on this issue see Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 351–407.

65. Schoedel, “Papias,” in ABD 5:140–41.

66. Ibid., 141. Italics mine.

67. Wallace, The Basics, 98. Italics mine. A. T. Robertson describes the anaphoric use of the article as “very frequent.” Robertson, A Grammar, 762. Wallace identified other common uses of the article as “Monadic (‘One of a Kind’ or ‘Unique’ Article); “Well-Known (‘Celebrity’ Article),” both of which could apply to Papias’s context. It may be that Papias’s employment of the definite article served double duty. Some, however, argue that Papias was simply distinguishing the character often referred to as “the elder John” from the apostle John. Lightfoot, Essays, 146. But then one is left to ask, who would have been this “one of a kind” or “well known” elder that Papias might have referred, and about whom no other late first-century or early second-century record has been preserved? Moreover, it seems very unlikely that Papias, an actual disciple of the apostle John, would have referred to any “John” of the churches in Asia Minor as “John, the well known elder” in “contradistinction” to the even more well known apostle John.

68. Wallace, The Basics, 96. Italics mine.

69. Eusebius himself employed an anaphoric article upon his second mentioning of Aristion, see Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.4–5 (LCL 153: 292).

70. Munck, “Presbyters,” 238. Italics mine.

71. John J. Gunther referred to Eusebius’s John as “John of Patmos.” Gunther, “The Elder John,” 13.

72. Munck, “Presbyters,” 236.

73. Schoedel, “Papias,” in ABD 5:141–42.

74. Ibid., 142.

75. Ibid.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid., 140–41.

78. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.17 (LCL 153: 298–99).

79. Schoedel, “Papias,” in ABD 5:142.

80. Kürzinger, Papias, 91–138.

81. Ibid., 145–227. This bibliography also includes a few annotations on certain works.

82. Ibid., 43–67.

83. Ibid., 21, see also 39. This theory was also adopted by Robert Gundry; see Gundry, Matthew, 618–20. Throughout this book “Hebraic” and “Aramaic” will be used as synonyms when discussing the language of Matthew’s initial Gospel.

84. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.24.5–6 (LCL 153:251). Italics mine.

85. Ibid. V.8.2 (LCL 153:455).

86. Jerome Illustrious Men III (NPNF2 3:362).

87. Kürzinger, Papias, 36.

88. Regrettably, Against Heresies predominately survives to this day only in Latin and Armenian manuscripts.

89. Ibid., 35–36.

90. Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 145.

91. Kürzinger, Papias, 83. In English his translation of Papias’s title reads as A Collection of the Oracles of the Lord.

92. Ibid., 70–71.

93. Ibid., 76–77.

94. An explanation of Papias’s possible knowledge of Luke’s Gospel will come in the following chapters.

95. Körtner did occasionally cite articles by Kürzinger that later became part of Kürzinger’s book.

96. Körtner, Papias, 50–71.

97. Ibid., 44–49.

98. Ibid., 225.

99. Ibid., 227.

100. Ibid., 122–29.

101. Ibid., 128.

102. Ibid., 44–49.

103. Ibid., 114–22.

104. Ibid., 197–202.

105. Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:85–118).

106. Ibid., 86–87. Ehrman’s introduction provides little critical discussion of the generally recognized dating of Papias and his writings. Clearly, if Papias lived from 60 to 130 then he could not have written his Exposition as late as 140.

107. Ibid., 88.

108. These works are addressed at this point because they should be discussed together in spite of the fact that they span more than a century. For a more thorough explanation of the history of the editions of The Apostolic Fathers from these scholars see Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, ix–xii.

109. Supernatural Religion: An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation (London: Longmans, Green, 1874). Hereafter, Supernatural Religion.

110. Nash, “Supernatural Religion,” 166–67.

111. Lightfoot, Essays, vii–ix.

112. A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot’s Essays (London: Longmans, Green, 1889).

113. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers Part I, v.

114. Ibid., The Apostolic Fathers Part II.

115. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, x.

116. Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic Fathers, 513–24.

117. Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., viii–ix. Holmes also admitted that in some cases interpretations/translations of certain texts had been changed, and in such cases Lightfoot’s interpretation had been relegated to footnotes.

118. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, x.

119. Lightfoot and Harmer, Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., 325–27.

120. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, x.

121. Ibid., 556–91. Some fragments are in Latin, Armenian, and Arabic. Fragments in both Armenian and Arabic were not provided in this edition even though their English translations are provided.

122. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 307–29. Along with Greek and Latin texts, this edition also includes Armenian and Arabic texts of certain Papian fragments.

123. Lightfoot, Essays, 142. Throughout this book the identification of a “John the elder” (unless otherwise clearly stated) will not refer to the John who was a son of Zebedee and one of the original twelve apostles who followed Jesus. Instead, “John the elder” will refer to the person Eusebius claimed to have discovered but for whom no credible historical reference can be found. For the purpose of variety, John the elder may also be referred to as “elder John,” “the elder John,” or “Eusebius’s elder John.”

124. Ibid., 142.

125. Ibid., 150. Lightfoot also suggested that a more literal translation of Papias’s title would be “Exposition of Dominical Oracles.” Ibid., 155.

126. Ibid., 146.

127. Ibid., 146, 149 n. 3.

128. Ibid., 150.

129. Lightfoot argued that if Papias had died in 164, then his birth “could hardly” have been before 80, which in his estimation would have made Papias too young to have known the apostle John, or to have remembered anything about him with any credibility. Ibid., 147. He admitted, however, that these dates did not demand that it was impossible for Papias to have known the apostle John (ibid., 147 n. 3). It should be noted that the CP places Papias’s death in 163. See fragment 16, p. 233, of this book for further analysis.

130. Ibid., 147–50. A significant weakness in Lightfoot’s treatment of Papias was his assumption that if Eusebius had possessed additional information concerning Papias that he would have been willing to provide it. Such optimism in Eusebius’s treatment of Papias is clearly unwarranted. For a discussion regarding this subject see appendix 1.

131. Ibid., 155–58.

132. Ibid., 157.

133. Ibid., 160.

134. Ibid., 158.

135. Ibid., 160.

136. Ibid., 160–61.

137. Ibid., 163–69.

138. Ibid., 169–70.

139. Ibid., 172–74.

140. Ibid., 203–5.

141. Ibid., 204–5. I would add to Lightfoot’s hypothesis only that it is possible that Papias may have been the author of this catena, which he might have placed in the vicinity of John 8.15 in his personal copy of the Fourth Gospel. Regarding the possibility that Papias may have served as the personal amanuensis of John see the discussions of fragments 19 and 26.

142. Ibid., 202–16.

143. Lewis, Fourth Gospel, 5.

144. Ibid.

145. Ibid., 10–15.

146. Ibid., 17–18. Lewis also acknowledged Irenaeus’s awareness of John Mark and John the Baptist.

147. Ibid., 19.

148. Ibid., 23.

149. Ibid., 33–38, 60–62. Lewis speculated that the Gospel of John as it is known today was published in the middle of the second century and was drawn from a pool of literature compiled from sermons and “booklets” authored by the apostle John. He theorized that Irenaeus knew of this material, and when it was finally brought together in the form of a Gospel (which Lewis speculated may have been composed by Polycarp or other disciples of John) Irenaeus naturally recognized it as originating from the apostle John, and thus referred to it as the apostle’s work. A major challenge to Lewis’s theory is there is no historical record to verify any such chain of events. Lewis himself recognized this silence, stating that such a record “was too unimportant . . . to warrant its preservation.” His theory is also challenged by historical references to John as being alive during the composition of the Gospel that bears his name. Even if Lewis’s theory is granted, there is nothing prohibiting that such a compilation did not occur under the supervision of the apostle John himself. Regardless of Lewis’s speculation concerning the final composition of John’s Gospel, his work is a thorough and powerful tool for researching Irenaeus’s attitude and knowledge regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel.

150. Ibid., 24–30.

151. Chapman, John the Presbyter, 12.

152. Ibid., 13.

153. Ibid., 16.

154. Ibid., 18.

155. Ibid., 19.

156. Regarding Papias’s two references of “John” Eusebius wrote, “It is here worth noting that he twice counts the name of John, and reckons the first John with Peter and James and Matthew and the other Apostles, clearly meaning the Evangelist.” Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.4–5 (LCL 153:293). Italics mine.

157. It is recognized that the authorship of these epistles is often debated. For the moment, I will simply assume that the apostle John is the author of these epistles. A more thorough analysis will follow throughout this book.

158. This is literally translated as “The Elder to the elect lady.”

159. Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, 320.

160. Chapman, John the Presbyter, 19.

161. For a better explanation of this possibility see Bornkamm, “πρεσβύτερος,” in TDNT, 6:676, and Coenen, “Bishop, Presbyter, Elder,” in NIDNT, 1:200.

162. First Peter 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1. Another important biblical reference is Acts 15:9, where it is clear that Luke desired to identify those who were apostles and those who were not. His segregation of the apostle from other church officials, however, does not prove that the apostles did not view themselves as “elders” who possessed the supreme authority within the church to promote and defend its doctrines and traditions (i.e., orthodoxy).

163. See Didache 11 (LCL 24: 434–35). Ehrman dated the Didache as originating in the late first century or early second century.

164. Chapman, John the Presbyter, 22. Schoedel, however, doubted that Papias had direct contact with Aristion and the character Eusebius referred to as “the elder John.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 98; Schoedel, “Papias,” 252.

165. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 15. “Followers” were students of disciples, while “contemporaries” were those who only tangentially knew the apostles.

166. Bacon, “An Emendation,” 183.

167. Chapman, John the Presbyter, 10–11.

168. Walls, “Papias,” 137. Italics mine.

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid., 139.

171. Schoedel, “Papias,” in ABD 5:141. Richard Bauckham has a particularly excellent explanation regarding the Greek value for education that was directly from one’s teacher rather than a written text; see Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 21–24.

172. Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 185.

173. Ibid.

174. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 24.

175. Ibid., 25.

176. Ibid., 26.

177. Ibid., 26, 28.

178. Ibid., 28–33.

179. Ibid., 42–44.

180. Ibid., 44–45.

181. Ibid., 46.

182. Ibid., 47–48.

183. Ibid., 48.

184. Papias’s statement concerning “things from the books” was given in the context of his desire to learn of the teachings of the Lord through the teachings of the apostles and those who had personally followed the Lord, and his evaluation of the teachings of those who claimed to have associated with those who had been disciples of the Lord.

185. This discussion is indifferent to the question of whether Mark’s Greek Gospel or Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel came first. Eusebius quoted Papias’s reference to Mark’s Gospel before the statement about Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel, which might imply (assuming that Eusebius quoted these passages in the order that he found them) that Mark’s Greek Gospel preceded Matthew’s Aramaic work, but this is not a certainty, nor does it need be, for this question is not significant. Whether Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel was written before or after Mark’s Greek Gospel is negligible with respect to questions involving the credibility of an Aramaic Gospel since first-century Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, would have thought that such a work contained the very words of Jesus (i.e., his Ipsissima verba). Consequently, it would have presented a serious challenge to the value of any Greek translation of Jesus’ words and deeds, regardless of the reputation of its eyewitness source(s). However, it does not seem unreasonable to think that if Matthew composed an Aramaic Gospel before his Greek version, such a work probably predated Mark’s Gospel as well. Such a chronology fits Irenaeus’s tradition, which stated that Matthew wrote his Hebraic Gospel while Peter and Paul were evangelizing Rome (see Eusebius Ecc. Hist. V.8.2 (LCL 153:454–55). This places the composition of Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel in the early 50’s. This book does not seek to answer questions about what might have been the relationship of Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, or speculations concerning “Q,” “M,” “L,” or other possible sources of the synoptic Gospels. For a thorough discussion of the synoptic problem see Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 29–152. Vernon Bartlet broached the important subject of the complexities concerning the clash between Hebraic and Grecian approaches to epistemology, theology, and hermeneutics. Bartlet, “Papias’s ‘Exposition,” 18–20.

186. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 49.

187. Ibid., 53.

188. Tischendorf, When? 88. Concerning the weight that should be given to Eusebius’s silence regarding the New Testament canon see also Lightfoot, Essays, 2–58.

189. Tischendorf, When? 89.

190. Ibid., 88. The bracketed comment is provided to identify the context in which the quote is given.

191. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 53–58. For a more thorough discussion of the possible relationship of the Muratorian Canon and the writings of Papias see Hill, “What Papias Said,” 582–605.

192. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 61.

193. Ibid., 65, 67. Italics mine.

194. Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.9.2 (ANF 1:329). Italics mine.

195. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 68. See also Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 458–63.

196. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 61.

197. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 12–13, 225. Rupert Annand went to a different extreme and doubted that the canonical Gospel of Matthew even existed at the time Papias wrote. Annand, “Four Gospels,” 57.

198. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 12.

199. Ibid.

200. Ibid., 14.

201. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias,” 181. For a more thorough analysis and discussion on the subject of date of Papias’s Exposition see Yarbrough, “The Date of the Writings of Papias of Hierapolis” (M.A. thesis, Wheaton College, 1982).

202. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias,” 181.

203. For an exhaustive list see ibid., 182.

204. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 13.

205. Ibid., 14.

206. Bacon, Studies, 441. Schoedel, The Fragments, 120–21. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias,” 185. The discussion regarding the present tense verb “λέγουσιν” will be addressed at a later point. For now it is recognized that it is certainly possible to understand that the period that Papias was referring to was the actual time in which he wrote.

207. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 745. A similar statement by Quadratus is found in Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.3.2–3 (LCL 153:309). This statement makes it clear that these were people who had actually been resurrected by Jesus, and not resurrected some years later by his followers. Hadrian reigned from 117 to 138. It is generally held that Jesus’ ministry occurred approximately sometime between 26–33. If Jesus had resurrected a small child (e.g., two years old or younger, cf. Mark 5:21–43; Luke 7:11–15; John 11:1–46) who was born ca. 30, then such a child would have been approximately eighty-seven when Hadrian began to rule. This is not to argue that Jesus did in fact raise a small child who survived until Hadrian’s ascension, for there is no record of Jesus having raised a child of two years old or younger from the dead. It is only to demonstrate that it would not be impossible for someone who was born ca. 30 to have lived to see the beginning of Hadrian’s reign.

208. Bacon, Studies, 441.

209. The accuracy of this statement and the question of whether Philip actually wrote anything about Papias will be addressed later.

210. This view is not original to Bacon; see Chapman, John the Presbyter, 98.

211. Quasten, Patrology, 3:528–30. Regarding the potential value of Philip’s work, Quasten wrote, “Despite Socrates’ and Photius’ criticisms it is to be regretted that it [i.e., Philip’s Christian History] did not come down to us because it must have contained much information lacking in Eusebius’s Church History.”

212. Deeks, “Papias Revisited: Part II,” 324.

213. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 744. Literally translated, this text states, “that until (the time) Hadrian was living,” which more fluently would read, “until Hadrian’s lifetime.”

214. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.3.2–3 (LCL 153:309). Literally translated, this text states: “and some of them extend into our times.”

215. Yarbrough believed that Papias was describing the period in which he wrote. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias,” 187–88.

216. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 14.

217. Ibid., 16.

218. Bauckham’s employment of the phrase “eyewitness” is a tremendous improvement such terms as “secondhand” and “thirdhand,” which can be misleading with respect to one’s credibility. For example, if Papias received from the apostle John the contents of the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus concerning what constitutes being born again (cf. John 3:1–15) then John’s testimony of that discussion is considered “secondhand,” even though the apostle John may have been present during the discussion. However, John’s eyewitness accounting of Lazarus’s resurrection (cf. John 11.1–44) is considered “firsthand” testimony of that event since John witnessed it rather than simply being present but not a participant of a conversation. Consequently, because of the confusion concerning the credibility of first and secondhand testimony, Bauckham’s use of the term “eyewitness” provides greater clarity concerning the reliability of the Gospel narratives as passed on to the following generation.

219. As previously explained, by the beginning of the second century the terms “elder” and “apostle” were in flux; consequently, these terms had various understandings attributed to them when used in different contexts.

220. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735.

221. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 17.

222. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735.

223. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 33. Bauckham acknowledged that Christian leaders who were eyewitnesses of Jesus and his teachings had “special positions” and ministries that “spanned decades,” and were “often very mobile.” He believed that Christian Jews who were leaders of the church in Asia Minor traveled to Jerusalem and met with these eyewitnesses before 70. Such pilgrimages would have been essential for guaranteeing the transmission of orthodox traditions. After the fall of Jerusalem, however, the eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry would have been compelled to leave Palestine and locate elsewhere (e.g., Asia Minor or Syria). See also Metzger, The Canon, 51–56. Bauckham’s admission regarding the mobility of early Christian leaders is interesting and seems to harmonize with the historical data. Because of their status as eyewitnesses, however, the need for these leaders to travel and minister to other regions would not have abated after the fall of Jerusalem, nor would the need for regional bishops to travel to the locations of these eyewitnesses in order to hear and learn from them. Consequently, it is a complete mystery as to why Bauckham and others think that Papias was less mobile than any other average leader of the church in Asia Minor, or that he would have apparently neglected to take advantage of any opportunities to travel and receive valuable instruction from important apostolic source(s).

224. For a more thorough discussion of this region see chapter 3 of this book.

225. A more comprehensive description of the city of Papias bishopric is found the following chapter.

226. Jerome Illustrious Men 9 (NPNF2 3:364–65).

227. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.23.6 (LCL 153:243).

228. Munck had no problem believing Papias often traveled in order to learn the traditions of the elders that he highly valued and trusted. Munck, “Presbyters,” 229.

229. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 27.

230. Ibid., 31.

231. Ibid., 31–32.

232. Ibid., 36–37.

233. Ibid., 202. Matthew Black rejected this conjecture, writing that “we cannot, therefore, be certain that the two statements were juxtaposed in this way by anyone other than Eusebius, nor can we assume (as many have done) that both are ‘traditions’ of ‘the elder.’” Black, “Rhetorical Terminology,” 32. Although, as Black stated, we cannot be certain regarding the context in which both these statements were originally found in Papias’s writings, Eusebius appears to have brought them together in a respectable fashion. Black’s contention, however, regarding the source of Papias’s statement about Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel should be duly noted. This is not to argue that Papias’s tradition regarding this Gospel did not predate Papias or was from a less reliable source, only that we simply cannot be as certain about Papias’s source for his tradition concerning Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel as we might be of Papias’s tradition regarding Mark’s Gospel.

234. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 203.

235. Ibid. Bauckham appeared to marginalize this very assertion in a later footnote (cf. ibid., 206, n. 10).

236. Ibid., 205.

237. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 205.

238. Gundry was of the opinion that Peter was sufficiently bi-lingual; he could, therefore, speak for himself. Gundry, Mark, 1035.

239. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 206.

240. Ibid., 207.

241. Ibid., 208–9.

242. Ibid., 210–11.

243. Gundry, Matthew, 619. Regarding this possible interpretation see also Mullins, “Papias,” 217.

244. It should not be assumed that Rome was the only opportunity that John Mark had to hear Peter’s “gospel.”

245. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 215.

246. Schoedel held a similar position. Schoedel, The Fragments, 106–7.

247. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 216.

248. Ibid., 221.

249. Ibid., 217.

250. Ibid., 218–21. It should be noted that while modern readers may either prefer the style of Mark’s Gospel or see no problem with it at all; nevertheless, they should not presume their own literary or rhetorical tastes upon first and second-century audiences.

251. Ibid., 225.

252. Stott, The Epistles of John, 35–41.

↑ Back to top