Chapter 3: The Life of Papias

The Life of Papias

Papias and His Ethnicity

The amount of data, as previously stated, providing certitude about Papias’s life is minimal. For example, attestations concerning his place or date of birth, his ethnicity, and the extent of his education have not survived. Vernon Bartlet dated Papias’s birth ca. 60 or earlier. He based his opinion on Irenaeus’s reference to Papias as having been an “ancient man,” a phrase which Irenaeus did not use to describe Polycarp. Regarding Papias’s birth, he wrote, “In any case he seems to have been rather senior to Polycarp; for Irenaeus styles the former, as he never calls the latter (born c. A.D. 69 at least), ‘a primitive man’ (ἀρχαῑος ἀνήρ). Thus he may well have been born not later than 60, and possibly even earlier.”253 Similarly, Richard Bauckham dated Papias’s birth ca. 50.254 Irenaeus’s reference to Papias as being very old is significant; however, it unfortunately is not precise. Thus, without greater specificity from Irenaeus or further corroboration from others, precision regarding the year of Papias’s birth is not possible. Consequently, it seems reasonable to place Papias’s birth around the same period as Polycarp’s, which is ca. 70, although estimations for an earlier date cannot be ruled out entirely.

J. B. Lightfoot believed that Papias was at least Phrygian and possibly even from Hierapolis since his name and various forms of it were apparently common Phrygian names, which have been found on inscriptions associated with Zeus and coins unearthed in the area. Consequently, he believed that the name “Papias” was the Phrygian “equivalent to the Greek Diogenes,” which means “born of Zeus.”255 Being ethnically Phrygian at the turn of first century would have been an advantage for anyone ministering in Hierapolis. William Ramsay believed that pride in Phrygian nationality was particularly strong in Hierapolis as compared to other cities in the Lycus Valley.256 He contended that the religious practices of the city confirmed his assertion, stating that “Greek became the sole language of the city, and a veneer of Greek civilization spread over it; but the veneer was much thinner than at Laodiceia or Apameia. Hierapolis maintained its importance through its religious position; and its remains and history bear witness to the strength of the religious feeling in it. The religion continued to be Lydo-Phrygian, and even Greek names for the gods were used less in Hierapolis than in many other cities.”257 If Papias was in fact from Hierapolis and of Phrygian ethnicity then he would have been well suited for ministry in that city.

“Papias,” although not common, was also a Greek word that is translated as “janitor” or “keeper of the palace.”258 Phrygia was thoroughly Hellenized well before the end of the first century; therefore it is possible that Papias was of Greek descent, and as such he may have been given a rather uncommon Greek name. Given its nuance, however, it is hard to imagine that anyone might name their child “Papias,” for what right-minded parent would name his or her son “janitor.” If his name was given with the Greek connotation in mind then it seems more likely that it (if it was a Greek name at all) was the English equivalent of “Stewart,” which when not used as a proper name means “servant.” This possibility, however, seems unlikely. It is more reasonable to assume that if Papias was in fact Greek, or Roman for that matter, then his parents gave him this name with the Phrygian nuance in mind.

Hierapolis was located in southwest Asia Minor; therefore, if Papias was from Hierapolis or the Lycus valley then it is very likely that he was of Gentile birth.259 Archaeological evidence, however, indicates that Hierapolis also had a significant Jewish population; consequently, there is the possibility that Papias was also Jewish.260 Paul’s epistle to the Colossians confirms that the church in that city contained a certain percentage of Jewish members, for from its inception it struggled to maintain orthodoxy in the face of, among many other influences, a peculiar form of syncretistic Jewish spiritualism.261 Consequently, as was the case with many churches in the middle of the first century, it appears that the churches in the Lycus Valley were originally comprised of a mixture of both Jewish and Gentile members. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that such a mixture continued to some degree in these churches into the following generation.262 If Papias was raised in one of these churches then he could have been of either Jewish or Gentile descent. Evidence of diasporic Jews receiving Gentile names can be found in Acts 6:5.263 It is not inconceivable, therefore, that some Jews living in this region may have given their children Phrygian names. Consequently, certitude regarding Papias’s ethnicity based upon his name is not well defended. If one were pressed to conjecture, however, the position that he was ethnically Phrygian and was raised in the Lycus Valley seems an attractive possibility. Regardless of the lack of concrete information about Papias’s early life and ethnicity, the historical data confirms that he was appointed a bishop and that he ministered at Hierapolis.

Papias and His City

Christianity had a relatively early history in Hierapolis. The earliest reference of its association with the city is found in Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. Paul’s epistle to the Colossians is generally thought to have been written during his first imprisonment, which occurred at either Caesarea, Ephesus, or Rome around the late fifties or early sixties AD.264 It appears that the gospel was first introduced to Hierapolis through the ministry of Epaphras of Colossae, an associate of the apostle Paul (Col 4:12–13). This evangelistic movement seems to have occurred as a result of Paul’s Ephesian ministry, spreading from Ephesus approximately one hundred miles east into the Lycus valley (Acts 19:1–20). Taken together these biblical references place the birth of Christianity in this region during the mid to late 50s AD, having first spread to Colossae, and then later to Laodicea and Hierapolis. Paul implied, however, that he had never personally ministered in that part of the Phrygian region (Col 2–1).

The ruins of Hierapolis can be found in southwest Turkey on the north slope of the Lycus valley directly opposite the ancient city of Laodicea, being separated by six miles and the Maeander River.265 Hierapolis is no longer inhabited and is presently known as “Pamukkale,” which means “cotton castles.” This name refers to the white cliffs that are formed by water flowing from hot springs into the valley below, leaving residual layers of white calcium carbonate to adorn the cliffs of the plateau where the ancient city was perched. These springs still flow today, and the effects of their deposits are stunning and can be seen for miles.266 The city of Laodicea, with respect to its political and economical prominence, was considered of greater rank than that of Hierapolis, while both were more significant than the much smaller town of Colossae,267 which lay approximately 10 to 12 miles southeast of Laodicea. The ruins of Colossae are found on both sides of the Lycus River, which is a tributary of the Maeander River. Archaeological evidence indicates that Hierapolis was a popular “resort” town in Asia Minor. It was generally thought that the city’s hot springs held healing powers. These springs also proved profitable for the wool and carpet trade because they enabled the textile guilds to produce highly sought after purple textiles that were used to make wool clothing and carpets—the purple dye apparently deriving from the extract of the madder root.

Hierapolis means “holy city,” and the city’s name appears to have been well deserved because of its diverse religious associations.268 Lightfoot wrote that Hierapolis had chosen “Apollo, the god alike of medicine and of festivity,” to worship as its patron deity, although in Hierapolis he was “worshipped especially as ‘Archegetes,’ the Founder.” Lightfoot recognized, however, that “older worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts of the East.”269 This was confirmed by David Gill and Bruce Winter, who noted that Hierapolis was a “main cult center” of the eastern deity of Jupiter Dolichenus, explaining that “Jupiter Dolichenus was a form of the cult of Hadad, who was the consort of the Syrian deity Atergatis.”270 Co-opting Greek and Roman deities to represent the deities of local or regional cults may seem confusing for some, but such associations were a common practice for the patron cults of cities during the period of the Roman Empire. Regarding this co-opting Greek and Roman names for the gods of regional cults, Robyn Tracey wrote,

It must be remembered that this was an old land . . . with a history of foreign domination, a history which must have been known, at least in part and orally, to the bulk of the population. Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, all had at some stage held at least part of the region, by direct rule or through vassalage. Their perception, correct or otherwise, must have been that had it not been the Romans, it would have been the Parthians, or someone else. And Roman yoke was fairly light, particularly at first, with the retention of local dynasts and the limited “freedom” granted to the Greek cities not under their rule, combined with generally benign, if unenterprising governorship by the Romans themselves.

Here the local religions posed no barrier to Roman rule. The gods, as complaisant as their devotees, amenably answered to whatever name the Roman rulers were pleased to call them by, just as they had previously accepted their new Greek names.271

Hierapolis is also the site of a cave once known as “Plutonium,” which was believed to be sacred because it provided entrance to the underworld, thus leading to the “domain of the Roman god Pluto (the Greek Hades).”272 The cave to this day emits poisonous gases that if inhaled are immediately fatal. Only the priests of the cult of Cybele were thought to be immune to its deadly vapors.273 This immunity, however, could easily be received by anyone smart enough to hold his or her breath during their stay in the cave. Paul’s epistle to the church at Colossae confirms that during the mid-first century AD the spiritual soil in the Lycus valley was fertile for religious diversity, and was accommodating to the syncretizing of different religious systems. It was in this environment that Epaphras first introduced the gospel, and approximately fifty years later it was to the church at Hierapolis that Papias was called to serve as bishop.

Papias and His Companions

The debate concerning Papias’s companions is greatly contested. There is a Papian fragment from a contemporary of Papias who may have actually known him and those with whom he associated—Irenaeus of Lyons. The fragment is from Irenaeus’s Against Heresies V.33.4, and has been preserved in Greek in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History III.39.1; which reads, “And also these things Papias, the hearer of John, having been a companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, bears witness by writing in the fourth of his books . . .”274 The period in which Irenaeus lived and his relationship with Polycarp is important and will be discussed later, but for the present it is necessary to evaluate the relative trust that other patristic authors placed upon Irenaeus’s testimony regarding Papias’s association with Polycarp.

That Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp appears to be uncontested in patristic literature. The next attestation to Polycarp and Papias’s relationship after the statement made by Irenaeus comes from Eusebius in his Chronicle, which has been preserved in Latin by Jerome and is roughly translated as: “The Apostle John (lived) all the way to Trajan’s time, Irenaeus the honorable bishop wrote. After whom hearers of him became distinguished, they were bishop Papias of Hierapolis, and Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch.”275 More analysis of this fragment will follow, the present concern is Eusebius’s confidence in the accuracy of the statement that Papias and Polycarp were contemporaries. Eusebius was so confident that they shared a common period in the church’s history that he again affirmed that they were contemporaries in his Ecclesiastical History III.36.1–2, where he wrote, “At this time there flourished in Asia Polycarp, the companion of the Apostles, who had been appointed to the bishopric of the church in Smyrna by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Lord. Distinguished men at the same time were Papias, who was himself bishop of the diocese of Hierapolis, and Ignatius.”276 It is clear from additional references to Papias in Eusebius’s writings that he had depended heavily upon Irenaeus for identification of the period in which Papias lived. What is not clear is what other sources, if any, Eusebius also employed with respect to additional information about Papias.277 Regardless of what may or may not have been his sources, he was at least confident that Irenaeus was an accurate witness of the time period of Polycarp’s life, and thus felt no qualms about writing that Papias and Polycarp were contemporaries who not only lived during the same time period, but more importantly were of the same adult generation. Consequently, both Irenaeus and Eusebius believed that these two great Asiaic bishops were contemporaries in the truest sense of the word.278

Given that the surviving literary evidence from the early church affirming that Papias and Polycarp were contemporaries of the same adult generation it now becomes necessary to assess the credibility of Irenaeus’s relationships to Polycarp, and consequently his ability to testify to Polycarp’s relationship to Papias. It is largely recognized that at some point in his life Irenaeus knew Polycarp. It is his capacity, however, to accurately attest to the nature and extent of his relationship with Polycarp that at times is questioned. Some believe that Irenaeus was born in Smyrna, which was the city of Polycarp’s bishopric, although the exact date and place of Irenaeus’s birth is “uncertain.”279 Iain Mackenzie believed that even if Irenaeus was not actually born in Smyrna “he at least had his early upbringing there,” and that it was during his time in Smyrna that he was introduced to Polycarp.280 Some date Irenaeus’s birth as early as 98, while others date his birth as late as 147.281 Concerning the great diversity of opinions regarding the date of Irenaeus’s birth, Osborn has aptly stated, “The most probable date lies between 130 and 140. The early estimates ignore the late development of his writing. The late estimates probably make him too young for the episcopacy in 177, when he succeeded the ninety-year old Pothinus.”282

Irenaeus at some point moved to Lyons, which is in present-day France, it is there that he later served as bishop during the last quarter of the second century. In his writings Irenaeus claimed to have personally interacted with Polycarp. As previously stated, some scholars question Irenaeus’s ability to accurately recall his association with Polycarp. They speculate that Irenaeus may have only briefly met Polycarp at a very early age; consequently, they doubt his ability to legitimately testify to anything regarding Polycarp’s teachings or those with whom he associated.283 Irenaeus, however, felt quite secure in his ability to testify to Polycarp and his orthodoxy. An analysis of the vocabulary Irenaeus used to describe his stage of life in which he interacted with Polycarp indicates that not only did he have close contact with Polycarp, but also that their association occurred over a period of years, years that Irenaeus confessed were very influential for him.

The first personal testimony of Irenaeus to be addressed is found in his Letter to Florinus, which has been preserved by Eusebius. In this letter Irenaeus confronted Florinus’s apostasy from the orthodox faith, a faith that Irenaeus argued was received from the apostles and faithfully transmitted through Polycarp and numerous others. Since both he and Florinus had personal contact with Polycarp and had received instruction from him, Irenaeus believed that he could legitimately identify what constituted orthodoxy and, consequently, Florinus’s departure from it. Irenaeus, in what appears to have been on open letter,284 went to great lengths to describe his memories regarding both his and Florinus’s relationship to the great bishop of Smyrna, stating that

For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp’s house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavouring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learned as children grows up with the soul and is united to it so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to the people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them.285

It is important to note the term Irenaeus used to describe his stage of life in which his interactions with Polycarp occurred before discussing his personal testimony about his memories about Polycarp. Irenaeus stated that he was a παῑς (a boy) when he was exposed to Polycarp’s relationship with Florinus. He also argued that it was his experience that memories “from childhood” (ἐκ παίδων) endured better than even many of his adult memories. The pertinent point is that Irenaeus’s memories of Polycarp and those he associated with began during his “childhood.” Regarding the quantity and quality of his memories, Irenaeus was quite adamant about them and their accuracy and legitimacy. Throughout his description of his relationship to Polycarp nowhere did Irenaeus state or imply that he was only “incidentally exposed” to Polycarp. Therefore, in his mind his knowledge about Polycarp was not vague or inconclusive, instead his interactions with Polycarp occurred over an extended period of time that was, to say the least, very impressionable for Irenaeus. That Polycarp influenced him with more than just his personality is observable from Irenaeus’s confession that he had heard “discourses” (τὰς διαλέξεις) from Polycarp rather than a single brief devotional. He also confessed to have had access to Polycarp’s home, which was where he witnessed Florinus’s association with the bishop. Lastly, Irenaeus stated that his relationship with Polycarp not only allowed him to listen to his mentor’s instructions and discourses, but also to assess this apostolic father’s character and manner of life.

Irenaeus employed a very interesting word to describe how he went about “making notes” of Polycarp and his activities with respect to his “memorializing” of him. He did not use a mundane Greek verb such as γράφω to state that he “wrote” or “inscribed” his memories of Polycarp on his heart. Instead he employed the verb ὑπομνηατίζομαι,286 which was a rather technical word used to describe the “cataloguing” of large amounts of material.287 Polybius used this word to describe the composition of histories.288 It is also found in 1 Esdras 6:23 with respect to the writing of official government records. Lampe, concerning patristic literature, cited Eusebius as employing this word to refer to Hegesippus’s collection of material about “the apostolic preaching,” which he stated consumed “five books.”289 To be sure, the word can simply mean “to note down for remembrance,” or “to make a memorandum.” Liddell and Scott however, reveal that this word was predominantly used to refer to the act of writing “official diaries,” “treatises,” “annals,” “dissertations,” and “commentaries.” Consequently, this verb was regularly used to describe the systematic cataloguing of large amounts of official records and important information. Such a nuance fits the context of Irenaeus’s descriptions extremely well. That he had more than a single memory of Polycarp and his teachings is also clear from Irenaeus’s use of the word αὐτὰ, which is the object of the participle ὑπομνηατίζóμενος. This participle’s object is in the neuter plural because Irenaeus was not simply describing his memorializing of Polycarp—if that were true then the object of the participle would have been masculine since Irenaeus would have been only referring to the “man” that was Polycarp. Instead, Irenaeus was referring to more than just Polycarp, he was also referring to his teachings, his activities, his ministry, and his associations.

Irenaeus’s language, when considered in its entirety, speaks of extensive memories that occurred over a prolonged period of time, and of accessibility that was more than incidental. Irenaeus’s description is indicative of a student who idealized his teacher and mentor, rather than that of a mere child who possessed only a vague memory of the elderly bishop of Smyrna. Given his vocabulary, Osborne rightly observed that Polycarp was at the very least a “dominant influence” in Irenaeus’s life.290 B. H. Streeter asserted, however, that, “In the absence of any express statement to that effect, we are not entitled to infer that he (Irenaeus) was in any sense a personal pupil of Polycarp.” Irenaeus’s descriptions of his memories of Polycarp, however, strongly argue to the contrary against Streeter’s conjecture.291

It should be observed with respect to Irenaeus’s description of his memories that it was not his intent to merely brag about his relationship with the bishop of Smyrna. Instead, he was testifying against Florinus—a man who was his elder—in order to prove that Florinus’s theological positions were incompatible with the doctrines they had received from Polycarp. It is important to note, therefore, that if Irenaeus’s recollections were the least bit inaccurate then Florinus would have been in an excellent position to expose Irenaeus’s inconsistencies, and as a result excuse him as misinformed; thus completely destroying Irenaeus’s credibility. Irenaeus’s assertions were not for personal promotion, rather they were provided as a foundation upon which he could defend orthodoxy; thus they were not made without significant risk.292 Consequently, if for no other reason than this, accuracy was critical on Irenaeus’s part. He was, therefore, constrained to employ the word “παῑς” as he described himself and his memory of Florinus’s association with Polycarp. As will become evident, in any other context Irenaeus would not feel this same compulsion when describing his relationship to this apostolic father.

Just such a context is found in Eusebius’s preservation of a fragment of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies, in which he again briefly described his association with Polycarp. This description is found in Ecclesiastical History IV.14.3–4, which has also preserved Irenaeus’s original Greek. The text in question reveals that Irenaeus wrote, “And Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but was also appointed bishop by apostles in Asia in the church in Smyrna. We also saw him in our childhood, for he lived a long time and in extreme old age passed from life, a splendid and glorious martyr.”293 One might conclude by reading Kirsopp Lake’s English translation of this fragment that there appears to be no appreciable difference in Irenaeus’s vocabulary of his stage of life when describing his interactions with Polycarp. The Greek, however, reveals a distinct difference in Irenaeus’s vocabulary that is not fully appreciated in Lake’s translation. In Against Heresies Irenaeus did not employ the same word as he did in his Letter to Florinus. As argued above, a possible reason for this was that accuracy in his testimony regarding when he and Florinus had known Polycarp was crucial to protecting the credibility of Irenaeus’s testimony. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, however, described his exposure to Polycarp as having occurred “in our first maturity” (τῆ πρώτῃ ἡμῶη ἡλικία).294 The word Irenaeus employed in this text to describe the period of life in which he interacted with Polycarp was ἡλικία, which is often translated to describe the stage of life where one transitions from childhood to adulthood, or even of adulthood itself. This same word is used to describe Jesus’ progression towards maturation at age twelve in Luke 2:52. The apostle Paul also used this word in Ephesians 4:13 to describe the level of maturity that all believers should strive to attain. Interestingly, it is also employed by Eusebius as he reported the approximate life stage of the martyr Germanicus, who although being very young was apparently old enough to stand trial and testify to his own faith in Christ, a stand that cost him his life.295 Ironically, this word was even used in the ninth chapter of The Martyrdom of Polycarp to refer to Polycarp’s age at eighty-six.296

One can see, therefore, that this term has a range of meanings that varies from “youth”297 or “youthfulness,” to the description of one who has reached “maturity” or even of old age as in the case of Polycarp. The important point for the current discussion is that in Against Heresies Irenaeus felt more freedom to describe his stage of life when he knew and interacted with Polycarp, a freedom he lacked when he was constrained to describe his common memories of Polycarp and Florinus. Consequently, in Against Heresies Irenaeus described his exposure to Polycarp as having occurred later in life, and thus occurred during a period of greater maturity. The implication is that in Irenaeus’s letter to Florinus we learn that his relationship with Polycarp began in his childhood, while in Against Heresies we discover that their association extended into the period that Irenaeus referred to as “our first maturity.”298 Such a period could range from childhood to early adolescence or to early adulthood, and thus would have involved a number of very influential years. Consequently, this extended period would make Irenaeus a more than credible witness of not only Polycarp’s character and orthodoxy, but also of individuals that Polycarp considered to be his “companions.” Irenaeus’s description of his interactions with Polycarp, when taken in their entirety, makes Streeter’s contention that Irenaeus’s memories were “slight” because he was only exposed to Polycarp during “a short visit” indefensible.299

Concerning Polycarp’s associates, Irenaeus stated frankly that Papias was a “companion” of Polycarp. The context of Irenaeus’s statement is his defense of his millennial views, which he implied originated with the apostle John and were faithfully transmitted through Papias. Irenaeus’s statement that Papias associated with Polycarp was only ancillary to his discussion concerning the validity of his theological position. Consequently, there is little evidence to consider his statement as anything but accurate. Taken at face value, therefore, any neutral reader would assume that Irenaeus was to some degree in a position to know that Polycarp and Papias were in fact “companions.” Given Irenaeus’s testimony regarding the extent of his association with Polycarp, however, it is reasonable to conclude that he was in fact well positioned to identify those with whom Polycarp associated. Consequently, the burden of proof weighs upon those who would argue that Papias and Polycarp were not companions. In the absence of any such evidence, therefore, Irenaeus’s contemporaneous witness that the two were “comrades” stands against all conjectures to the contrary.

Regarding the extent of the relationship between Polycarp and Papias, Irenaeus employed the word ἑταῑρος, which is generally translated as “companion.” The word is less intimate than the Greek noun φίλος, which is often translated as “friend” (John 15:14). Although not as intimate as φίλος, ἑταῑρος clearly describes a relationship that is cordial and platonic. Even Eusebius, who had a less then positive evaluation of Papias, affirmed that he and Polycarp were fellow comrades and leaders of the Asiatic church during the transitional period from the first to the second century.

Papias’s association with Polycarp is not the only relationship of Papias that is contested. Some scholars also doubt the accuracy of Irenaeus’s statement that Papias was a “hearer of John,” i.e., the apostle. The possibility of Papias’s relationship with the apostle John and other apostles will be a constant theme within this book. It will be assumed for the current discussion that Papias was in fact a “hearer” and disciple of the last living apostle, who was the brother of James and a son of Zebedee, the one who leaned upon Jesus’ chest at the Passover meal, and who composed the Fourth Gospel. Given Irenaeus’s testimony of Papias and his associations, one can understand why Papias would be an important patristic figure for researching the origins of the apostolic writings and their coalescing into what is now recognized as the canonical New Testament.

Papias and His Ministry

The evolution of the church’s offices during Papias’s tenure as bishop (ἑπίσκοπος) is shrouded in mystery and greatly debated. Recognizing the nature of this debate, Alfred Plummer wrote, “The origin of the episcopate is, and is likely to remain, unknown. All the available evidence has been carefully collected, sifted, and estimated, and it is insufficient. Equally honest and equally capable critics infer different theories of the episcopate from it, and no solution of the problem can claim demonstration. We may hold, and perhaps be able to convince others, that one solution is more probable than another, but we cannot prove that it is the true one. All conclusions are tentative.”300 Keeping Plummer’s observation in mind, it should be sufficient to acknowledge that at the time of Papias’s service to his church(s) in Hierapolis, the church’s understanding of the nature and authority of the office of bishop was to some degree in flux.301 It is not the purpose of this book to research the entire scope of this debate. What it will do, however, is make observations about what Papias said concerning his own calling and experience as a bishop. It is hoped that these observations and the implications they produce will shed some light on the larger debate about the governance of the church during the second century. However, concerning any possible impact produced by this book, it will only venture as far as the data allows, and for the moment this limited coverage will have to suffice.

Patristic literature is unanimous that Papias served as a “bishop” at Hierapolis. The period in which he served was arguably one of the most precarious in the church’s history. Christianity was viewed by many as a relatively new religion on the world’s stage around the end of the first century, and as such it was constantly feeling pressures from within and from without. As stated earlier, during this period the church was regularly sorting out its understanding of its relationship to Judaism and its Jewish heritage. The apostolic generation had ended with the passing of the apostle John, and now there were few—if any—who could boast of actually knowing or seeing Jesus Christ in the flesh. Consequently, it was a period when the church experienced significant debate regarding the meaning of its message, its sacred writings, and its theology. Pre-gnostic influences, pagan religions, Judaism, and secular philosophies constantly pressed to influence the church’s understanding of the traditions and doctrines it had received from its founder and his immediate followers. It was also a religion that on occasion was openly and brutally persecuted by the state, both regionally and universally. It was during this tenuous period that men such as Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Papias of Hierapolis were entrusted with the responsibility of protecting and guiding their respective flocks through the treacherous milieu of the Greco-Roman world at the commencement of the second century.

The picture, however, that some paint of Papias, his training, and of his ministry is that of a man with less than average intellectual acumen who in order to accumulate information about Jesus had to depend almost exclusively upon itinerant preachers, prophets, and missionaries302 (some of whom probably had less than credible credentials) who happened to wander through Hierapolis and provided him with “spectacular stories” that to a more critical mind would have in all probability appeared to be more mythical than historical.303 Ronald Higgins described Papias in this manner, “Papias now appears to me to be nothing more than an over-eager purveyor of half-baked harmonizations, who, in addition, never seems to have managed getting his facts right.”304 The historical data reviewed with a more critical approach, however, paints a somewhat different picture of Papias. Eusebius, while heavily depending upon Irenaeus, wrote that Polycarp and Papias “became famous” near or after the death of the apostle John.305 The Greek word describing their relative fame is “γνωρίζω,” which is literally translated as, “to make known” or “to reveal.” Interestingly, while this verb in fragment 2 is plural, having both Polycarp and Papias as its subject, in fragment 4 it is in the singular and refers only to Papias. It is also noteworthy that both verbs are in the imperfect, which should probably be understood as an ingressive imperfect, meaning that they began to become known shortly after the death of John.306 Regarding Papias, the salient question is, if he had ministered alone at some isolated post in Asia Minor then what would be the likelihood of him becoming “well known,” so much so that he would be recognized as a peer with Polycarp, who arguably was the bishop of one of the most prominent Asiatic cities of that day?307

Concerning the elevation of Papias and Polycarp, in fragment 3 Eusebius wrote that by the time Polycarp was appointed to his bishopric at Smyrna that Papias was already becoming well known while serving in the same capacity at Hierapolis.308 One can only speculate as to why Papias had ascended to such prominence. Was it soon after the death of the apostle John that he published his Exposition; or were both he and Polycarp given the responsibility of reproducing and disseminating the Johannine writings, possibly even the last literary account of the life and teachings of Jesus originating from the hand of an eyewitness? Maybe it was Papias’s own charisma as a preacher, prophet, or apologete that made him a rising “star” in the Lycus valley during the first quarter of the second century, or possibly both he and Polycarp were recognized by the Asiatic churches as the next generation of Christian leaders ordained to defend the apostolic traditions that they had personally received from those who had heard the very words of Jesus. Perumalil suggested that Papias’s ordination to the bishopric was the reason for his rise to fame.309 It does not seem likely, however, that Papias became famous in Asia Minor, as well as within the annals of the church’s histories, simply because he became a bishop, for others had risen to this same responsibility, yet we know nothing about them. That is not to say that nothing was ever written by them or about them, but only that their status as bishops never ascended to the level of both Polycarp and Papias. One can only theorize about the reason(s) for Papias’s ascension to prominence within the church of Asia Minor; nevertheless, the fact remains that the earliest historical data indicates that his rise to fame was no less spectacular than that of Polycarp. Consequently, notions that Papias possessed extremely limited exposure and involvement in the mainstream of the leadership of the orthodox church at the beginning of the second century is inconsistent with the historical data.

Regarding his testimony about his education and preparation for ministry, Papias was clearly emphatic with respect to its adequacy. When describing his education he stated, “I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, everything I carefully learned from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth.”310 Although we do not know whether these words appeared at or near the beginning, or in the middle of Papias’s preface, nevertheless, they illuminate Papias’s opinion about his own training, as well as the purpose for his writings. His primary purpose for him magnus opus was to communicate the things he carefully learned and remembered from the elders along with their appropriate interpretations. It is important to note that neither the reflexive pronoun ἐμαυτου or the relative pronoun ἐμου appear in this text; therefore, one should not assume, as implied by Holmes’s translation, that the interpretations that Papias promised to provide were exclusively his own. It is not out of the realm of possibility that some of the interpretations he recorded were from his sources (e.g., elders and/or apostles who were the Lord’s disciples,311 or were interpretations from the very lips of Jesus as testified to by his followers312). The antecedent of the intensive pronoun αὐτων is either “the elders” or “the interpretations,” since both are plural.313 This pronoun is primarily in the genitive because of the preposition ὑπὲρ. If the antecedent of this pronoun is “the elders,” then Papias was guaranteeing by his own fidelity to their teachings the transmission to their traditions to his audience. If its antecedent was “the interpretations,” then it seems he meant to guarantee their “truthfulness” (ἀλήθειαν). It is equally possible that by the clause “διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτων ἀλήθειαν” Papias intentionally nuanced his words with a double entendre in mind, meaning that he was guaranteeing both his fidelity to the elder’s traditions and truthfulness of those traditions. Since the closest antecedent of the intensive pronoun is “the interpretations” it seems reasonable to assume that Papias at least meant to guarantee that they were consistent with what he perceived to be the truth.314 The sentence, however, holds the possibility that both interpretations were intended. Regardless of which position one may take, there is little evidence to suggest that Papias only had in mind to guarantee his own personal interpretations of the traditions of the elders that he received from them and committed to memory. Papias stated, regarding his focus in preparing for ministry, that it was of first importance that he gain a correct mental grasp of meanings of the elders’ instructions (“I learned well”), and afterwards, that he accurately retain those very same instructions (“I remembered well”). The result of this exacting education was that, in Papias’s opinion, he was able to “guarantee their truth.”315

Concerning Papias’s description of his activities after this sentence, some understand his words as an explanation of how he went about “learning and remembering” the instructions and traditions of the elders. The argument being that Papias had to depend almost exclusively upon itinerant prophets and preachers, or other missionaries to pass through Hierapolis in order to provide him with sound bites and “stories” concerning the Lord and his oracles. If such a scenario was the case then Papias could hardly brag about “guaranteeing” the accuracy of any traditions (regardless of their apparent sources), or of the correctness of their interpretations. One might also wonder who would bother to subsidize such a questionable literary product that in reality would amount to nothing more than a collection of stories based upon nothing by hearsay.316 An alternative theory would be to understand the rest of Papias’s preface as explaining how, after having finished his training and, subsequently, having entered the ministry, he functioned as a bishop. In other words, once ordained to the bishopric and, consequently, receiving the responsibility of protecting the flock under his care, Papias made a habit of evaluating the “messages,” “traditions,” and/or “gospels” of those who had itinerated into his jurisdiction for the purpose of vetting them for officially sanctioned ministry during their stay in Hierapolis. Such a theory is entirely consistent with Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian “bishops” regarding their responsibility to care for and protect the church entrusted to them (Acts 20.1–31). Paul’s language in his farewell address to the leadership of the Ephesian church also indicates that at that time he saw no discernible distinction between the office of bishop or elder. Regarding the synonymous nature of these terms in Paul’s thought, Beyer wrote, “The qualifications of presbyters here are like those of the bishops in 1 Tim 3:2ff. In fact, there is an alternation of the terms in Tt 1:7, where we suddenly have ἑπίσκοπος instead of πρεσβύτερος. This is another proof that the two terms originally referred to the same thing, namely, the guidance and representation of the congregation and the work of preaching and conducting worship.”317 This is not to suggest that during the period in which Papias ascended to his bishopric there still persisted no discernible difference between these two terms among the Asiatic churches. Some have argued that it was precisely during this time that the development of a “monarchial episcopate” arose within the church. Plummer contended that the evolution that elevated the office of bishop over the office of elder began in Asia Minor, stating that “it was established in Asia Minor before A.D. 100, and had become wide-spread in Christendom by 150.”318 Similarly, Leonhard Goppelt wrote, “The distinction made by the Pastorals between the elders and the bishops appeared in Asia Minor and probably led around the turn of the century to the monarchial episcopacy. The bishop became mainly the leader and representative of the church with the presbytery and a body of deacons subordinate to him.”319 This book does not attempt to thoroughly investigate the question of when and from where the monarchial episcopate arose; however, it does contend that when Papias was ordained to the bishopric he was entrusted with the responsibility of shepherding the flock within the district of Hierapolis; which meant caring for her needs, faithfully preaching the gospel, perpetuating the traditions he had received from the apostles,320 and protecting her from the heresies of false teachers and false prophets. Given the spiritual climate at Hierapolis, such a mantle would demand that it not be entrusted to those who are intellectually weak and inept, but rather laid upon the shoulders of men who were well educated and capable of clearly articulating the orthodoxy of the Christian faith.

Eusebius’s comments about Papias’s intelligence, however, raises the question as to whether Papias did indeed possess the necessary skill sets needed to successfully carry out the responsibilities that ministry demands; for certainly the memorizing of “catechisms” does not guarantee that one is an adequately trained minister. The question remains, therefore, whether there is any possibility that Papias had access to formal education. Schoedel wrote regarding this question that Papias’s location did not prohibit him from gaining access to formal training, stating that “Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, a city located near the meeting point of two important roads—that running from Antioch (in Syria) to Ephesus and that running from Attalia (in Pamphylia) to Smyrna. . . . It may also have been in Hierapolis that he picked up the rhetorical skills which he displays. For the cities of Asia Minor provided livelihoods for numerous rhetoricians in the period.”321

This is not to argue that Papias is known to have obtained an education, only that he lived in a region that valued and afforded him the opportunity for training. Before the beginning of the Common Era, Asia Minor was known to possess one of the great libraries of the world at Pergamum. Literature was so important to the culture and economy of that region that when the Ptolemies of Egypt refused to export papyrus to Pergamum, King Eumenes II ordered the development of an alternative writing material, which led to the development of parchment. The secular elite, however, were not the only ones who valued education. The Ephesian church that spawned the Christian expansion into the Lycus Valley was aided by what could be viewed as the first known “Christian college” located at the School of Tyrannus, a school where the apostle Paul held daily lectures (Acts 19:8–10),322 a program in which it would not be surprising that the headmaster required literacy as a prerequisite for graduation (1 Tim 4:13). Given the culture in which Papias lived and the Asiatic church’s concern for orthodox instruction and training, it seems reasonable to assume that some formal training was expected of those who desired to ascend to the office of bishop. Additionally, that Papias went on to compose a work that consumed five volumes, implies that at some point in his life he achieved a respectable level of literacy and rhetorical training.323

Regardless of any possible education that Papias may have received, Eusebius felt confident he was incapable of benefiting from it, for with disrespect to Papias Eusebius wrote, “He certainly appears to be a man of very little intelligence, as one may say judging from his own words.”324 Apparently this was not always Eusebius’s opinion of Papias, for fragment 4 indicates that earlier in his life he viewed Papias in a better light.325 Schoedel theorized that Eusebius’s reference to Papias’s “own words” was an allusion to a self deprecating statement possibly written by Papias, and thus provided the basis of Eusebius’s derision of him.326 Such statements, however, were common fare for ancient writers, and were usually given as an attempt at modesty rather than an accurate evaluation of the author’s intelligence.327 Eusebius was aware of these types of references; consequently it is doubtful that he was pointing to any such statement made by Papias, for him to have done so would have reflected poorly on his own intellectual stature rather than Papias’s mental capacity. The context surrounding Eusebius’s insult leads in a different direction. His reference to Papias’s intelligence occurred as he assessed Papias’s hermeneutical approach to “apostolic accounts” and his belief in a “material” millennial kingdom. Consequently, the context of Eusebius’s statement implies that he believed Papias was intellectually inferior because of his chiliastic theology rather than any self-deprecating statement Papias may have made.

If this had been Eusebius’s only statement about Papias, then today’s scholars would probably believe him. But the fact that Eusebius himself admitted that Papias influenced “so many ecclesiastical writers after him”328 argues that to some degree he was rational and persuasive rather than dense and a bore. Eusebius contended that it was Papias’s antiquity that led so many askew in agreeing with his eschatology, but generally speaking, antiquity alone was no guarantor of a critical audience. To argue such implies that Irenaeus, Apollinaris, and others were mere lemmings, and such is demonstrably not the case. Eusebius, however, was not the only one to give an opinion of Papias. Agapius of Hierapolis called Papias “prominent.”329 Photius referred to him as a man of “apostolic character.”330 The author of a prologue to the Gospel of John labeled him “virtuous.”331 Anastasius of Sinai called him “famous,”332 and although he may have taken his cue from Eusebius’s references in fragment 2 or 4, he may also have assessed Papias as a credible bishop and theologian based upon his evaluation of Papias’s writings. Additionally, while Eusebius questioned Papias’s intellect, he also wrote that Papias was a well known leader in the Asiatic church; and since there appears to be little evidence that the early church was in the habit of promoting drones, it seems reasonable to conclude that Eusebius’s accusation that Papias was a simple-minded man was his own personal attack upon this apostolic father; an attack that Schoedel recognized as “unwarranted.”333

Papias, after being trained and ordained to the bishopric at Hierapolis, probably began his ministry somewhere between 25 and 40 years of age.334 His location provided the benefit of easy travel, and the time of his ascension to the bishopric was an important period for the church. Regarding Papias’s situation, Bartlet wrote, “A man so situated, and with a passion for firsthand information as to Christ’s teaching, had special chances of intercourse with such disciples of the first generation (‘elders’ he calls them) as visited or worked in Asia, so far as his youth or early manhood overlapped their later years.”335 At some point in his ministry, however, Papias must have come to the realization that the period of the apostolic generation had ended, which meant certain traditions he believed valuable were being tenuously preserved only through the medium of human memory. The tenuous nature of such material must have been one of the motivating factors that caused Papias to put to pen many traditions, interpretations, and the historical data that he thought too valuable to entrust to a future where orality and aurality were the only guarantors of their preservation. His research and labors produced his magnum opus, which he titled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.336 There is no evidence that Exposition has survived the erosion of time. Adolf Harnack vainly searched for it. His efforts produced only a few potential references of it from the inventories of a few libraries in Europe, one in 1218, another in 1341, and possibly a third as late as 1534.337 Theodor Zahn was of the opinion, however, that there are many unattributed Papian fragments embedded within patristic writings.338 But, as stated earlier, attributing them to Papias is virtually impossible, and regrettably no complete manuscripts of his writings have survived. What exactly were Papias’s purposes for his Exposition? If his title has any weight, then it would appear that he at least wanted to explain or clarify the meanings of some of the things that Jesus Christ actually said. Such a publication would be an important endeavor for his Greek-speaking congregation who sought to understand the teachings of their Aramaic-speaking Messiah. There is little doubt that after seventy years (the approximate time from Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to Papias’s ordination) a considerable reservoir of misinformation about Jesus and his teachings had developed. It was probably during this time that Papias began to be concerned that some of Jesus’ meanings were being distorted by others who had attempted to translate Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel into Greek; or by others who had “a great deal to say,” or by those who misinterpreted Jesus’ sayings (i.e., oral traditions) while promoting “someone else’s commandments,” or by teachers who relied upon “information from books” rather than “information from a living and abiding voice.”339 Concerning Papias’s purpose for his Exposition and the importance it would have had for his second-century audience, Bartlet wrote,

Although we are unable to conceive in detail the exact character of Papias’ Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, even our meagre[sic] knowledge of it, especially when taken in connexion[sic] with other Christian writings of the period, helps us not a little to realize the way in which our Gospels, and Gospels generally, were viewed and handled early in the 2nd century. Both it and the Oxyrhynchus Gospel teach us not only that Christ’s sayings were the most prized part of the Gospel tradition, but also how strong were the tendencies at work making for change in their meaning and even wording. They were heard or read in environments of thought far other than those for which they were first spoken; and . . . their historical or original meaning was apt to be lost as soon as they passed beyond Palestine, and the fresh meanings or glosses put upon them tended insensibly to replace the Master’s ipsissima verba. Here the instances afforded by the Oxyrhynchus Gospel of how in all good faith such a process of transformation took place, are most suggestive. They show how needful something like a standard exegesis, based on knowledge of the original historical sense, was becoming to the genuine transmission of Christ’s own teaching, if it was not to be sublimated away in terms of Greek idealism and Oriental mysticism. Such a consummation was averted only by strenuous insistence on the part of the local Church leaders, that every care was to be taken to keep in touch with the historic meaning of the Lord’s earthly teaching, as certified by Gospels historically known to be of Apostolic or quasi-Apostolic authorship, and expounded in the first instance by the aid of continuous local tradition going back to similar sources.340

That there was literature that painted conflicting pictures of Jesus’ life during the last quarter of the first century is hardly questionable. Robert Stein, concerning the existence of such material, explained that Luke’s reference to “many” narratives suggests that there were more literary accounts of the life and deeds of Jesus than just the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.341 Luke’s reference to these materials, therefore, tells us that even before Papias’s birth attempts were being made to define the “historical Jesus.” Some fifty or more years later, Papias’s statements that some had attempted to translate Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel “as best they could,” while others who had “a great deal to say” supporting their positions through “books” indicates that at the time when Papias commenced his ministry the debate was still raging, thus giving another impetus for his Exposition.

The preservation and exposition of certain sayings of Jesus, however, was not the only purpose for Papias’s work. Both Eusebius (in fragment 5) and Philip of Side (in fragment 11) reported that Papias went to the effort to preserve accounts of post-Pentecost events. One such example was the consumption of poison by Barsabbas. Did Papias include this tradition because he believed it demonstrated the fulfillment of a prophetic oracle made by Jesus, or did he only include it for its value as a powerful apologetic of Jesus’ supremacy? Without more material or contextual details from Papias one can only wonder. Another example of the importance that history played in Papias’s work is his preservation of the “Elder’s” tradition(s) concerning the origins of both the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.342 The inclusion of these traditions clearly reveals that some material was included simply for their historical value rather than any spiritual benefit or theological insights they might produce.

As stated earlier, the question of when Papias wrote his magnum opus is one of considerable debate. Yarbrough made a strong case for dating Papias’s Exposition as ca. 95–117.343 Just as persuasively, however, Bauckham argued that whenever Papias wrote, he appears to have written about an earlier time in his life rather than about the period in which he was writing, which makes providing a date as to when Papias wrote his Exposition speculative at best. Nevertheless, Bauckham tentatively dated Papias as having written ca. 110.344 His argument, however, also strengthens any position that Papias may have written later than 110. Lightfoot, while believing Papias wrote to contradict gnostic exegesis, dated Papias’s writings as ca. 130 or later.345 Schoedel, however, argued that there is little evidence that Papias’s wrote because of a gnostic threat.346 The lack of evidence is primarily because there is little that survives from the hand of Papias. Little weight, therefore, can be placed upon the lack of evidence not found in the few meager quotes surviving from the hand of Papias.

Schoedel’s position, however, appears to lead in the right direction. The fact that Papias influenced so many later bishops, apologists, and theologians during the second century, and yet none of them are known to cite him as an early anti-gnostic apologete or critic argues loudly for a pre 140 date for Exposition, even if such a conclusion is based upon an argument from silence. An example of the absence of Papias’s engagement of gnostic thought can be observed in Irenaeus’s employment of Papias.347 In Fragment 1, which appears to be his only quote of Papias, Irenaeus did not quote Papias as providing any anti-gnostic arguments or proof texts. Ironically, Irenaeus never again appears to mention Papias and/or his arguments on any subject for that matter. Consequently, assuming that a major gnostic challenge to the church (if not full-blown formal Gnosticism) had developed by 140, the absence of any evidence from Irenaeus that Papias’s provided a polemic against Gnosticism argues for Papias to have written before Gnosticism became a dominant threat to the church.348 A reasonable conjecture, therefore, would be that Papias wrote no later than 130.349

If 130 is the terminus ad quem for Papias’s Exposition, then what could be the terminus a quo? Eusebius indicated that Papias entered that ministry ca. 100. Again, the fact that his writings influenced so many that followed him would imply that he had achieved a certain level of theological maturity and rhetorical sophistication. Consequently, it appears that Bauckham’s calculation (a view supported by several others) that Papias wrote ca. 110 seems a reasonable estimate for the earliest dating of Papias’s work.350 Consequently, given the apparent lack of any evidence that Papias confronted a gnostic threat, it would appear that the better claim as to when Papias wrote would be nearer to 110 rather than to 130.351

It should be remembered, regardless of when or why Papias wrote, that the historical data indicates that Papias was preeminently a bishop. In other words, he was a full-time pastor. There is no evidence to suggest that he had any other career or profession to distract him. Instead, the evidence paints him as a dedicated shepherd of the Hieropolitan flock, as an educator of his congregation, as a preserver of the church’s history, as one who was passionate about preserving the Lord’s commandments, and as one who hungered to hear within those commandments the living and abiding voice of truth. Moreover, it was Papias’s passion for the Lord’s teachings, as handed down to him through the reminisces of Jesus’ immediate followers, that apparently led to his death, a subject to which I now turn.

The Death of Papias

While as there is virtually no information regarding the birth of Papias, there are some records describing his death. The historical record indicates that Papias suffered as a martyr. Many scholars are either unaware of these fragments, or they agree with Lightfoot’s position that no credible historical evidence exists to suggest that Papias was a martyr. Unfortunately, Lightfoot’s opinion on this matter is a good example of how a conjecture can sometimes evolve into an historical certitude. The earliest reference to Papias’s death is found in the anonymous worked titled Chronicon Paschale, which is an early seventh-century Byzantine chronology of the world’s history.352 Lightfoot speculated that the author of the CP erred when he recorded that Papias was martyred in 163, arguing that “either he or his transcriber has substituted a well-known name, Papias, for a more obscure name, Papylus. If the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in his copy of Eusebius, nothing would be more natural than such a change.”353

Lightfoot’s conjecture regarding Papias’s death was based on several major assumptions; the first is that the author of the CP depended solely upon Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History for his chronology; and secondly, that he misread the uncial script of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. The two names in uncial script would potentially appear as “ΠΑΠΙΑΣ” (Papias) and “ΠΑΠΥΛΟΣ” (Papulos). While an error caused by the visual similarities of the names is possible, it is not certain.354 Regarding his initial assumption, Lightfoot confidently asserted that “there is no indication that the author of this chronicle used any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the extant Martryology of Polycarp which Eusebius quotes.”355 Michael Whitby, however, in the introduction to his translation of the CP stated that its author employed several sources for his historiography, both sacred and secular.356 Consequently, assertions that the author of the CP employed only Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History as he chronicled the history of the church and world during the first and second century are not well founded. Lastly, concerning Lightfoot’s assumption that Papylus was a relatively unknown martyr, it is clearly anachronistic and, therefore, a poorly defended assertion to contend that because the martyrology titled Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonicê is “obscure” to today’s audiences, then it must have been obscure to a medieval historian. Nevertheless, it was Lightfoot’s position that the author of the CP replaced Papylus’s name with the more popular name of Papias.357

There is no question that the author of the CP depended heavily upon Eusebius’s work as he wrote. Both he and Eusebius, however, affirmed that additional literary accounts existed during the time of their writings detailing the martyrdoms that occurred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, a point that Lightfoot seemed to give little weight or ignored altogether. The reference to Papias’s martyrdom in the CP reads as thus, “καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι ὲν οἷς ἧς καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ὧν καὶ ἕγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρυτύρια.”358 Eusebius also testified to the existence of such sources, stating, “There are also extant memoirs of others also who suffered martyrdom in Pergamum, a city of Asia.”359 If there existed additional accounts detailing the martyrdoms that occurred during the reign of Marcus Aurelius then it is certainly possible and, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the author of the CP supplemented his work with these sources and was quite accurate when he recorded that Papias was a martyr, thus making no mistake at all.

This conclusion is even more credible given the fact that Lightfoot cited no Greek or Latin variants to support his conjecture. Ironically, the only textual evidence cited by Lightfoot argues against his position. Lightfoot mentioned in a footnote that the Syriac Epitome also indicates that Papias and Polycarp were martyred during the same period.360 Lightfoot speculated, however, that “the martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the Syriac Epitome of the Chronicon of Eusebius (p. 216, ed. Schöne). The source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.” A translation of the Syriac Epitome reads as follows: “At that time persecution in Asia occurred, Polycarp became a martyr, and Papias, of whose martyrdoms exist (written) in a book.”361 As is observable in this quote, the reader is again confronted by an author’s statement that there existed another “book” that confirmed that Papias was martyred during the same persecutions under which Polycarp also suffered. Lightfoot contended that this reference to Papias’s martyrdom was doubtlessly the result of the same source.

Lightfoot, unfortunately, never elaborated as to how the writer of the Syriac Epitome and the Byzantine author of the CP came to employ the same source (or a source containing the same error), or why neither attempted to review the document(s) detailing the accounts of these martyrdoms, or that neither discovered this apparent error when referencing Eusebius’s well know Ecclesiastical History. Lightfoot’s theory is solely based upon the supposed incompetence of not one but several authors or scribes who never discovered their apparent errors. He not only failed to supply textual variants that might lend support for his theory, but he systematically marginalized any evidence that contradicted his assertion.362 Arguments from silence, as one can see, provide absolutely no opportunity for objective verification and can quickly spin into wild speculations, which regrettably for some is evidence enough to interpret such unfounded conjectures as historical “facts.”363 It should be at least acknowledged, however, that these witnesses to Papias’s martyrdom are relatively late and can no longer direct the reader to other surviving documents for confirmation of the manner and date of Papias’s death.

The last reference to Papias’s martyrdom to be discussed comes from Photius, the great ninth-century patriarch of Constantinople. Photius only incidentally described Papias as a martyr in his work titled Bibliotheca. His reference to Papias reads as follows: “Παπίαν τὸν Ἱεραπόλες ἐπίσκπον και μάρτυ”364 It could easily be argued, since Photius was probably well educated,365 that he relied upon the account of Papias martyrdom as found in the CP, and therefore, it is questionable whether he should be viewed as providing an independent witness. If in fact Papias was a martyr, then he apparently suffered his fate in the city of Pergamum.366 Pergamum was approximately 200 miles northwest of Hierapolis. As is the case with Hierapolis, Pergamum had a very early history with Christianity, although it appears to have been considerably less tolerant of this relatively “new” faith. The church at Pergamum was one of the seven churches that received a letter that is embedded in the book of Revelation (Rev 2:12–17). This brief letter reveals that brutality towards those loyal to Jesus Christ had already begun to occur sometime before the end of the first century (Rev 2:13).367

Pergamum was one of the three leading cities of Asia during the first century. It had once served as the Roman capital of Asia, and as such it possessed the right to exercise capital punishment. Ephesus, however, replaced Pergamum as the capital city of Asia sometime during the reign of Augustus.368 Pergamum was known to be one of the main centers in Asia Minor for the Imperial Cult. It is possible that either Antipas (a first-century Christian martyr mentioned in Rev 2:13) or Papias, or both, were open critics of this cult, and as a result they may have incurred the wrath of the state. Another possibility is that their ministries or preaching could have become a threat to the dominant temples in their respective cities. Such threats at times ignited flash mobs to anger and violence, an example of such is found in Acts 19:23–41 concerning the cultic vitality of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus.

Although Antipas appears to have been a citizen of Pergamum, Papias was not. Whether Papias possibly pursued martyrdom in the manner of Ignatius, or humbly accepted his fate like Polycarp, or whether he was martyred at the hands of a mob or by official state sanction is pure speculation. P. A. Brunt suggested that Christian martyrdoms were often the result of mob violence or the prejudice of regional or local officials, writing that

It is clear that some martyrdoms occurred in every reign and that no emperor did more to protect the Christians than require prosecutions to be heard by due process of Law, forbidding pogroms and anonymous or calumnious[sic] charges. . . . Our extant records suggest that martyrdoms were generally the result of popular agitation or of the personal animosity that individual pagans bore to individual Christians. But neither city magistrates nor governors were necessarily immune from vulgar prejudices, and governors enjoyed a wide discretion, which enabled them both to restrain persecution or to impose a sentence milder than the death penalty, and to exceed the limits of repression that Trajan had prescribed.369

If this assessment is accurate, then Papias may have been arrested simply because he was a leader of what many in his day considered to be a relatively new and despised illegal religion.

If Papias was arrested for being the leader of the Christians in Hierapolis and as such was accused and charged with a “capital offense,” it would have been necessary to transport him to a city with the authority to carry out such a sentence. Ephesus of course was considerably closer to Hierapolis than Pergamum, and therefore would have been a more natural selection for the location of such a trial. Transporting Papias to Pergamum may have been necessary because of an appeal made by him to have his case heard by one someone possessing higher judicial authority than those hearing his case in Ephesus (e.g., the proconsul).370 It is not likely, however, that such an appeal would have provided a venue for a more tolerant court. Pergamum in the book of the Revelation is referred to as the location of “Satan’s throne” and the place where “Satan dwells” (Rev 2:13). Regarding this imagery of hostility by city of Pergamum toward Christianity, Adela Collins wrote, “On the symbolic level, then, the throne of Satan in the Book of Revelation represents a power opposing God and embodied in Roman imperial might. The message to Pergamom,371 however, does not allow the interpreter to remain on this literary level. The text explicitly associates this image of Satan’s throne with the city of Pergamom.”372 Pergamum was still a city of political influence and power within the empire through the late first century and well into the second century, and one where intolerance of Christianity was common. It is also possible that Papias had journeyed to Pergamum on official church business, and while there he was accused of a capital offense (e.g., preaching against the Imperial Cult). As mentioned above, there are no extant records from the second century detailing the martyrdom of Papias; consequently, there are no descriptions of the manner of his execution. If he died as a martyr and if he was a Roman citizen then one could assume that he was beheaded, as was the case with the apostle Paul and Justin Martyr.373 If, however, he was not a citizen of Rome, then it is not unreasonable to assume that he was martyred in one of the horrific fashions detailed by Eusebius in his accounts of the martyrdoms that occurred during the mid-second century.

Paul Keresztes believed, with respect to estimating the date of the martyrdom of Papias, that there were two waves of persecutions during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.374 The first transpired early in Marcus’s reign sometime between 161–168. This period of persecutions was apparently particularly intense from 166–168, while the second wave occurred ca. 177.375 Keresztes speculated that during the first wave of persecutions the Roman Empire had suffered a series of revolts, natural disasters, and plagues, and that these ominous events created an atmosphere of fear that led to a universal edict calling for the offerings of sacrifices to appease the traditional gods of the Empire. Keresztes wrote regarding this period that

We may be sure that Marcus Aurelius, in the serious circumstances of 166–168 AD, would not neglect this old republic practice. His historian gives a fair and suggestive indication of the character of these expiatory sacrifices. The Vita of Abercius (1–4) is more generous in giving details of the religious festivities in Hierapolis, following the edict of the joint chiefs of the Empire about the same time. This edict was clearly empire-wide and ordered the public performance of sacrifices, libations, and festivities to the gods. This edict, being promulgated by officials also in Hierapolis, was promptly complied with. The main centre of rituals, it appears, was the temple of Apollo, but there were celebrations also to Heracles, Artemis, Aphrodite, and other gods. There are in Roman history several clear examples of similar lectisternia.376

Based upon his assessment of the situation within the empire from 166–168, Keresztes concluded that the Pergamum martyrdoms referred to by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History IV.15.48) also occurred sometime within this same period, stating that “On the basis of our evidence in the Vita of Abercius, Orosius, the Acts of Justin and the Martyrdoms of Pergamum, we must assume the existence of a general edict by the joint Emperors, sometime during 161–168 AD, ordering sacrifices to placate the angry gods. This same evidence, when put within the context of Roman tradition and the events of the last few years of this same joint rule by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Versus, further suggests that this empire-wide edict was issued some time during 166–168 AD.”377

While Keresztes has made a compelling case that an “empire-wide edict” mandating sacrifices to appease the mythical gods of Rome occurred sometime between 166 and 168, he has not proven that all the martyrdoms that occurred in Asia Minor were executed during those three years, nor has he argued for such a conclusion. Certainly such an edict would grant license to hunt out Christian leaders for the purpose of appeasing the Roman gods and suppressing Christianity, but it should not be assumed that such an edict must have initiated animosity towards the adherents of this already illegal and despised religion. Persecutions and martyrdoms, as Brunt rightly recognized, occasionally occurred even before Marcus’s edict. Consequently, there is nothing that demands that Papias and all the others who were martyred at Pergamum were all martyred together at the same time. It is possible that some Christian leaders were occasionally victims of local or regional persecutions from the mid 150s through the mid 160s, with the more draconian pogrom reaching a crescendo as the result of Marcus’s edict, which was ordered ca. 166–68.

Whether Papias was martyred as early as 163 or as late as 166/167, a legitimate question remains, which is whether someone who died in either of those years could have possibly known the apostle John. It is this very question, not to mention textual and archaeological evidence about certain martyrdoms, that has led some to argue that Polycarp was martyred in 155 or 156.378 Not wishing to marginalize the possibility of the earlier dates, mathematically speaking it is certainly possible for someone who died in 166/67 to have been an adult during the final years of the apostle John’s ministry and life. Irenaeus, who was the student of at least one apostolic father that actually studied under the apostle John (i.e., Polycarp), stated that the apostle John lived until “the times of Trajan.”379 Trajan’s reign began in 98. Using Papias’s contemporary Polycarp as a standard of measurement for Papias’s approximate age, if Polycarp was in his mid-eighties in 166/67 (e.g., eighty-six years old) he would have been born ca. 80. That places Papias’s age somewhere between eighteen to nineteen years old at the beginning of Trajan. As any high school teacher or college professor can attest, such an age is certainly old enough for one to become a competent student. If Papias was martyred in 163, as the author of the CP asserted, and was approximately eighty-six years of age at his death then he would have been born ca. 77/78, which would make him twenty to twenty-one at the beginning of Trajan’s reign (98). Moreover, the longer the apostle John lived during the reign of Trajan, then the greater the possibility of both Papias and Polycarp to have known the last living apostle. Eusebius’s Chronicle implies that the apostle John survived until the third year of Trajan’s rule, ca. 100. This means that Papias would have known the apostle into his mid-twenties. There is no reasonable objection, therefore, that validates position that someone who died as late as 167 could not have known the apostle John.

There will be those who balk at the idea that anyone could have lived to such an age in a culture with virtually no advanced health care, and such an objection does have its merit. Some people, however, did live to advanced ages during the second century. Polycarp was spry and keen of intellect at age eighty-six, and would have lived longer had he not been executed. Pothinus, the bishop who preceded Irenaeus, lived to ninety years of age and would also have lived longer had he too not been martyred. Tracey cited an inscription in Syria which honors a priestess of Hadara for living to the ripe old age of one hundred.380 Thus, even though people in any period do not generally live into their late eighties and nineties, it is not unheard of; nor is it reasonable to believe that some could not have survived to such ages in the first and second centuries. Consequently, there is no concrete historical data proving the contention that both Papias and Polycarp could not have known John the son of Zebedee as adults during the twilight years of his life.381

The fact that no account of Papias’s death (if he was martyred) has survived with the martyrologies of those who also died at Pergamum does provide some with justification for doubting that he was in fact a martyr. However, there are only two extant manuscripts detailing the martyrdoms of some who suffered at Pergamum, an account which is titled, Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonicê.382 The lack of a narrative for Papias’s trial and subsequent martyrdom could be attributed to the possibility that his execution did not occur along with other Pergamum martyrdoms; and consequently the commentarius of his trial may not have been accessible to the author of Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonicê. It is also possible that the author found the account of Papias’s death less suitable for his purposes, or that documents of Papias’s death simply did not survive the sands of time. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that the Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonicê provide the details for all the martyrdoms that occurred at Pergamum. The author of the CP informed his readers that “many others” were martyred in Pergamum. It hardly seems reasonable to conclude that an account detailing the deaths of only three martyrs deserves a description of “many others.” Regarding the persecutions that arose under Marcus Aurelius’s reign, Brunt argued that the persecutions in Asia were more severe precisely because that was where the church was the strongest.383 Additionally, the historical data regarding the persecutions that occurred is Asia Minor during this period indicates that many others died for the faith in the mid-to-late second century. It is certainly possible, therefore, that Papias, a significant leader of Christianity in Hierapolis, did not survive this period of intense hostility. Consequently, the historical evidence does in fact reveal a socio-religious context during the mid-second century that was more than conducive for the possibility that Papias also became a victim of the brutality that was inflicted upon many other faithful Christians. Regrettably, however, no early sources have survived that provide significant information detailing the manner of Papias’s death. Consequently, certitude as to whether he was in fact a martyr is unachievable.

A Concluding Summary

As stated at the beginning in this chapter, few facts about the life of Papias can be verified with any credible degree of certitude. The whole of the historical record about him, however, makes certain conjectures reasonable, while other are more tentative. Keeping this in mind, a brief summary about his life, ministry, and death is here offered.

Papias was probably Phrygian by birth and was born somewhere in Asia Minor ca. 75–80. He became well known after ascending to the bishopric of Hierapolis ca. 105, and was quickly recognized as one of the more prominent Christian leaders of the Asiatic church. Irenaeus not only affirmed that Papias was of the generation that preceded him, but that he was also a “hearer” of the apostle John and a “companion” of Polycarp, who was also a student of the apostle John as well as the bishop of Smyrna. Consequently, both Papias and Polycarp are commonly referred to today as “apostolic fathers.” Papias was sufficiently educated to have written sometime between 110 and 130 an influential five-volume work which he titled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. No complete manuscript of this work has survived. In his writings he attempted to engage in historical analysis and rhetorical criticism of the apostolic traditions and the written events concerning Jesus and his teachings; however he was primarily concerned with providing explanations of their orthodox interpretations. His title indicates that he believed these “sayings” or “oracles” of Jesus were of divine origin.384 Papias clearly valued apostolic testimony about the teachings and deeds of Jesus over the speculations of any who contradicted their witness. He was also an avowed chiliast and by the time of his writings he was aware of several books that are now part of the canonical New Testament.385 His ministry appears to have endured several decades, but apparently did not survive a series of persecutions that occurred under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, during which he apparently died sometime in his eighties or possibly in his early nineties as a martyr in Pergamum ca. 163. Regrettably certitude concerning the date and manner of his death is not possible. Having thus completed the biographical portion of this book, it is now time to turn more fully to Papias’s witness to the writings of the New Testament as found in material that is commonly referred to as “The Fragments of Papias.”

253. Bartlet, “Papias’s Exposition,” 17. Lightfoot also dated Papias’s birth between 60–70. Lightfoot, Essays, 150. Munck also dated Papias’s birth ca. 60. Munck, “Presbyters,” 240.

254. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 18.

255. Lightfoot, Colossians, 48; and Lightfoot, Essays, 153. See also Körtner, Papias, 88; Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 162.

256. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1.1, 84.

257. Ibid., 88.

258. LSJ, s.v. “παπίας.”

259. On both the Hellenization and Christianization of Hierapolis see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1.2, 681–83.

260. “Hierapolis”; available from http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/hierapolis-pamukkale.htm; Internet. For a discussion of potential size of the Jewish population in Phrygia see Polhill, Paul, 332.

261. Bruce, Colossians, 17–26; Polhill, Paul, 332–38.

262. For a discussion regarding Jewish-Christian relationships in the church from the end of the first century into the beginning of the second century see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 8–14. Jewish or pro-Judaism influences were clearly present within the churches of Asia Minor into the early second century. For evidence of the tensions this caused the church during the period of Papias’s ministry see Ignatius To the Magnesians 8–10 (LCL 24:248–51). For other evidence of Jewish–Christian tensions within the early church see Didache 8–10 (LCL 24:429–33); and The Epistle of Barnabas 4.6–9 (LCL 25:21–23).

263. Perumalil believed Papias to be a well educated bi-lingual Jew, see Perumalil, “Papias,” 363.

264. Polhill, Paul, 332. Regarding the location of Paul’s writing of Colossians, Bruce argued for Rome, but concerning the issue of the author’s location he wrote, “The question is not of the first importance, as it makes little difference to the exegesis whether it was sent from Rome or Caesarea or Ephesus.” Simpson and Bruce, Ephesians and Colossians, 164.

265. Polhill, Paul, 331.

266. For photos of the ruins of Hierapolis see “Hierapolis,” available from http://www.ourfatherlutheran.net/biblehomelands/sevenchurches/hierapolis/hierapolis.htm; Internet. See also, “Hierapolis”; available from http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/ hierapolis-pamukkale.htm; Internet.

267. Lightfoot, Colossians, 5.

268. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1.1, 84.

269. Lightfoot, Colossians, 12–13.

270. Gill and Winter, “Acts and Roman Religion,” 84.

271. Tracey, “Syria,” 258. This is not to argue that Rome was tolerant of all religions, for clearly at times it was not. For a more recent discussion of theories regarding religious diversity in the Roman Empire see Bingham, “Early Christianity,” 45–48.

272. “Hierapolis”; available from http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/hierapolis-pamukkale.htm; Internet.

273. For greater explanation regarding the history and activities of the priests of the cult of Cybele (or Magna Mater), see Beard, North, Price, Religions of Rome, 1: 80, 96–98, 164–66, 263; and Smith, “Galli,” 566–67.

274. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.1 (LCL153:291).

275. Eusebius, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, 193–94. See also, Eusebii Pamphili, Chronici Canones, 275–76. Fotheringham’s critical edition this passage in Latin reads as follows, “Johannem apostolum usque ad Traiani tempora Hireneus episcopus permansisse scribit, post quem auditores eius insignes fuerunt Papias Hierapolitanus episcopus et Polycarpus Zmyrnaeus et Ignatius Antiochenus.” Holmes’s citation of Eusebius’s Chronicle from the critical editions of Schöne, Helms, and Fotheringham in his 1999 version of Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers could lead to considerable confusion with respect to the singular or plural use of the word “bishop.” (Holmes only cited Schöne in the 2007 edition of Apostolic Fathers. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 733.) Regarding Jerome’s preservation of Eusebius’s Chronicle, Alden Mosshammer argued that Jerome’s Latin text appears to be the more faithful translation of the Chronicle than the Armenian translation of Eusebius’s chronology. For a more thorough discussion see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 67–68. Helm’s edition of Jerome’s Latin text of Eusebius’s Chronicle is slightly different than the Greek text provided by Holmes; see Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 562–63. This is because the Greek text provided by Holmes employs a quote found in Alfred Schöne’s critical edition titled Eusebi, Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt, published as two volumes in 1866 and 1875. [For the Greek text provided by Holmes see also Eusebi, Chronicorum Canonum, 162.] The Greek text that Holmes employed is actually from Georgius Syncellus, a late ninth and early tenth-century Byzantine monk. Holmes’s employment of this text gives the appearance that Holmes has provided a Papian fragment of Eusebius’s Chronicle in the original Greek. To date there is no extant manuscript of this work from the hand of Eusebius. Holmes has actually employed Syncellus’s quote or redaction of Eusebius’s Chronicle. Mosshammer published a critical edition of Syncellus’s Ecloga Chronographica. Mosshammer’s edition followed the textual family “t” for this particular Papian fragment. In this fragment the word “bishops” (ἑπίσκοποι) is found in the plural, indicating that both Polycarp and Papias were both bishops who had been “hearers” of the apostle John. See Georgii Syncelli, Ecloga Chronographica, 424. Holmes’s text has the word “bishop” in the singular, apparently following the younger Codex Parisinus, which is an eleventh century manuscript (see ibid., xviii and xxxvii). It is interesting that Syncellus stated that there were other sources that confirmed the terminus a quo of the apostle John’s life and his possible relationships to Polycarp and Papias.

276. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.36.1–2 (LCL 153:280–81).

277. The possible existence of other sources will be discussed often in the body of this book as it examines other Papian fragments. Regarding the allusions to other such sources see Chronicon Paschale (PG 92:628); and Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.15.46 (LCL 153:359).

278. This is contrary to Richard Heard’s assessment that Papias and Polycarp were “roughly contemporaries.” Heard, “Papias’ Quotations,” 132. Bartlet and Lightfoot both speculated that Papias may have been older than Polycarp. Bartlet, “Papias,” 2:311; Lightfoot, Essays, 150. Conversely, Bacon believed Papias to be younger than Polycarp, Bacon, Studies, 442, as well as his disciple, Bacon, “An Emendation,” 183.

279. Osborn, Irenaeus, 2.

280. Mackenzie, Irenaeus’s Demonstration, 36.

281. Osborn provided a survey of years offered by different scholars concerning Irenaeus’s birth (Osborn, Irenaeus, 2). It is not in the purview of this chapter to debate at length the year of Irenaeus’s birth, but only to discern the credibility of his opportunity to accurately testify about Polycarp and his associates.

282. Ibid.

283. Hall, Papias, 307–8. Perumalil provides a well documented discussion concerning scholars who doubt Irenaeus’s ability to report accurately anything regarding the teachings and associations of Polycarp. Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 332–33, 335–37. Perumalil argued that Irenaeus was in his late teens when he associated with Polycarp (ibid., 336).

284. Lewis, Fourth Gospel, 27.

285. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. V.20.4–7 (LCL 153:497–98).

286. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.8.2 (LCL 153:498–99).

287. LSJ, s.v. “ὑπομνηατίζομαι.”

288. Polybius Histories 2.4.4, 5.35.5, Internet.

289. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. “ὑπομνηατίζομαι.” See also Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.8.2 (LCL 153:320).

290. Osborn, Irenaeus, 3.

291. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 443–44.

292. Lewis, Fourth Gospel, 27.

293. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.14.3–4 (LCL 153:336–37).

294. Translation mine. Irenaeus’s employment of the first person plural pronoun is interesting. It is not clear if he had certain individuals in mind, or if he was referring to his entire generation in an attempt to explain how Polycarp’s generation overlapped his own. Lake translated this phrase as “in our childhood.”

295. Eusebius IV.15.5 (LCL 153:340–43).

296. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 (LCL 24: 378–79).

297. Grant, Irenaeus, 3.

298. Translation mine.

299. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 444–45. Schoedel described Irenaeus’s knowledge of Polycarp as “thin”; Schoedel, The Fragments, 90. If one were to grant Streeter’s speculation that Irenaeus was exposed to Polycarp for only a “few months,” it is still possible, given Irenaeus’s descriptions of his firsthand memories, that he was completely accurate regarding Polycarp’s relationship to Papias. Even if Irenaeus only witnessed a single brief encounter between Papias and Polycarp, he would still be an eyewitness to the nature of that interaction between these two eminent church leaders. Similarly, even if Irenaeus had never met Papias but had only heard Polycarp refer to Papias as his “companion,” he again would be an eyewitness to Polycarp’s attestation of his association with Papias. It is apparent, therefore, that Streeter inappropriately marginalized Irenaeus’s testimony regarding Papias and his association with Polycarp. Holmes simply stated that Irenaeus “met Polycarp as a child” with no critical elaboration with respect to the extent of his description of their relationship. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 202.

300. Plummer, “Bishop,” 149.

301. The possibility that Papias may have had jurisdiction over more than one church within the district of Hierapolis is recognized. However, for the sake of simplicity, this book will discuss his oversight in the singular (that is as involving only a single congregation). This should not be assumed to mean that he was the only “elder” (πρεσβύτερος) or bishop (ἑπίσκοπος) in Hierapolis.

302. These individuals were also commonly referred to as “apostles,” although they were not viewed as prestigious or authoritative as the original eleven apostles who had personally followed Jesus.

303. Burton, Lectures, 392–93.

304. Higgins, “Family Genealogy,” 3

305. See the discussion of fragments 2 and 4 in chapter 4. It is not clear as to whether Eusebius estimated the popularity of this duo, or whether he possessed other literary sources that substantiated their rise to prominence. Given his dependence upon Irenaeus, the former seems to the more plausible conjecture. For the Greek texts of these fragments see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 732.

306. Wallace, The Basics, 232–34.

307. C. Stewart Petrie correctly recognized that Hierapolis was “no remote outpost.” Petrie, “Matthew,’” 15.

308. From this reference of Eusebius in Ecc. Hist. III.36.1–2, one could infer that Papias was indeed the senior of Polycarp. Such a conclusion, however, is merely a conjecture.

309. Perumalil, “Papias,” 363.

310. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 734. In Greek this sentence is “οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβύτερων καλῶς ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα συγκατατάξαι ταῑς ἐρμηνείαις διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν.” A more literal translation would read: “And I will not hesitate also to set down the interpretations for you as much as at that time from the elders I well learned and I well remembered, (thus) guaranteeing on behalf of them (the) truth” or “guaranteeing on their behalf truth.”

311. For an example, see fragment 23, p. 248.

312. For an example, see fragment 1, p. 106.

313. The antecedent of the intensive pronoun cannot be Papias since a singular subject would demand a singular pronoun.

314. Günther Bornkamm understood the antecedent of the pronoun to be “the interpretations.” He also assumed that these interpretations were specifically those of Papias and not “the elders.” Bornkamm, “Elders,” 6:676.

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

316. The singular personal pronoun “σοι” (which is dative singular) in Papias’s preface implies that he had a benefactor who subsidized the publication of Exposition.

317. Beyer, “ἑπίσκοπος,” in TDNT, 2:617.

318. Plummer, “Bishop,” 150.

319. Goppelt, Times, 190.

320. K. Giles made the rather strange suggestion that in the first-century church “Christian elders” did not have a “teaching function.” Giles, “Church Order,” 222. Such an assumption ignores Paul’s admonitions in Acts 20.28, as well as his clear instruction that elders and bishops must be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:9). Regardless of Giles’s misconceptions about the responsibilities of the office of elder in the early first-century church, he believed that by the beginning of the second century, the bishop was the “unquestionable leader of the Christian community in a given city” who “must be obeyed,” and who was the primary minister of the Word (ibid., 225). Goppelt agreed that in Acts the terms “elder” and “bishop” referred to the “same office,” but saw a difference between the two terms beginning to be understood by the time the Pastorals were written. Goppelt, Times, 189–90.

321. Schoedel, The Fragments, 91.

322. For more information regarding this school see Bruce, Acts, 365–66; Polhill, Acts, 400–401.

323. Annand also referred to Papias as a “scholar.” Annand, “Four Gospels,” 50.

324. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 739.

325. Schoedel believed that this complementary variant in fragment 4, p. 116, was a later insertion. Schoedel, The Fragments, 104. See also Migne’s editorial remarks. Eusebius Historica (PG 20:288). See also this book’s discussion of fragment 4, p. 116, for a more thorough discussion on this textual variant.

326. Schoedel, The Fragments, 104.

327. For a more thorough explanation see Munck, “Presbyters,” 225–26.

328. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 739.

329. See fragment 24, p. 254.

330. See fragment 21, p. 242.

331. See fragment 27, p. 259.

332. See fragment 18, p. 236.

333. Schoedel, The Fragments, 104. Vardan Vardapet wrote that Eusebius labeled Papias a “heretic.” See fragment 26, p. 258. There is no extant literary evidence supporting his claim. Consequently, it appears that in the same manner as Eusebius Vardapet was simply marginalizing Papias in spite of the historical evidence validating his orthodoxy.

334. This is based upon the assumption that Papias was born sometime between 60 to 75. If Papias actually knew some apostles and had actually survived until the middle of the second century, then he probably entered the ministry in his late twenties or early thirties.

335. Bartlet, “Papias,” 2:309.

336. There is considerable debate on how to actually interpret the title of Papias’s work. For a thorough analysis of its vocabulary see Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 167–204. Consequently, throughout this book Papias’s work will usually be referred to as Exposition. A more detailed analysis and interpretation of the title for his five-volume work will follow.

337. Harnack, Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, 69. Concerning confusion over whether these were the writings of Papias of Hierapolis and a medieval grammarian also named Papias see Lightfoot, Essays, 210–11.

338. By comparing a quote from Hippolytus with Irenaeus’s quote of Papias (see fragment 1, p. 106), Zahn contended that their similarities proved (beweist) that Hippolytus had depended on Papias. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 6:128. For a thoughtful analysis of possible Papian fragments in patristic writings see Hill, “What Papias Said,” 582–629.

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

340. Bartlet, “Papias,” 2:312. It is questionable whether Bartlet should have placed so much value upon the Oxyrhynchus papyri. His argument was primarily about how gnostic writings show that gnostics both valued and distorted materials concerning Jesus. His comments have merit concerning the need of the orthodox church to preserve and clarify the historical meanings of Jesus’ teachings.

341. Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 176–77. Richard J. Dillion thought that Luke’s “many” only need to refer to Mark’s Gospel and Q, see Dillion, “Preview Luke’s Project,” 207. Such a view, however, hardly respects the overwhelming evidence that “πολλοὶ” regularly refers to more than just “two.” For a detailed discussion on Luke’s prologue see Bock, Luke 1:1—9:50, 51–59.

342. There is the question of whether Papias’s Elder was the source of his tradition regarding Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel. Eusebius’s comments about the Gospel of Mark and the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew are divided by a transitional comment interjected by Eusebius; consequently, certitude about the Elder being Papias’s source for both is not possible. Gundry contended little weight should be given to Eusebius’s “editorial transition” between the traditions regarding these two Gospels; consequently, he believed that they both came from the same source, which was Papias’s “Elder,” who was in fact the apostle John. Gundry, Older Is Better, 58; Gundry, Mark, 1031.

343. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias,” 187–88.

344. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 14.

345. Lightfoot, “Supernatural Religion,” 150, 160–61. Bacon argued that Papias “probably” wrote “between AD 145 and 160.” Bacon, “An Emendation,” 176. Rigg believed that Papias wrote Exposition late in his life, and possibly as late as 160. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 163, 173.

346. Schoedel, The Fragments, 91.

347. See fragment 1, p. 106.

348. Concerning the lack of a gnostic polemic in Papias’s writings, Gundry aptly wrote, “The failure of Irenaeus and Eusebius to quote Papias against Gnosticism is best explained by Papias’s having said nothing against Gnosticism because he wrote before it became a widespread threat, i.e., before A.D. 110.” Gundry, Older Is Better, 50.

349. For a discussion of a time line of the growth of Gnosticism in the second century see Smith, No Longer Jews, 113–51. It is conceivable, however, that Papias had no intent of addressing the growing threat Gnosticism in his day.

350. Some have estimated Papias’s birth at ca. 60. If true then he would have been approximately forty years of age in the year 100. Such an age could certainly produce a respectable amount of maturity. If Papias was somewhat of an intellectual prodigy (a possibility that few would entertain), then ca. 80 would be the earliest date for the composition of his work.

351. This should not be understood as arguing that is has been proven that Gnosticism or pre-Gnosticism could not have existed during the period in which Papias wrote. Moreover, the lack of evidence that Papias was confronted by Gnosticism proves very little given the small amount of extant Papian material.

352. Chronicon Paschale (PG 92:628).

353. Lightfoot, “Papias,” 381–82. Schoedel accepted Lightfoot’s conjecture without explanation; see Schoedel, “Papias,” 237. See also Bartlet, “Papias’s Exposition,” 21; and Bosio, I Padri Apsotolici, Parte II, 252. The name Papylas (as spelled in English) is found in Eusebius’s Ecc. Hist. IV.15.48. While Lightfoot’s conjecture is possible (if for no other reason than the fact that he could conceive of it), a legitimate question of this theory would be why the author of the CP did not find a more popular substitution for Papylus than Papias? Since the time of Eusebius, Papias’s popularity had fallen on hard times, in large part because of Eusebius’s distaste for him, but also because of Papias’s chiliastic theology, which was not a dominant view in the east at the time when the CP was written.

354. Of course the exact spelling of the names would depend upon their case endings and their function in the sentences in which they were found.

355. Lightfoot, “Papias,” 382.

356. Chronicon Paschale 284–628, xv.

357. The martyrology titled Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonicê will be discussed in greater detail below.

358. Which is translated, “And in Pergamum also others, among them there was also Papias and many others, of whom also [the] writings bear the testimonies.” Chronicon Paschale, (PG 92:627).

359. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. VI.15.48 (LCL 153:359).

360. Lightfoot, “Papias,” 382.

361. Eusebi, Chronicon, 216. Translation mine. In Latin the text is as follows: “Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias, quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant.”

362. Lightfoot discussed the question of Papias’s martyrdom in the context of debating whether someone who died ca. 165 could have been old enough to have known the apostle John. Lightfoot concluded that since Papias was not a martyr then “The martyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such as they are), disappears from history; and we may dismiss the argument of the author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’ that ‘a writer who suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) can scarcely have been a hearer of the Apostles.” Lightfoot, “Papias,” 382. This book will investigate the assertion of whether someone who died in the mid 160’s could not have known the apostle John at a later point. Perumalil wrote that Papias died “in A.D. 125” or maybe as late as 130; however, he gave no evidence to support his claim. Perumalil, “Papias,” 362.

363. It should be recognized that it is also possible that both Papias and Papylus suffered martyrdom at Pergamum.

364. Photius, Bibliothèque, 5:77. The clause in question is translated: “. . . Papias the bishop and martyr of Hierapolis.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 755. The reference to Hierapolis should not be understood as where he was martyred, but rather that he was a martyr who was from the city of Hierapolis.

365. It would be reasonable to conclude that Photius, an archbishop of Constantinople in the eleventh century, had accessed a copy of the CP (a seventh-century work of a Byzantine author) from the imperial library at Constantinople.

366. In antiquity, the name “Pergamum” can either refer to a region once known as “the kingdom of Pergamum” or the city of Pergamum. References to Pergamum as a kingdom generally only occur in the context of references to the political or geographical region that existed before the Roman Empire.

367. Pergamum was where the Christian Antipas was martyred.

368. Trebilco, “Asia,” 304. The debate in the first and second century between Pergamum, Ephesus, and Smyrna as to which was the leading city in Asia Minor is legendary. For an insightful overview of this topic see Kampmann, “Homonoia Politics in Asia Minor,” 373–93.

369. Brunt, “Marcus Aurelius,” 500–501.

370. The Acts of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonicê indicates that the trial of these martyrs was at Pergamum precisely because that was where the proconsul “was in residence.” Musurillo, The Acts, 23. This Greek account indicates that Papylus was a citizen of Thyatira. It could be inferred from his discourse with the proconsul that he was a leader in the church in that city. If he was a bishop and was transported to Pergamum to stand trial for his rejection of polytheism and his loyalty to Christianity, then it is possible that he and Papias were victims of a scheme by the proconsul in Asia Minor to extinguish Christianity by depleting it of its leadership.

371. “Pergamom” is an alternative spelling for “Pergamum;” consequently, it should not be understood as a misspelling of the city’s name throughout this book.

372. Collins, “Pergamom in Early Christian Literature,” 167.

373. If Papias was a Roman citizen then his appeals would have carried more legal clout and, in a manner similar to Paul’s case, would have required that he be transported in order to be heard by a higher court.

374. Keresztes, “Marcus Aurelius a Persecutor?” 327. Keresztes did not attempt to identify a possible year for Papias death, but only the periods that persecutions of Christians occurred under Marcus’s reign.

375. Ibid., 332–34.

376. Ibid., 330–31. Italics mine.

377. Ibid., 331.

378. C. H. Turner argued that Polycarp was martyred in 156. His evidence is far too detailed to include in this book, however, a brief summary is worth noting. He conjectured that the possibility of a leap year coupled with the “high Sabbath” (the day of the week for Polycarp’s martyrdom) being that of the feast of Purim as providing a compelling argument for the date of Polycarp’s death as having been that of Saturday, February 22nd, 156. Turner put forth his theory to address some weaknesses of M. Waddington and Lightfoot’s position that Polycarp was martyred in 155 rather than Eusebius’s date of 167. Turner, Polycarp’s Martyrdom, 4–25.

379. Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.22.5, 3.3.4 (ANF 1:392, 416).

380. Tracey, “Syria,” 259 n. 84.

381. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 173. The question of the theory that the apostle John was martyred with his brother James will be discussed later.

382. Bisbee, Acts of the Martyrs, 82. For an English translation see Musurillo, The Acts, xv–xvi, 22–37.

383. Brunt, “Marcus Aurelius,” 515.

384. This will be further elaborated upon in the next chapter.

385. The topic concerning which New Testament books Papias was aware of will be a major theme in the following chapter.

↑ Back to top