Chapter 4: The Fragments of Papias

The Fragments of Papias

Introduction

The previous chapters have shed some light on Papias’s life, ministry, and culture; nevertheless, to a significant degree there is still very little that can be objectively known about him. Consequently, while they provide some helpful data, the best source for understanding Papias are his own words. Regrettably, however, very few of them have survived. Those interested in this patristic father or the origins of the New Testament, therefore, must look to the works of those who were either familiar with Papias or were familiar with his writings. A compilation of the fragments of Papias is not an original endeavor, nor are such collections hard to find.386 Many of these collections, however, are selective with respect to which fragments they include. They are selective because their authors were either unaware of certain fragments, or because some fragments did not meet their specifications for what they believed constituted an actual Papian fragment. Consequently, some fragments containing important information about Papias are absent from several collections, even though they are helpful for learning more about Papias and his awareness of the apostolic writings. This book has assembled a collection of Papian fragments in order to provide a greater awareness of who Papias was, his knowledge of any New Testament writings, and his attitude towards them. It has attempted to do so chronologically, although a precise dating of certain fragments is not possible. Even though chronological precision with respect to all the Papian fragments is not entirely possible, this does not prohibit a profitable analysis of each individual fragment in order to ascertain Papias’s knowledge and attitude towards the literary works that comprise the New Testament.

Fragment 1

The blessing thus foretold undoubtedly belongs to the time of the kingdom, when the righteous will rise from the dead and reign, when creation, too, renewed and freed from bondage, will produce an abundance of food of all kinds from the dew of heaven and from the fertility of the earth, just as the elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, recalled having heard from him how the Lord used to teach about those times and say:

The days will come when vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when crushed will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, “I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me.” Similarly a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and every head will have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine flour, white and clean. And the other fruits, seeds, and grass will produce similar proportions, and all the animals feeding on these fruits produced by the soil will in turn become peaceful and harmonious toward one another, fully subject to man.

Papias, a man of the early period, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, bears witness to these things in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him. And he goes on to say: “These things are believable to those who believe.”“And,” he says, “when Judas the traitor did not believe and asked, ‘How, then, will such growth be accomplished by the Lord?’”, the Lord said, ‘Those who live until those times will see.’”

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5.33.3–4 (written ca. 180–185)387

This particular fragment is preserved in a Latin translation of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies. Irenaeus was a bishop in Lyons (in present-day France) during the last quarter of the second century, and was also one of the great apologists of that era.388 He is the earliest author known to have quoted Papias; thus, his text with its reference to Papias is rightly positioned as the first Papian fragment. This text actually provides two fragments, Irenaeus attributed the first (which is contained in the middle paragraph) to a mysterious group that he referred to as “the elders.”389 The second is an actual Papian fragment, which is found in the last paragraph and has been italicized for precise identification. It is possible that Irenaeus relied upon Papias’s Exposition as the literary source regarding teachings on the earth’s millennial bountifulness; however, he stated that “the elders” were his source for that tradition.390 Consequently, it is more probable that Irenaeus relied upon a different source for the fragment attributed to “the elders” and only employed Papias in order to corroborate it.391 There is insufficient data, however, to determine whether Papias’s source was actually oral or literary. Nevertheless, if one were pressed to conjecture, it would appear that this is but one example of Papias’s preservation of oral material. This fragment provides no objective evidence that Papias knew any New Testament book.392 Charles Hill, however, appropriately acknowledged that this fragment has considerable resemblance to a passage found in 2 Baruch.393

There is not a lot of debate concerning the dating of 2 Baruch. Both Tom Willett and A. F. J. Klijn believed the book to have been written sometime after the first fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in AD 70, but before AD 135.394 Second Baruch 29.5b states, “The earth will also yield fruits ten thousandfold. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and one branch will produce a thousand clusters, and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a cor of wine. And those who are hungry will enjoy themselves and they will, moreover, see marvels every day.”395 A similar passage concerning the earth’s fecundity during the Messiah’s earthly reign is found in 1 Enoch 10:18–19, which reads, “Then all the earth will be tilled in righteousness, and all of it will be planted with trees and filled with blessing; and all the trees of joy will be planted on it. They will plant vines on it, and every vine that will be planted on it will yield a thousand jugs of wine, and of every seed that is sown on it, each measure will yield a thousand measures, and each measure of olives will yield ten baths of oil.”396 George Nickelsburg and James VanderKam estimated that the portion of 1 Enoch in which this passage is found originated in the “mid or late third century B.C.E.”397

Hill speculated, however, that the passage provided by Irenaeus is inconsistent with the eschatology of the New Testament,398 the inference being that neither Jesus nor his followers would have taught eschatology such as that found in this text from Irenaeus; consequently, it appears that Papias preserved what Jerome later labeled as “Jewish traditions of a millennium.”399 Hill’s theory is tenuous at best; for it is a weak position to argue that the eschatological themes found in 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, and the rest of the Pseudepigrapha would have been foreign to Jesus—a rabbi and itinerant preacher who ministered in Roman occupied Palestine after the end of the first quarter of the first century. Jesus would not have been ignorant of such millennial hopes while living in such a politically and religiously charged context. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to believe that he might have held such hopes or taught similar ideas concerning the millennial kingdom as described in Against Heresies 5.33.3–4. Regardless of what one might contend about Jesus’ eschatology, that Papias addressed such millennial aspirations is evident and speaks to the possibility that he wrote during a period when “Jewish theologies” still had significant influence within the church, but before a time when deep anti-Jewish sentiment began to plague it.

Some have speculated that Papias’s focus upon a physical kingdom of God implies a possible attempt to ward off Gnosticism.400 His emphasis upon a literal millennial kingdom in which physical appetites are enjoyed could be construed as an anti-gnostic polemic. That the church wrestled with worldviews and philosophies that marginalized the physical realm while promoting the immaterial as “ideal” is evident in passages such as Acts 17:10–33; 1 Timothy 4:1–5; Colossians 2:20–23. Regarding the existence of streams of thought and religious practice that were consistent with Gnosticism and which the apostles taught were contrary to Christianity, Carl Smith wrote, “It must be admitted that numerous themes that later would be included in Gnosticism were being discussed and developed during the time when the NT books were being composed.”401 That Papias may have felt the need to address such ideologies is a reasonable conjecture. Does this mean that he was battling what some modern scholars recognize today as “full blown” Gnosticism? The data is insufficient to conclude with certitude that such was the case.402 If one were forced to conjecture, then the lack of any late second-century apologist (e.g., Irenaeus) quoting arguments formulated by Papias to confront core gnostic tenets argues against Papias’s awareness of a “gnostic” threat, or that any such polemic was a significant focus in his writings.403 Charles M. Nielsen wrote that, “If Papias had had a Gnostic collection in mind, this would have been grist for the mills of Irenaeus and Eusebius, and it seems mostly likely that they would have been eager to mention the fact. But they tell us nothing.”404

This fragment, however, reveals that Irenaeus understood Papias to have been both “a hearer”405 of the apostle John and an associate of Polycarp, whom Irenaeus knew to be John’s disciple. His reference to Papias as an “ancient man”406 is interesting since generally speaking one does not refer to someone of their generation as “ancient” unless they themselves are viewed in a similar manner. Clearly, therefore, Irenaeus assigned Papias to a generation that preceded him. Historians estimate that Irenaeus was born between 125 to 140. Given his vocabulary and descriptions of Papias, it is reasonable to conclude that he believed Papias to have been born sometime during the first century. There have been some who found Irenaeus’s description of Papias as “ancient” particularly significant since he is not known to have applied this description to Polycarp, who was approximately eighty-six years old when martyred.407 Some have concluded, therefore, that Papias was probably older than Polycarp. Such a conclusion has its merits, it is, however, only a conjecture that is grounded upon silence; thus, it should not be pressed as a certainty. That Papias and Polycarp were simply members of the same adult generation seems to be the most defensible position with respect to the question of which one was older. Concerning the question of whether Irenaeus believed Papias to have known the apostle John, it is clear that he believed that Papias was at least his “hearer.” Such a description, however, can also be construed as meaning that Papias was in fact a student of the apostle John.408 As argued earlier, given Irenaeus’s contemporaneous relationship to Polycarp, his exposure to Polycarp’s teaching, his interactions with others of Polycarp’s generation, and the period of time Irenaeus spent in Asia Minor, there seems little reason to doubt his veracity or the power of his memory with respect to Polycarp’s association with Papias.

Fragment 2

Irenaeus and others record that John, the theologian and apostle, survived until the time of Trajan. After this Papias of Hierapolis and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, both of whom had heard him, became well known.

Eusebius (ca. 260–340), Chronicle409

Eusebius affirmed in his Chronicle that in his day it was generally held that the apostle John survived until the third year of Trajan’s reign, which began in 98. This fragment bears witness to the fact that Irenaeus was a major source for Eusebius’s information concerning the life of the apostle John. It also indicates that as Eusebius wrote his Chronicle he believed that Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp, and a hearer of the last living apostle. It was apparently soon after the death of John that both Papias and Polycarp rose to prominence as leaders in the Asiatic church. Jerome apparently indicated that Eusebius placed the death of the apostle John and the elevation of these two bishops as occurring ca. 103.410 This fragment provides no quote or allusion to any New Testament writings. If accurate, however, this date for Papias’s promotion to the bishopric makes it almost a certainty that he received traditions concerning some New Testament books originating from deep within the first century.411

Holmes listed this fragment as his first fragment, and as mentioned earlier, he provided a Greek text of it that he attributed to Eusebius.412 Regrettably, no actual Greek manuscript of Eusebius’s Chronicle is extant. As stated previously, Holmes’s footnotes for this fragment indicate that he relied upon two different sources for this fragment, one of which was Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle, while the other is from a Greek chronography authored by a late eighth-century and early ninth- century monk named George Syncellus.413 Synkellos died sometime after 810. He was the “syncellus” or personal secretary of Tarasius the patriarch of Constantinople. Having obtained such an influential post in Constantinople indicates that he was a learned scholar in his own right. The Greek fragment provided by Holmes appears to be a direct quote or close summary of Eusebius’s Chronicle. There is a variant of the text concerning the word ἐπίσκοποι, but it produces no significant conflict between the meanings found in Synkellos’s Greek text and Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’s Chronicle.414

This early fragment written by Eusebius about Papias is conspicuously absent from the collections of Schoedel, Ehrman, and Kleist even though contains important data regarding Papias. It is important because it reveals a significant contradiction regarding Eusebius’s opinion about Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. This contradiction has been aptly addressed by Robert Grant, who concluded that as researchers survey Eusebius’s treatment of Papias they will discover a transition within Eusebius that occurred over an extended period. It is a transition in which Eusebius’s attitude towards Papias moved from one of relative respect to abject rejection.415 Those who are quite familiar with Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History are aware that he wrote it over a period spanning more than a decade. He began his work in the midst of the Diocletian persecutions and finished it after Constantine’s ascension. This period was certainly tumultuous and, given the turn of events that occurred during this time, one should not be surprised that Eusebius would undergo a significant degree of theological development.416 While some may marginalize this fragment by not including it within their list of Papian fragments, it is an important witness to Papias’s relationship to John the son of Zebedee. Given Eusebius’s later attempt to distance Papias from the apostle John in his more well known work Ecclesiastical History, it is understandable that some might have missed this significant fragment. Eusebius’s effort to marginalize Papias, however, was clearly prejudicial and unwarranted, and, as will become increasingly evident, his theories about Papias are contradicted by evidence embedded within the majority of other Papian fragments.

Fragment 3

But so great a light of godliness shone upon the minds of Peter’s listeners that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all kinds of exhortations they begged Mark (whose Gospel is extant), since he was Peter’s follower, to leave behind a written record of the teaching given to them verbally, and did not quit until they had persuaded the man, and thus they became the immediate cause of the Scripture called “The Gospel According to Mark.” And they say that the apostle, aware of what had occurred because the Spirit had revealed it to him, was pleased with their zeal and sanctioned the writing for study in the churches. Clement (of Alexandria) quotes the story in the sixth book of Hypotyposes, and the bishop of Hierapolis, named Papias, corroborates him. He also says that Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle which, they say, he composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon in these words: “She who is in Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son.”417

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.418

The above fragment is not included in many collections of Papian material.419 Nevertheless, it is included in this book because of Eusebius’s assertion that Papias preserved a tradition regarding the origin of Mark’s Gospel, which indicates that Papias was aware of its existence as well as the epistle of 1 Peter, an assertion that Eusebius reiterated in Ecclesiastical History III.39.17. It is here, however, that Eusebius preserved the tradition that 1 Peter was written when Peter was in Rome, while Mark’s Gospel was composed during a period of Peter’s absence from Rome—but while Peter was alive.420 Eusebius cited more than one literary source to validate Peter’s presence in Rome, the first being Clement of Alexandria—a late second-century author, and the other being Papias.421 Based upon the witness of these two sources, Eusebius was quite confident that he possessed answers to several questions regarding the composition of Mark’s Gospel. The first was that the Gospel of Mark—which Eusebius believed had survived to his own day, was informed primarily from the preaching of the apostle Peter. Secondly, that Mark had been a “follower” (i.e., a student or protégé) of Peter. If true, then Mark had heard Peter preach quite often; consequently, he was a reliable source capable of preserving the content of Peter’s messages (i.e., his “gospel”). Eusebius’s explanation of the final composition of the Gospel of Mark, however, provides a challenge to Bauckham’s theory that Peter dictated his “Gospel” to Mark as Peter “was remembering” the teachings of Jesus and the events of his life.422 Eusebius stated that his sources indicated that Mark composed his Gospel because of pressure from those who heard Peter’s sermons and feared not having them in the form of a permanent record, and that Peter sanctioned Mark’s composition at a later time.423

A legitimate question regarding Eusebius’s understanding of the Gospel of Mark and the “original” composition of Mark’s writings is: Was this compilation of Peter’s sermons and reminiscences of Jesus by Peter’s protégé the “Ur-Mark,” or was it the canonical Gospel of Mark? Eusebius was of the opinion that Papias and Clement of Alexandria had referred to the canonical Gospel of Mark. Regarding the impetus for Mark to compose such a work, Eusebius wrote that Mark was virtually “harassed” by the congregations in Rome to compose a permanent record of Peter’s memories of Jesus. Thus, the need or “Sitz im Leben” for Mark’s Gospel did not arise from within himself or Peter, but from the desire of the church(es) in Rome to have an accurate record of Peter’s reminiscences on the life, teachings, deeds, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius was of the opinion, based upon his sources, that Mark’s Gospel did not undergo serial redactions generated by unknown editors far removed from the apostles, nor did he understand that Mark’s Gospel “evolved” over a prolonged period of time in order to meet ever changing and shifting theological or social concerns of some unknown audience. Instead it was composed to meet the felt need of believers in Rome to have a historical account that accurately described Jesus and his earthly ministry, and it was singularly guided not by his own reminiscences but those of the apostle Peter. And once completed, at some point in time before his martyrdom, Peter himself approved of its use in the churches at Rome.

Consequently, Eusebius was either ignorant of the possibility that Mark’s Gospel may have undergone redactions,424 or, and more likely, it meant little to him that Mark may have slightly edited Peter’s reminiscences in order to create an acceptable and complete narrative of the life of Jesus for use in the church(es). For Eusebius, such a possibility would not have jeopardized the veracity and validity of Mark’s effort to preserve Peter’s eyewitness testimonies about the life and teachings of Jesus.425 Regardless of what might be one’s theory concerning the composition of the second Gospel of the New Testament, Eusebius was convinced that Papias was aware of Mark’s original composition and that it was in fact the canonical Gospel of Mark.

Fragment 4

At this time there flourished in Asia Polycarp, the disciple of the apostles, who had been appointed to the bishopric of the church in Smyrna by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Lord. At this time Papias, who was himself bishop of the diocese of Hierapolis, a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures, became well known.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.36.1–2 426

Fragment 4 provides no new information regarding Papias’s knowledge of any New Testament writings, nor does it reveal extensive historical data about the period of time in which he lived. It does, however, re-affirm Eusebius’s belief that Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp, and that he served as a bishop during the same period in which Polycarp ministered, and that these two bishops ascended to prominence at approximately the same time. There is an interesting textual variant concerning this fragment that has been included and italicized, which is also retained in Christian Frederick Cruses’s translation of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.427 Many translations of Ecclesiastical History do not contain this variant, however, because it potentially reveals a development in Eusebius’s theology and, subsequently, and evolution in his attitude towards Papias, a brief discussion is in order.

Eusebius composed his Ecclesiastical History over a period of approximately a decade and a half, with his first edition being published ca. 311, and his last version being released in late 324 or early 325.428 There are a couple of reasons for believing that the phrase “a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with the Scriptures,” was originally composed by Eusebius. Robert Grant has argued, there is sufficient internal evidence within the cumulative writings of Eusebius to suggest that when he published the first edition (and possibly the second) of his Ecclesiastical History he regarded Papias as a respectable bishop.429 However, by the final release of this work his eschatology had changed and he could no longer abide Papias’s chiliasm. Regrettably for Papias his theology provided ammunition to Eusebius’s opponents, both to those who were orthodox as well as to those who were heretical; consequently, in order to strengthen his own eschatological position Eusebius excised this complimentary reference to Papias from later editions of his history of the church. It appears that by marginalizing Papias Eusebius believed he could disassociate chiliasm from the earliest apostolic generation.430

A second possible conjecture explaining this variant, although less spectacular, is that the entire line may be the result of a copyist error commonly referred to as parablepsis. This possibility seems not entirely unrealistic when one considers that the variant, as found in Eduard Schwartz’s and Theodor Mommsen’s critical edition, is surrounded by lines that average between fifty-one and fifty-two letters per line.431 The variant in question contains a total of fifty letters. It is conceivable, therefore, that a scribe of an early rendition of Eusebius’s history simply missed an entire line or two—depending on the original composition of the book (i.e., did each line contain twenty-five or fifty letters?). However, this seems to be the least defensible solution.

What makes this variant so difficult to analyze is that it is found in the best texts of both textual families of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History. J.-P. Migne rejected it as an addition because he saw that it was inconsistent with Eusebius’s derision of Papias in Ecclesiastical History III.39.13.432 If this variant was not original to Eusebius’s history, then it could only be a later insertion. If, however, it is a later addition, then one is left to wonder what would motivate or cause anyone to contaminate Eusebius’s history with such a flagrant and inconsistent redaction, and why did this supposed scribe not also erase Eusebius’s derogatory statement concerning Papias in III.39.13, if for no other reason than for the sake of harmony? One cannot argue that it was due to respect for the text, for clearly this potential rogue scribe had already displayed contempt for Eusebius’s original version. Additionally, why would such a variant endure for so long and be so well attested? If the principle of preference for the harder reading is to have any influence, then it would argue for the variant being original.433 Lastly, why did this copyist insert such an inconsistent statement about a bishop who was so clearly out of favor in the post-Constantinian church? It seems that such an absurd variant can only have endured if either it was original or that it was so early that it was perceived as original.

If this variant was original to Eusebius’s earliest edition, it provides additional important information about Papias, such as that he had achieved an adequate education and that he was well versed in the Scripture (τῆς γραφῆς). This statement, however, was Eusebius’s commentary regarding Papias’s knowledge of the “Scriptures.” Unfortunately Eusebius did not specify whether he had in mind one or both of the canons (i.e., the Old or New Testament). By viewing history from Eusebius’s vantage point one could conclude that he was being anachronistic and was referring to both canons as “the Scriptures,” but this is clearly conjecture; therefore, to continue speculating about Eusebius’s exact meaning would be vanity. The safest position to hold, consequently, is to assume that Eusebius at least had in mind the Old Testament, for it is clear that during the first century and a half of the church’s existence the Old Testament was certainly viewed as Holy Scripture.

The possibility that the variant is a later insertion cannot be completely rejected. The question is, however, whether such a theory provides the best explanation for the existence of the variant. A better explanation is that Eusebius’s compliment of Papias was removed by none other than Eusebius himself. However, as scribes continued to produce new manuscripts that relied upon Eusebius’s first edition, his later redaction could not be completely erased from his history, and so scholars to this day are left to conjecture about this textual oddity in Ecclesiastical History.

Fragment 5

Five books of Papias are in circulation, which are entitled “Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord.” Irenaeus also mentions these as the only works written by him, saying something like this: “Papias, a man of the early period, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, bears witness to these things in writing in the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him.” (2) So says Irenaeus. Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, indicates that he was by no means a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, but shows by the language he uses that he received the matters of the faith from those who had known them:

(3) I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my own interpretations, everything I carefully learned from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. (4) And if by chance someone who had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice.

(5) Here it is worth noting that he lists the name of John twice. The first he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the Evangelist, but he classes the other John with others outside the number of the apostles by changing the wording and putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him “elder.” (6) Moreover, by these remarks he confirms the truth of the story told by those who have said that there were two men in Asia who had the same name, and that there are two tombs in Ephesus, each of which even today is said to be John’s. It is important to notice this, for it is probably the second, unless one prefers the first, who saw the Revelation that circulates under the name of John. (7) And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had followed them, but he says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the elder. In any event he frequently mentions them by name and includes their traditions in his writings as well. Let these statements of ours not be wasted on the reader.

(8) It is worthwhile to add to the statements of Papias given above other sayings of his, in which he records some other remarkable things as well, which came down to him, as it were, from tradition. (9) That Philip the Apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip’s daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant. . . .434 (11) The same writer has recorded other accounts as having come to him from unwritten traditions, certain strange parables of the Lord and teachings of his and some other statements of a more mythical character. (12) Among other things he says that there will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead when the Kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. These ideas, I suppose, he got through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not realizing that the things recorded in figurative language were spoken by them mystically. (13) For he certainly appears to be a man of very little intelligence, as one may say judging from his own words. Yet he was the reason that so many ecclesiastical writers after him held the same opinion, on the grounds that he was a man of the early period—like Irenaeus, for example, and anyone else who has expressed similar ideas.

(14) In his writing he also hands on other accounts of the sayings of the Lord belonging to Aristion, who has been mentioned above, and the traditions of the elder John, to which we refer those interested. For our present purpose we must add to his statements already quoted above a tradition concerning Mark, who wrote the Gospel, which has been set forth in these words:

(15) And the Elder used to say this: “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teaching as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently, Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he had heard, or to make any false statements in them.”

Such, then, is the account given by Papias with respect to Mark. (16) But with respect to Matthew the following was said:

So Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language and each person interpreted them as best he could.

(17) The same writer utilized testimonies from the first letter of John and, likewise, from that of Peter. And he has related another account about a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel According to the Hebrews contains. And these things we must take into account, in addition to what has already been stated.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III.39435

Τhe thirty-ninth chapter of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History is by far the most well known and thoroughly discussed chapter in patristic literature with respect to information about Papias’s life and writings. Munck has gone so far as to state that it is “the most important text dealing with Papias.”436 Such a claim, however, generally marginalizes other fragments that in reality are just as important for understanding Papias and his purposes for writing Exposition. That his chapter is immensely important is without debate, however, it should not be uncritically held as always providing the most accurate information regarding Papias and his writings.437

Eusebius, in Ecclesiastical History III.39.1, corroborated Irenaeus’s statement that Papias wrote a five-volume work which Eusebius stated was still in circulation in his day.438 He is the first patristic author, however, to preserve the actual title of Papias’s work, which he stated was λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως.439 Schoedel recognized that it is common to find ἐξηγήσις in the titles of Greek works.440 When found in Greek titles ἐξηγήσις is generally rendered into English as “exposition, explanation, or “interpretation.”441 Holmes translated ἐξηγήσεως, as “Expositions” of the Sayings of the Lord. However, the word ἐξηγήσεως is singular and should be translated literally in Papias’s title as “An Exposition” of the Oracles of the Lord.442 Although technically incorrect, translating this word in Papias’s title as a plural rather than as a singular is understandable and not altogether inconsistent with the nature of Papias’s work. That Papias’s writings discussed and/or exposited multiple “oracles” of Jesus can hardly be contested. This feature seems to be the most recognized aspect of Papias’s work among the patristic and medieval authors who mention it. Philip of Side simply referred to Papias writings as Oracles of the Lord (κυριακῶν λογίων),443 as did George the Sinner.444 Jerome, being the scholar that he was, provided Papias’s entire title, which he translated into Latin as: An Exposition of the Discourses of the Lord (Explanatio Sermonum Domini).445 Maximus the Confessor appears to have actually changed ἐξηγήσεως from the singular to the plural so that Papias’s title would be read as “Expositions” of the Lord (τῶν κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεων).446 Apollinaris also changed Papias’s title to An Exposition of the “Sayings” of the Lord.447 In all these references to the title of Papias’s writings, the implied common denominator is that Papias attempted to exposit multiple sayings of Jesus.

Translating ἐξηγήσεως as plural rather than singular, however, may inadvertently misrepresent Papias’s intent for his work. Clearly he collected a series of traditions and “oracles” (i.e., divine sayings) from the lips of Jesus—both oral and written. The question is, however, why did he do so? Was it simply to preserve what he feared would inevitably be lost, or did he have a more theological purpose in mind? More specifically, did Papias collect sayings of Jesus in order to explain and interpret them thematically as a body of eschatological teachings, or was he simply bringing together completely unrelated “oracles” in order to preserve and “exposit” them individually. Without possessing a significant portion of his material it is impossible to know for certain his authorial intent. Expositing and/or interpreting the sayings of Jesus was certainly an important focus of his effort. Papias, however, was not simply known for being a collector, an expositor, or a member of the generation that followed the apostles. He was also “famous” for his belief in a material millennial kingdom on earth. He was so identified with chiliasm that he caught the ire of Eusebius, which inevitably lead to his fall from grace within the annals of the church’s history—in spite of his great antiquity and “apostolic character.”448

If some are inclined to see Papias as inept, then they will be unable to perceive him as capable of writing a literary composition containing cohesive theological thought with rhetorical style.449 If, however, one is willing to consider the very real possibility that Papias was an educated pastor and leading theologian of the Asiatic church, then believing that he was capable of assembling a cohesive work is not so difficult. If such a perception is more accurate than the alternative, then it would mean that Papias’s work emphasized the origins of the “oracles of the Lord,” while also attempting to explain their meanings and significance with a special emphasis on eschatological themes found within them. If Papias approached his work in such a manner, then ἐξηγήσεως should be retained in the singular rather than the plural since interpreting ἐξηγήσεως in the plural might improperly suggest that Papias’s work was fragmentary rather than cohesive.

Schoedel evaluated Papias’s title as “clumsy,” apparently because ἐξηγήσεως was in the genitive rather than in the nominative.450 The genitive does not seem so irregular if one assumes before ἐξηγήσεως the preposition περί which often takes a genitive object.451 In such a case Papias’s title would be interpreted as “Concerning” an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. However, because περί is absent, Papias’s title will be translated simply as An “Exposition” of the Oracles of the Lord.

The next word to be discussed in Papias’s title is the adjective κυριακῶν,452 which some have translated as “dominical.”453 This translation is a Middle English transliteration of the Latin word dominicus. When translated into English, κυριακῶν is generally rendered as “of the Lord,” as in “the day of the Lord” or “the Lord’s day.” While translating κυριακῶν as “dominical” is technically acceptable, it is not a good English translation. A better example of an English translation can be found in 1 Corinthians 11.20 in which Paul stated, “When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper (κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) that you eat.” One does not generally translate the phrase κυριακὸν δεῖπνον as “the dominical supper,” nor should they.454 If one feels compelled to employ an adjective, then “divine” would seem a more appropriate word rather than using a Latin transliteration of the Greek adjective. In such a case, Papias’s title would read as, An Exposition of the Divine Oracles. This, however, seems very generic, lacking the specific focus that Papias’s writings clearly had, which was to provide explanations about the sayings of Jesus. Consequently, translating Papias’s κυριακῶν as “of the Lord” or as “the Lord’s” properly reflects Papias’s intent, which the first-century church would have understood by his title. Translating Papias’s title, therefore, as An Exposition of the Oracles of the “Lord” seems to be most appropriate for capturing the focus for his five-volume work.

Papias’s and the Lord’s Oracles

Just as there are discussions about how to interpret the previous two words, there is also a debate regarding the meaning and translation of λογίων. Bauckham, in a fashion similar to Hill, chose to transliterate the term λογίων into English, thus translating Papias’s title as Exposition of the Logia of the Lord.455 He contended that “because the meaning of Greek logia here is disputed I have left it untranslated. It probably means something like ‘accounts of what Jesus said and did.’”456 Bauckham is certainly correct that in the context of Papias’s title this word to some degree referred to the sayings and deeds of Jesus. His interpretation, however, fails to capitalize on the great richness λόγια would have had to Papias’s audiences, both Christian, Jewish, and pagan.

The word λόγια when found in the Scriptures is generally translated as “oracles.”457 Some might contend that interpreting λόγια as oracles is too archaic and thus unhelpful for modern readers. If such a situation exists (and this assumption is quite questionable), it is only because in certain segments of post-modern society some expect vocabulary to be predominately neutral or secular.458 This is because they assume that God is unknowable or at best impersonal. Such a priori theories assume too much; consequently, “oracles” is an exceptionally appropriate word for explaining what Papias meant. Moreover, those who translate this word in Papias’s title as “sayings” leave their audiences with the impression that Papias was attempting to explain the teachings of the “mere mortal” known as Jesus of Nazareth. Although these sayings were from a very important religious figure, nevertheless they were only human words and human teachings. That is not what Papias meant, nor would that have been how his audience understood him regardless of one’s religious persuasion, for in Papias’s day all cultures were spiritual in their worldviews—none were “secular” as the word is commonly understood today. The first-century world in which the Asiatic church lived did not have the sensitivities of our post-modern world with respect to the activities of the gods; consequently, it is inappropriate for today’s readers to presume their own sensitivities upon the meanings of a first-century author and his audience.

Regarding the possible range of meanings of λόγια and its synonyms, B. B. Warfield provided a comprehensive analysis of them in his book, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, in which he surveyed their usages in pagan and sacred literature of both Greeks and Jews. Regarding the dominant nuance of λόγια and λόγιον in Greek literature, he concluded that

A survey of this somewhat miscellaneous collection of passages will certainly only strengthen the impression we derived from those in which λόγιον occur[s]—that in λόγιον we have a term expressive, in common usage at least, of the simple notion of a divine revelation, an oracle, and that independently of any accompanying implication of length or brevity, poetical or prose form, directness or indirectness of delivery. This is the meaning of λόγιον in the mass of profane Greek literature.459

Having discussed Greek usage of the word λόγια, Warfield reviewed its use in the Septuagint, after which he concluded, “In all the forty-one instances of its usage . . . it is employed in its native and only current sense, of ‘oracle,’ a sacred utterance of the Divine Being.”460 Warfield also stated concerning Philo (a first-century Jewish philosopher) and his understanding of λόγια that “the only real distinction between his usage of these words and that of profane authors arises from the fact that to Philo nothing is an oracle from heaven, a direct word of God, except what he found within the sacred books of Israel.”461

Gerhard Kittel also research the use of the phrase τὰ λόγια in Greek literature, and with respect to its “pre-Christian” usage, he defined this term as “‘Saying,’ ‘pronouncement,’ esp. ‘saying which may be traced back to the deity.’” However, within biblical literature λόγια began to take on a more specific meaning. Concerning its use in the Septuagint, Kittel simply stated that “in the LXX λόγιον is used for the Word of God.”462 The great question is when did λόγια begin to be applied to the words of Jesus. Kittel recognized that in Romans 3:2 this term continued to have the same nuance as found in the Old Testament, stating that “R. 3:2 deals with the λόγια τοῡ θεοῡ imparted to the Jews. It is obvious that the reference is to the OT promises. Literally, τὰ λόγια τοῡ θεοῡ is simply a reference to God’s speaking.”463 He suggested, therefore, that given this meaning it should not be surprising that apostles such as Paul understood that God had spoken in Jesus and that he was still speaking during the period in which Paul was ministering. Concerning this development of τὰ λόγια in the New Testament, Kittel concluded,

In sum, there are two lines of NT usage. The first is a continuation of the ancient use for an individual divine saying, Ac. 7:38: the oracles delivered to Moses at Sinai; 1 Pt. 4:11: the words and statements spoken by the charismatic. The second refers, not to a saying, but to the divine action fulfilled as the salvation history of the old and new covenant, to the oracle of God, or to what God says to the world. R. 3:2: Individual oracles, biblical sayings and promises are undoubtedly given to the Jew, but there is also given to him the whole event of salvation history in which God spoke (Hb. 1:1) up to what took place in Jesus Christ. Cf. esp. Hb 5:12: . . . they are again to immerse themselves, and to be instructed, in the event of revelation which has taken place in Jesus, the λόγια τοῡ θεοῡ which have taken place in Him, and which do, of course, include His words and sayings.464

This development certainly has immense implications with respect to how patristic writers would have viewed the words of Jesus and the narratives that contained them (i.e., the canonical Gospels).

While not occurring with great frequency, the phrase τὰ λόγια τοῡ κυρίου and the concepts associated with it do appear in the writings of those who immediately followed the apostolic generation. Lawlor recognized that in 1 Clement the word λόγια appeared only four times and “always with reference to the Old Testament;” thus he concluded that “whether intentionally or not, . . . Clement regarded the word λόγια as specially applicable to words of God in the Old Testament.”465 While it is undeniable that the apostolic fathers would have understood λόγια to refer to the Old Testament, it appears that sometime during the beginning of the second century, as implied by Papias’s title, this phrase also began to be applied to the words and deeds of Jesus. An example of this is found in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, which seems to have been written ca. 110.466 In chapter 7, Polycarp employed the phrase τὰ λόγια τοῡ κυρίου within the context of allusions and quotes found within the New Testament,

For anyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist (1 John 4.2–3); and whoever does not confess that witness of the cross is a devil (1 John 3.8); and whoever distorts the words (oracles) of the Lord for his own passions, saying that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—this one is the first born of Satan. 2. And so, let us leave behind the idle speculation of the multitudes and false teachings and turn to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning, being alert in prayer and persistent in fasting. Through our entreaties let us ask the God who sees all things not to bring us into temptation (Matthew 6.13), just as the Lord said, “For the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” (Matthew 26.41).467

It is certainly possible that when Polycarp wrote the phrase “the oracles of the Lord” (τὰ λόγια τοῡ κυρίου) he was thinking of Old Testament passages. The question, however, is whether that is the most reasonable explanation of what he meant. As Ehrman observed in his footnotes regarding this quote (as well as throughout his translation of the entire epistle), Polycarp was certainly aware of the Gospel of Matthew, as well as other New Testament writings. Polycarp’s warning was directed toward those who would distort “the oracles of the Lord” by denying the resurrection and the last judgment. The Gospel of Matthew records some of Jesus’ teachings concerning the resurrection of the dead (Matt 22.29–32), as well as the final future judgment (Matt 5.21–22; 11.20–24). Consequently, while it is possible that Polycarp was thinking about the Old Testament when he wrote the phrase τὰ λόγια τοῡ κυρίου, his immediate context, however, indicates that it is more probable that he was referring to divine words uttered by Jesus as found in Matthew’s Gospel.

Another important witness to the development of the term λόγια as a reference to the words of Jesus is found in the very writings of Papias as he discussed the origins of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Papias in both cases employed λόγια as he described their composition. Papias’s comments about Mark’s Gospel are actually a quote from his source, “the elder.” His statements about Matthew’s Gospel, however, may or may not be from this same individual.468 Consequently, Papias did not invent the idea that the Gospel narratives contained divine oracles, but, as will become evident, he received this “tradition” from his source and mentor, the apostle John. Papias described Mark’s Gospel as τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων,469 with respect to Matthew’s composition, however, he simply referred to it as τὰ λόγια.470 Kittel, therefore, believed that for Papias the phrase τὰ λόγια spoke of both the teachings and deeds of Jesus as found in the Gospel narratives.471

It is recognized that the term τὰ λόγια when found in other contexts will occasionally have different nuances or meanings. The salient question, however, is what is the context in which this term is found within Papias’s title and writings? Rigg believed that the entire debate over how to translate λόγια in Papias’s title has generated “an endless and futile discussion.”472 The significance of the difference in meanings and the context in which it is found in Exposition is certainly worthy of the exacting debate. If one is willing to acknowledge that Papias was an orthodox Christian and a trained bishop who was a student of a follower of Jesus, and who was aware of several apostolic writings, and who valued apostolic traditions over all other teachings, then one should have little doubt that when Papias employed the term λόγια with reference to the words of Jesus that he meant that those words, whether confirmed through oral traditions or found in the written narratives deriving directly from Jesus’ immediate followers, were in fact the utterances of God. Consequently, they were by definition and nature “oracles,” and as such they were to be received, preserved, and correctly understood above all other forms of human speech, rhetoric, and philosophy. To ignore this understanding of λόγια as found in Papias’s title in order to avoid “disputes” is to unjustifiably surrender a central theological emphasis of not only Papias but also of the apostolic leadership that preceded him. For, as previously noted, this was not a conclusion that originated from Papias, but a “tradition” that he has received from his mentor and teacher, the apostle John. Therefore, in spite of the many other possible options, it seems that the most appropriate translation of Papias’s title is An Exposition of the “Oracles” of the Lord.473

Eusebius Rejects Irenaeus’s Claim

Having provided the title of Papias’s writings, Eusebius immediately attempted to challenge Irenaeus’s claim that Papias was an associate of the apostle John.474 The evidence he cites, however, does not validate his position. Concerning this attempt by Eusebius, C. Stewart Petrie stated that

Eusebius then quotes Papias, using Papias’s own words allegedly to refute Irenaeus. But the quotation which he now brings forward to support his assertion against Irenaeus does not provide the support he claims. Instead, he would appear to have made a somewhat hasty assertion based on a careless reading of what Papias says. In face of his own quotation from Papias, his assertion is inaccurate and therefore misleading. . . . Consequently, there is nothing to justify the careless confidence with which Eusebius contradicts Irenaeus. It is fair to assume that, if Eusebius had been able to produce a more positive declaration from Papias, he certainly would have done so. But this was apparently the best he could do. Yet Irenaeus . . . had described Papias as a “hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp”. Eusebius offers no valid reasons for contradicting him: he has merely indulged in a little unconvincing special pleading.475

Eusebius’s quote of Papias does, however, provide additional information about Papias’s Exposition. By writing κατὰ τὸ προοίμιον τῶν αυτοῡ λόγων, Eusebius provided an important observation about Exposition.476 Holmes translated the clause τῶν αυτοῡ λόγων as “his discourses,” the clear inference being that Papias did not merely “collect” sayings of or about Jesus. Concerning his effort, Hill wrote, “One essential thing should be kept in mind: Papias was above all a collector of traditions, and some traditions will necessarily be more trustworthy than others.”477 There is little doubt that an important purpose of Papias’s work was to preserve material he valued, especially material that in his day was exclusively oral. Papias, however, did not receive his fame for simply being a collector. He was also famous for being a theologian, and as stated previously, it was his eschatology for which he was most noted. Keeping in mind, therefore, that Eusebius was to some degree familiar with Papias’s work, his description implies that Papias interacted with the material he preserved. While he did collect traditions, both oral and written, he collected them for the purpose of “expositing” them, i.e., clarifying their meanings. Consequently, it appears that he was much more than just a collector of oral traditions and amazing stories, he was a pastor–theologian who was concerned with educating his audience about the oracles of the Lord and their correct interpretations, interpretations that he had received from the elders, as well as those he had discovered for himself.

Eusebius was rather emphatic (οὐδαμῶς) that in his opinion Papias had made no confession to the effect that he had personally known any of the apostles.478 His convictions, unfortunately, were based upon the thinnest of exegetical evidence. It should be noted that Eusebius never argued that Papias could not have known any of the apostles, for he confirmed that Papias had met others who had known the apostles. As discussed previously, if Papias knew others who had known apostles, then it is certainly possible that Papias was old enough to have known the apostles as well. Moreover, nothing in Eusebius’s discussion about Papias indicates that he believed Papias was too young to have known an apostle. Eusebius’s treatment of Papias in fact reveals that he understood him to be a contemporary of Polycarp, whom Eusebius clearly believed to be a disciple of the apostle John, as well as other apostles.479 As Munck has stated, “Eusebius did not doubt that Papias belonged to the earliest Christian period.”480 Regarding those that Papias knew, Eusebius only argued that he had never personally met any of the apostles—most importantly that he had not met the apostle John. He never argued that he could have not met one of the apostles of Jesus Christ. He rested his entire case that Papias had confessed or implied that he had not known any apostles on the mere fact that Papias wrote the name “John” twice, and a perceived significance in Papias’s change in word order. It should be noted that Eusebius clearly understood the John in the first group to be an honored member of the apostolic colloquium, maintaining that “here it is worth noting that he lists the name of John twice. The first he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the Evangelist. . . .”481 Eusebius’s statement that this first John was from among “the rest of the apostles” indicates that he believed him to be an apostle, and that by referring to this John as “the Evangelist” he made it clear that he understood this particular John to be the author of the Fourth Gospel. The second John, however, in Eusebius’s opinion was a different John because Papias mentioned him “after” the apostolic tribe.

The evidence that Eusebius provided for creating two Johns cannot bear the considerable weight that he demanded of it. Some scholars have attempted to explain the significance of Eusebius’s insistence on recognizing two Johns by explaining Papias’s use of the present tense verb λέγουσιν, which they argue indicates that Papias was referring to activities that were occurring during the actual time in which he was writing (thus possibly providing evidence for a pre-100 dating of Exposition).482 Other scholars have interpreted this verb as a historic present, meaning that Papias was speaking about an earlier period in his ministry as if it were in real time.483 Additionally, Eusebius argued that since Papias had identified the second John as “the elder” then the second John could not have been an apostle. It will become evident while analyzing Papias’s statements that Eusebius unjustifiably separated the apostle John from the rest of the apostles by placing such weight upon Papias’s second mentioning of a John. It should be sufficient for the moment to acknowledge that at times it appears that Papias was speaking about an earlier period in his life in real time, a period in which he referred to apostolic instructions that he had received from others (thus he employed the aorist εἶπεν), as well as a period in which he received personal tutelage from the last living tradition-bearing apostle (thus, λέγουσιν is understood as an historical present).

Lastly, Eusebius claimed that his exegetical discovery “proved” that Papias was aware of two Johns that either lived in Ephesus at the same time, or possibly lived in Ephesus at approximately the same time. Consequently, Eusebius believed he had solved Dionysius of Alexandria’s great mystery concerning the two tombs of the apostle John.484 Briefly stated, it was Dionysius’s contention that the tradition-bearers of the apostle John’s tomb(s) had somehow missed another very influential John of Ephesus who in reality occupies a tomb that is thought to be occupied by the more famous apostle John.485 Knowing Dionysius’s speculations concerning the debate surrounding which tomb the apostle John occupied and the identity of the author of the book of Revelation, Eusebius contended that Papias’s preface proved the existence of two Johns. The fact remains, however, that Papias’s preface does not even contain the words apostle, Ephesus, or tombs; consequently, it cannot prove Eusebius’s contention.486

Papias and the Truth

It becomes necessary at this point to attempt to let Papias speak for himself. One cannot be certain about where Eusebius’s quote of Papias actually occurred in Papias’s preface. However, if Luke’s prefaces in his Gospel and the book of Acts can be employed as templates, it can be reasonably assumed that Eusebius drew this quote near the beginning of the preface of Papias’s five-volume work, for in this quote Papias appeared to be addressing his benefactor.487 Papias boldly stated that he purposed to provide everything that he had careful learned and careful remembered from the elders, as well as interpretations concerning their instructions. Eusebius preserved Papias’s Greek preface as stating, Οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι καὶ ὅσα ποτὲ παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καλῶς ἔμαθον καὶ καλῶς ἐμνημόνευσα συγκατατάξαι ταῑς ἐρμηνείαις διαβεβαιούμενος ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν.488 A literal translation of this sentence is “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.”489 As recognized earlier, it is a mistake to assume that Papias intended to provide exclusively his own interpretations concerning the traditions he received from the elders, for nowhere does he demonstrably make such a claim.490 Instead, his foremost concern was to set down in an orderly fashion the traditions he had well learned from his sources—the elders. This is not to argue that Papias did not provide any of his own insights. He was a pastor, and as most know all to well, pastors are often more than willing to volunteer their own theological insights. Nevertheless, by translating Papias’s preface to state “along with my own interpretations,” Holmes has made an interpretation that the text does not support.491 Regarding these traditions, Papias confessed that he had “learned them well,” meaning he had correctly grasped their meanings and significance; and that he had “remembered them well,” indicating that he had faithfully and accurately committed them to memory. Consequently, Papias felt he could guarantee his benefactor accuracy concerning the material and interpretations he provided.492 The clause from which Papias’s guarantee is taken is διαβεβαιούμενους υπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀλήθειαν. The word “ἀλήθειαν,” being anarthrous, can be understood as being either definite or indefinite. It is translated with a variety of meanings ranging from: truth, truthfulness, dependability, uprightness (with respect to thought or deed), or reality. The question is, did Papias mean to guarantee the dependability or truthfulness of his work as an accurate transmission of the traditions of his sources who were “the elders,” or was he guaranteeing that his work communicated “truth” that was the product of their traditions. While some scholars might demand a determinative decision as to which of these two possibilities Papias intended, ancient audiences were often amused by such word plays that afforded them the opportunity of discovering deeper and more important meanings rather than appreciating a meaning that was obvious to everyone. Consequently, Papias may have meant to imply both meanings, rather than pitting one against the other. The clause, therefore, is translated, “as a result, guaranteeing on their behalf truth.”493

Papias’s Elders

The greatest debate concerning this sentence by far focuses on the question of who exactly were Papias’s instructors and sources, or more precisely, who was Papias referring to when he spoke of “the elders.” As mentioned previously, Eusebius was convinced that Papias had not personally known any of the apostles. It was his position that Papias had “received the matters of the faith from those who had known them,” i.e., from followers and/or acquaintances of the apostles. Consequently, he believed that Papias’s knowledge about Jesus was completely based upon third hand information, while his information about Jesus’ immediate followers was solely based upon secondhand information.494 Maintaining, however, that Papias was completely isolated from reliable eyewitness testimony that was available to others is an artificial constraint.

It should be noted that the period in which both Irenaeus and Eusebius placed Papias makes it a certainty that he had in fact received third-hand information about Jesus, as well as secondhand information about Jesus’ immediate followers. However, because Eusebius identified Papias as a contemporary of Polycarp, and because Irenaeus referred to him as Polycarp’s associate or companion, it is just as possible that Papias received some of his information about Jesus from a few of his immediate followers (secondhand) who had heard him and who had witnessed his ministry and miracles (firsthand). While some, such as Eusebius and Hall, have attempted to remove Papias as far from the apostolic generation as possible, the historical evidence indicates that he lived within a matrix of time that afforded him access to information about Jesus from a variety of sources, some of which were supremely credible (eyewitnesses), as well as those who were not as credible but perceived as trustworthy (secondhand), and lest we forget, from those that he found to be completely non-credible (third-hand and/or unconfirmable hearsay). Given this era, his tenacious demand to hear only the words of the apostles and disciples of the Lord is certainly understandable.

The question still remains, however, who were Papias’s “elders”? In order to answer this question, which originates in section 2, it is necessary to exegete section 4 of Eusebius’s thirty-ninth chapter. Doing so provides some clarity in ascertaining who these travelers were that Papias examined and what if any was their relationship to the elders. It is the position of this book, as stated earlier, that section 4 does not describe how Papias received his information that he claimed to have both learned and remembered well.495 Instead, Papias was describing how he carried out his responsibility as the bishop at Hierapolis with respect to protecting his congregation from those whose teachings and doctrines were contrary to apostolic instruction, and, therefore, were by definition contrary to the truth. Papias stated in this section that if he came in contact with anyone who had claimed to have associated with the elders he would “inquire” about the “words of the elders.” Regarding these travelers, Bauckham noted that “The usual translation is ‘anyone who had been a follower of,’ but this is potentially misleading, especially in contemporary English. The meaning of the verb parakoloutheō is not so much ‘come after’ as ‘go closely with, attend.’ Moreover, the rendering of parēkolouthēkōs by the English noun ‘follower’ suggests that the person was no longer in the relationship of disciple to the elders, whereas all that is meant is that the person had been present at their teaching (and might well be again).”496

One should not conclude, consequently, that Papias assumed to know anything about these travelers other then what they claimed for themselves. Such an assumption adequately explains Papias’s need to examine them. Having met these hitherto unknown travelers,497 Papias stated that it was his habit to examine them.498 The word ἀνακρίνω is generally translated as to question (as in a general question), examine; conduct an examination (as is judicial hearings; an indication of an investigation); to judge, to call to account, to discern.499 The great debate concerning Papias’s meaning on this point is, was he simply attempting to gain new information or was he attempting to discern a traveler’s orthodoxy. Regardless of how one answers this question, it should be recognized that Papias’s greatest concern was for the preservation of orthodoxy, for he doggedly wanted to know nothing other than the words of those who were the immediate followers of Jesus. Concerning Papias’s commitment to apostolic words, A. C. Perumalil wrote that Papias “did not place [his] trust in the words of the other sub-apostolic elders who were the followers of the apostolic men. For this reason he always compared their teachings with those of the apostles.”500 Papias’s practice of comparing an itinerant’s words with apostolic teachings implies that Papias already possessed the words of the apostles, and that he was attempting to ascertain whether or not these travelers actually knew the apostolic teachings, and whether they were faithfully transmitting them and their meanings. Papias himself stated that he was unimpressed with the sermons, lectures, or musings of others; instead he desired to hear only the words and teachings that were truly apostolic in origin and meaning.

There is a great exegetical debate concerning the syntactical relationship of the clause τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους and the clause that immediately follows, which is τί Ἀνδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλππος ἢ τί Θωμᾱς ἢ Ἰάκωβος ἢ τί Ἰωάννης ἢ Ματθαῑος ἢ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῡ κυρίου μαθητῶν. The interrogative pronoun τί plays an important part for understanding their relationship. In the preceding clause “τοὺς λόγους” is in the accusative because it is the object of the verb ἀνέκρινον; thus, the literal translation is “I was examining the words of the elders.” The interrogative pronoun τί is also accusative; however, it is singular. The reason for the switch from the plural to the singular is obvious, Papias wanted to be very clear concerning specifically whose teachings he valued (i.e., those of the apostles) as he interrogated any itinerants preachers/prophets that ventured into his jurisdiction. There are two choices that are generally promoted for explaining the syntactical relation between these two accusatives. Gundry argued that the two accusatives are appositional, meaning that the second accusative refers to the same thing as the previous accusative. In other words, the second accusative is a simple restatement of that which was previously mentioned.501 Wallace explained the function of the appositional accusative in this manner, “The accusative case can be an appositive to another substantive in the same case. An appositional construction involves two adjacent substantives that refer to the same person or thing and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause. The first accusative substantive can belong to any accusative category, and the second is merely a clarification of whom or what is mentioned. Thus, the appositive ‘piggy-backs’ on the first accusative’s use, as it were. It is a common use of the accusative.”502 In reality, the entire second clause is appositional to the first clause, being correctly connected by both τοὺς λόγους and the accusative interrogative pronoun τί.

Bauckham and others, however, offer a different explanation of their syntactical relationship that provides an alternative interpretation. Bauckham argued concerning these accusatives that “Papias’ words are ambiguous only because he takes it for granted that the words of the elders in which he would be interested are those which transmit traditions.” Thus, he translated Papias’s preface as stating, “he inquired about the words of the elders, [that is] what [according to the elders] Andrew and Peter had said.”503 He later explained his theory stating that “Some scholars, including apparently Eusebius himself, have understood categories (2) and (3), the elders and the Lord’s disciples, as one and the same, but in that case it is hard to understand why Papias uses the word ‘elders’ so emphatically and does not simply label this group ‘the Lord’s disciples.’ It is much more satisfactory to read the text in the sense indicated by the words I have added in square brackets in the translation just given.”504

Papias’s meanings, however, are not vague; moreover, as previously stated, appositional accusatives are a very common grammatical construction in Greek literature. Bauckham’s translation is more satisfying to him and others primarily because it changes Papias’s text to support a particular interpretive position. Such a translation understands the accusative τί as either an accusative of “general reference,” or as syntactically unconnected with the previous clause.505 Consequently, some feel justified in translating Papias’s text in a way that completely ignores normal Greek grammar, while simultaneously supplying words for its perceived lack of clarity in order to provide for themselves a more “satisfactory” interpretation.

Generally speaking, while it is hardly defendable to ignore a more reasonable and acceptable syntactical explanation in order to justify one’s interpretation of a text, there are times when identifying an accusative as one of general reference offers the best solution to understanding the syntactical relationship between two substantives. The question remains, however, as to whether this particular syntactical explanation is appropriate while attempting to interpret Papias’s statement. Smyth wrote concerning different contexts where it is appropriate to identify accusatives as being instances of general reference that “To verbs denoting a state, and to adjectives, an accusative to denote a thing in respect to which the verb or adjective is limited.”506 Clearly this does not fit this context since Papias’s clauses involve neither a verb nor an adjective that demands an accusative. Secondly, Smyth next wrote, “a. Of the parts of a body. . . . The accusative of the part in apposition to the whole.” This again does not fit Papias’s context since Papias was discussing his examination, and not part of something that belonged to a greater “whole.” The third category that Smyth recognized was “b. of qualities and attributes (nature, size, name, birth, number, etc.).” This category obviously does not apply since Papias was not “investigating” certain qualities, attributes, or sizes of anything. Smyth also provided a fourth category, which was “c. Of the sphere in general. Often of indefinite relations.” Some may feel that this possibly fits Papias’s context, but in reality it does not since Papias was certainly not searching for an indefinite connection between the travelers’ words and those of the apostles; instead, he was seeking precision and adherence of their words with the words of his apostolic sources. Smyth also addressed a few additional rare options, none of which fits Papias’s context. He did, however, point out that “for the accusative of respect the instrumental dative is also employed.” Actually, during the time in which the New Testament was being written, the accusative of general reference had all but disappeared and was replaced by instrumental datives.507 Wallace explained the accusative of respect or general reference in this manner,

The accusative substantive restricts the reference of the verbal action. It indicates with reference to what the verbal action is represented as true. An author will use this accusative to qualify a statement that would otherwise typically not be true. This accusative could thus be called a frame of reference accusative or limiting accusative. This is not common in Koine Greek.

Before the accusative substantive you can usually supply the words with reference to or concerning. Because this usage is rare in the NT, it should be employed as a last resort—that is, only after other categories are exhausted.508

This is not to argue that there is no such thing as an accusative of general reference, but only that by the beginning of the second century this grammatical device was a rather rare event in Greek literature. It should, therefore, only be relied upon as a last resort when attempting to explain the relationship between two accusatives. It is to argue, however, that it should definitely not be employed when there is another more reasonable explanation for identifying the syntactical relationship between two accusatives.

Some scholars embrace translations such as Bauckham’s because they insist that Papias understood and employed the term “elders” in the same manner as Irenaeus, who often used the term to refer to those who had been disciples of apostles, while not including the apostles. This theory, as previously mentioned, was made popular by John Chapman, who is often cited in defense of this approach. Such an approach, as argued earlier, is clearly anachronistic.509 Irenaeus became the bishop of Lyons at the beginning of the last quarter of the second century, while Papias ascended to his bishopric ca. 105. The period between the ministries of these two was unquestionably one of considerable growth and development with respect to the vocabulary and practice of the church. Nowhere is this more true than concerning the office of “elder” (i.e., a church elder, pastor, and/or keeper of apostolic traditions), for it was during this critical period that the church witnessed the rise of the monarchical episcopacy. Moreover, concerning use of the term “presbyter” by Papias, Clement, and Irenaeus, Munck confessed that “Irenaeus on the other hand uses the word most loosely of the three. It [the term presbyter] means both a written and oral source, and it is not clear to what generation they are to be assigned.”510 Consequently, given the variety of meanings that Irenaeus employed by the term πρεσβύτερος, one should not assume that when Papias used this word he had in mind a specific meaning from Irenaeus’s multiple uses, and that Irenaeus’s usage of this term demands the exclusion of any possibility that Papias’s used it to refer to the apostles. It follows, therefore, that the most reasonable explanation of the syntactical relationship between the accusative λόγους in the clause “τοὺς τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀνέκρινον λόγους” and the accusative τί in the clause “τί Ἀνδρέας ἢ τί Πέτρος εἶπεν, . . .” is that they are appositional. Consequently, Gundry’s comments on this subject are well defended

Second, taking that the two designations as synonymous conforms to the natural understanding of Papias’s text. For if they are not synonymous, Papias jumps backward from second-generation elders to first-generation disciples without any warning only to turn around and use “elder” and “Lord’s disciple” for one and the same man. This use of “elder” and “Lord’s disciple” for John shows that we are not to regard the repeated τί as an accusative of general reference (the accusative of “last resort”), meaning “the words of the elders concerning what Andrew or Peter had said,” but as an appositive: “the words of the elders, i.e., what Andrew or Peter had said.” This use also shows that the expressions do not stand in apposition to each other because the later elders repeated what earlier disciples had said; rather, what the Lord’s disciples had said is identical with the words of the elders because the elders were the disciples Andrew, Peter, and the rest.511

It should be sufficient, therefore, to acknowledge that the elders (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων) who had taught Papias included specific apostles. And, as it is obvious from Papias’s statement, it is precisely this colloquium of apostolic elders that Papias was most passionate about learning from, and whose teachings he was most passionate about preserving.

Since the most natural understanding of the relationship between the two accusatives in question is to view them as appositional, one should understand Papias’s inquiry of these itinerants as attempts to ascertain their fidelity to the teachings of the apostolic elders rather than a simple request to share with him all that they claimed to have heard from any elder. As stated earlier, Papias’s investigative practices tacitly implies what he had previously confessed, which is that he had already learned and memorized during an earlier period in his life the instructions of the elders. The question is, however, to which “elders” was Papias most committed. In order that no one might be confused about this issue, Papias specifically identified the individuals whose words he wished to hear; they were Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew (i.e., the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry, as well as his handpicked future leaders for his church).

Eusebius understood all of these elders as members of the apostolic consortium. There is some question as to whether James was James the son of Zebedee or James the brother of Jesus. James of Zebedee died sometime between 41–44 (Acts 12:1–2); afterward James the brother of Jesus also became recognized as the leading elder of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:12–21; 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19, 2:8–9). Although it is unclear as to which James Papias was referring to, it should be noted that both were viewed by the early church as apostles.512 Papias could not have heard either James of Zebedee or James the brother of Jesus, who is believed to have died ca. 62.513 Consequently, regardless of which James Papias referred to, he could not have learned anything from them via firsthand instruction, but instead would have depended upon others to transmit to him any traditions that were attributed to them. It is difficult, therefore, to be definitive about which James Papias had in mind without additional material from him. Many scholars lean towards the James who was a son of Zebedee.514 This James seems to have the better claim since he was one of the original apostles who had followed Jesus throughout his ministry.

There is also some question concerning which Philip Papias had in mind. Here, however, an apostolic connection between Papias and the apostle Philip is more defendable. Eusebius stated that the apostle Philip, who had at least three daughters, settled in Hierapolis, which was the jurisdiction of Papias’s bishopric. Some, however, contend that Papias actually associated with Philip the evangelist and not the apostle Philip.515 Eusebius, however, was quite confident that the apostle Philip had relocated to Hierapolis. Concerning which Philip Eusebius believed Papias to have known, Christopher R. Matthews wrote, “The most natural reading of Hist. eccl. 3.39.9 equates the Philip mentioned there with the Philip in 3.39.4. No cogent reason exists, therefore, to doubt that Papias presumed the apostolic identity of the Philip mentioned in 3.39.9.”516 Consequently, while there is some question with respect to which “James” Papias referred to, his reference to the apostle Philip is not as vulnerable to speculation.517

Papias’s selectivity concerning whose words were worthy of preservation has tremendous implications for understanding the theological development of the first and second-century church. Papias made it clear that he was only interested in instruction that originated from known apostles, for it was this very specific band of witnesses that were for him the official guarantors of words, deeds, and meanings of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were truly “elders” in the sense that they were trustworthy disseminators of traditions that were the foundation of the church. What we have, therefore, in Papias’s selectivity is the very genesis of what is recognized today as apostolic orthodoxy. Matthews’s comments upon Papias’s list of apostolic elders who transmitted the orthodox traditions of the early church are insightful,

The passage is often interpreted to mean that the words of certain apostles, identified by Papias as “disciples of the Lord,” were transmitted orally to Papias by the followers of certain “presbyters” or students of the apostles. These presbyters are not identified as office-holders but representatives of the older Christian generation. In spite of the popularity of this view, however, it is more likely that the “presbyters” are to be equated with the individually named personal disciples of Jesus in Papias’ prologue. . . . For at an early period “presbyters,” in the sense of authorities of an earlier day, can hardly be distinguished from apostles and other personal disciples of Jesus. Eusebius’ statement that Papias “received the words of the apostles from their followers” (Hist. eccl. 3.39.7; cf. 3.39.2), is not explicitly confirmed by Papias’ own words. . . . Consequently when Papias mentions his direct contact with the presbyters (Hist. eccl. 3.39.3), . . . it is natural to assume that he is referring either to some of the nine presbyters named, or at least to men of the same category. In Papias, then, a presbyter is not the second link in a chain of tradition arranged in terms of generations (e.g., apostles, presbyters, followers of the presbyters), but a figure from the early period belonging to the category of persons who guarantee the authentic transmission of tradition.518

Papias’s reference to these apostles was not because they were “old men,” although compared to him and his generation they certainly were. Instead, he referred to them as elders because they were “the” recognized providers and keepers of the church traditions and dogma.519 Their authority as eyewitnesses and followers of Jesus was highly valued by those who wanted to know details about the “historical” Jesus. This is not to say that their authority was never challenged, for the data indicates that the fledgling church constantly felt challenges from within and from without. The epistles of 2 and 3 John provide confirmation of such challenges. Nevertheless, as Papias’s practices and concerns reveal, for those who desired only to receive accurate information about Jesus (i.e., about his ministry and his teachings), the credibility of his immediate followers was unmatched.520 The context and syntactical relationship of Papias’s words, therefore, indicate that his “elders” were none other than the followers of Jesus who today are known as the apostles, and as such they were the standard bearers and guarantors of officially recognized traditions of the church.521

Papias’s Highest Concern

Having answered the question of who were Papias’s elders, along with their function and authority within the church, it is now necessary to return to Papias’s words in section 3 concerning his distaste for open speculations. Papias stated that “for unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth.”522 Unlike Papias’s earlier reference, this reference to truth is definite.523 Papias did not suffer long philosophical speculations and prolonged dialogues that were common fare of rabbinic schools and Greek philosophers. He instead valued those who gave clear and relevant instruction that originated from “the Truth.” Additionally, in order to prevent any possible confusion concerning which instructions Papias was referring to, he precisely identified the “commandments” that he had in mind. “Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments,524 but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself.”525 Consequently, Papias did not value diversity of thought when it came to matters of the apostolic faith. All other philosophers and teachers were to be discarded when compared to the “commandments” that the Lord had transmitted to his followers. Such a passion reveals a common conviction that Papias held with Polycarp, who in a similar fashion wrote, “And so, let us leave behind the idle speculation of the multitudes and the false teachings and turn to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning.”526 Charles M. Nielsen in a rather strained fashion conjectured that Papias’s comment about those who “recall someone else’s commandments” was a back-handed reference to some who preferred Pauline doctrines over those originating from the Lord.527 However, as the analysis of fragment 23 will make clear, there is data that severely undermines Nielsen’s theory; consequently, Papias’s reference to the commandments of others is more likely an allusion to the philosophies of those whose teachings were outside the boundaries of apostolic traditions. Papias’s reference to what “the many” preferred to hear and Polycarp’s reference to the “idle speculations of the multitude,” implies that the intellectual culture in which the Asiatic church ministered was one that appreciated speculations and conjectures concerning the nature of truth. These two orthodox bishops, however, did not give themselves to the preferences of the crowds, nor did they waste their time by devoting themselves to philosophical shadow boxing. Instead, they chose to stand fast to the truth as it had been received from the Lord himself, and rejected any late comers who attempted to alter its content or question its veracity. They were in the truest sense “apostolic men.”

What Papias highly valued were those who remembered and accurately communicated the commandments of Jesus. Papias’s statement in Greek is “ἀλλὰ τοῑς τὰς παρὰ τοῡ κυρίου τῇ πίστει δεδομένας,” which is literally translated as “But those (remembering) the things having been given by the Lord to the faith.”528 His statement makes it clear that he believed there was a body of teachings that Jesus entrusted to his immediate followers for the purpose of educating those who would believe upon him. Papias understood that this body of doctrine comprised the heart of the true Christian faith, and that adherence to it was non-negotiable.529 His statements do not support the theoretical conjectures in the vein of Edward H. Hall and Walter Bauer, who conceived of a struggling church that was searching for something worthy of believing.530 Instead, these statements reveal that after the passing of the last apostle there were men like Polycarp and Papias who were committed to preserving the foundational truths and commandments that Jesus delivered to his immediate followers. Jesus himself had commissioned his followers to proselytize others (Matt 10:27; 28:18–20; Luke 24:44–48), and he did so with the expectation that they would safe-guard his teachings by faithfully and accurately disseminating them into the hearts and minds of converts in the following generations (Mark 8:38; John 15:7; 2 John 9).531

Having identified the traditions that he valued and the origin from which they came, Papias made an additional compelling comment. He stated that the truth contained in the faith was not a stagnant pool of dogma, but that it was “coming from the truth itself.”532 The antecedent of παραγινομένας is “the things” (or commandments) that the Lord had given to the faith since τὰς δεδομένας and παραγινομένας are both accusative and feminine plural. Holmes translated the present participle παραγινομένας as “proceeding,” while Petrie awkwardly translated it as “reaching us.”533 The word is generally translated as “coming,” “being present,” or “being near.” Papias was explaining that the commandments that the apostles had received had come directly from Jesus who was in fact the essence and source of all truth.534 The notion that Jesus is in his essence “the Truth” is a significant theme throughout the Johannine writings.535 John Polhill stated concerning its significance in the Johannine writings that “‘Truth’ is an important word in Johannine literature, referring to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It is often a virtual synonym for Jesus (John 1:14, 17; John 14:6; 1 John 5:20).”536 Such a view of Jesus as the “Truth” makes Papias’s strict adherence to apostolic doctrines even more understandable, knowing that as he faithfully defended the instructions of the apostles he was actually preserving the teachings of Jesus who was in fact the fountainhead of truth. More than anything else, for Papias fidelity to apostolic doctrines was about worship, evangelism, and faithfulness to Christ, for by his fidelity to their traditions Papias believed that he was faithfully transmitting the very meanings of Jesus, who was the embodiment of truth itself.537

Although much of section 4 has been addressed previously, there are still a few important points worthy of discussion. This section, as argued earlier, is not Papias’s explanation of how he gathered all of his traditions but rather of how he functioned as the bishop of Hierapolis when confronted with itinerant preachers and prophets who claimed to have heard recognized “elders” (i.e., bearers of official traditions and church dogma). His cautious examination of these itinerants is completely consistent with the apostle Paul’s commissioning of the elders and bishops of the Ephesian church, which was a commission that possessed the responsibility of feeding and protecting the flock entrusted to their care (Acts 20:17–38). Papias was able to determine the veracity of the claims of these travelers by examining the accuracy of their teachings with those of known apostles and disciples of Jesus (μαθηταί) who Papias labeled as “elders.”538 Papias was confident in his ability to examine these itinerants because he had been well educated by recognized elders of the church; therefore he was qualified to interrogate any visitors of Hierapolis claiming to have a special word from the Lord or from his immediate followers. Acceptable church dogma and tradition for Papias did not “originate” from just anyone; instead, it had to come from recognized and trustworthy sources. Papias was extremely conservative with respect to sources that he considered to be trustworthy; more specifically he wanted to know only the words of the apostles Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any others who had personally followed Jesus.

Bauckham argued that “not too much weight should be placed on the particular names in Papias’s list of seven disciples.”539 He believed that there was more symbolism in Papias’s restricting his list to seven names rather than the identity of those who Papias listed. Whether or not Papias meant to stress the number seven is debatable, but to ignore the weightiness of the individuals named by Papias is ridiculous.540 These seven were certainly viewed by the earliest Christians as foundational leaders of the church to whom special honor was due.541 Their significance as founders of the church and originators of her traditions, therefore, can hardly be overestimated. Similarly ignoring the significance of the apostles named by Papias, David D. Deeks argued that “we must therefore conclude that Papias belonged to a congregation that wished not to be part of the emerging early catholicism.”542 Contrary to Deeks’s speculative theory, Papias’s insistence on preserving and promoting apostolic traditions would place him squarely within the mainstream of the emerging catholic church. Papias was not attempting to distance himself and the church at Hierapolis from the universal church; instead, he was attempting to influence the universal church and its future by demanding that she remain faithful to the commandments she had received from the Lord through his immediate followers.

Papias’s list makes it clear that he wished to hear the traditions associated with the apostles (i.e., the immediate followers of Jesus), and that he was unwilling that any of their traditions should perish. The interrogative pronoun (τί) used by Papias is singular, specifically meaning that he wanted to hear from those that he was examining the traditions associated with each individual apostle he named.543 He also employed the aorist of λέγω (εἶπεν), indicating that he wanted to know what each individual apostle had said in the past, implying that in most cases they were no longer able to speak, probably because most of them had died.544An implication of Papias’s statement is that their traditions were fixed and no longer subject to expansions.

Papias made two important shifts in his vocabulary while explaining his practice of examining these travelers, both of which are found in the clause “ἅ τε Ἀριστίων καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης, οἱ τοῡ μαθηταί, λέγουσιν.” The first important shift in vocabulary is Papias’s transition to the relative pronoun ἅ, which is neuter, accusative, and plural. By using an accusative relative pronoun Papias indicated that his subject matter was still appositional to his previous subject; therefore, it was syntactically related to the words of the individual elders, which were the focus of Papias’s examinations.545 He indicated by employing a neuter pronoun that his focus was still upon the traditions of the apostolic elders, and not the itinerant preachers or prophets who happened to meander into Hierapolis. Papias was not focused on who he was interrogating as much as what they confessed were the traditions of the apostles. Lastly, by employing a plural pronoun instead of a singular, Papias indicated with respect to the period of which he was speaking that the leadership of the church had begun to compile the traditions of each individual apostle into a collective body of official church traditions, which Papias himself had learned and remembered well by personally hearing the orations of Jesus’ followers, one of which was Aristion and another being the elder John who was one of the twelve apostles and a son of Zebedee. This personal instruction is indicated by Papias’s second important change in vocabulary, which was his use of the verb λέγουσιν in the present tense, meaning that there was a period in his life when he observed this coalescing of apostolic traditions into a cumulative body of official church dogma.546 And it was this body of traditions that Papias demanded these itinerants to recite in order to prove their fidelity to the truth that was received from the source of all truth, the Lord Jesus Christ.

A Distinction between John and Aristion

Papias also made a distinction between Aristion and John. First, Papias stated that they both were disciples of the Lord in the same sense as the apostles he had previously listed were disciples of Jesus, meaning both had followed Jesus during his ministry, and that both had heard him teach.547 Both, however, did not share the same official rank within the church. John was an elder, Aristion was not. Information about Aristion is rare. Some have suggested that he may be the source of “the spurious ending of Mark (vss. 9–20),” which an Armenian manuscript attributes to an “Ariston.”548 Whether the reference in this manuscript accurately identifies the true source of this “tradition,” or whether these two names refer to the same individual is questionable. What is not in doubt is that Papias provided the majority of what is knowable about Aristion. Some have suggested that Aristion did in fact attain to the officer of elder.549 There is, however, no historical reference to him as ever obtaining such a status. Why he may have not achieved this rank is a matter of speculation. Maybe he was divorced. Such a marital status would have severely restricted one’s ministry. Maybe he felt called to be an itinerant preacher or prophet and was unwilling to settle in any specific jurisdiction. Maybe Aristion had only followed Jesus for a relatively short period of time, and as a result he may not have been viewed by others as worthy of the title of “elder.” Regardless of what conjectures one may put forth, Papias did not identify him as an elder; therefore, one should not assume that he was. That is not to say that Papias did not perceive him as a credible eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, for he clearly identified him as a disciple of Jesus and was interested in what he had to say. In the limited material available from Papias, however, there is no suggestion that he recognized Aristion as one possessing the official rank of elder within the Asiatic church.550

The Elder John and Papias

At this point it becomes necessary to discuss Papias’s reference to a John he referred to as “ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης” (i.e., the elder John).551 Some have argued that, unlike his previous two uses of the word πρεσβύτερος, at this point Papias used the word πρεσβύτερος as “strictly a comparative adjective meaning ‘older’ (e.g., Lk 15.25, 1 Ti 5.1–2); in practice it often lost its comparative sense and came to mean ‘an old man’ (e.g., Ac 2.17).”552 As stated previously, the presence of the article ὁ with the second reference to John (which is the only name listed twice in this quote from Papias) indicates that the article is anaphoric; meaning it identifies this later mentioning of a John as a reference to same John previously mentioned.

Deeks speculated that although the article could be understood as anaphoric it was not, arguing that “while the existence of an anaphoric article cannot be ruled out, it is wrong to conclude that every definite article preceding a proper noun is necessarily anaphoric.”553 It was his position that the use of an article with a proper name was “largely a matter of the author’s whim.”554 While it may be true that in certain circumstances an author may for some unknown reason employ an article with a previously unmentioned proper name; such cases, however, are generally the exception and not the rule. Moreover, as one surveys Papias’s use of proper names and articles, it is demonstrably observable that he followed normal Greek grammatical rules and not some perceived whim. The only time Papias employed an article with a proper name was with his second reference of John. He did not employ an article with any of the seven apostolic names, nor did he employ it with Aristion’s name. He only used an article with his second mentioning of John.555

Deeks also doubted the article attached to John was titular in meaning; however, he provided no defense for this claim.556 Smyth listed “Titles of official persons” as a class of substantives that are often anarthrous.557 Consequently, even if Papias was identifying John as one who possessed an official title or position it would not require that he employ an article. In other words, the use of an article is not necessary to identify one who possessed an official title, although at times it can. Additionally, if Papias was referring to a different elder John instead of the apostle John then he almost assuredly would not have employed an article if for no other reason than to avoid any confusion concerning whether or not he was speaking about the John that he had just previously mentioned. This makes contextual sense since Papias had identified the previous seven apostles as “elders”; therefore, by his employment of the article he identified the second elder John as the same elder John that he had previously mentioned group of elders, the John who was in fact an influential member of the apostolic colloquium.

Lastly, Papias’s association of Aristion with John and his explanation of how John functioned almost assuredly makes it clear that Papias was not using the term πρεσβύτερος as only a comparative adjective. If John was a personal disciple of the Lord who lived long enough to witness Trajan’s ascension to the throne, then without question he was an older gentleman. Tradition places the apostle John’s death around the fourth or fifth year of Trajan’s reign (ca. 103).558 If the apostle John was born ca. AD 7 it would mean that he was approximately ninety-six years old at his death, and about ten years younger than Jesus.559 Papias also identified Aristion as a disciple of the Lord. It is assumed, therefore, that Aristion was a disciple of Jesus in a similar sense that the seven apostles listed by Papias were, meaning that although he was not selected by Jesus to be an apostle, he had personally followed Jesus—possibly as one of the seventy mentioned in Luke 10:1–17 or as one of the one-hundred and twenty mentioned in Acts 1:15. Having followed Jesus and then having survived long enough for Papias to have heard him recite his eyewitness testimony of Jesus means that like the apostle John he also was a man of considerable age. The question is, however, how old could he have been? If the apostle John was approximately ten years younger than Jesus, it would make him approximately twenty-four years old when Jesus died.560 The question then becomes, how old could Aristion have been and still be considered a credible disciple of Jesus.561 If Aristion was fifteen or sixteen years old when he started following Jesus, and if he only followed Jesus during his last year of ministry, he would have been approximately sixteen or seventeen when Jesus was crucified.562 That would mean that Aristion was approximately seventy-six years old in AD 90, while “the elder” John would have been approximately eighty-three. The point of this exercise is that Aristion, having been a personal disciple of Jesus, was also of considerable age, and by employing even a most conservative estimation of his age he still would have been viewed as a peer of the apostle John. What would be the sense, therefore, in emphasizing John’s antiquity while ignoring the antiquity of Aristion? Consequently, while Aristion was certainly Papias’s “elder,” Papias did not refer to him as such because it would have confused his readers by implying that Aristion had attained to the same position as the apostle John, which was that of an elder and official bearer church traditions and dogma, which was a position Aristion apparently never achieved.

The Coalescing of Apostolic Traditions

Some have argued, as previously noted, that the reference to John as “the elder” was a term of endearment. Such a claim, however, ignores the entire focus of Papias’s statements. It should not be forgotten that the context of Papias’s statements is his utmost concern was for the accurate preservation of the apostolic traditions. Moreover, Papias emphasized these two disciples of the Lord specifically because they both were able to confirm the traditions associated with the seven original disciples of the Lord mentioned by Papias. Therefore, the weight of the data indicates that Papias was not emphasizing the fact that John was old or was a “dear old friend,” but that the Asiatic church recognized him as the last surviving authoritative tradition-bearing elder from among the founding leaders of the church. His reason for mentioning John twice was that, unlike the other elders, John was still alive and able to confirm the combined teachings of the apostles, teachings that he agreed with and was still promoting at some point in Papias’s own lifetime. It was his “traditions” that Papias had personally learned and remembered well. Papias was well positioned, consequently, to examine the teachings of itinerant preachers and prophets who had arrived at Hierapolis and were attempting to influence the church in his jurisdiction. Knowing what was at stake, Papias was not of the habit of abdicating his “pulpit” to just anyone who claimed to have associated with apostles or elders. Instead, he sought to ascertain their “orthodoxy,” that is their faithful conformity to the commandments that Jesus had actually taught to his immediate followers, who in turn faithfully transmitted them to approved men who were committed to preserving Jesus’ words and meanings. Papias was not some hapless part-time pastor who thirsted to be entertained by anything and everything from the lips of anyone who happened to wander through Hierapolis seeking an audience. Instead, he was a bishop ordained by the apostle John to shepherd and protect the flock at Hierapolis by preserving the teachings and commandments of the Lord as he had received them from John. He was unquestionably in the truest sense of the term an apostolic man.

The second important shift, which has been briefly discussed, is Papias’s change from the aorist tense when referring to what the seven apostolic elders had said in the past to the present tense in order to discuss what Aristion and the elder John were still communicating (λέγουσιν).563 This shift is significant because it reveals that there was a period of time in which John and Aristion were ministering and articulating the combined traditions of the apostolic leadership of the first-century church.564 Moreover, this shift in tense can also be understood as Papias’s claim that during this period he heard the very teachings of the apostle John. The question concerning his statement is whether he in fact made such a claim. Petrie has argued,

Here Papias sets out three sources on which he had depended for information or confirmation: (1) what he himself had learnt from the elders; (2) what he had learnt from followers of the elders as to (a) what the elders had said in the past—implying, in view of what follows, that some were no longer accessible, owing to death or for other reasons; and (b) what two disciples of the Lord were (still) saying—these being still accessible to some followers, but not to Papias himself. On the question which Eusebius has raised, and on the answer which he insists the passage “makes plain,” Papias is neutral: Papias says neither that he was “a hearer and eye-witness” of the apostles nor that he was not. He simply does not, in the passage quoted, mention the matter.565

Petrie’s contention that Eusebius’s quote of Papias implies that Papias was “neutral” or did not “mention” that he had heard the apostle John is an overstatement. What Papias did not write that may have satisfied Petrie was “and whatever Aristion and the elder John say, which I myself have heard.” Papias did, however, openly confess that he had “carefully learned and carefully remembered (teachings) from the elders,” after which he named the elders whose words he considered worthy of preservation and conformity, all of whom were apostles. Among these apostolic elders that he valued most was the elder John, who has been identified as the apostle John.566 Petrie’s position only makes sense if one ignores Papias’s earlier confession to have learned from multiple elders, or if one rejects the possibility that the elder John was also the apostle John. Petrie argued, however, that Papias’s initial mentioning of a list of the elders included the apostle John, writing that, “Those ‘ancient worthies’ who had spoken were seven of the Twelve.”567 Ironically, Petrie also referred to Eusebius’s John the elder as an “elusive mythical figure,” while later stating that Papias in fact had been a hearer of the apostle John.568 Therefore, while Papias may not have been clear enough to satisfy Petrie; nevertheless, he was in no sense “neutral” about whether he had learned from any apostles, the apostle John being the most likely candidate under whom he had studied.569

The Living and Abiding Voice

Recognizing that Papias was speaking about a time in which the apostle John was still teaching, he also made a statement consistent with the common preference in Greek intellectual culture for oral discourse, a comment that some have taken to an extreme. Papias stated that given a choice he preferred to listen to a speaker rather than reading books about the speaker’s subject. His exact words were “For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice.”570 Loveday Alexander wrote a well defended article that identifies the term “living voice” as a common proverb that referred to the preference for oral dialogue over written instruction in both rabbinical schools and Hellenistic culture. Alexander, however, also explained that Greek culture was not monolithic in its distaste for written texts, and that in different contexts literature was more appreciated than in others. Jaap Mansfeld corroborated this point, stating that “the expression ‘the living voice’ strongly or less strongly contrasted with the written word, may mean somewhat different things at different times.”571 Concerning Papias’s use, Alexander concluded that “Papias was not intellectual and has no links with Platonism. . . . But again it should be noted that Papias’ concern in his preface is with teaching and with the passing on and preservation of authentic tradition, not with instruction in manual skills—so that once again the school tradition seems to provide the most helpful cultural background.”572 The fact that Papias did not have a thoroughly Platonic view of the written text is clear from Papias’s own words, for he did not say that he “could not learn from books,” but rather that he did not expect to learn “as much from books” as from the living and abiding voice. Unlike Hellenistic religions, however, Judaism was thoroughly text based and had a high value for the written word (Josh 1:6–9; Pss 1 and 119).573 Consequently, since Christianity originated from Judaism it also had a great appreciation for the written word (Matt 5:17–20; 1 Cor 4:6; 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 3:14–17). It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that Papias was thoroughly Greek in his view of the written word. Alexander recognized this possibility, writing that “both Papias and Clement may reflect tensions within a Christianity which was about to enter its own ‘scholastic’ phase. The second century sees the church in the process of defining its own canon of ‘prescribed texts’ from which all future Christian teaching would be derived.”574

Bauckham took a slightly different understanding of Papias’s statement concerning his preference for a living voice over books. He adeptly argued that Papias preferred a living voice to books because he valued eyewitness testimony as a historian. Papias was concerned about preserving the testimonies of reliable firsthand witnesses. Bauckham argued that Papias did not suffer from some form of book phobia, which is obvious by the fact that he wrote on a subject that consumed five volumes. He was simply explaining that during the earlier years of his ministry, he valued listening to and learning from eyewitnesses rather than reading about what they saw and heard in books. As Bauckham explained,

So we may see Papias’s Prologue as claiming that he followed the best practice of historians: he made careful inquiries, collected the testimonies of eyewitnesses, set them down in a series of notes, and finally arranged his material artistically to form a work of literature. His preference for the testimony of eyewitnesses, obtained at second or third hand, is therefore that of the historian, for whom, if direct autopsy was not available (i.e., the historian himself was not present at the events), indirect autopsy was more or less essential.

What is most important for our purpose is that, when Papias speaks of “a living and surviving voice,” he is not speaking metaphorically of the “voice” of oral tradition, as many scholars have supposed. He speaks quite literally of the voice of an informant—someone who has personal memories of the word and deeds of Jesus and who is still alive. In fact, even if the suggestion that he alludes specifically to historiographic practices is rejected, his must be his meaning. As we have seen, the saying about the superiority of the “living voice” to books refers not to oral tradition as superior to books, but to direct instruction of an instructor, informant, or orator as superior to written sources.575

Bauckham’s and Alexander’s points are well defended, and the truth about Papias’s preference for firsthand instruction and/or eyewitness testimony is probably adequately explained in the positions of both scholars. Consequently, Papias should no longer be employed as supporting the theory that during his day the church only preferred and depended upon the charismatic preaching of itinerant prophets.576 She of course listened to their messages, but did she disdain the written word, such as the Scriptures and the apostolic writings—absolutely not! This is not to argue that all gladly or submissively received written correspondence from the apostles.577 However, most did, and in their personal absence the apostles viewed their epistles as inherently authoritative, as did the majority in the audiences to which they wrote.578

There is one additional point to be made regarding Papias’s phrase “a living and abiding voice.”579 Alexander believed the presence of the word “abiding” to be an “odd” addition of Papias to this well recognized proverb, stating that it was probably an “echo of 1 Pet 1:23 (or some similar phrase current in the Christian rhetoric of second-century Asia Minor).”580 The concept of remaining or abiding is an important theme throughout the New Testament, but is nowhere more important than in the Johannine writings. Of the approximately 110 times μένω occurs in the New Testament, over a third of its occurrences appear in John’s writings. The majority of its usages in the remaining two-thirds are generally generic, meaning that it was used to refer to someone “remaining” someplace. There are a few occurrences, however, where the term possesses a relational/spiritual aspect of one’s union with God, the gospel, or of God’s enduring presence or his word.581 The apostle John, in contrast, employed this word approximately forty times, 75 percent of which spoke directly to one’s spiritual union with God, Jesus, his teachings, the Holy Spirit, or of existing in darkness and sin. Two specific references have special relevance to Papias’s preface. Concerning the importance of remaining faithful to Jesus’ teachings, the apostle John reported that Jesus said, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given to you,” and again, “If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.”582 Moreover, with respect to fidelity to the teachings of Jesus, in 2 John 9 the apostle John rather forcefully wrote that “anyone who runs ahead and does not continue (μένων) in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” It would appear, therefore, that Papias’s reference to the “living and abiding voice” should be understood to mean that early in Papias’s ministry he made a special effort to hear the “living” (i.e., still alive, or surviving) and “abiding” (i.e., faithful to the words of Jesus) voices of eyewitnesses of Jesus’ teachings and deeds.583

Papias’s reference to certain “books” is most interesting. Lightfoot suggested the possibility that Papias was referring to the “twenty-four” volume work by Basilides, which is possible but may be too late if Papias wrote his work in 110 or shortly thereafter.584 It has been suggested that Basilides flourished during the reign of Hadrian (117–138). This should not be understood to mean that there was not other literature about the teachings and deeds of Jesus in existence before Papias wrote. Luke’s prologue implies that narratives other than the canonical Gospels existed during the last quarter of the first century. Stein wrote concerning the amount of this material that “[i]f we take seriously the ‘many’ of Luke 1:1 (‘In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us’ [italics added]), this would indicate that when Luke wrote his Gospel there existed more written material than just Mark and Q (or simply Matthew, according to the Griesbach hypothesis).”585 It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that towards the end of the first century different narratives about the life and teachings of Jesus were available throughout Asia Minor. And while we do not know how much of this material existed during Papias’s education and ministry, we do know that for a period in Papias’s life personal disciples of Jesus were living, and if given a choice, he desired to listen and interact with them rather than to read what others had written about Jesus. Papias’s statement, therefore, about his preference for first person instruction from eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry should not be understood as a categorical rejection of all written material.

Given the above grammatical analysis of Eusebius’s quote of Papias’s preface, a translation is here offered;

For I will not hesitate for you to set down along with the interpretations what so ever at that time I carefully learned and I carefully remembered from the elders, thus guaranteeing on their behalf truth. For I was not of the habit of enjoying the many things that people were saying—although the crowds generally did, but rather the truth being presented by teachers. Neither the other commandments being remembered by some, but the things [or commandments] being remembered by others which were given from the Lord to the faith, and coming from the truth itself. And if perchance someone who associated with the elders arrived, I was of the habit of investigating the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas, or James or what John or Matthew or what was said by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were still saying. For I was not thinking I would benefit so much by the things from books, as much as by the things from a living and abiding voice.586

The above translation takes some liberties in order to provide a more readable version of Papias’s preface while attempting to not unjustifiably distort Papias’s meanings. As this translation reveals, Papias’s main concern was not with the itinerant ministers per se, but with the content of their messages and fidelity of those messages to apostolic traditions.

Eusebius’s Commentary on Papias

Eusebius’s exegesis and commentary on the first quote of Papias’s preface begins in section 5. It is in this passage that Eusebius clearly stated his opinion that Papias’s first reference to a “John” was to the apostle John. This is obvious since Eusebius called that John “the Evangelist,” which also indicates that he believed the apostle John authored the Fourth Gospel. He stated, however, that Papias’s second mentioning of a John was not a reference to the apostle. He supported his position with four points, the first being that Papias changed his wording. What he could have possibly meant by referring to Papias’s change in wording is not clear. He could have been referring to Papias’s transition from the aorist to the present tense of the verb λέγω, or his change from the singular interrogative τί to the plural relative pronoun ἅ. Such arguments seem to assume that the apostle John was not alive during Papias’s lifetime. Earlier in Ecclesiastical History, however, Eusebius stated that Polycarp was a hearer of the apostle John and a companion of Papias; consequently, he contradicted himself by stating that there was a period of time during Papias’s life when he could have heard the apostle John. His argument, therefore, does not prove his position since it is undermined by his own admissions.

Eusebius’s second reason seems to be that since Papias placed Aristion’s name ahead of the name of John then his second reference to a John could not have been to the apostle since such an ordering would have been a faux pas that no one would have dared to commit. Such an argument carries little weight, and one only need to inspect Papias’s own listing of apostles for evidence supporting this assertion. Andrew is mentioned before Peter in Papias’s list of the seven apostles, while Thomas (the doubter) is listed before James, John, and Matthew. Few scholars would suggest that Andrew was more prestigious than Peter, or that Thomas was more respected than the sons of thunder or an author of a Gospel.587 Consequently, Eusebius’s second argument is without merit. Eusebius’s third argument was that Papias had distinctly called the second John “elder.” Concerning the confusion surrounding Papias’s use of the term “elder,” Polhill explained,

This is based on a passage from Papias (early second century) that Eusebius quotes and understands to be speaking of two Johns in Ephesus, the apostle and the Elder John. The quote is somewhat obscure and seems to apply the term elder to the apostles as well as the other John. In itself the term elder is quite general and could apply to the apostles as well as some other church leader. The term was used by Jews for their leaders (Acts 4.5). It was taken over by the Christians in their church organization (Acts 11:30; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5). Peter called himself a “fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1). The term comes from the Greek word meaning old and carries a tone of veneration. It well fits the figure of the apostle John, whom Eusebius depicts as returning from his exile on Patmos to Ephesus after the death of the Emperor Domitian.588

Since Papias employed term “elder” to all seven apostles (a list which included the apostle John) Eusebius’s third argument is considerably weak; thus, it is not well defended.

The first half of section 6 contains Eusebius’s fourth and last argument, which is that Papias’s preface “confirms” the story that there were two men in the whole of “Asia” that had the same name (i.e., John), and that they both must have been buried in Ephesus, thus the confusion over which tomb the apostle John occupies. There is little doubt that there was more than one man named John in Asia. It does not follow, however, that because there was more than one person in Asia named John then Papias’s words conclusively proves that in Ephesus a different John was buried in a tomb thought to be occupied by the apostle John.589 As Schoedel has aptly stated, “The existence of two such tombs proves nothing.”590 Consequently, Eusebius’s contention that Papias referred to two Johns is based upon the poorest of exegesis and the slimmest of historical data.

Having explained his theory about how many Johns Papias mentioned, Eusebius made an additional suggestion that reveals his motivation for discovering a second John, which was to separate the honored apostle John from the debate concerning the book of Revelation. Eusebius, apparently following the lead of Dionysius of Alexandria, believed that his second John was the author of the book of Revelation.591 He recognized, however, that his theory was not a certainty and conceded that others attributed this book to the apostle John.592 Ironically, Eusebius has the distinction of placing the book of Revelation on both his list of “recognized” (ὁμολογοθμένοις) and “spurious” (νόθοις) books used among the churches of his day, which reveals that even in his day there was a considerable portion of the church that viewed the book of Revelation as both sacred and/or of apostolic origin.593 Consequently, while Eusebius was convinced by his own theories about the book of Revelation and the existence of a second John, he also admitted that there were others who disagreed with his positions.

The initial portion of section 7 should be understood as Eusebius’s conclusion about those he believed Papias had heard based upon his own exegesis of Papias’s preface in sections 5 and 6, as well as his reading of Exposition.594 It is his commentary on Papias’s sources, and he has supported it with insufficient data. If Eusebius had possessed stronger evidence proving his conjecture about Papias’s non-relationship with the apostle John or any other apostle, one can be assured that he would have employed it in order to further buttress his poorly defended position, but as Petrie suggested, this was “the best he could do.”595 Consequently, Papias should not be understood as having stated that he received all of his information about the teachings of Jesus from the followers of the apostles, but that he received some of his traditions from actual disciples of Jesus, which ironically is an admission that Eusebius also affirmed. Eusebius wrote, “but he (Papias) says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the Elder.” This admission by Eusebius damages his own theory about the improbability of Papias’s association with any of the apostles of Jesus, for Eusebius’s quote of Papias identifies that both were personal followers of Jesus. Eusebius, consequently, tacitly admitted that Papias was educated during a period that afforded him the opportunity to interact with eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life and ministry. Consequently, it was never his theory that Papias did not live during a period in which he could have heard the apostle John, but only that he never heard John or any other apostle, a theory for which he never provided a convincing argument for its defense.

Eusebius in the last portion of section 7 stated that both Aristion and John the elder were significant sources for Papias’s material, writing that “he frequently mentions them by name and includes their traditions in his writings as well.” The word Eusebius used for “traditions” was παραδόσεις, which is also the word used to describe authoritative traditions of Judaism that were preserved by the scribes and Pharisees (Mark 7:5–13). These traditions were given to the Jewish community to provide direction for the proper practice of Judaism. This same word was used by Paul to describe traditions that were delivered to the church in Corinth, traditions that Paul commended the Corinthian Christians for observing, and which he also expected them to faithfully retain (1 Cor 11:2). Consequently, this word refers to, among other things, authoritative practices and beliefs that were handed down to the church from its recognized leaders with the expectation that they would be preserved and obeyed. Such an admission by Eusebius lends further support to the position that John was described as an “elder” not because he was old, but primarily because he was someone who possessed the authority of overseeing the transmission of orthodox Christian practices and beliefs, which were called “traditions” during the period in which Paul and Papias were active in ministry. Eusebius contended that Aristion and John were not incidental sources for Papias’s magnum opus, but rather that Papias mentioned them frequently (πολλάκις); therefore, their importance to his work was significant to say the least.

Papias and Philip

The word παράδοσεις was not only used to describe orthodox practices and beliefs. Eusebius also employed this word with reference to historical events performed by the founding leaders of Christianity as sections 8 through 10 reveal.596 He described some of these events reported by Papias as “remarkable things” (παράδοξά τινα), which he stated that Papias indicated that the sources for these “events” were the daughters of the apostle Philip, who had also settled in Hierapolis. Some, who have no problem believing that there could be two Johns buried in Ephesus, have conjectured that it is unlikely that there were two Philips (both of whom had devoted Christian daughters) who were buried in Hierapolis.597 While some suggest that Eusebius erred in stating that Papias had known the apostle Philip’s daughters, it is clear that Eusebius was convinced that Hierapolis was the apostle Philip’s final resting place.598 Eusebius indicated concerning Philip’s daughters that Papias had received599 at least one and possibly two “amazing accounts” from them, the first concerning the resurrection of a man from the dead.600 Matthews conjectured from Eusebius’s reference concerning the source of this report that Philip’s daughters “appear not as prophetesses but as mediators of ‘apostolic tradition’ on a par with Papias’ other authorities.”601 Matthews has clearly projected more than Eusebius’s commentary would suggest. First, he has failed to distinguish the difference between transmitting acceptable beliefs and practices for the church and the reporting of historical events. Secondly, he unjustifiably extrapolated that since the daughters of Philip reported a couple of accounts then they must have attained to the status of mediating other “apostolic traditions,” or had risen to the status of an “elder.” Simply because Philip’s daughters were perceived as credible witnesses for reporting historic events does not mean that they would be granted the same authority and responsibility possessed by the church’s recognized leaders for transmitting orthodox doctrines or discerning correct practices for the first-century church. Lastly, corroboration of Matthews’s conjecture is not found elsewhere within the annuals of the church’s history. His position is, therefore, built largely upon an argument of silence.

It is noteworthy that as Eusebius discussed Papias’s association with Philip’s family he stated that he was “their contemporary.”602 Eusebius’s exact words were, “ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος,” which is interpreted to state that Papias had been with or among the apostle Philip’s family (κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς).603 The significance of this observation is that the pronoun is masculine, meaning that Papias had been with both the apostle Philip and his daughters. If Eusebius meant to state that Papias had only been with Philip’s daughters then he would have employed a feminine pronoun (e.g., τάς αὐτάς). Consequently, Eusebius unwittingly contradicted himself by stating that Papias had not only received these accounts from Philip’s daughters but that he had also been with their father, the apostle Philip.604 Once again, not only did Eusebius place Papias within the lifetime of the apostles, but he also unwittingly placed Papias within direct earshot of at least one living apostle.

Eusebius reported that the first account that Papias received from the daughters of Philip concerned the raising of a man from the dead, about which Eusebius provided no specific details. Philip of Side also confirmed that accounts of people who were raised from the dead could be found in Exposition. Philip, however, provided more details concerning some of these events, which will be discussed in greater detail during the analysis of fragment 11.605 Literally interpreted, Eusebius wrote that Papias had received one report from Philip’s daughters about a man who had been raised from the dead. Immediately following this report, however, Eusebius also wrote about another account concerning Barsabbas’s immunity to drinking “deadly poison.” He connected these two reports with the conjunctional clause “and again another” (καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον), thus implying that the apostle’s daughters were Papias’s source for the second report as well. Philip of Side also understood the report concerning Barsabbas to have come from the daughters of Philip; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Papias had received more than a single “amazing account” from Philip’s daughters.

Papias and Mark 16:9–20

Given the lack of context and surviving material from Papias’s hand, his purpose for including these reports is uncertain. His accounts of people being raised from the dead may have been provided as corroboration for sayings of Jesus such as those found in Matthew 10:8, Luke 7:22, John 11:25 and 14:12.606 The report about Barsabbas is quite interesting when compared with the much debated traditional ending of the Gospel of Mark.607 Given Papias’s knowledge of Mark’s Gospel, the question arises regarding the relationship of Papias’s report about Barsabbas safely drinking poison and the promise of protection while doing so found in Mark 16:18.608 The earliest patristic references to Mark 16:9–20 are found in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies III.10.5–6 and Tatian’s Diatessaron LIII–LV, both of which were written during the last half of the second century, which is several decades after Papias’s Exposition.609 Concerning Papias’s report about Barsabbas, the issues are: Was Papias aware of Mark 16:9–20, and if not, did his writings influence its composition, or is it merely coincidental that Mark 16:18 promises safety from drinking poison and that Papias preserved a report detailing just such an event. The fact that Irenaeus had a significant connection to the Asiatic church makes it unlikely that the connection between Papias and Mark 16:18 is merely coincidental.

If Papias knew of Mark 16:9–20, then he may have included the account about Barsabbas as an example of the fulfillment of what he believed to be an oracle of the Lord. The inclusion of such an event would lend support to the theory that providing explanations and fulfillments of the sayings of Jesus was an important purpose for Papias’s five-volume work, as implied by his title.610 If Papias was unaware of what is currently viewed as the traditional ending of Mark, then it appears that preserving important historical accounts (“traditions” as Eusebius called them) in the life of the early church was one of the purposes for Papias’s Exposition. Consequently, including such miraculous post-Pentecost accounts about the early church’s activities may also reveal an apologetic purpose for Papias’s writings. If Papias was unaware of Mark 16:9–20, then one could infer that his writings to some degree influenced the author(s) of this particular ending of the Gospel of Mark; however, this is all only conjecture.611 Certainty, therefore, about why Papias included the report about Barsabbas as well as other fantastic accounts, and their relationship to the ending of Mark’s Gospel is simply unattainable without further material from Exposition. While not ruling out other possibilities, it seems reasonable to assume that Papias intentionally preserved some select events that occurred during the first century of the church’s existence if for no other reason than for their historical value.612

Papias and Oral Traditions

Eusebius also provided important details about Papias’s Exposition in sections 11 and 12. While one should not accept Eusebius’s comments about Papias’s writings without critical assessment, his comments are nevertheless important. In section 11 Eusebius wrote that Papias recorded other unwritten traditions,613 which should be understood as referring to other reports in addition to the accounts about Barsabbas and those who were raised from the dead. One of the features about Papias’s writings that struck Eusebius was that Papias had preserved traditions that were oral, that is, until he decided to record them in Exposition. Eusebius stated that some of these traditions involved strange parables (ξένας παραβολὰς) of the “Savior,”614 as well as his teachings (καὶ διδασκαλίας αὐτοῡ). What Eusebius meant by strange parables is open to speculation, although Irenaeus’s Papian fragment (fragment 1) could certainly be an adequate example of a parable that Eusebius may have thought strange, given his distaste for millennial theology. Eusebius, however, may have had something else in mind; consequently, one should not lean too heavily upon Irenaeus’s quote of Papias as an example since chiliasm was not a rare approach to eschatology in Eusebius’s day.

While Eusebius’s comments about Papias’s preservation of “strange parables” are interesting, his additional comment about Jesus’ teachings (διδασκαλίας) may be more insightful. His comment reveals that Exposition was not exclusively devoted to preserving “stories” that to a more critical mind were too spectacular to accept as real. Papias apparently also discussed lessons or “oracles” that were believed to have originated from the Lord, which, when compared to parables, were more straightforward and didactic in nature. Given the difference between preserving the teachings of Jesus and the reporting of events, and Jesus’ propensity to teach, one should assume that this instructional material would have also included some “interpretations” or explanations that Papias believed originated from the lips of Jesus. Consequently, as argued earlier, it is a poor assumption to conclude that the “interpretations” contained in Papias’s writings were exclusively his own. What is valuable about Eusebius’s observations, assuming he was fairly familiar with Exposition, is that they support the position that Papias’s work was predominately devoted to “explaining” the meanings of Jesus’ teachings from sources that were both oral and written.

Eusebius also stated that Papias included material that Eusebius believed was mythical in nature (μυθικώτερα). Unlike his previous comments, however, he was clearer about what he actually meant, contending that among these “mythical” materials was the idea that there will be a resurrection for the dead, which will be followed by the Lord Jesus Christ establishing a physical millennial kingdom on earth. His summary of Papias’s eschatology is clearly an outline of what is commonly referred to today as premillennialism. The only reference in the New Testament for this specific chain of events is found in Revelation 20:1–6.615 While one might be tempted to conclude from this statement that Papias knew of the book of Revelation, it should be noted that Eusebius provided no additional evidence from Papias’s Exposition to support this conclusion. Given his aversion to chiliasm and the book of Revelation, it is understandable that Eusebius would not feel compelled to elaborate further upon any sources supporting Papias’s eschatology. Consequently, one can only infer from Eusebius’s statement that Papias was aware of the book of Revelation since, objectively speaking, his statement proves nothing about any such knowledge. Eusebius’s comment, however, does indicate that Papias had an interest in preserving eschatological traditions that he perceived as important; consequently, his work possessed among other things a theological component. Papias was not simply a collector of fantastic stories.616 Papias was also to a certain degree both a theologian and historian. Perumalil speculated that Papias wrote the “first known commentary on the words” of Jesus.617 While it is questionable whether Papias did in fact compose the first commentary on the teachings of Jesus,618 based upon Papias’s title and these comments by Eusebius (as well as comments and quotes in other Papian fragments), it seems reasonable to conclude that Exposition was to some degree a type of commentary.

Eusebius’s admission about the nature of Papias’s Exposition in the last portion of section 12 is very compelling. Having surveyed Papias’s writings, he concluded that Papias had misunderstood apostolic accounts (τὰς ἀποστολικὰς . . . διηγήσεις) with respect to any teaching on a millennium.619 The relevance of Eusebius’s observation is that even though he disagreed with Papias’s interpretation of his sources, he recognized them as “apostolic” in nature. In other words, he described the material that Papias interacted with as generally from or about the apostles. Papias, as will become evident later on, was aware of Mark’s Gospel, and other canonical Gospels, as well as other material about the life of Jesus; therefore, it is not hard to conceive that Eusebius would generalize Papias’s Exposition as dealing with “apostolic accounts.” Eusebius, however, was of the opinion that Papias had misunderstood his material because he approached it with a flawed hermeneutic, for immediately afterward he stated that “having not perceived the things by example to them (or by them) had been mystically spoken.”620 It is not clear whether Eusebius was referring to teachings spoken by the apostles or teachings spoken to the apostles. Nevertheless, he believed that Papias had interacted with material that Eusebius recognized to be “apostolic” in nature.

Eusebius’s Low Estimation of Papias

Holmes translated the last portion of section 12 as “These ideas, I suppose, he got through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not realizing that the things recorded in figurative language were spoken by them mystically.”621 The actual Greek word in this sentence for the phrase “the things recorded” is the Greek article τὰ, the antecedent of which is “the apostolic accounts.” Holmes has accurately interpreted this important referent in Eusebius’s characterization of Papias’s Exposition, indicating that in his opinion Papias had interacted with “recorded” materials that Eusebius understood to be apostolic. The salient point concerning Eusebius’s observations about Exposition is that it was not solely dedicated to preserving oral material, but that it also interacted with literary material that he described as apostolic. Thus, Eusebius never described Papias’s writings as given exclusively to oral traditions. He instead indicated that Papias’s work interacted with both types of material, some that were oral and some that were written. What bothered Eusebius most about Papias, however, was not his subject matter or the “vehicle” of his material, but his approach to it, which in his estimation employed a predominately “non-Alexandrian” hermeneutic.622 Consequently, he evaluated Papias as a man of low intellectual acumen, stating that “surely he appears as a man possessing an extremely small mind, as to say being proved from his words.”623

Eusebius’s insult is clearly pejorative, and although his derisive comment would not be tolerated in current academic discourse, one should not dismiss Eusebius’s comment as valueless. He may have made his assessment about Papias solely because of his hermeneutical approach and eschatology, but he may also have made it because of the vocabulary and literary style that Papias employed. The context in which this insult is found seems to indicate that it was Papias’s approach to his material, as well as his eschatology, that stirred Eusebius’s ire. The possibility remains, however, that Eusebius may have also provided a legitimate assessment of Papias’s literary ability, for no other Papian fragment contradicts or affirms Eusebius’s evaluation of Papias’s writing ability. Nevertheless, the pool of Papian fragments is so small it is not possible for modern historians, rhetoricians, grammarians, and literary critics to evaluate Eusebius’s critique with any degree of certitude.624 However, since Eusebius was so transparent in his contempt for Papias, one could safely conclude that it was his disdain for Papias and his eschatology that to a significant degree motivated him to marginalize Papias and promote his own theological biases.625

Eusebius, however, in the last half of section 13 recognized that regardless of Papias’s literary style or possible lack thereof, he influenced many of the church’s “leaders” after him, men that Eusebius could not similarly impugn.626 Eusebius, as discussed earlier, blamed their willingness to follow Papias’s chiliasm on his great antiquity.627 His statement that Papias influenced many (πλείστοις) others is a tacit admission concerning Papias’s intelligence and literary capacity. Eusebius’s admission argues that Papias was not so incompetent that he was incapable of significantly influence future leaders of the church in the generations that followed.628 Eusebius pointed to Irenaeus as being a prime example of one who had regrettably fallen into Papias’s error, writing also that “as is any other who has declared similar thinking.”629 Ιt was unthinkable for Eusebius that any independent critical thinker might come to believe in the millennium. He instead labeled Papias as the fountainhead of this theological error, which he contended was the product of Papias’s meager intelligence and faulty hermeneutic. Munck has appropriately observed concerning Eusebius’s entire treatment of Papias that “this mention of Papias’ work in Eusebius’ History is, as can be seen, entirely one-sided.”630 Eusebius’s value as a church historian can hardly be overstated; however, his lack of objectivity and balance when discussing those with whom he disagreed is an indelible blight upon his legacy.

Aristion’s Contributions to Papias

Eusebius returned in section 14 to discussing the impact that Aristion and the elder John had upon Papias’s Exposition. He initially stated that embedded in Papias’s writings were narrative accounts (διηγήσεις) provided by Aristion.631 Based upon Eusebius’s vocabulary one should not presume that he meant that Aristion had only provided Papias with oral material. In the first verse of the Third Gospel, Luke also spoke of others who had compiled written accounts (διήγησιν) concerning the life of Jesus. It is not unthinkable, therefore, to believe that Aristion, who Papias stated was a disciple of Jesus in the same manner as the original twelve apostles,632 had recorded notes on the things he heard Jesus say or the things he saw him accomplish. Whether these notes became source material for any of the four canonical Gospels is purely speculative.633 The salient point is that one should not assume that Aristion had only provided oral material for Papias’s Exposition.

Eusebius characterized Aristion’s material as “accounts” or “narratives,” while he referred to the material provided by the elder John as “traditions” (παραδόσεις). There is significance in this distinction. “Traditions” in first-century Jewish and Christian communities bore the weight of authoritative practice and belief (Acts 15:6–30; 1 Cor 11:2), while “accounts” spoke of narratives and historical events (Luke 1:1). It is intriguing that Eusebius characterized material from “the elder” John as “traditions,” while Aristion, who apparently was not an elder but was an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, only provided “accounts” about Jesus. Once again, this distinction in the descriptions of these materials lends weight to the argument that Papias’s reference to John as “the elder” was not simply a reference to him as being “the Old Man John,”634 but to his official title, which spoke to his recognized authority for protecting and transmitting official church dogma and practices.

This is not to say that in the eyes of Papias Aristion’s narratives were not viewed as valuable, for clearly they were since they preserved “sayings” of Jesus. Any such accounts to the early church would have been highly valued. Eusebius, however, did not refer to them as “oracles” but simply as “words” (λόγων). A possible reason for this could be that by the time Eusebius wrote, all the words of Jesus were viewed as canonical since they were believed to be the words of God, whether they were prophetic, didactic, or simply conversational. We can only assume that since Papias included them in his exposition of the Lord’s oracles, (i.e., the divine utterances of Jesus) they were viewed as authoritative; consequently, they were important to Papias’s authorial purposes.

Papias, the Elder, and the Gospel of Mark

Eusebius, in the last half of section 14 through section 15, left the subject of Papias’s many references to the materials provided by Aristion and the elder John in order to focus upon a “tradition” preserved by Papias that was of the utmost importance to Eusebius since it spoke about the origin and source of the Gospel of Mark. Eusebius provided in this section an actual quote of Papias containing information from the source he referred to as “the Elder.” It was Eusebius’s position that this individual was his infamous “John the elder” and not the apostle John. Since Eusebius’s case for this person was based upon the weakest of exegesis and the thinnest of evidence it is concluded that this “elder” was in fact the John who was a follower of Jesus and a son of Zebedee. Eusebius referred to this quote as “a tradition” (παράδοσιν), implying that he viewed this information from John as an issue of official church belief and not simply an opinion or hearsay. An important question concerning Eusebius’s characterization of this quote is whether Papias or the apostle John also referred to it as a “tradition.” Eusebius’s reference to this quote as a “tradition” is currently the only evidence available for answering this question; therefore, one cannot be certain as to how Papias or the apostle John viewed and/or labeled this explanation of the origin of Mark’s Gospel.

Section 15 may be the most discussed patristic quote concerning the origin of Mark’s composition on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.635 Regardless of all that has been speculated about this quote, Eusebius, having been familiar with Exposition, was of the opinion that it referred to the canonical Gospel of Mark.636 Holmes’s translation states that Mark had become Peter’s “interpreter” (ἑρμηνευτής).637 Lawlor understood this term to mean that Mark was Peter’s “translator” as he preached in his native Aramaic tongue to Greek audiences.638 A lot has been made about the possible range of meanings for this word. The two main possibilities seem to be either “interpreter” or “translator.” Whether one or the other is the correct interpretation depends upon the context. Some scholars have at times pitted one against the other when dealing with this issue.639 However, given the context of this quotation and the dynamic of Mark’s relationship with the apostle Peter, both meanings may apply, for the biblical record (1 Pet 5:13) and the church’s history state that the two were closely associated. Concerning their relationship, Eusebius, depending upon this quote and the traditions of Papias, Irenaeus, and others, recorded that Mark was Peter’s “follower” (άκόλουθον), meaning his association with Peter was not incidental, but rather that Peter was Mark’s mentor.640 Mark, consequently, had ample opportunity to hear Peter’s preaching, as well as his personal recollections (both formally and informally), about the things accomplished and taught by Jesus. Therefore, since it is highly probable that he repeatedly aided Peter in translating his messages into Greek (whether they were Peter’s oral messages or his written narratives), as his personal disciple one could be assured that Mark often discussed with Peter his precise meanings so that he could accurately translate Peter’s messages for his Greek audiences. Given the dynamic of their relationship, it is not unreasonable to believe that over time Mark not only became an excellent witness and “translator” of Peter’s sermons, but also an excellent “interpreter” of his exact meanings. The context of Papias’s quote, therefore, allows for ἑρμηνευτής to be translated as either “interpreter” or “translator” without demanding that one interpretation exclude the other. Nevertheless, given Papias’s use of this word elsewhere in his preface and the fact that one must chose one or the other, “translator” is hereby preferred.

Papias also stated that the elder (i.e., the apostle John) commented that Mark accurately recorded the data he remembered from Peter’s reminiscences. The significance of this sentence and its historical value should not be overlooked. Papias stated that Mark had accurately recorded what he learned from the apostle Peter, who was unquestionably one of Jesus’ foremost disciples. Mark was not, therefore, “creating” or molding a message, nor was he developing his own “macro” theology for his audience, but rather he remembered and recorded via Peter’s reminiscences Peter’s own the eyewitness testimonials of the deeds and teachings of his mentor, Jesus Christ. This severely undermines several of the tenets that radical form critics employ to formulate their conclusions concerning the origins of Gospel narratives. Stein wrote concerning to the practices of these critics and the origins of the canonical Gospels that “For some form critics, however, a non sequitur often takes place that assumes that the Sitz im Leben that preserved and molded the gospel traditions also gave them their birth. As a result, the needs of the early church are seen not only as the preserver but also as the creator of the traditions. The tradition was not only to the church and for the church but also from the church. . . . Upon closer examination, there seems to be little objective evidence to support such a view.”641

Papias’s quote of the apostle John testifies that the canonical Gospel of Mark was not the culmination of messages developed by separate Christian communities created to meet their specific felt needs, which later evolved through serial redactions into a single literary composition. Instead, it is the product of a translator who was a dedicated student of the apostle Peter who often interacted with him with respect to his messages and their exact meanings. As Mansfeld stated, “So, according to Papias, Peter’s oral teaching in Hebrew (or Aramaic) is available in Mark’s accurate Greek translation in writing.”642 As a result of Mark’s relationship with Peter, and because of the hunger of Christians in a particular city (Rome?), Mark acquiesced to their request and composed his Gospel so that they would have an accurate permanent record of the life and teachings of Jesus. Consequently, Papias testified concerning this initial clause that he heard the apostle John say that Mark, who had been Peter’s translator, accurately wrote down what he remembered Peter to have communicated during his ministry abroad.

The Taxing Question of Mark’s Order

While Papias’s source was confident about the origin of Mark’s Gospel, he admitted that there were questions regarding its arrangement.643 He confessed that Mark accurately wrote the things he remembered, although not with “τάξει.”644 As with most words found in Papias’s preface, what exactly he meant by this word has been greatly discussed. Rigg was of the opinion that τάξει should be amended to τάχυς, meaning that Mark accurately wrote what he remembered, although not “hastily.”645 Textual evidence supporting Rigg’s theory does not exist; therefore, his position is based upon an argument from silence. He also failed to explain the presence and emphasis of other cognates of τάξει found elsewhere in Papias’s writings.646 F. H. Colson argued that in Papias’s context τάξει does not refer to a lack of chronology in Mark’s Gospel, but its apparent lack of good rhetorical orderliness.647 Arthur Wright in response to Colson contended that because Mark’s Gospel has rhetorically acceptable style Papias must have been addressing Mark’s poor chronology.648 Alistair Stewart-Sykes understood Papias’s reference to τάξει to mean any formal “arrangement” whether rhetorical or chronological; consequently, the apostle John stated that Mark had not employed any particular style at all.649 The positions of Colson, Wright, and Stewart-Sykes are all well defended, and any one of them may be more accurate than the others.

The problem with these interpretations is that we lack the specific context from which the charge(s) against Mark’s writings were fired. We only know the vocabulary of the criticism, and not the actual critics. Moreover, when dealing with this question, the issue itself becomes confusing because some modern scholars at times project their own appreciation for Mark’s work into the fray that surrounded his Gospel during the late first century. For example, Wright felt that “Mark’s Gospel in my opinion is by no means badly arranged.”650 Similarly, Rigg asserted that “Mark’s account of the Gospel has order. In my opinion, it discovers a magnificently orderly account.”651 The fact of the matter is that one does not know who criticized Mark’s Gospel and why it failed to meet their expectation(s); consequently, feelings of modern scholars about Mark’s effort are of no real benefit to understanding criticisms originating from the first century. Additionally, it is not even clear that these first-century critics were entirely reasonable. The fact that so many appreciated this Gospel (both in this century and the first) may suggest that these critics were either educational elitist or possibly others who were simply antagonistic toward Peter’s message. Consequently, there may have been little chance that Mark could have written anything that would have met with their approval.

It is also possible that Mark composed his Gospel without giving any real thought of satisfying the literary critics of his day, or of any who would eventually arise in the centuries to follow. The historical record explaining the origin of his Gospel suggests that it was composed for the church’s encouragement and not for the satisfaction of literary elitists. In other words, Mark’s Gospel was an “in-house” narrative for the common worshiper; it was not composed with a concern for a broader audience, such as the general public.652 However, as Mark’s Gospel began to be exposed to the public at large there were naturally those who marginalized it for its perceived deficiencies, or possibly for its poor chronology,653 while others for its apparent lack of good rhetorical style, or maybe all of the above. Mark may have received such poor reviews because what he valued (i.e., faithfulness to Peter’s eyewitness testimonies and sermons) was not greatly appreciated by rhetoricians or literary critics. Conversely, the things they may have highly valued (e.g., a birth narrative and an explanation of Jesus’ education and training) were conspicuously absent in his Gospel. Wolfram Kinzig wrote concerning the criticism of outsiders towards early Christian literature that

Christianity, although an off-shoot of Palestinian Judaism, began to flourish in a Greek-speaking environment in which a thorough knowledge of the rules of classical rhetoric formed part of a good education. . . . [T]he early Christians, driven by a missionary zeal quite unknown in antiquity, were soon confronted with the problem as to how to communicate their religious message to a target audience educated according to the standards and norms of Greek paideia. The style of the writings in which this message was contained formed part of this problem. As soon as cultured pagans became aware of the new sect trying to seek converts from among their midst they pointed out, not without some malice, that the writings on which the Christians based their claim for religious superiority were written in the simple and unrefined Greek of provincial fisherman, peasants and tax collectors and did not conform to the rules of what was generally recognized as polished style. This was not, however, a problem which the Greek-speaking Christians were only confronted with from outside. The more Christianity climbed the social ladder, the more its propagandists, most of whom had by now themselves received a classical education, became aware of the rhetorical shortcomings of the gospel message. Many authors admitted the linguistic and stylistic flaws . . . but argued that in order to make converts the new religion had to use a simple style comprehensible to everybody. In addition they insisted that at the heart of the Christian message lay truth, not stylistic beauty, and that it was precisely this truth in all its simplicity that gave the Christian message its power of persuasion.654

Consequently, while there are good reasons to research the possibilities of what Mark’s critics may have meant, certitude about the actual criticisms leveled against his Gospel or their validity is impossible. What one can be certain about in general is that by the late first century the Gospel of Mark came under fire for its lack of a “proper” arrangement.655 In response to these criticisms, he was defended by the apostle John and Papias on the grounds that his Gospel was not composed in order to satisfy the particular requirements of these critics; instead, it was written as a simple record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ from the eyewitness reminiscences of one of his most devoted followers, the apostle Peter. This testimony from Papias is consistent with other accounts concerning the origin of the Second Gospel, accounts that indicate it was written for the benefit of the church rather than for rhetorical or philosophical elitists. Consequently, τάξει is translated as “arrangement,” which seems to respect the spectrum of this word’s possible meanings.

Papias’s source stated that Mark’s composition contained accounts “of the things either said or done by Christ.”656 This description of the contents of Mark’s Gospel indicates that his work was not simply a compilation of loose notes about the teachings of Jesus, but an account that included both his teachings and his activities. So while Mark had not composed what some would view as a properly arranged literary work, he did attempt to give a comprehensive narrative of Jesus’ ministry. It is at this point that the apostle John explained the reason for the limitations of Mark’s efforts. He was limited because he had personally never heard or followed the Lord; consequently, he was in no position to elaborate upon the activities and teachings of Jesus. He instead relied almost exclusively upon eyewitness testimonials from the apostle Peter. Such a statement suggests that Mark was not considered the creator of Petrine theology as found in the Second Gospel, but rather he was Peter’s translator, who felt compelled to faithfully record Peter’s meanings.

The incidental statement made by the apostle John that Mark had “neither heard the Lord nor followed him” is significant since it is would be the boldest of deceptions to say that Peter was the source of the Second Gospel if Mark was known to have been more than its simple translator and editor. If the apostle John, or Eusebius’s “John the elder,” or the late first-century church had known that Mark was the driving force behind the theological content contained in his Gospel then what possible purpose could such a statement serve? Was it the scheme of the late first-century church to attribute to Peter what it rightfully knew to be from the hand of Mark? Moreover, if Mark’s Gospel suffered from a lack of credibility then what possible remedy could be produced by such an ill conceived statement that only further distanced Mark from Jesus? If one were to conspire on how to make Mark’s effort less credible, then one could have hardly invented a more damning statement then the one made by the apostle John and Papias. It would have been far easier to produce a more reasonable and acceptable deception, such as simply stating that Mark himself had in fact been a distant follower of Jesus. But that is not what Papias documented for his audience.

Regardless of the perceived deficiencies reported by Papias concerning the origin of Mark’s Gospel, it is clear that the primary concern of the early church was for an honest explanation of the origin and source of the Gospel according to Mark, nothing more and nothing less. Consequently, Papias recorded that the apostle John believed that Mark had faithfully recorded the heart and body of the gospel message that he received from his mentor, the apostle Peter. Additionally, as will become increasingly evident, he also believed that Mark had exerted little influence upon the collective body of Peter’s reminiscences.657 Mark refrained from inappropriately influencing the body and central thesis of Peter’s messages precisely because he had not followed Jesus. Bauckham wrote concerning Mark’s fidelity to Peter that “It was because Mark was not himself an eyewitness of the history of Jesus that he was unable to supply the order that Peter had failed to give to his material. . . . Mark should not be criticized for having confined himself to translating and recording Peter’s teaching as accurately and completely as possible. He was right not to attempt an ordering of the material that, not being an eyewitness himself, he could not have achieved satisfactorily.”658 Regrettably, it was his faithfulness to his mentor and his caution to not contaminate Peter’s testimonials that, for some critics of Papias’s day, inevitably detracted from Mark’s effort because, in their “educated” opinion, it resulted in a less than acceptable literary product.

The Nature of Chreiai

Having addressed the literary purpose and style of Mark’s Gospel, Papias’s source explained Peter’s use of Jesus’ words, stating that Peter “adapted his teachings as needed.”659 Bauckham appropriately recognized the possible inference that such a translation could produce, writing that “read in this way, Papias’s words might be thought in surprising agreement with the approach to the study of the Gospels known as form criticism.”660 Given the research on chreia in the last fifty years, however, translating this word to read “as needed” or “as ‘according to needs’ has now been largely abandoned.”661 Bauckham also recognized concerning its range of meanings that “it is worth pointing out that the term chreia evidently covered quite a wide range of types of content. On the basis of Theon’s examples, it is possible to classify chreiai as brief narratives containing only actions, as brief narratives containing only sayings, and mixed types containing both actions and sayings.”662

A book by Ronald F. Hock and Edward N. O’Neil, titled The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, is also extremely helpful for gaining a better understanding of what Papias may have meant by this term. Hock defined a chreia as “a saying or action that is expressed concisely, attributed to a character, and regarded as useful for living.”663 He noted, in a fashion similar to Bauckham, that there were many different types and subsets of chreiai, and that they were often employed in many different formal educational contexts as well as for rhetorical training. He explained that at “times chreiai depict philosophers in typical situations, such as chiding students, attacking vices, responding to critics, debating with one another, and reflecting on the philosophical life.”664 One could argue that such a description aptly fits many of the pericopes about Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.665 Hock actually provided Luke 19:45–46 as an example of a chreia, which he translated as, “Jesus, on entering the Temple, began to evict the sellers and said to them: ‘It is written, My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a cave for brigands.’”666 When compared to the apostle John’s description of Peter’s preaching practice, Hock’s example is helpful for gaining a clearer understanding of Peter’s homiletical practices. It appears that Peter was not in the habit of giving sermons “according to the needs” of his audiences, but rather his teachings were provided as “concise reminiscences” of the words and actions of Jesus.667 More specifically, Peter’s homiletical focus was not so much upon the varied contexts of his many different audiences, but rather upon proclaiming and explaining the teachings and deeds of Jesus.668 Such an approach to Jesus’ words is akin to what many evangelicals commonly refer to as “expository preaching.” The obviously difference, however, is that instead of Peter teaching about the sayings and deeds of Jesus from a pericope found in the Gospel narratives, he exclusively proclaimed the supremacy of Jesus as Savior and Lord of the world from his personal eyewitness memories of what Jesus actually said and did. The salient point, therefore, concerning Papias’s witness to Peter’s approach to preaching is that it was his concern to explain the teachings and deeds of Jesus rather than worrying about meeting the felt needs of his audiences.669 And it was this bedrock of chreiai or “praiseworthy reminiscences” of the apostle Peter from which the Gospel of Mark was mined.

Papias’s source went on to say that initially it was not Peter’s intention to coalesce his many sermons into one comprehensive and orderly arrangement (σύνταξιν). Why he never thought of it one can only speculate. The historical record concerning the genesis of Mark’s Gospel also indicates that it was not the brainchild of Mark. Instead, this idea originated with members of a church in Rome,670 who realized that Peter’s absence had or would leave them without a trustworthy record of the Lord’s activities and “oracles” (λογίων).671 Upon realizing this potentially precarious situation they drafted Mark into service in order to meet their pressing need for a permanent record of the personal reminiscences from the apostle Peter on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Mark’s Influence upon the Second Gospel

Given this situation, Papias’s source defended Mark from any wrong doing, primarily because Mark, having been Peter’s “follower” and “interpreter,” was supremely qualified to compose just such a literary narrative. Moreover, because of Mark’s respect for his mentor and his value for historical integrity, he accurately coalesced Peter’s accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus into what he considered to be a suitable narrative given his self-imposed limitations. Try as he might, however, it was impossible for Mark to completely erase his fingerprint from this composition, for Papias’s source stated that Mark “did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them.”672 Terence Y. Mullins wrote an article on the history of how this clause has been interpreted and what Papias meant by the word “some” (ἒνια).673 Mullins correctly observed that ἒνια “cannot indicate an extended narrative the size of the Second Gospel,” but that it must refer to a smaller portion of a larger whole.674 Consequently, Mullins offered that Mark wrote only a few things from his memory with respect to Peter’s accounts, but the majority of what he wrote was from material written by Peter that Mark had translated, explaining that “the construction of the opening sentence permits the interpretation that Mark first translated Peter’s written reminiscences and then added to them what he remembered from Peter’s oral teaching.”675 This is very similar to Bauckham’s theory, the major difference being that Bauckham believed that the majority of Mark’s Gospel came from Mark recording Peter’s dictations, while afterwards Mark added a few additional things that he remembered from Peter messages.676 The interpretations of Mullins and Bauckham are certainly possible, and both rightly observed that the mentioning of “some things” referred to Mark’s input (regardless of what it may or may not have been) and not that of Peter’s.677 As to the exact extent of Mark’s influence upon Peter’s material, Papias’s source was very specific, stating that it was Mark’s greatest concern not to leave out (παραλιπεῑν) any essential material or falsify (i.e., redact with the purpose of altering inherent meanings) anything which he had received from Peter.678 Consequently, the testimony of Papias and his source was that Mark did not feel the liberty to consider the material he preserved his own; therefore, he was careful not to inappropriately influence its content or meaning. He simply desired to be a window through which Peter’s reminiscences may pass.

If Papias’s preservation of the apostle John’s testimony about Mark’s influence upon the composition of his Gospel is accurate, then what did he mean by the term “some things”? If Mark drew from a reservoir of Peter’s sermons, testimonials, and reminiscences in order to produce a narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus that was a comprehensive literary record, then certainly to some degree Mark functioned as an editor. As such he would have assembled Peter’s accounts in some type of order, which he appears to have done; first following the basic chronology of Jesus’ life, while at times appearing to assemble materials thematically.679 Such editorial work would necessarily involve transitional statements, which are commonly referred to as Markan seams and summary statements.680 Whether Mark significantly influenced his Gospel is a debate that is largely driven from perspective. Papias’s source believed that Mark’s influence was minimal; many scholars today, however, believe Mark’s input was systemic and significant. Regardless of one’s perspective, Papias’s source believed that Mark had only provided “some things” from his memory. Since his source had previously stated that Mark accurately wrote down everything he remembered Peter to have communicated, one can infer from this second statement that as Mark arranged his materials he was careful that his editorial decisions did not substantively change what he remembered of Peter messages on the life of Jesus. At times, however, the placement of certain materials within his Gospel was by necessity Mark’s own decisions. This reading is consistent with Papias’s source who also asserted that Mark had accurately written everything he remembered from Peter, although not in order (τάξει, i.e., a strict chronology or “proper” arrangement), which Mark could not do because Peter had not provided an order for him. Consequently, some of the placement of events and teachings of Jesus in the Second Gospel was of Mark’s design, and because this was the extent of Mark’s input he was free from any charge of omission or deception.681 Regardless of what Papias’s source believed, from the late first century until today there is great debate surrounding Mark’s success in minimizing his influence upon the Second Gospel. The apostle John, however, was unimpressed with this controversy and held that Mark was “sinless” (οὐδεν ἥμαρτε) in the matter.682

Regrettably, section 15 contains the entirety of Eusebius’s Papian fragment about the origin of the Gospel of Mark from the lips of Papias’s elder. Some conclude that this elder was Eusebius’s “John the elder,” since Eusebius stated that Papias claimed to not only have heard him, but also frequently mentioned him as his source for many of the traditions Papias preserved.683 In all probability, however, this elder was not Eusebius’s mythical John of Ephesus but the apostle John. Consequently, Papias recorded John’s testimony that the Gospel of Mark was born out a desire to preserve the reminiscences and messages of the apostle Peter. Other records preserved by Eusebius indicated that Mark was pressed into this service by a specific community of believers who resided in Rome.684 It was this community’s desire to have an accurate record of Peter’s testimonials of Jesus so that they might know with certitude the accomplishments and teachings of their savior. In order to secure such a literary narrative they pressed into service one who had the ability and humility to accurately record what he remembered from Peter’s repetitive proclamations concerning his eyewitness accountings of Jesus’ deeds and message concerning the kingdom of God. These were messages that Mark had translated and interpreted into fluent Greek as Peter preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to Greek audiences in Asia Minor, and inevitably in the heart of the Empire itself.

Matthew’s Initial Gospel

Having explained Papias’s witness to the origin and composition of the Gospel of Mark, Eusebius next turned his attention to Papias’s preservation of the early church’s tradition concerning the initial Gospel of Matthew.685 It should be noted that Eusebius separated Papias’s comments about the Gospels of Mark and Matthew with his own transitional statement. Given the μὲν construction introducing the statements describing the works of these two authors it seems reasonable to conclude that these traditions were found in close proximity to one another. Moreover, since they discuss the origins of the oracles (τὰ λόγια) of the Lord it seems safe to assume that they were found relatively early in Papias’s five-volume work.686 This is not to conjecture that the chronology of these two statements reflects the order in which these two Gospels were composed. Consequently, one should not assume that Mark’s Greek Gospel was written before Matthew’s initial composition.687

Papias’s source made only two important comments concerning Matthew’s early literary effort. First, he claimed that Matthew’s initial work was written in Aramaic or Hebrew (Ἑβραΐς διαλέκτῳ); and secondly, Matthew composed his narrative in an orderly arrangement (συνετάξατο).688 As Schoedel aptly wrote concerning the format of Matthew’s composition, “Matthew put together the logia in a systematic and (to Papias) more satisfying way.”689 Schoedel also contended, with respect to Matthew’s initial Gospel, that Papias was not referring to “a collection of OT oracles or a collection of sayings of Jesus like ‘Q.’”690 Trusting the testimony of his source, Papias also described the entirety of Matthew’s Hebraic composition as “the oracles” (τὰ λόγια). This term, as suggested earlier, should be interpreted as referring to divine proclamations. It is assumed that by discussing these two works together, and because Mark and Matthew are most famous for composing Gospels, that Eusebius understood Matthew’s The Oracles to be a Gospel narrative, and very possibly the actual title of Matthew’s initial composition on the life and teachings of Jesus. If it was not Matthew’s title for the work, then it must have been a title given by the first generation church, which implies much concerning their opinion of the work’s value and importance.

Some contend that Matthew’s initial Gospel was described as such simply because it contained many Old Testament quotes concerning Jesus’ fulfillment of messianic promises. It is not likely that this description or title was given to this composition only because it contained Old Testament passages.691 Since this work to some degree addressed the life and teachings of Jesus, it is probable that it also contained reminiscences of the sayings of Jesus. Consequently, the term oracles would also naturally apply to words uttered by Jesus. More importantly, because this composition was written in Aramaic it also would have been viewed as containing the actual words spoken by Jesus, that is his ipsissima verba. Such a work would have been highly valued by the Jerusalem church and Jewish believers. One might also infer from such a title, if it was in fact the title that he provided, that Matthew was actually affirming the divinity of Jesus, and thus, emphasizing the significance of his teachings. Certitude about this inference, however, is not possible without more Papian material.

The burning question for many scholars is what has happened to Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel? Schoedel doubted it ever existed, arguing that Papias only meant “to underscore the reliability of his (major?) written sources by showing that they were based one way or the other on the language actually spoken by Jesus.”692 Papias’s vocabulary and his distinction between Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel and Mark’s Greek Gospel makes his suggestion unlikely. Kürzinger believed that Matthew wrote his composition in a Jewish rhetorical style rather than in the Aramaic language.693 Gundry, arriving at the same conclusion, argued that “‘A Hebrew dialect,’ then, does not imply that Matthew wrote in the Aramaic language. In other connections we should expect the conjunction of ‘Hebrew’ and ‘dialect’ to form a linguistic reference. But the stylistic contrast between Mark and Matthew cancels such an expectation here. . . . In describing Matthew, then, ‘a Hebrew dialect’ means a Hebrew way of presenting Jesus’ messiahship . . . the contrast between Mark and Matthew has to do with literary style, not with linguistic form.”694

This position is extremely attractive, for if true it would answer many questions concerning what is commonly referred to as the “Synoptic problem.” This theory, however, is unpersuasive for many scholars. Schoedel, responding to particular assertion, observed that “it is true that the rhetoricians use (dialect) to mean ‘style.’ But the adjectives that go with it are terms like ‘exalted,’ ‘poetic,’ and ‘one’s own.’”695 Thus, when the term διαλέκτῳ is used in connection with an ethnic form of speech it is translated as “language” and not style; consequently, very few accept Kürzinger’s position.

Jerome at one time believed that Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel existed in his day, for in Illustrious Men he wrote, “Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated in Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered.”696 Timothy C. G. Thornton, however, has made a good case for the suggestion that Jerome was mistaken in his identification of this Aramaic work with Matthew’s initial Gospel, which Jerome had only heard about as he wrote Illustrious Men. Jerome realized his mistake once he had the opportunity to actually interact with a manuscript of the Gospel in question. Thornton observed that later in his life Jerome attempted to distance himself from his earlier assertion, explaining, “Moreover he does not now himself claim that his Aramaic Gospel is the original Gospel written by Matthew but only asserts that ‘most people’ call it the original Gospel of Matthew.”697 Jerome’s possible confusion about Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel surviving to his day has little bearing on whether Matthew ever actually wrote a Gospel in Aramaic. The witness of Papias, who probably wrote early in the second century (ca. 110), is that it was tradition of the first-century church that the apostle John testified to the existence of a Hebraic Gospel that originated from the hand of the apostle Matthew.

While many modern scholars may be saddened at the loss of such a valuable composition, its existence may have caused far more problems for the first-century church. Eusebius’s Papian fragment also preserves a cryptic statement from Papias’s source stating that as Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel was disseminated, “each person translated them as best as he could.”698 Such attempts at translation would certainly involve interpretive decisions by the translator. One can only imagine what meanings were spawned from Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel by someone’s faulty understanding of the Aramaic language. Augustine, writing near the end of the fourth century, bemoaned the fact that too many budding interpreters had attempted to translate biblical Greek texts into Latin.699 It does not take much effort to imagine that what was true about the diversity of Latin translations in Augustine’s day was equally as true about interpretations from those who attempted to translate Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel into Greek during the late first century, and Luke’s preface seems to confirm this probability.700 As Holmes has argued, “For all the confusion and uncertainty he engenders, Papias nevertheless clearly and forcefully reminds us that the written Gospels represent only a fraction of the material concerning the life and sayings of Jesus in circulation in the last half of the first and first half of the second centuries.”701 It may be that a diversity of faulty interpretations produced by poor translations of Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel provided part of Papias’s motivation to write his five-volume work, a work in which he attempted to exposit accurately the divine utterances of Jesus found in the canonical Gospels, as well as to explain other divine utterances that circulated in oral traditions.702 These two brief statements comprise the whole of Eusebius’s Papian fragment describing Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel composition. While some are thankful for Eusebius’s effort, most would prefer to have additional material, since this fragment produces an important question concerning the relationship between Matthew’s Hebraic work and the canonical Gospel that also bears his name.703 Regrettably, there is little evidence available today to answer this perplexing question. Regardless of how some may answer that question, the witness of Papias is that Matthew composed in Aramaic a narrative about Jesus that Papias’s source (most probably the apostle John) simply referred to as The Oracles.704

Papias’s Knowledge of Certain Epistles

While Eusebius’s Papian fragment about Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel produces many questions about whether Papias knew the canonical Gospel of Matthew, Eusebius’s next statement in section 17 about Papias’s use of other canonical apostolic writings produces more certainty. Eusebius stated that Papias employed testimonies (μαρτυρίαις) from 1 John and 1 Peter. Eusebius wrote in Ecclesiastical History II.15.2 that Papias actually quoted 1 Peter 5:13 as proof that the author of the Gospel of Mark associated with Peter and that both were present in Rome when Peter composed his first epistle.705 Possible confirmation that Papias quoted 1 John may be found in a fragment from Maximus the Confessor that stated that believers in the early church were called “children,” which is a common term of endearment found in the Johannine epistles.706 Eusebius, however, provided no examples of Papias’s use of 1 John, which Eusebius believed to be an authentic Johannine epistle.707 Eusebius’s lack of Papian quotes of 1 John is understandable given his desire to disassociate the apostle John from Papias. If Eusebius was correct, however, about his admission that Papias employed passages of 1 John, and there appears to be little reason to doubt him, Eusebius via Papias’s testimony may have provided the earliest reference to the canonical epistle of 1 John.708 The fact that Papias quoted 1 John implies that he appreciated John’s content in that epistle and that he felt it was beneficial for his authorial purposes for his Exposition. Since Eusebius did not provide an example of how Papias employed material from 1 John, one can only speculate as to what purpose John’s material may have functioned in Exposition.709 Regardless of such speculations, Eusebius was confident that Papias had employed material from 1 John and 1 Peter. Consequently, Eusebius has provided sufficient evidence that these two epistles existed and were in circulation by the beginning of the second century.

Papias and the Pericope Adulterae

Eusebius’s last statement about material in Exposition concerned the pericope adulterae. Holmes placed John 7:53—8:11 as the fourth Papian fragment; however, he rightly questioned what version of this account Papias knew. Concerning the inclusion of this account he wrote,

Fragment 4 is unique to Lightfoot’s collection and calls for special comment. Lightfoot included the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery among the items attributed to Papias. He did so on the strength of the similarity of the wording in fragment 3 (a “woman accused of many sins”) and the unusual form of the story as found in certain manuscripts of the New Testament, especially Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, the earliest (fifth c.) New Testament manuscript to contain the account.

It is unlikely, however, that Papias knew the story in precisely this form, inasmuch as it now appears that there were at least two independent stories about Jesus and a sinful women in circulation among Christians in the first two centuries of the church, so that the traditional form found in many New Testament manuscripts may well represent a conflation of two independent shorter, earlier versions of the incident.710

Some of Holmes’s suggestions concerning this pericope are certainly insightful. However, while recognizing that several versions of this account are known to scholars, Holmes suggested that the account that Papias may have been familiar with was the version found in the Syrian “paraphrase” of the Greek Didascalia, which he stated was written “near the beginning of the third century.”711 One is left to wonder that if this Syrian translation is a “paraphrase” of a Greek source then how anyone could assume it to be the version that Papias knew. Paraphrases by definition take liberties with their sources, and the fact that the account is from a Syrian translation of a Greek text creates additional complexities to this issue. Agapius of Hierapolis confirmed that Papias was aware of this pericope, and that Papias confirmed its association with the Fourth Gospel.712 Holmes, however, in an earlier edition of The Apostolic Fathers conjectured that Agapius was anachronistic while assuming that Papias knew the tradition of this account that apparently Agapius also had in his version of the Fourth Gospel.713 Agapius, however, who was probably familiar with Exposition, stated that Papias claimed this pericope could be found in the canonical Gospel of John. Lightfoot’s theory about how this could have occurred is compelling. He suggested that

Have we not here one of those illustrious anecdotes which Papias derived from the report of the elders, and to which he “did not scruple to give a place along with his interpretations” of our Lord’s sayings? Its introduction as an illustration of the words of John viii. 15 would thus be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29. A reader or transcriber of St. John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in the margin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of Hebrew; and hence it would gain currency. The Codex Bezae, the oldest Greek manuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is remarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides this pericope . . . were derived from this exegetical work of Papias?714

Consequently, given Lightfoot’s insightful theory, it is just as possible that Papias received this pericope as an oral tradition from the lips of the apostle John, and because of its apostolic origin he inserted it into his personal manuscript of the Fourth Gospel. Regrettably, the consequence of his action may have created what has become one of the more thorny text critical problems for today’s New Testament scholars. This theory, however, because of its speculative nature is impossible to corroborate.

Unfortunately, Eusebius was not helpful in providing better answers to the questions surrounding the pericope adulterae, for his only comment was that Papias included a version of it in his magnum opus, and that this event was also found in The Gospel according to the Hebrews.715 What is most compelling about Eusebius’s observations is that he did not associate The Gospel according to the Hebrews with Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel. As noted above, Jerome stated that a Gospel written in Hebrew could be found in the library at Caesarea. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that Eusebius was aware of this Gospel since he was quite familiar with the library of Caesarea and because he knew some of the accounts contained in The Gospel according to the Hebrews; he did not, however, at this very natural point associate that Gospel with the Aramaic Gospel written by the apostle Matthew.716

A Summary of Eusebius’s Data on Papias

The church and historians are immensely indebted to Eusebius for his efforts to preserve the history of the early church. It is obvious, however, that as he handled his material some individuals fared better than others, which is not unusual in the writings of histories, both past and present, whether sacred or secular. And while Papias did not fare well in Eusebius’s biased opinion, Eusebius did leave us with important information about him, information that has been corroborated by others. Eusebius described Papias and his influence in the following manner.

Papias was bishop in Hierapolis of Asia Minor during the same period and of the same stature as his friend Polycarp. He was an author, historian, theologian, and preserver of some oral traditions, as well as a commentator/expositor of others that were written. He was concerned with truth, as well as the truth about what Jesus actually did and taught. He was an inquirer and a critical evaluator of both the public discourses and of the literature of his day. He had also personally heard those who followed Jesus during his ministry in Palestine; consequently, he preserved some of their reminiscences of the things that Jesus taught. Eusebius also claimed that Papias was aware of an Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, as well as the canonical Gospel of Mark, and the epistles of 1 Peter and 1 John. Papias’s hermeneutical approach was apparently more Antiochene than Alexandrian. His tradition regarding Mark’s Gospel credits Peter as its dominant source, as well as suggesting that it was not a narrative that suffered serial redactions over a prolonged period of time, but rather it was the literary product originating exclusively from the hand of Mark. Papias was also aware of a version of the pericope adulterae. Based upon what he understood Jesus to have taught his immediate disciples, Papias personally believed that Jesus would physically return and establish his Millennial kingdom on earth.

Eusebius, while believing that Papias was intellectually deficient, also noted that in the generations that followed he significantly influenced many prominent church leaders. He stated in Ecclesiastical History that Papias had not interacted with the apostle John; however, his arguments lack sufficient evidence to support his biased assertions. Moreover, his earlier writings actually contradict what he wrote later in life. Regardless of Eusebius’s prejudicial attitude towards Papias, he has provided enough data about Papias to indicate he was an intriguing figure and rising leader of the Asiatic church at the beginning of the second century. One can only hope that somewhere in a secluded monastic library lies a manuscript of Papias’s magnum opus that someday may yet be discovered; thus, answering many questions while also removing many speculations concerning Papias and his writings. Until such a day arrives, we are constrained to analyze these few fragments that concern him and what he wrote.

Fragment 6

From Apollinarius: Judas did not die by hanging but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: “Falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out.” Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings as follows:

Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in the world, his flesh so bloated that he was not able to pass through a place where a wagon passes easily, not even his bloated head by itself. For his eyelids, they say, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone’s, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now, in fact, to this day no one can pass that place unless they hold their nose, so great was the discharge from his body and so far did it spread over the ground.

Apollinaris of Laodicaea (fourth c.);

reconstructed from fragments compiled by various editors717

Holmes, as is evident, attributed fragment 6 to Apollinaris of Laodicaea, who was a bishop in Syria in the fourth century. This Apollinaris was also known as “Apollinaris the Younger” since he was the son of “Apollinaris the Elder.”718 The younger Apollinaris is at times confused with the late second-century Apollinaris, who was a bishop of Hierapolis (also known as Apollinarius Claudius).719 While the dating of this fragment is important for other reasons, whether it is from Apollinaris of the second century or Apollinaris of the fourth century has little bearing upon its actual content, the exactness of which is greatly debated and not entirely clear. It is also not hard to believe that both Apollinaris’s were to some degree exposed and/or familiar with Papias’s writings. Apollinaris of Hierapolis was a bishop in the same city where Papias ministered approximately fifty years earlier, while Apollinaris of Laodicaea was a bishop in Syria in the late fourth century, which allows ample time for manuscripts of Exposition to have circulated to that particular region of the Christian Empire.

Martin Routh documented that this fragment is actually a compilation of several fragments, a couple of which were from the writings of Theophylact,720 who was the archbishop of Archrida around the turn of the twelfth century.721 Regarding the correct reading of this fragment, A. Cleveland Coxe argued that it should read as: “Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.”722 Coxe theorized that Theophylact had embellished what Papias had written as he found it in Apollinaris’s writings. The fact that this fragment was assimilated from a collection of quotes from Theophylact as he interacted with Apollinaris’s quotes of Papias makes it difficult to regard either of the above conjectures as accurate reflections of what Papias actually wrote. Whatever Papias may have written, it appears that he preserved a tradition of Judas’s death that shares affinities with the account of his death as found in Acts.723

Schoedel’s discussion upon this fragment can hardly be improved.724 He observed that because of the grotesque embellishments of Judas’s physical features in this fragment some perceive the gnostic tenet that rejected all things physical. Schoedel, however, has sufficiently documented that such descriptions were a common literary device for emphasizing the demise of the wicked. These descriptions in ancient literature were a provocative way of communicating that God’s righteous justice inevitably falls upon the ungodly (e.g., Acts 12:20–23).725

If there is a significant weakness in Schoedel’s discussion, it is that he fully accepted the fragment above as entirely from the hand of Papias. The most that can be confidently asserted from this fragment is that it concerns data that was found in the fourth book of his Exposition, and that Papias perceived that Judas died as the epitome of impiety. In reality, however, one cannot even be certain of the context in which Papias provided his tradition(s) regarding Judas, or that he even knew of the book of Acts, for the reference to Acts 1:18 was from Apollinaris and not Papias. However, because of this fragment’s affinities with the account of Judas’s death as found in Acts it seems reasonable to conclude that Papias was aware of Luke’s history of the early church. But certitude about his potential knowledge of Acts is not possible from this fragment alone since it was Apollinaris who employed a quote from Papias to validate his interpretation of Luke’s account. Schoedel speculated that it may have been Papias’s purpose to harmonize Matthew’s account of Judas’s apparent suicide (Matt 27:10) with that of Luke’s description of Judas’s dismal end (Acts 1:18–19).726 Nonetheless, no one can be sure that Papias had any intent to harmonize his tradition about Judas’s death with those preserved by Luke or Matthew. Vernon Bartlet argued that if anyone seems to have been motivated to harmonize the Scriptures it was Apollinaris, explaining that

Yet Papias, I think, can really be cleared of the grosser form of such developments which all scholars hitherto have believed that he shared, on the strength of a comment of Acts 1.18 of Apollinarius. . . . [His redactions of Papias] are proper to the special “harmonizing” interest which Apollinarius’s scholion as a whole exhibits, but which need not have been present to the earlier writer’s mind at all. For Apollinarius’s account related to the two conflicting narratives in Matthew and Acts, not to any logion of the Lord’s, which alone we are entitled to make the basis of Papias’s comment.727

Bartlet overstated his case by implying that Papias was only interested in expositions of the sayings of Jesus, for Exposition clearly contained more than just discussions about the teachings of Jesus.728 Nevertheless, his observation that one cannot be certain that Papias even intended to harmonize traditions of Jesus is well defended. In conclusion, there is little agreement on the exact content and meaning of this fragment, let alone its original context. Was it Papias’s intent to harmonize his tradition of Judas’s death with the traditions about him found in the Gospel of Matthew and Acts, or was it the intent of Apollinaris? Without further Papian material certitude is not possible. Consequently, while data found in this fragment is interesting, it is one of the least credible Papian fragments.

Fragment 7

The other two of which the first is “The elder to the elect lady and her children” and the other “The elder unto Gaius the beloved whom I love in truth,” are said to be the work of John the presbyterian to the memory of whom another sepulcher is shown at Ephesus to the present day, though some think that there are two memorials of this same John the evangelist. We shall treat of this matter in its turn when we come to Papias his disciple.

Jerome Lives of Illustrious Men 9 (ca. AD 393)729

This Papian fragment begins a long list of patristic and medieval writers who although they understood Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias’s preface, and may have even agreed with him in part, they still categorically rejected his opinion that Papias did not know the apostle John. This particular fragment is found in Jerome’s treatment of the apostle John in Illustrious Men. It provides no demonstrable evidence that Papias was aware of New Testament. Its context is Jerome’s discussion of the authorship of 2 and 3 John. While discussing their authorship Jerome simply referred to Papias as “his disciple,” the antecedent of the pronoun being “John the Evangelist.” Jerome in this fragment also addressed the possibility of the existence of Eusebius’s “John the elder.” It is significant that Jerome did not include this John in his encyclopedia of canonical authors. The omission of one who may have written 2 and 3 John is striking given Jerome’s stated purpose for Illustrious Men, which he detailed in his preface, “You have urged me, Dexter, to follow the example of Tranquillus in giving a systematic account of ecclesiastical writers, and do for our writers what he did for the illustrious men of letters among the Gentiles, namely, to briefly set before you all those who have published any memorable writing on the Holy Scriptures, from the time of our Lord’s passion until the fourteenth year of Emperor Theodosius.”730

Having stated his purpose, Jerome composed a catalogue of those who were believed to be the authors of all the canonical books of the New Testament.731 A chapter devoted to Eusebius’s “John the elder” is conspicuously absent from Jerome’s list of canonical authors. Being the scholar that he was, Jerome felt compelled to acknowledge the debate surrounding the authorship of the last two Johannine epistles. He put little credibility, however, in the theory that Eusebius’s “John” was truly the author of the epistle of 2 and 3 John, for in his letter to Paulinus he openly affirmed that all three epistles were written by the apostle John.732 Regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, the next three fragments will make it transparently clear that Jerome believed Papias was indeed a hearer of the apostle John.

Fragment 8

Papias, a hearer of John and bishop of Hierapolis, wrote only five books, which he entitled An Exposition of the Discourses of the Lord. In them, when he asserts in his preface that he is not following diverse conjectures but has the apostles as his authorities, he says:

I used to inquire about what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion and John the elder, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For books to read are not as useful to me as the living voice sounding out clearly up to the present day in persons of their authorities.

From this it is clear that in the list of names itself there is one John who is placed among the apostles, and another, John the Elder, whom he lists after Aristion. We have mentioned this fact because of the statement made above,733 which we have recorded on the authority of a considerable number of people, that the two later epistles of John are not the work of the Apostle but the Elder. He (Papias) is the one who is said to have promulgated the Jewish traditions of a millennium, and he is followed by Irenaeus, Apollinarius, and others, who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints.

Jerome (ca. 342–420), Famous Men 18734

Jerome briefly addressed the life of Papias as promised in his previous treatment of the apostle John.735 If one will compare the above fragment to fragment 5 as preserved by Eusebius one will note that Jerome has either redacted Papias and/or Eusebius, or he has relied upon his memory, which was slightly faulty but retaining Papias’s basic content.736 An investigation of Jerome’s practice of translating quotations reveals that there were occasions when he was not as accurate as he could have been. At times, not only did he paraphrase his sources, but he also habitually reported as fact what was clearly only a conjecture. J. N. D. Kelly wrote regarding this predilection of Jerome,

For example, while Jerome rightly leaned heavily on Eusebius in the earlier part [of Famous Men], he used him quite uncritically, never questioning his reliability or bothering to correct his mistakes even when he might have done so. Several times, through sheer carelessness, he misunderstood him or mistranslated him. Even worse, he attempted to conceal his dependence, taking up his master’s statements or opinions and shamelessly reporting them as if they were his own. And when he ventured (as he frequently did) to supplement or improve on the information he found in his source, more often than not his additions and alterations either were untrustworthy or show him representing as firm facts what Eusebius had more prudently reported to be rumours or possibilities.737

This very weakness is evident in Jerome’s treatment of Papias, for in the above fragment Jerome failed to explain the conjectural nature of the theory that the latter two Johannine epistles were composed by Eusebius’s “John the elder.” While this is a weakness of Jerome, Eusebius, to his own credit, was more careful with his speculation regarding the last two Johannine epistles.738 Jerome’s comment seems rather odd given his other statements concerning the authorship of the Johannine epistles. It should be noted, however, that he was not providing his own conviction, but rather the reports of others.

What is most compelling for the purpose of this book, however, is that in this fragment Jerome again referred to Papias as a “hearer” of John. As one surveys all the Papian fragments composed by Jerome (especially fragment 10, which was written several years later), it is clear that Jerome understood Papias to have been a hearer of John the “evangelist.” This is significant since Jerome was of the opinion that this John was both one of the original twelve apostles of Jesus as well as the individual who authored the Gospel of John. Consequently, given Jerome’s predilection for depending heavily upon Eusebius, especially in matters of the church’s earliest history, one can only assume that Jerome had been confronted by insurmountable evidence that Eusebius was in fact wrong in his assertion that Papias had not known the apostle John.

Jerome also confirmed that Papias had authored a five-volume work.739 One could infer from his statement that a major emphasis of Papias’s work was that Jesus taught740 there would be a literal Millennial kingdom on earth, which is consistent with what can be observed from other Papian fragments. Jerome, however, characterized these accounts as “the Jewish tradition of a millennium.” It appears that he is referring to traditions similar to the one found in fragment 1 regarding the bountiful character of Jesus’ millennial kingdom. Jerome, however, considered them to be more Jewish than Christian.741 He placed Papias after Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and before Quadratus in Illustrious Men. His placement, consequently, decidedly reveals that he believed Papias to have been a member of the generation commonly referred to as the apostolic fathers.

Jerome’s interpretation of Papias also helps one to understand the type of “oral traditions” that Papias would not tolerate, which were teachings that generated “diverse conjectures” (varias opiniones). Instead, he understood Papias to have valued only those discourses that he knew to have originated from or to have been consistent with the known traditions of the apostles. One should not assume that Jerome depended entirely on Eusebius for his information regarding Papias, or that he did not have access to Papias’s Exposition, for the analysis of the next fragment indicates that Papias’s magnum opus was still extant in Jerome’s day, and that it was still in demand in some parts of the empire. It should also be recognized that Jerome’s statement regarding the last two Johannine epistles was not drawn from Papias, but from the conjectures of “others.” Regrettably, Jerome failed to acknowledge who these others were, as well as the bases for their theories.742 Nevertheless, whatever may have been of Jerome’s view concerning the authorship of these two epistles he still viewed them as authoritative and included them in his Latin edition of the canonical New Testament.

Fragment 9

Moreover, the rumor, reaching you—that the books of Josephus and the writings of saints Papias and Polycarp have been translated by me—is false; I have neither the leisure nor the strength to translate work such as those into another language with corresponding elegance.

Jerome, To Lucinus (Letter 71.5)743

Jerome sent Letter 71 to a wealthy Spaniard named Lucinus with several scribes as they returned to Hispania from Palestine. He wrote this letter near the end of the fourth century (ca. 398).744 Lucinus had originally sent these scribes for the purpose of making copies of certain works that Jerome had translated into Latin. Jerome used the opportunity of their return to write a letter expressing his thankfulness to Lucinus for supporting his work, and to encourage him unto greater devotion to the Lord. He also urged his friend and benefactor to make a pilgrimage and join him in the Holy Land. He only mentioned Papias in this letter because Lucinus was under the impression that he had translated Papias’s Exposition along with other important works. This fragment provides no information concerning Papias’s knowledge of any apostolic writings.

One could conclude, however, from Jerome’s statement that he viewed Papias’s work as possessing a measure of literary eloquence, although it could be argued that he was simply attempting to provide a satisfactory explanation for why he would not translate the works desired by Lucinus. Clearly Jerome was competent enough to translate literature from Greek to Latin. The question seems to be, however, whether he wanted or had time to translate these works while giving proper attention to preserving the original meanings and nuances of their authors.745 One cannot know with certainty why Jerome declined this opportunity. It is clear, however, that he had not translated Papias’s five-volume work, nor was he inclined to do so.

This fragment also reveals two interesting points concerning Exposition. The first is that it was still extant by the beginning of the fifth century AD, for if it was no longer available then Jerome could not have obtained a copy and he would have simply explained that the work no longer existed, and that would have been the end of the matter with regard to Papias’s writings. The second is that in Jerome’s day there was still some interest, if not a demand, for Exposition. Lucinus was “a wealthy” Spaniard who lived in Hispania, which was in the south-western end of the Roman Empire in present day Portugal and Spain.746 As mentioned previously, Lucinus had heard a rumor that Jerome had translated Papias’s writings; consequently, he was hoping to secure a copy for himself. The rumor, however, was false. Regardless of its truthfulness, his request reveals that, in spite of Eusebius’s disparaging remarks, some believed that Papias’s Exposition still held some value for the church.

Fragment 10

The growth of this heresy is described for us by Irenaeus, bishop of the church of Lyons, a man of the apostolic times, who was a disciple of Papias the hearer of the evangelist John.

Jerome, To Theodora, Letter 75.3747

This Papian fragment is embedded in Jerome’s letter to Theodora, the purpose of which was to express his sympathy to her on the passing of her husband Lucinus, and to encourage her to remain loyal to the true faith while rejecting all forms of Gnosticism. The immediate context of this Papian fragment is Jerome’s explanation of the origins of Gnosticism and its perversion of the true faith, a faith that Jerome argued could be traced back to the apostles themselves through the apostolic fathers. This fragment reveals several important characteristics of patristic and medieval authors. The first is that at times they were not as precise as today’s scholars would like them to have been in their identification of the initial generations of the early church. This is seen in Jerome’s reference to Irenaeus as “a man of the apostolic times.” A modern reader might understand this to mean that Jerome believed Irenaeus was a contemporary of the apostles or at least one who lived during the generation that succeeded the apostles. Irenaeus, by his own admission, lived toward the end of the generation of the apostolic fathers and not during the lifetime of the apostles, which is what the reader should understand as Jerome’s meaning. Since Irenaeus knew at least one “apostolic father” who had received the orthodox faith directly from an apostle (i.e., Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John), then Jerome’s description of Irenaeus as one who lived during the “apostolic times” was not entirely inappropriate. This description, however, can be easily misinterpreted by modern readers.

Jerome also referred to Irenaeus as a “disciple of Papias.” Regrettably, however, Irenaeus left no statement to confirm this relationship, nor has any other patristic author corroborated that Irenaeus had personally sat under the tutelage of Papias. There are, however, references to Irenaeus as having followed and propagated the millennial doctrines of Papias.748 Since Irenaeus was known to have promoted eschatology consistent with that of Papias, it would not be inappropriate to refer to him as his student, even if he had not personally known Papias. That is not to say that Irenaeus did not know or was not a student of Papias, but only that to date there is no corroborating evidence of this relationship. Regarding Jerome’s opinion about Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, it is apparent that he believed Papias was a “hearer” of John the evangelist, whom Jerome understood to be the apostle who authored the Fourth Gospel.

A Summary of Jerome’s View of Papias

Before moving on to other fragments, it might be helpful at this point to summarize Jerome’s knowledge of Papias, his associates, and his witness to the New Testament. Fragments 7 through 10 provide no objective evidence that Papias was aware of the New Testament. Jerome, however, in sharp contrast to Eusebius’s opinion repeatedly associated Papias with the apostle John, calling him John’s “disciple” in fragment 7, and his “hearer” in fragments 8 and 10. Jerome believed that Eusebius had correctly exegeted Papias’s preface; thereby providing for him evidence that there was a “John the Elder” who was not the apostle John and who may have written the last two Johannine epistles. It is highly questionable, however, that Jerome actually believed Eusebius’s John was indeed their author.749 Regarding his understanding of Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias’s preface, it should be noted that Greek was not Jerome’s native tongue; consequently, out of respect for Eusebius he may have deferred too quickly to Eusebius’s conjectures concerning a second John. Moreover, as previously discussed, there is significant warrant to reject Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias’s preface with respect to the mythical John the elder.

Ironically, although Jerome believed in the existence of Eusebius’s inferior John, he rejected Eusebius’s theory that Papias did not know the apostle John. Instead, he continually associated Papias with the last living apostle. For Jerome to have repetitively done so clearly implies that he possessed compelling evidence that justified his rejection of Eusebius’s conjecture concerning Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. Where would he have found such evidence? He may have found it in the writings of Irenaeus or in those of Papias. Regardless, he disagreed with one of his most important and respected sources for the church’s early history. Jerome, however, never fully explained his break from Eusebius regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John; therefore, understanding his rejection of Eusebius’s opinion about their relationship with certitude is not possible.

Jerome also corroborated much of what has already been discussed regarding Papias’s life and ministry, which is that he was a bishop of the church at Hierapolis during the same period in which Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, and Quadratus were ministering. Jerome affirmed that Papias believed his doctrines to have originated from the apostles. Moreover, he affirmed that during a particular period of Papias’s life he was able to listen to orthodoxy being verbally proclaimed by those whom Papias viewed as trustworthy authorities, which he preferred, as opposed to reading various speculations about the “gospel” or the significance of Jesus’ life and teachings. Regarding the preservation of oral traditions, Jerome confirmed that Papias wrote a five-volume work titled, An Exposition of the Discourses of the Lord,750 in which, among other possible themes, he understood Papias to have propagated “Jewish traditions” about a literal Millennial kingdom on earth from which Jesus would reign universally as lord and king.751 Jerome believed this work had a significant impact upon the eschatology of Irenaeus, as well as others. In conclusion, Jerome believed Papias to have been an associate of the apostle John and an important member of the colloquium known today as the apostolic fathers.

Fragment 11

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Theologian752 and companion of Polycarp, wrote five books on the sayings753 of the Lord. In them he made a list of apostles and after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew, he included among disciples of the Lord Aristion and another John, who he also called “the Elder.” So, some think that this John is the author of the two short catholic epistles which circulate under the name of John, because the men of the earliest period accept only the first epistle. And some have mistakenly thought that the Apocalypse was also his. And Papias is also in error regarding the millennium, and so is Irenaeus, who follows him.

Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews. The aforesaid Papias recorded, on authority of the daughters of Philip, that Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, drank the poison of a snake in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers and was protected from all harm. He also records other amazing things, in particular one about Manaim’s mother, who was raised from the dead. As for those who were raised from the dead by Christ, he states that they survived until the time of Hadrian.

Philip of Side (fifth c.); Church History.754

This fragment is at times disparaged by some scholars; nevertheless, some of these criticisms cannot be justly defended. Philip of Side was from Pamphylia and was ordained as a deacon by John Chrysostom at Constantinople during the first half of the fifth century. He was also a church historian who fancied himself a master of many other subjects. He was an assiduous author, and between 434–439 he wrote a massive thirty-six volume work that he titled, Church History.755 Regrettably, like so many other patristic works, Philip’s writings are not extant, save a few fragments, one of which contains his summary comments about Papias’s Exposition. It should be noted initially that his summary contains no direct quote from Papias. This, however, should not overly detract from the value of Philip’s statements about Papias’s work. As previously discussed, he may have not been a great historian, and he may have depended too heavily upon Eusebius, nevertheless, he had read excerpts of Papias’s Exposition for himself. Evidence for this assertion is supported by the observation that he provided additional data from Papias’s work, data that to date has not been found in any other patristic literature concerning the writings of Papias. It appears, therefore, that Philip had personally read excerpts from Exposition, and as a result he is an important source for information concerning Papias and his writings.

It is recognized that for some this is a precarious position. To argue, however, that Philip or his epitomizer756 was completely untrustworthy is to err on the side of blind skepticism since Philip’s Church History is no longer extant. Consequently, we are no longer able to evaluate him as a historian for ourselves. We must, therefore, be more critical when evaluating what we can observe from Philip’s hand, instead of basing our critiques upon the generalization of others. An example of blind generalization is seen in Schoedel’s comments about Philip. He argued that Philip was “untrustworthy,” apparently basing his opinion of Philip upon an evaluation made by the ninth-century patriarch Photius of Constantinople. More specifically, because of Photius’s critique Schoedel called Philip a “bungler” who “cannot be trusted.”757 Photius’s review of Philip was certainly stinging and uncomplimentary, but he criticized Philip for being verbose, pedantic, diffuse, disorganized, and boring; he did not, however, criticize him for being grossly inaccurate while detailing the church’s history.758 Socrates of Constantinople,759 who was Philip’s contemporary, gave a similar although less biting critique of Philip’s Church History, which may provide insight as to why Photius evaluated Philip so poorly. Socrates wrote that Philip had unnecessarily mixed astronomy, math, music, and geography with his treatment of the church’s history. Socrates contended that these other topics were irrelevant for those who wished to learn about Philip’s main subject, which was the history of the church.760 While Philip may have overextended himself by dealing with subjects well beyond his expertise, no one, including Socrates or Photius, criticized Philip’s grasp of the church’s history.

Keeping in mind the discussion above, evaluating Philip should be exercised on the basis of what remains from his writings and not solely from the opinions of others. By surveying fragment 11 one can observe that Philip referred to specific individuals and events that he asserted were contained in Papias’s work, some of which appeared in the second volume of Exposition. Whether one thinks that Philip misunderstood or inappropriately exegeted Papias is an issue worthy of debate, but the fact remains that Philip provided what amounts to be the equivalent of a footnote in a style commonly found in patristic literature when he directed his readers to the second book of Papias’s five-volume work.761 An example of this “style” of footnoting is easily observable by Eusebius’s simply reference to Papias’s preface.762

One of Philip’s conclusions was that Eusebius had incorrectly speculated that Papias was not an associate of the apostle John. This is clear from Philip’s description of Papias as “a hearer” of that last living apostle.763 Philip, however, agreed with Eusebius about much of the uncontested information concerning Papias found throughout patristic literature, which was that he was a bishop of Hierapolis, that he was an associate and contemporary of Polycarp, and that he wrote a five-volume work about the life and teachings of Jesus. Ironically, Philip also acknowledged the existence of Eusebius’s John “the Elder,” as well as the debates regarding what New Testament books he may have written. Likewise, he corroborated Eusebius’s observation that a portion of Papias’s five-volume work was also devoted to preserving “amazing accounts” (such as the one provided by the daughters of the apostle Philip about Barsabbas).764

Philip of Side, however, discussed some of these events in greater detail, such as the type of poison Barsabbas drank, which was snake venom. He also provided the reason for this perilous behavior, stating that Barsabbas had been put to the test by unbelievers, but having sipped the deadly nectar in the “name of Christ” he was spared from any fatal effects.765 Moreover, while Eusebius only referred to an unnamed man who had been raised from the dead, Philip specifically referred to the mother of an individual named “Manaim” who had also been raised from the dead. When compared with Eusebius’s summary of Papias’s writings, it is apparent that Philip or his epitomizer has provided an independent witness to some of the contents found in Exposition.766

Schoedel, however, was unimpressed with this data, arguing that it is “hardly impressive enough to prove independent acquaintance with Papias; they may represent contamination from other legendary materials.”767 While it is legitimate to question if the epitomizer correctly quoted or understood Philip’s summary of Papias, arguing that either he or Philip mixed up their sources, or that Philip conjoined Papian material with other “legendary material” is a less than satisfactory conjecture since it is impossible to confirm or disprove. Eusebius himself observed that Papias’s work contained this very type of material (i.e., “legendary” material), which he referred to as “amazing.”768 One should not be surprised, therefore, that Philip also confirmed this material was contained in Papias’s Exposition. It seems more reasonable, consequently, to argue for Philip or the epitomizer as possessing firsthand exposure to Papias’s writings since the mere argument that legendary materials existed is no proof against the possibility that Papias was not in fact the one who had preserved them.

One of the more debated topics regarding Philip’s summary of Exposition is his assertion that in the second volume Papias allegedly wrote that John the Theologian and James his brother were “killed by the Jews.”769 Countless articles have been written on the accuracy of this statement.770 The question of if and when the apostle John was martyred is important because if he was martyred during or around the same time as his brother James (ca. 44), then it would be virtually impossible for Papias to have been a disciple of the apostle John. Thus, a brief investigation into the date and cause of his death is in order.

It should be noted from the outset that as with several other Papian fragments this fragment provides no direct quote from Papias by which to validate the claims made by Philip or his epitomizer. Nevertheless, because of Philip’s knowledge of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History it is reasonable to conclude that he was also aware of Eusebius’s assertion that the apostle John had lived a long life. It seems demonstrably clear that he also knew of Eusebius’s exegesis of Papias’s preface; nevertheless, he still believed that Papias was a contemporary of Polycarp and a disciple of the apostle John, while also concluding that John had joined his brother James in suffering a martyr’s fate at the hands of the Jews. Regrettably, without possessing the exact quote from Papias’s second book, one is left to wonder what exactly was the basis for such a conclusion. A few scholars in the past have attempted to use the early death of the apostle John to explain how he could not have written some of the literature traditionally attributed to him.771 However, as A. M. Hunter has adeptly concluded, “Those who accept the early martyrdom of the Apostle (John) show quite a monumental preference for inferior evidence.”772

It may be a misguided focus to speculate about the date of the apostle John’s death if the author’s emphasis was not on when he died but on who was responsible for his death. In reality, the assertion in this fragment does not demand that the two brothers were martyred at the same time, but only that the Jews were responsible for both of their deaths. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Papias’s emphasis or Philip’s deduction from Papias’s second volume focused upon those that were responsible for the deaths of the sons of Zebedee rather than when they died.773 Moreover, there is no concrete evidence dictating that the two “Sons of Thunder” died at or near the same time. As Hill aptly observed concerning the question of when the apostle John died, “Despite recurring speculation, this last item, even if not spurious, does not imply that John’s death was early.”774

Regardless of what may have been observable in the second book of Papias’s Exposition concerning the death of the apostle John, there is still the question of whether the apostle John was in fact a martyr. Tertullian wrote that John was baptized in boiling oil that would have proven fatal except for the grace of God. Some believed, consequently, that he had earned the title of martyr.775 Origen labeled John a martyr because of his banishment to Patmos.776 Neither Origen or Tertullian, however, made any mention of John as having been “killed” by the Jews (ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν) as Philip claimed Papias asserted. Given the subject matter of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History and his respect for those who suffered martyrdom (such as Polycarp, Germanicus), as well as his prejudicial attitude towards the Jews, it is hardly believable that if Papias had ostensibly recorded that the Jews were involved in the martyrdom of John, whether directly or indirectly, that Eusebius would not have referred to such an event in greater detail. Even if Papias had not recorded such an event, it seems hard to believe that it would not have been preserved by the churches in Asia Minor, let alone by the churches of Ephesus. Eusebius, however, made no reference to such an event while detailing the twilight years of the last surviving apostle.777

Eusebius did, however, twice record Polycrates’s reference to the apostle John as having been a “martyr” (see Ecc. Hist. III.31.3, V.24.3). His second quote of Polycrates strongly implies that both he and Polycrates believed the apostle John had justifiably earned this honorable title. J. H. Bernard suggested that during the period in which Polycrates wrote the term “μάρτυς” was in flux and that at times it was applied to some who had endured sufferings for the sake of Christ but had not died for his name.778 If Bernard’s theory is accurate, then it is easy to see how later readers might mistakenly believe that the apostle John suffered a violent death because of Polycrates’s reference to him as a “martyr and teacher” among other known martyrs such as Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenaea, and Sagaris of Laodicaea. Polycrates did not, however, apply this same label to Melito of Sardis, who by all accounts was a great “witness” to the Christian faith, but was apparently not one whose death was the direct result of his allegiance to Christ.

Bernard also cited Revelation 1.9 as a possible reason for Polycrates to have referred to John as a “μάρτυς.”779 The author identified himself in this passage by writing, “I, John . . . was on the island of Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,” (i.e., τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ). If Bernard’s theory is correct, then Polycrates referred to the apostle John as a “martyr” in deference to the apostle’s self designation rather than being concerned whether he had not actually technically fulfilled the qualification for ultimately receiving the title of “martyr.”

Eusebius, however, never elaborated upon what he believed Polycrates meant when he referred to the apostle John as a martyr. Regarding Eusebius’s silence on this matter, R. Alan Culpepper mused,

Questions still remain. A fragment attributed to the second book of Papias contains a report of the martyrdom of John. Did Eusebius know all five books of Papias? If so, why does Eusebius not mention John’s martyrdom? Did he interpret the report in such a way that it did not conflict with the tradition of John’s long life and residence in Ephesus? Or did he suppress the report in favor of the tradition that the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel? The latter is difficult to accept since Eusebius assumes the five books of Papias are still available and does not hesitate to challenge Irenaeus on the link between Papias and John.780

Contrary to Martin Hengel’s conjecture that Eusebius “suppressed” important data concerning the apostle John’s death, Culpepper rightly concluded that it is not likely that Eusebius inappropriately “neglected” any data regarding John’s death.781 Culpepper speculated, however, that it is conceivable that Eusebius had not read “all” of Papias’s five-volume work, and as a result missed some important information concerning John’s martyrdom. This, however, seems highly unlikely, especially given Eusebius’s anti-Semitic bent, for if in fact the Jews had martyred the apostle John directly or indirectly (as with the death of John’s brother James), then it seems extremely improbable that Eusebius would have been ignorant of such a tradition.

Nevertheless, it is possible that Eusebius may have missed some important data found in Papias’s writings detailing John’s death when he first released Ecclesiastical History.782 Remembering, however, that the time between the first and last releases of Ecclesiastical History was well over a decade, it seems reasonable to conclude that during the intervening years someone would have pointed out this glaring omission to Eusebius if Papias had clearly described Jewish responsibility or participation in the apostle John’s martyrdom. Eusebius, however, was familiar with Papias’s writings, not to mention other traditions about John’s final days, and the fact that he did not preserve any such account strongly suggests that an account proving that the “Jews” were directly or indirectly responsible for the death of John was never there to be observed. And while Eusebius clearly held some prejudice attitudes towards Papias, he was not above citing him when it came to providing valuable confirmatory data concerning the church’s founding leaders and its earliest writings, such as Mark composition of his Gospel from the reminiscences of the apostle Peter, or that Matthew initially composed a Gospel in Aramaic. Even if he was so prejudicial towards Papias that he could no longer bear referring to him in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius certainly would have, given his anti-Semitic thesis, anonymously preserved any tradition involving Jewish responsibility for John’s martyrdom rather than to allow such damning information to fade from the annals of history.783

So how could such an accusation have been made? Culpepper documented several examples in patristic literature where some writers honored apostolic figures in ways that could confuse modern readers. For example, the Calendar of Carthage commemorated the deaths of John the Baptist and James the apostle on the same day, which was December 27th. One could see how a reader could inadvertently conclude that it was John the apostle who was martyred instead of John the Baptist. The Syrian martyrology, which dates to a time just prior to the writing of Philip’s Church History, is more direct and “commemorates . . . the martyrdom of the ‘apostles John and James at Jerusalem’ on December 27.”784 A comprehensive discussion on the fragment 11 was put forth by Bernard, who argued that Philip’s claim regarding what Papias wrote was the result of a misunderstanding. Bernard wrote, “I call it a misinterpretation, for it is difficult to suppose that a statement by Papias to the effect that John had suffered martyrdom could have been completely ignored by Eusebius and the ecclesiastical writers of his day.”785 Bernard provided several examples of how someone could carelessly misinterpret such a text, many of them similar to those that have already been suggested.786

There are other conjectures that may explain this incorrect assertion about what Papias wrote. One intriguing possibility is that Philip incorrectly exegeted Papias in a fashion similar to Eusebius. Another is that Philip leaped upon an event that Papias mentioned that occurred late in the apostle’s life near his death, an event that he interpreted as meeting the qualifications of martyrdom.787 A reason why other church historians missed this observation was that this event was so obscure that connecting it to John’s death was not reasonable; consequently, they ignored it because for them his conclusion seemed unwarranted. Alternatively, the same conjecture(s) could be leveled against Papias. In other words, it was Papias who concluded that the Jews were responsible for the death of the apostle John because of a specific event that occurred late in the John’s life. While Eusebius and other historians rejected this accusation as unwarranted, Philip the Side and, as will be seen later, George the Sinner affirmed Papias’s conclusion.788 This, however, seems to be the weakest of possibilities. The most reasonable solution to this mystery is that either Philip or his epitomizer simply misunderstood Papias and/or another earlier church writer concerning the death of the apostle John (Polycrates?).

Given all the available data, there appears little objective evidence that the apostle John was “killed” by the Jews as Philip or his epitomizer claimed Papias to have maintained. Moreover, there is no extant account of the apostle John having been executed directly or indirectly by the hands of the Jews. Bernard’s position that Philip or someone else simply misunderstood the writings of Papias has considerable merit. As a result of this confusion, Bernard argued that “I submit, therefore, that the idea that Papias is an authority for the ‘red martyrdom’ of John the son of Zebedee must be dismissed. In the light of the universal belief of the Church, it would be very difficult to suppose that Papias gave currency to any such idea.”789 Consequently, it should be doubted that Papias ever suggested that the apostle John died a martyr’s death; moreover, it is likely that the apostle John engaged fruitful ministry while outliving the rest of the apostles.

It must also be recognized, however, that the possibility still exists (however slim it may be) that the apostle John was martyred in the twilight years of his life, for during the persecutions of the church being aged was no shield against violence from those who hated devoted Christians. Examples of such violence are evident in the martyrdoms of Polycarp and Photinus. Regrettably, however, certitude about what Papias actually wrote or meant was lost when Philip failed to provide the exact text that justified his assertion, which itself speaks against the strength of this claim. While this too is an argument from silence, at times such arguments are indeed very loud. Why such a claim was made is anyone’s guess. Bernard and others have suggested that there was apologetic capital to be garnered by harmonizing the fates of James and John with the prophecy concerning them in Matthew 20:22–23 and Mark 10:38–39.790 This too, however, is only speculation since the relevance of these texts with respect to the supposed martyrdom of the apostle John was never suggested or explained by the author of this fragment.

A second often debated aspect about this fragment concerns the reference to how long certain individuals survived after being revived from the dead by the miraculous power of Jesus Christ. By emphasizing the reference to Hadrian, who reigned from 117–138, some have argued that Papias must have written his Exposition around or after 140. As previously discussed, neither Papias, nor Quadratus for that matter, made any direct reference to Hadrian’s “reign.” Instead, their references were to Hadrian’s lifetime; consequently, since we do not have Papias’s exact quote one cannot be certain about the exact date or period of Papias’s reference. It can be reasonably assumed, however, that Papias referred to the period of Hadrian’s adulthood rather than only the period of his reign.791 Theoretically, this means that Papias could have written his magnum opus sometime between 100 until just before his death, which has been estimated as late as 167. Such a wide span seems to be overly cautious; consequently, sometime between 110 to 140 seems to be a more reasonable conjecture, although still being only an estimate.792

In conclusion, fragment 11 is intriguing because its author demonstrates both familiarity with Papias’s writings as well as with what others have written about him. Regrettably, however, there is also evidence suggesting that he was not always careful with his materials. Contrary to Eusebius, however, he believed that Papias was in fact a disciple of the apostle John. Not surprisingly, he was also aware of Eusebius’s theory concerning a second John. Since the primary focus of his work was the history of the church, it is certain that he was aware of Eusebius’s record, as well as the traditions of others, concerning the longevity of the apostle John’s life. Nevertheless, similarly to John’s brother James, he believed that the Jews were in some way responsible for the death of apostle John. Consequently, one would assume that the author of this fragment believed that the apostle John was martyred later in life, rather than earlier as some have asserted. This author contended that corroboration for his assertion could be found in the second book of Exposition. While some believe that Papias is the source for this tradition, nevertheless, it appears that it is the author of fragment 11 who has made an error, either being mislead by other sources or by his own misreading of Papias. Without possessing the second volume of Exposition, however, one cannot be certain that a mistake has been made or the possible source(s) for this error. Regardless of what one might conjecture about certain issues contained in this fragment, it provides no demonstrable proof that Papias was aware of any writings contained in the canonical the New Testament.

Fragment 12

Regarding, however, the divine inspiration of the book [i.e., the Revelation of John] we think it superfluous to speak at length, since the blessed Gregory (I mean the Theologian) and Cyril, and men of an older generation as well, namely Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear witness to its genuineness.

Andrew of Caesarea (563–637), Preface to the Apocalypse793

Very little is known about Andrew of Caesarea other than he was a late fifth-century bishop in Cappadocia and that he wrote one of the first Greek commentaries on the book of Revelation.794 His commentary is one of the earliest to preserve a Greek text of Revelation, which makes it valuable for text critical issues. As one might expect, Andrew addressed the authority and genuineness of the book of Revelation in his preface, where he also contended that it was divinely inspired. One reason for his confidence in its authority and inspiration was his conviction that it was authored by the apostle John.795 Andrew defended the validity of this position by naming past church leaders and scholars who he contended shared his opinion. One of whom was Papias, who is the earliest member of Andrew’s patristic list.

There is some question regarding the others that he claimed affirmed the book’s authority and genuineness. The first mentioned by Andrew is the well-known Gregory of Nazianzus, who is also referred to as “Gregory the Great,” who is also a well known member of the triad commonly referred to as “The Cappadocian Fathers.” Ironically, Gregory did not include the book of Revelation in his canonical list.796 He did, however, cite it in some of his other writings, in which he referred to it as “Scripture,” and as coming from the hand of “the evangelist John.”797 Simonetti wrote that Andrew’s commentary “is rich in often extensive citations from earlier authors, esp. . . . Gregory of Nazianzen [sic].”798 Andrew’s familiarity with Gregory’s writings might explain his confidence concerning Gregory’s view of the book of Revelation.

Regarding Andrew’s reference to Cyril, in the Patrologia Graeca a Latin text is also included with the Greek text of Andrew’s commentary. This Latin text identifies Cyril as from “Alexandrinum,” even though this identification is absent in the Greek. Assuming this Cyril to be Cyril of Alexandria makes sense since Cyril of Jerusalem did not include Revelation in his New Testament canonical list.799 Cyril of Alexandria was a contemporary of Andrew, and being the patriarch of Alexandria he was one of the leading scholars of his day.800

Andrew also stated that some leaders from the earliest generations of the church had recognized the authenticity of the book of Revelation. One from the patristic generation who affirmed the apostolic origin of Revelation was Irenaeus. Concerning Revelation he wrote that it had been written by a John whom he identified as “the Lord’s disciple,”801 and since evidence indicates that he knew of only one John who had authored writings contained in the New Testament it is assumed that this John was one of the sons of Zebedee.802 Andrew also mentioned Hippolytus, who was a late second-century and early third-century bishop and martyr. F. F. Bruce wrote regarding Hippolytus that he was “the last significant figure in the Roman church to write in Greek,” and that he “was the greatest scholar of his age in the west.”803 Faithful to his purpose of Illustrious Men, Jerome provided a list of Hippolytus’s writings, among them being a work titled, On the Apocalypse.804 It is probable that this work was the source of Andrew’s information regarding Hippolytus’s opinion on the origin of the book of Revelation. Regrettably, this work is only extant in a few fragments.

Methodius is the most mysterious of the patristic figures listed by Andrew. He appears to have been a bishop of the mid to late third and early fourth century who may have been martyred in 311 or as late as 320.805 Jerome also included him in Illustrious Men, stating that he was a bishop of Olympus in Lycia.806 As with Hippolytus, Jerome provided a list of books attributed to Methodius, one of which was titled, On the Resurrection, which may have dealt with the origin and authority of Revelation, but this is not a certainty. When viewed chronologically, Andrew’s list of bishops, scholars, and martyrs spans the church’s history from the early second century up to Andrew’s own day. It is clear, however, that he believed that Papias not only knew of the book of Revelation, but also that he indicated it had indeed originated from the hand of the apostle John. This particular fragment, however, contains no direct quote from Papias regarding the book of Revelation.

Fragment 13

But Papias says, word for word:

“Some of them”—obviously meaning those which once were holy—“he assigned to rule over the orderly arrangement of the earth, and commissioned them to rule well.” And next he says: “But as it turned out, their administration came to nothing. And the great dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, was cast out; the deceiver of the whole world was cast down to the earth along with his angels.”

Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, chap. 34, serm. 12807

It seems that Holmes, following Lightfoot, has misattributed the length of this Papian fragment. Its context is Andrew’s commentary on Revelation 12:7–8, in which one would expect the exposition of verses 7–8 to be followed by his analysis of the next passages, which would be introduced by the text of Revelation 12:9, which seems to be the case. It appears, therefore, that Papias’s quote should end at the word “nothing.” The sentence that immediately follows, which is “And the great dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, was cast out; the deceiver of the whole world was cast down to the earth along with his angels,” is the text of Revelation 12:9; consequently, it should be recognized as the introductory verse for Andrew’s expository comments in the following section.808 While Andrew relied on Papias to elaborate about Satan’s pre-fall commission, this fragment alone provides no objective evidence that Papias was aware of the book of Revelation; instead, it only associates a text in Papias’s writings regarding Satan’s fall with a passage on this same theme found in Revelation. This association, however, when taken with consideration of the preceding fragment, provides greater support for the assertion that Papias was indeed aware of the book of Revelation.

Fragment 14

They used to call those who practiced a godly innocence “children,” as Papias shows in the first book of the Expositions of the Lord, and also Clement of Alexandria in his Pedagogue.

Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580–662), Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chap. 2809

This fragment is from the great Byzantine scholar Maximus the Confessor, also known as Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople.810 Andrew Louth wrote that little is verifiable with respect to Maximus’s early years. He was born ca. 580 and apparently received a quality education and served with distinction in the court of Emperor Heraclius.811 He renounced his civic post at some point in his thirties and became a monk. By all accounts he was a competent theologian and philosopher. He is best known as a defender of orthodoxy against the Monothelite heresy. Like so many before him, his defense of orthodoxy came at a great price. He was tried and condemned as a heretic, and exiled to Lazica, but not before the mutilation of the weapons he so forcefully used to defend the faith, which were his tongue and right hand. He died as a result of his wounds while in exile on August 16, 662, at the approximate age of eighty-one. He is, consequently, justifiably recognized as a martyr. Almost twenty years after his death, his position that Christ had both a divine and a human will was vindicated at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 680.812

Maximus provided two Papian fragments, both found in his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius’s book titled, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.813 The above fragment provides no objective proof that Papias was aware of any New Testament writings since Maximus was not quoting Papias but only speculating about the possible source of Pseudo-Dionysius’s reference to believers as “children.” One could infer, however, from Maximus’s musing that he was personally familiar with Papias’s writings since he referred to specific content that could be found in the “first book” of Exposition. Maximus discovered from Papias’s initial volume that in the first century believers were called “children.” That orthodox believers were affectionately referred to as such is especially observable in the Johannine epistles, in which the author of all three epistles often referred to his audience as “children.”814 Certainly Papias, being the prominent bishop in Asia Minor and an associate of the apostle John, would have been familiar with this term of endearment for the members of the church at Ephesus and its surrounding region. If one were to balk at such a theory, then the fact that Eusebius corroborated that Papias employed “testimonies” from 1 John argues that Papias was familiar with this epistle, an epistle in which its author addressed his readers as “children” thirteen times.815 Nevertheless, while interesting, this fragment provides little evidence regarding Papias’s awareness of the writings of the New Testament.

Fragment 15

When he says these things he is hinting, I think, at Papias, who was then bishop of Hierapolis in Asia and flourishing in the days of the holy Evangelist John. For this Papias, in the fourth book of his Expositions of the Lord, mentioned food among the sources of enjoyment in the resurrection. Later on Apollinarius believed this doctrine, which some refer to as the millennium. . . . and Irenaeus of Lyons says the same thing in the fifth book of his Against Heresies and cites in support of his statement the above-mentioned Papias.

Maximus the Confessor, Scholia on Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chap. 7816

One can clearly observe from this fragment that Maximus believed Papias was an adult and actively ministered during the lifetime of the apostle John. His identification of John as “the Evangelist” indicates that Maximus was referring to the author of the Fourth Gospel. He did not, however, explicitly refer to Papias as John’s “hearer” or disciple. Maximus also asserted that both Apollinaris, possibly the late second-century bishop of Hierapolis,817 and Irenaeus held to an eschatology that affirmed a literal millennial kingdom where physical appetites could be enjoyed. This is confirmed from Irenaeus’s own writings.818 By relying only upon this fragment one cannot conclude that Maximus was intimately familiar with Papias’s five-volume work, for all the data he mentioned in this fragment can also be found in Irenaeus’s reference to Papias in the fifth volume of Against Heresies. Some may assume from this fragment that Papias was familiar with the book of Revelation; however, at best this is an inference. Taken in conjunction with the previous fragment, however, it is reasonable to conclude that Maximus was to some degree personally familiar with Papias’s writings. Regarding Papias’s knowledge of the New Testament, this fragment provides no objective reference to any specific New Testament book. Nevertheless, it does affirm that Papias was “flourishing” during the lifetime of the apostle John.

Fragment 16

And others also in Pergamum, among whom was also Papias and many others, and about which the writings bear their martyrdoms.

Chronicon Paschale, ca. early seventh century.819

The Chronicon Paschale is an anonymous early seventh-century chronicle of the world’s history beginning with the creation and running to 630.820 It surveys history through a Christian paradigm, using the Crucifixion as the turning point and standard for properly interpreting human history. Regarding the historic value of this work, Michael and Mary Whitby wrote,

Particular attention is paid in CP to the dating of major church feasts, especially Easter, and to their connection with the chronology of the Creation, but the text set out to be much more than a treatise on biblical chronology and computation since the author chose to include a substantial amount of historical information as well. This material is arranged annalistically by individual years, being dated throughout by consuls, emperors, indications, and Olympiads, and sometimes by Antiochene or other local Eras, and Ascension dates; a large number of entries also contain specific dates (by Roman and/or Greek, and occasionally Egyptian months), so that all events are located as accurately as possible.821

The Whitbys concluded that the author’s “attempt at chronological precision distinguishes” the CP from other known chronologies.822 This fragment, as previously discussed, is the earliest extant reference to Papias having suffered a martyr’s fate. It will not, however, be the last. The context in which this fragment is found is the author’s summary of Polycarp’s death, which according to the CP occurred in 163 during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The author asserted regarding Papias’s martyrdom that documentation existed that also testified to Papias’s death as having occurred in the city of Pergamum.823 This fragment provides no objective evidence that Papias was aware of any New Testament books. Consequently, its primary value is that it may shed some light, albeit rather dimly, upon the death of Papias of Hierapolis.

Fragment 17

. . . taking their cue from the great Papias of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of the Bosom-Friend, and Clement, from Pantaenus, the priest of the Alexandrians, and Ammonius, the most learned scholar, those ancient and earliest interpreters who agree with each other in understanding the whole “six days” to refer to Christ and the church.

Anastasius of Sinai (d. ca. 700) Considerations on the Hexaemeron I824

Very little is known about Anastasius of Sinai. He is generally thought to have been a monk who later became the abbot of the monastery of Mount Sinai.825 He is also believed to have written several treatises defending orthodoxy against the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies. He was referred to by some as “the New Moses,” and is best known for writing a book titled “Hodegos.” The above fragment is taken from an introduction he wrote to the Hexaemeron. This fragment does not provide demonstrable evidence that Papias was aware of any books of the New Testament. Anastasius did, however, believe that Papias knew the apostle John, whom he referred to as the “Bosom-Friend.”826 Holmes rightly saw the title “Bosom-Friend” as a reference to John 13:23, 25; 21:20.827 Other references to this particular disciple of Jesus are also found in John 19:26 and 20:2. Anastasius later wrote that Papias was a “follower” of “John the Evangelist.”828 It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that he was referring to the same person, who was none other than the apostle John.829

Although this fragment does not contain a direct quote from Papias’s Exposition, it does provide some evidence that Anastasius was familiar with Papias’s work. This is observable from his reference to Papias’s explanation of the creation account. Anastasius stated that Papias implied that the “six day” creation account as found in the book of Genesis was also a reference to Christ and his church.830 If Anastasius was accurate regarding what Papias wrote, then it reveals that there were occasions when Papias employed a hermeneutic of typology or allegory when dealing with certain Old Testament passages. This is evident from Anastasius’s alignment of Papias with other patristic leaders who are commonly associated with the “Alexandrian school.”831 There is little evidence from the other fragments, however, that Papias was thoroughly committed to the Alexandrian method of interpreting the Old Testament. That is not to say, however, that he did not at times employ typology in his exposition of certain Old Testament texts. Anastasius is not the only author to note Papias’s employment of the Old Testament.832 Regarding the reference to Papias’s association of the church with the six day creation account, without a direct quote from Exposition it is hard to determine if Anastasius had properly understood Papias or had possibly confused him with a different author. If, however, he had read Exposition, and if he correctly understood Papias’s exposition concerning the creation account in Genesis, then it appears that one of Papias’s purposes in his five-volume work was to exposit the “oracles of the Lord” while interacting with passages from the Old Testament. This theory will be developed further in the discussion of fragment 23. Papias’s exposition of specific Old Testament passages and Jesus’ teachings might explain Eusebius’s admiring remarks about his knowledge of the “Scriptures” in his earlier edition of Ecclesiastical History.833

Some clarification is in order regarding Anastasius’s opinion that Papias was a “disciple” of the “Bosom-Friend.” First, Anastasius did not use the more commonly known word “μαθητής” to describe Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. He instead employed only the genitive article “τοῡ” to indicate Papias’s relationship to the “Bosom-Friend;” nonetheless, calling him John’s “disciple” is not entirely inappropriate.834 Anastasius, however, used in the next fragment a more specific word while describing Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. Regardless of his vocabulary, Anastasius, unlike Eusebius, believed Papias knew the “Bosom-Friend” of Jesus, who Anastasius also identified as “John the Evangelist.” While it is possible that Anastasius relied upon the opinions of others regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, it is equally possible that he came to this conclusion by his personal reading of Papias Exposition. How Anastasius more precisely described the relationship between the two will be more thoroughly developed in the discussion of the next fragment.

Fragment 18

So then, the more ancient interpreters of the churches—I mean Philo, the philosopher and contemporary of the apostles, and the famous Papias of Hierapolis, the disciple of John the Evangelist, Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin the martyr and philosopher, Pantaenus the Alexandrian and Clement the Stromateus, and their associates—interpreted the sayings about Paradise spiritually, and referred them to the church of Christ.

Anastasius of Sinai, Considerations on the Hexaemeron 7835

It may appear to the casual observer that Anastasius did not have an adequate grasp of Philo or his writings since he associated Philo with other Christian authors. Schoedel, however, explained that Anastasius was “vividly conscious of the gulf that separates the Jewish philosopher Philo from Christianity (Vtae Dux 14; PG, LXXXIX, 244–45); but he does not hesitate to refer to him as a man with a sound (allegorical) sense for scriptural interpretation (cf. In Hexaem. 7; PG, LXXXIX, 956).”836 Anastasius clearly held Papias in high regard, referring to him as “the great Papias” in the previous fragment,837 while in this fragment he called him “famous.”838 He also associated Papias with some of the most respected men in patristic history. Given his admiration for Papias as a leader of the patristic church, it seems reasonable to assume that Anastasius had at some point read Papias’s writings for himself. He also called Papias one of the more ancient “interpreters of the churches,”839 indicating that he perceived Papias was far more than a collector of potentially soon to be forgotten church traditions. Instead, he understood him as one who explained their meanings and significance.840

Regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John, Anastasius called him a “φοιτητής” of John the Evangelist, which is literally translated as referring to one who “frequently comes and goes” or has access to another. It is especially used with reference to a pupil’s access to his or her teacher; consequently, “disciple” is an appropriate translation.841 There is greater precision, however, in Anastasius’s vocabulary then some might infer from the word “disciple,” for the term “φοιτητής” communicates that Papias was not simply one who followed in the teachings of the apostle John, but rather that he was one who had regular access to his mentor. Clearly, therefore, Anastasius believed that Papias knew the apostle John. What makes Anastasius’s opinion about Papias’s relationship with the apostle John so important is that he, unlike Eusebius, was not threatened by Papias’s eschatology, even though he clearly appreciated the “Alexandrian” tradition of interpreting the Scriptures. One can discern from this fragment, in conjunction with fragment 17, a strong inference that Papias was an exegete of biblical narratives rather than one who simply collected oral traditions. However, as with fragment 17, there is no objective evidence indicating Papias’s knowledge of any specific New Testament book.

Fragment 19

After Domitian, Nerva reigned one year. He re-called John from the island and allowed him to live in Ephesus. At that time he was the sole survivor of the twelve disciples, and after writing the Gospel that bears his name was honored with martyrdom. For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, claims in the second book of the Sayings of the Lord that he was killed by the Jews, thus clearly fulfilling, together with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them and their own confession and agreement about this.

For when the Lord said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” and they eagerly assented and agreed, he said: “You will drink my cup and will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.” And this is to be expected, for it is impossible for God to lie. Moreover the encyclopedic Origen also affirms in his interpretation of the Gospel According to Matthew that John was martyred, indicating that he had learned this from the successors of the apostles. In addition, the well-informed Eusebius says in his Ecclesiastical History: “Thomas was allotted Parthia, while John received Asia, where he made his residence and died in Ephesus.”

George the Sinner (ninth c.), Chronicle842

George “the Sinner,” was a ninth-century monk who is also known as George “Hamartolus.”843 Little is known about him save what can be gleaned from his chronicle of world history in which he asserted that at the time of his writing Michael III was reining in Constantinople (842–867). As with several others, the author of this fragment testified that Papias associated with the apostle John. He also believed, however, that John and his brother James were killed by the Jews.844 Schoedel has aptly demonstrated that the author of this particular fragment in all probability was not Hamartolus, explaining that;

All MSS of George’s Chronicon (ninth century) except Coislinianus 305 have “John the Theologian” (the Evangelist) go “to his rest in peace.” The composer of the exceptional MS, whose text we translate, seems to have gone out of his way to collect references concerning John’s end. In (1) he follows the opening sentences found in all the other MSS, changing “went to his rest in peace” to “was honored by martyrdom.” In (2) the reason for the change becomes clear: our author has information from Papias and has reflected on Mark 10:38–39. In (3) he makes reference to Origen’s remarks on Mark 10:35–40 in his Commentary on Matthew 16:6 (ed. Klostermann, I, 486). This is followed by a quotation from Eusebius, H.E. 3.1.1, which is to be found also in the other MSS.845

This fragment, therefore, does not appear to be from the hand of Hamartolus but from the hand of an unknown redactor. Whether this redactor had read Papias for himself, or was relying upon a manuscript associated with Philip of Side regarding the martyrdom of the apostle John is not clear, for he provided no direct quote from Papias to validate his observation. Moreover, he failed to provide any demonstrable evidence that he had independently read Papias’s Exposition for himself. This is evident since all the data he provided is also found in the fragments preserved by both Eusebius and Philip of Side. Consequently, it is not clear whether his statement that Papias “had seen him (the apostle John) with his own eyes,” was a conclusion he borrowed from another author (e.g., Philip of Side) or a conviction he arrived at by his own investigation. Without clear evidence, therefore, that he had personally read Papias’s Exposition, certitude about the validity of his opinion regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John and John’s death is unattainable.

Τhis redactor, however, unlike in fragment 11 explained the theological capital to be gained from John’s supposed martyrdom, contending that it was the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy concerning the sons of Zebedee.846 Lightfoot argued that the importance of the potential martyrdom of both of the sons of Zebedee was consistent with Papias’s exegetical purpose; consequently, he believed that Papias was the “ultimate” source for “Hamartolus,” although he had either misunderstood or misread Papias. Lightfoot explained his position by writing,

Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the martyrdom of John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias’ book—the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most easily explained by a lacuna.847

Lightfoot continued by explaining that Hamartolus seems to have read a manuscript in which several lines were missing, or that he had accidentally skipped over several lines; consequently, he misattributed Papias’s reference to James’s death as having also befallen the apostle John. This theory is attractive; however, it is unverifiable. More importantly, however, whether this mistake was caused by lost text or the misreading of a text, it does not appear to have come from Hamartolus but from a later redactor. Regarding this redactor, Schoedel observed that he had relied heavily upon other patristic authors for his conclusion concerning the death of the apostle John; and even when dealing with these sources he apparently lacked the ability to correctly interpret them. Schoedel noticed with respect to his handling of Origen’s writings that this redactor failed to notice that Origen saw “the fulfillment of the prophecy of Mark 10:35–40 in James’s death and John’s later exile to Patmos!”848

It is again worth noting that this redactor, however “uncritical” he may have been, disagreed with Eusebius regarding Papias’s association with the apostle John. Contra Eusebius, he believed that Papias had in fact seen him “with his own eyes.” Given his uncritical approach to his data it is hard to place a great deal of confidence in his conclusion about Papias’s relationship to the apostle John. Nevertheless, his motivation was no better or worse than that of Eusebius, for while Eusebius desired to distance Papias from the apostle John because of Papias’s eschatology, this redactor wished to connect Papias and the apostle in order to vindicate Jesus’ prophecy concerning the sons of Zebedee. Their motivations, therefore, were less then admirable since both were driven by different apologetical issues. Regardless of this redactor’s motives, he failed to provide any quote from Papias or any data indicating that he had independently read Papias’s Exposition for himself, thus this fragment provides no independent evidence that Papias was aware of any New Testament books. This fragment’s significance, consequently, for learning more about Papias and his knowledge of specific New Testament writings is marginal.

Fragment 20

Indeed, [Stephen Gobarus follows] neither Papias, the bishop and martyr of Hierapolis, nor Irenaeus, the holy bishop of Lyons, when they say that the kingdom of heaven is the enjoyment of certain material foods.

Photius (ninth c.), Bibliotheca 232849

This fragment comes from Photius’s work titled Bibliotheca.850 Photius was the Patriarch of Constantinople during much of the last half of the ninth century. The context in which this fragment is found is his explanation of Stephen Gobarus’s position regarding Papias’s and Irenaeus’s eschatology. Very little is known about Stephen, most of which is drawn from Photius’s comments concerning him. He appears to have lived in the sixth century, and was an “Aristotelian” and “tritheist” whose writings exposed apparent contradictions in the church’s theological traditions.851 It is Photius’s statement regarding Papias that is germane to the focus of this book. His comments provide no objective evidence that Papias was aware of any writings found in the New Testament. He does, however, refer to Papias as a martyr. It is not possible to confirm that his opinion about Papias’s death came from his own investigation or his reading of the CP.852 It is not unreasonable to think that Photius, a ninth-century Patriarch of Constantinople, had access to the CP, a Byzantine historiography written ca. 630. While this fragment does not challenge the thesis of this book, it also provides no additional independent data.

Fragment 21

. . . and the great Methodius . . . and also Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis; the first won the crown of martyrdom, while the latter two were men of apostolic character. . . . But we do not follow them whenever they treated the truth too lightly and were lead to speak against the generally accepted ecclesiastical teaching. We do not at all, however, take anything away from their patristic honor and glory.

Photius, Letter to Archbishop and Metropolitan Aquileias853

This fragment, as in the case of the preceding fragment, provides no objective evidence that Papias knew of any New Testament writings; therefore, it does not seriously challenge or aid the thesis of this book. It may be inferred from this fragment that Photius believed that Papias was of the same generation as Irenaeus, although this would be incorrect. As previously discussed, Irenaeus may have been considered by some as a participant of the era of the “apostolic fathers” since he was a disciple of Polycarp. Such a classification, however, would be viewed as inaccurate by today’s scholarship. Compared to Methodius, who died ca. 311, both Irenaeus and Papias would certainly have been considered as members of a more senior generation. Consequently, Photius regarded these two earlier bishops as honorable because of their antiquity, while Methodius was honored for his martyrdom. Such classifications by Photius seems rather awkward since he referred to Papias as a “martyr” in the previous fragment, while here he only recognized Methodius as having been martyred. Photius’s intent, however, was to focus upon Papias’s association with the church’s earliest generation, rather than any honor Papias may have also possessed as a martyr. Photius had a rather healthy view of Papias and his importance. While not agreeing with some aspects of Papias’s theology, such as his eschatology, he was unwilling in the manner of Eusebius to marginalize Papias and his significance to the history of the early church.

Fragment 22

Here begins the summary of the Gospel According to John:

The Gospel of John was made known and given to the churches by John while he was still in the flesh, as a man of Hierapolis by the name of Papias, a beloved disciple of John, has related in the exoteric—that is, the last—part of his five books. Indeed, he wrote down the Gospel correctly as John dictated.

Codex Vaticanus Alexandrinus 14 (ninth c.)854

This fragment is commonly referred to as one of the “anti-Marcionite prologues.” It is anonymous and generally inspires little confidence regarding factual information about Papias or what he might have written. Some, however, may have underestimated its value. The prologue certainly contains data that creates challenges to its credibility, but this should not be construed as proof that it is completely worthless with respect to all the historical information contained in it.855 It is assigned at this position in this list of Papian fragments since it is viewed as originating from the ninth century, primarily because that is the estimated date of the manuscript in which it is found. Some, however, have estimated it to be considerably older.856 Regarding its actual age and origin Schoedel wrote, “Its clumsy Latin suggests a Greek original; some of the Latin phraseology is characteristic of fourth century writers.”857 If Schoedel’s estimation is correct, then it should be moved forward in this list of Papian fragments; however, it is kept here because certitude regarding its age is tenuous.

Although this fragment provides no direct quote from Papias’s writings, it is significant because it intimately associates Papias with the apostle John and his Gospel. This fragment states that John authored the Fourth Gospel, and that it was not the work of later compilers and redactors, which is also consistent with a tradition found in the Muratorian Fragment.858 Evidence for the assertion that John authored the Fourth Gospel was apparently to be found in the fifth book of Papias’s Exposition.859 Since Papias’s work is no longer extant, confirmation of this particular reference is not possible. By referring to Papias as the apostle’s amanuensis, this fragment contradicts a tradition claiming that the Gospel of John was dictated by John to a disciple named Prochorus during John’s exile on Patmos.860 The tradition of Prochorus’s involvement with the writings of the apostle John is tenuous at best. Prochorus is associated with John predominantly through a redaction of a work known as The Acts of John. Regarding Prochorus’s potential relationship with the apostle, Pieter J. Lalleman wrote,

Until far into the last century, episodes from the AJ were only preserved because they had been incorporated in manuscripts of a more recent story about John. The later account, the so-called Acts of John by Prochorus, dates from the fifth century and was popular in the Byzantine Church. In several medieval copies of this text, there appear episodes that are considerably older than the fifth century and which, taken together, forms a rather homogeneous text, the early AJ.

Nowadays the division of the episodes belonging to the AJ and those belonging to the Acts of John by Prochorus is beyond dispute. The differences in doctrinal stance between the post-Nicene Prochorus-text and the heterodox AJ are clear to everyone who reads the texts; besides, most of the action in Prochorus is concentrated on the Isle of Patmos, which is never mentioned in the early AJ.861

Some speculate that this is the same Prochorus who is mentioned in Acts 6.5, in which he and six others were selected to be deacons by the Jerusalem church in order to oversee the caretaking of the church’s widows. How and when he became associated with the apostle John during his exile at Patmos has never been substantially documented; consequently, it is unclear if he actually associated with John. When analyzing this fragment there are several questions about its author that are worthy of consideration: did he originally write in Latin or Greek, is it a later copy of the original, and if it is a copy does it reflect the education of the copyist or of the original author? If the author of this fragment has correctly understood Papias, then it appears that Papias served as an amanuensis for the apostle John as he composed a part or the whole of the Fourth Gospel.862 If one were pressed to conjecture as to which of these two figures possibly served as an amanuensis of the apostle John at one point or another, then Papias would have a better claim to such a position since the tradition concerning Prochorus is in all probability is spurious, as well as later than Papias’s Exposition.863

Concerning the likelihood of Papias having served as the amanuensis of the apostle John, Lightfoot speculated that the author of this fragment may have misunderstood what Papias might have written, arguing that he misinterpreted the aorist form of the verb “ἀπογράφω” as a first person singular instead of a third person plural, in which case if the “ν” were incorrectly dropped at the end of the third person plural it would have the identical form as the first person aorist.864 This would mean that the author might have possibly understood Papias to have written, “I wrote the Gospel as John dictated,” instead of “They wrote the Gospel as John dictated.”865 While this conjecture has some merit, two important observations must be made; first, such a view demands that the author of this fragment possessed at least a portion of the fifth book of Papias’s Exposition; and secondly, even if the author misunderstood this particular verb (i.e., whether the verb was singular or plural), his observation demands that Papias was aware of the Gospel of John.

There is some question regarding the credibility of the author of this fragment when handling historical material. It should be noted, however, that he was not inaccurate with respect to everything he wrote concerning Papias. Ηe correctly noted, for example, that Papias was from Hierapolis and that he had written a five-volume work. It is his comment about Papias’s last book, however, that is most compelling.866 In a similar manner of footnoting found among other ancient authors (such as Eusebius’s reference to Papias’s preface), this author stated that in Papias’s fifth book two important observations could be made; first, that a man named John wrote the Fourth Gospel, which the author believed to be the apostle John; and secondly, that Papias knew of this Gospel and even served as John’s amanuensis. The implications are obvious; first, he believed that Papias knew the apostle John, referring to Papias as his “beloved disciple;”867 and secondly, that Papias knew of the Fourth Gospel. Schoedel made a great deal out of certain anachronistic material contained in the second section of this fragment. The “possible” anachronism concerns Marcion rather than Papias. More specifically, this material states that Marcion had met and was rejected by the apostle John, which seems extremely unlikely, although not entirely impossible, since Marcion appears to have been a contemporary of Papias and Polycarp.868 Kleist suggested that the author of this fragment may have confused Marcion’s possible confrontation with the apostle John with other well known confrontations, such as Marcion’s own confrontation with Polycarp, or the apostle John’s confrontation with Cerinthus.869 Körtner speculated that the author may have been referring to Papias rather than the apostle John regarding this confrontation with Marcion.870 Concerning the historical accuracy of some of the data found in this fragment, at worse this author was incorrect regarding his information about Marcion, and at best he was simply unclear. There is nothing in this fragment, however, that demands one come to the same conclusion concerning his information about Papias.

If one surveys and combines all the surviving data available from the writings of Papias, data from his preface to his fifth book, one would find information about the origins of the first Gospels, i.e., Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel and Mark’s Greek Gospel (contained in his preface), and information about the church’s martyrs and early leaders (contained in his second book), as well as other previously unrecorded traditions of the Lord’s oracles (contained in his fourth book). It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that Papias may have waited until his fifth and final book to discuss the writings of the last surviving apostle, who in all probability was the apostle John. In summary, while certain material contained in this fragment requires critical analysis, this fragment should not be unnecessarily marginalized as having no historical value.871 Its value is especially important with respect to information found in Papias’s fifth book and his knowledge of the apostle John and the Fourth Gospel.

Fragment 23

And Papias spoke in the following manner in his treatise:

“Heaven did not endure his earthly intentions, because it is impossible for light to communicate with darkness. He fell to earth, here to live; and when mankind came here, where he was, he did not permit them to live in natural passions; on the contrary, he led them astray into many evils. But Michael and his legions, who are guardians of the world, were helping mankind, as Daniel learned; they gave laws and made the prophets wise. And all this was war against the dragon, who was setting stumbling blocks for men. Then their battle extended into heaven, to Christ himself. Yet Christ came; and the law, which was impossible for anyone else, he fulfilled in his body, according to the apostle. He defeated sin and condemned Satan, and through his death he spread abroad his righteousness over all. As this occurred, the victory of Michael and his legions, the guardians of mankind, become complete, and the dragon could resist no more, because the death of Christ exposed him to ridicule and threw him to earth, concerning which Christ said: ‘I was seeing Satan fallen from heaven like a lightning bolt.’”

In this sense the teacher understood not his first fall, but the second, which was through the cross; and this did not consist of a spatial fall, as at first, but rather judgment and expectation of a mighty punishment. . . .

Andrew of Caesarea, On the Apocalypse, on Rev 12:7–9872

Before analyzing the content of this fragment, it is necessary to discuss its author, as well as its length. Holmes indicated that this fragment is actually found in an Armenian translation of Andrew’s commentary, On the Apocalypse; however, it does not appear in his commentary as found in PG. It has been translated into German by Folker Siegert, who stated that the manuscript containing this fragment “deviates considerably from the Greek version,” of Andrew’s commentary.873 It appears, therefore, that it is misleading to attribute this fragment to Andrew; consequently, it is not grouped with the other Papian fragments originating from him. Lightfoot suggested that this text is a catena, while Siegert wrote that it came from Constantine, a metropolitan of Hierapolis who flourished approximately four hundred years after Andrew.874 This is not to say, however, that this fragment holds no value for researching Papias and his knowledge of the New Testament, for the author appears to have provided a lengthy quote from Papias. Regarding its length, Holmes, Siegert, and Kürzinger end this Papian fragment with the quote of Luke 10:18.875

The significance of a Papian fragment possibly containing a passage from Luke should not be considered insignificant. Regrettably, the text does not state that the quote of Jesus came from Luke’s Gospel, or from “the Scriptures.”876 It is possible, therefore, that Papias employed a well memorized “oral” tradition that was being circulated by Christian communities of Asia Minor. It is equally as possible, however, that Papias did in fact rely upon Luke’s Gospel for this “oracle of the Lord.” Certainly, by the middle of the first quarter of the second century some Christian communities were orally transmitting “oracles” of Jesus that were embedded within the canonical Gospels. Since the text is only preserved in Armenian, not knowing the exact vocabulary and structure of Papias’s quote makes it difficult for determining whether he had relied upon the Third Gospel or an oral tradition. The fragment as it stands now can provide a multitude of conjectures regarding Papias’s source. For example, even if Papias referred to Jesus’ words as found in Luke’s Gospel there is no guarantee that he had not relied upon his own memory, and as a result he may have loosely quoted Jesus as he remembered it from the Gospel of Luke. Consequently, this would make it difficult to prove conclusively that he had relied upon Luke, since a “loose” quote could also be perceived as the product of an “oral tradition” rather than a direct quote from a literary source. Regardless of the many possibilities and conjectures concerning what Papias’s source(s) may have been, this fragment creates a serious challenge to the contention that Papias had no knowledge of Luke’s Gospel.877

This fragment is also helpful for observing one of Papias’s purposes for his magnum opus. It clearly reveals, as his title suggests, that he intended to “explain” Jesus’ “oracles.” In this particular fragment Papias “exposited” Jesus’ teaching about Satan’s meteoric fall from heaven. In order to do so he interpreted Jesus’ words in light of other well-known biblical themes, themes such as God—who is the true light—is intolerant of all that is unholy, which in the Scriptures is often described as darkness. The author of this fragment explained that “it is impossible for light to communicate with darkness,” which touches upon one of the more significant themes contained in the writings of the apostle John (John 1:4–8; 3:19; and 1 John 1:5–7). While this theme is common in Johannine literature, it is also commonly found throughout the Scriptures (see Gen 1:1–4; Ps 18:28; Isa 42:6–7; 1 Cor 6:14; 1 Pet 2:9). Next, he associated Satan’s fall with the angelic warfare found in the book of Daniel.878 It is at this point that the author referred to Satan as “the dragon.” While acknowledging that a similar reference to Satan may also possibly be found in Isaiah 27:1 and 51:9, it is much more likely that the author relied upon the book of Revelation for this description of Satan.879 Consequently, assuming Papias was in fact the author of this fragment, one could reasonably infer that he was familiar with the book containing the apocalyptic visions of the apostle John.

The sentence, “Yet Christ came; and the law, which was impossible for anyone else, he fulfilled in his body, according to the apostle. He defeated sin and condemned Satan, and through his death he spread abroad his righteousness over all,” is significant since it is attributed to one called “the apostle.” Unfortunately, one is left to wonder which apostle Papias was referring to since a specific identity was not provided. The text appears to be a condensation of several New Testament passages. The phrase “Christ came” is found in Galatians 3:24; Ephesians 2:17; and Hebrews 9:11 and 10:5. The theme of human inability to satisfy the law is found in Galatians 2:16, 3:11, 3:13, and Colossians 2:14. That Christ’s physical death satisfied the requirement of the Law is also addressed in Romans 7:4, Colossians 1:22 and 2:15, Hebrews 10:10, and 1 Peter 2:24. His defeat of sin is especially evident in 1 Corinthians 15:54–57 and Colossians 2:13–14. That he has secured condemnation for Satan is found in John 12:31; Luke 10:18; Ephesians 1:19–23 and 6:10–12; as well as Colossians 2:15. And finally, the theme that Jesus’ impact is expanding “over all” is specifically found in Colossians 1:6, 23. Nielsen, armed with only silence, conjectured that Papias had rejected the writings of Paul as being on a par with “Holy Scripture,” contending that he “encountered Paul in the person and writings of Polycarp of Smyrna and that Polycarp had done something with the Pauline corpus which caused Papias’ polemical reaction.”880 Additionally, that “Papias himself, of course, does not admit that the Pauline collection is Holy Scripture, but he takes unfavorable notice of the fact that writings of Paul are so designated by others, and especially by Polycarp and his circle.”881 Concerning the close association of Papias and Polycarp in the many histories of the church, Lightfoot wrote, “As regards Papias therefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct evidence, that his views were, at all events, in general accordance with his friends.”882 Given this fragment’s Pauline characteristics, and the lack of Papian material indicating a clear anti-Pauline sentiment, and that the whole of church history witnesses to his close association with Polycarp, there appears to be little reason for accepting Nielsen’s theory.

Having addressed the spiritual warfare found in the book of Daniel, Papias turned to theological themes found throughout the New Testament that state that the inevitable and final victory over Satan was secured by “Christ’s” incarnation, death, and resurrection. Lightfoot speculated that Papias was probably familiar with Paul’s letters to the churches of Asia Minor, but provided no evidence to support this theory.883 It can be argued that this fragment provides this missing evidence. While the themes found in this fragment can be found throughout the New Testament, they are particularly evident in Paul’s letter to the church at Colosse (or Colossae). Interestingly, Colossians is the only New Testament book that mentions Hierapolis, revealing that the church there had a connection with the apostle Paul through his associate Epaphras (Colossians 1:7; 4:12–13). Moreover, Paul made it clear that his letter to the Colossian church was also to be sent to the church at Laodicea (Col 4:16), which only lay approximately twelve miles from Colosse and 6 to 8 miles across the valley from Hierapolis. It is not a dramatic stretch of imagination to believe that Paul’s letters to the churches at Laodicea and Colosse were also read and preserved at the church in Hierapolis, letters which Papias would have access to some fifty years later.884

As to the identity of “the apostle,” Eusebius stated that Papias had utilized “testimonies” from both John and Peter.885 It is conceivable, therefore, that he may have had either of these two apostles in mind as he wrote about Christ’s bodily sacrifice fulfilling the requirement of the law. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the real possibility that Papias was referring to the apostle Paul since the sentence in question is extremely Pauline.886 If one were pressed to conjecture as to the source of Papias’s Pauline theology, then one need only to read Paul’s letter to the Colossians to see not only a theological connection,887 but also a relational connection between Paul and the church at Hierapolis. There is a very real possibility, consequently, that Papias had direct access to or a personal copy of Paul’s letter to the Colossians.

Having surveyed the theology found in both the Old Testament and in the apostolic writings, Papias next harmonized the significance of Jesus’ victory through the cross with the eschatological thought found in Revelation 12:7–9 and Jesus’ declaration regarding Satan’s fall in Luke 10:18. Consequently, what is observable in this fragment is that Papias attempted to systematically explain Jesus’ proclamation regarding the judgment of Satan with the rest of the authoritative writings of the church, which were the Old Testament and certain apostolic writings. Regarding which apostolic writings this fragment reveals that Papias was aware of, an argument could be made that he knew the Gospel of Luke,888 the book of the Revelation, and possibly Colossians.889

The entire fragment ends with the author clarifying which fall of Satan the “teacher” had in mind, which he understood to be a second fall of condemnation that secured the final eschatological demise of Satan. Who the author was referring to as the “teacher” is not entirely clear. He may have been referring to Jesus or Papias since both seem to fit the context. The title “teacher” as a reference to the Lord Jesus Christ seems extremely mundane, and since the author was predominately quoting Papias it seems more reasonable to conclude that he had Papias in mind. Regardless of who the author was referring to, analyzed in its entirety this fragment is extremely helpful for understanding how Papias “exposited” oracles of the Lord throughout his writings, as well as discovering what New Testament books Papias may have known.

Fragment 24

At this time there lived in Hierapolis a prominent teacher and author of many treatises; he wrote five treatises about the Gospel. In one of these treatises, which he wrote concerning the Gospel of John, he relates that in the book of John the Evangelist there is a report about a woman who was an adulteress. When the people led her before Christ our Lord, he spoke to the Jews who had brought her to him: “Whoever among you is himself certain that he is innocent of that of which she is accused, let him now bear witness against her.” After he had said this, they gave him no answer and went away.

Agapius of Hierapolis, (tenth c.), World History890

This fragment possesses material also found in fragment 22; however, before discussing their commonalities, an introduction to clarify its author and origin are in order. Agapius was a ninth-century Melkite bishop of Hierapolis in present-day northern Syria. He was not a bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (present-day Turkey). Little is known about him other than he wrote a book titled, World History, which dealt with the history of the world until ca. 942. Although Agapius did not mention Papias by name, it seems evident that he was referring to him, since Papias is the only known bishop at Hierapolis known to have composed a five-volume work. There is a question regarding the accuracy of Kürzinger’s translation as cited by Holmes; therefore, an alternative translation is here provided:

And it came to be around that time in Hierapolis a teacher of theology who authored many treatises on the Bible. And he mentioned in the treatise that he wrote on the Gospel of John that in the book of John the Evangelist that a woman fornicated. So, when they brought her before our Lord the Christ—all the glory be to Him—(to) all the Jews that brought her he said to them whoever among you knows that he is innocent of what this woman committed, let him bear testimony against her. When he said that to them, no one of them did assault her with anything, so, he left.891

It appears that Agapius had access to Papias’s Exposition that gave him certain impressions about Papias and his writings. First, he was of the opinion that Papias was a “teacher of theology,” thus indicating that Papias was not simply interested in only collecting and preserving oral traditions. As with other early Christian authors, such as the Gospel writers, Papias wanted to influence his audience. His theology is known to have influenced other Christian authors and apologists such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Apollinaris.892 Agapius also believed that Papias’s work was about “the Bible,”893 which is a rather interesting distinction; generally speaking, most Papian fragments describe Papias’s work as focusing upon the “oracles” or “sayings” of the Lord. Holmes’s translation of the clause, “he wrote five treatises about the Gospel,”894 might be better translated as, “he wrote five treatises about the Bible.” Agapius’s statement implies that Papias had also interacted with other canonical sources and that his work was not only a loose collection of oral traditions. Regarding Agapius’s anachronistic use of the term “Bible,” it seems reasonable to assume that he was not referring to the canon as we know it today, but rather he was referring to the apostolic writings that Papias had access to, writings that were inevitably recognized by the church as Scripture. Without further material from Papias, however, an evaluation of the accuracy of Agapius’s summary is not possible.

Agapius also indicated that the Gospel of John was a major focus in one of Papias’s books, thus corroborating data found in fragment 22 which also states that Papias was aware of the Fourth Gospel. What some might find troubling about his assertion is Agapius’s example regarding Papias’s knowledge of the John’s Gospel, which was the pericope adulterae. Nevertheless, the idea that some might link this pericope to Papias, or his knowledge of the Gospel of John should not be surprising. Eusebius confirmed that Papias was aware of this pericope, Eusebius, however, associated it with The Gospel according to the Hebrews.895 It should be noted that he never objectively validated or denied that the pericope adulterae could be found in some manuscripts of the Gospel of John, on this subject he was silent. Consequently, one could easily infer that Eusebius was either ignorant of its association with John’s Gospel, or that he knew it was present in some manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel but viewed is as not authentically part of John’s autograph. Nevertheless, such conclusions are at best only conjectures, since they are predominantly based upon silence.

Eusebius was not the only writer who confirmed Papias’s awareness of this account. As will be seen below, a Papian fragment by Vardan Vardapet also associated it with Papias and the Fourth Gospel. Vardan, however, stated that Papias was the reason this pericope was embedded in the Gospel of John. It is not clear whether the fragment above provides a direct quote of Papias or whether Agapius had relied upon his memory concerning what Papias had actually wrote.896 Although being rather brief, his summary is generally consistent with the account as it is found in John’s Gospel. However, because of its brevity and the fact that it is in Arabic, its value for answering text critical issues regarding this pericope as it is found in the Gospel of John is minor.897 In conclusion, this fragment provides additional evidence, albeit not definitive, that Papias was aware of the Fourth Gospel.

Fragment 25

But concerning the aloe which people brought [to Jesus’ tomb; cf. John 19:39], some say that it was a mixture of oil and honey, but the aloe is certainly a kind of incense. The Geographer and Papias report that there are fifteen kinds of aloe in India. . . .

Vardan Vardapet (thirteenth c.), Explanations of Holy Scripture898

The above fragment is preserved by a late thirteenth-century Armenian scholar named Vardan of Vardapet, who at the request of King Hethum of Armenia wrote a book titled, Explanations of Holy Scripture.899 Some have inferred that the above reference to aloe was an allusion drawn from the Gospel of John. While this may very well be true, this fragment provides no objective evidence that Papias was aware of any writings of the New Testament.900 In reality, it is not even certain that Vardan cited Papias at all. Folker Siegert explained that because the name found in the text was apparently “unrecognizable,” there is a significant question as to whether Papias’s name is the correct translation of the original text.901 Papias apparently became associated with the fragment through the hand of a “French” translator.

Concerning the different kinds of aloe found in “India,” Vardan’s first source was an individual that he referred to as “The Geographer.” This was a common Armenian reference to a fifth-century Armenian scholar named Moses of Chorenensis (or Chorene).902 He is best known as a disciple of Mesrop and as one of Armenia’s most celebrated poets and grammarians. Moses was apparently well traveled and educated, having received part of his education in Alexandria. One of his main sources for data was an Alexandrian geographer named “Pappos.” It appears, therefore, that the fragment above is not actually Papian.903 The confusion appears to be the result of a later translator who, when confronted with an illegible name, incorrectly guessed that the source for Moses’ information was a “Papias,” apparently forgetting that Moses had previously mentioned a “Pappos” as the one who had provided him with much of his geographical information. If, however, this is truly a Papian fragment it still holds little value, since it provides no historical information about Papias. Additionally, it only indirectly associates Papias with the Gospel of John; consequently, it provides no material support indicating that Papias was aware of any writings of the New Testament.

Fragment 26

The story of the adulterous woman, which the other Christians have written in their gospel, was written by a certain Papias, a disciple of John, who was declared and condemned as a heretic. Eusebius said this.

Vardan Vardapet, Explanations of Holy Scripture904

This fragment is certainly interesting, however, its value regarding the life and writings of Papias is questionable. It is the only fragment that attributes the authorship of the pericope adulterae to Papias, an accusation not even made by Eusebius.905 What Eusebius actually wrote was that Papias had “related also another tradition concerning a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which The Gospel according to the Hebrews contains.”906 Vardan, writing in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, failed to respect the fact that manuscript evidence for this pericope predated him by more than seven hundred years. This is not to say that there were not others who shared Vardan’s opinion, but only that Papias was not the only reason that this pericope was included in the canon. He was, however, convinced that Papias was the reason why some Christians “have written” this pericope into their Bibles. Unfortunately, he failed to precisely identify where and in which Gospel this pericope had been inserted. A survey of early Armenian translations of the New Testament reveal that when this pericope is found it is located either after John 7:52 or at the end of John’s Gospel.907 This makes sense given Papias’s association with the apostle John. While Vardan’s angst regarding this pericope provides no hard evidence that Papias was familiar with John’s Gospel, his next statement makes it almost certain that he believed Papias knew of the Fourth Gospel, for he asserted that Papias was a disciple of John. Siegert rightly understood Vardan as referring to the apostle John.908

A second misunderstanding of Vardan concerns his declaration of Eusebius’s opinion of Papias. Eusebius did not, as far as we know, label Papias as a “heretic.” He may have evaluated Papias as a simpleton,909 he did not, however, refer to Papias as a heretic. Nevertheless, in spite of Eusebius’s defamation of Papias, Vardan still believed that Papias was a disciple of the apostle John. While it should be assumed that Vardan was referring to Papias, one is left to wonder if Vardan had not confused Papias with other early second-century heretics such as Victorinus or Cerinthus. Consequently, given his haphazard references to this apostolic father, it is hard to feel comfortable about placing much weight on his testimonies about Papias.

Fragment 27

For the last of these, John, surnamed “the Son of Thunder,” when he was a very old man (as Irenaeus and Eusebius and a succession of other trustworthy historians have handed down to us) and about the time when terrible heresies had cropped up, dictated the Gospel to his own disciple, the virtuous Papias of Hierapolis, to complete the message of those before him who had preached to the peoples of the whole world.

Anonymous comment from a commentary on the Gospel of John consisting of comments drawn from the writings of various Greek fathers910

Like several other fragments, the above fragment provides no direct quote of Papias employing any passage of the New Testament. Holmes indicated that this fragment originated not from one but “various” unknown “Greek fathers.” Consequently, its value for providing verifiable data is extremely limited. As with fragment 22, however, it refers to Papias as not only a personal disciple of the apostle John, but also as the amanuensis that John employed while composing his Gospel.911 This fragment is unfortunately anonymous; therefore, one can only speculate about its author, his education, and his exposure to his sources. As a result, some may find it difficult to give this fragment a great deal of credibility.

Regardless of what weight one might place upon this fragment, its author(s) was confident in his opinion concerning who wrote the Fourth Gospel, identifying him as John, “the Son of Thunder,” who was most certainly a son of Zebedee and an apostle.912 This fragment also clearly reveals that he held Papias in high regard. Additionally, he claimed that one of the factors that motivated the apostle John to write a fourth biography upon the life and teachings of Jesus was the presence of “heresies.” The author was not specific in his charge, but it is likely that he was referring to Cerinthus, a late first-century heretic known by the apostle John.913 His account, as he admitted, is consistent with other accounts concerning the origin of the Fourth Gospel. If it were not for his statement concerning Papias’s involvement in the composition of the Gospel of John, it could be argued that this fragment provides no independent data concerning Papias. It is conceivable that the traditions found in the anti-Marcionite Prologues were accessible to this author as well. One could justifiably contend, therefore, that this fragment provides no independent witness concerning Papias’s service to the apostle John.

That such a tradition existed and was accessible to this author should not be surprising. The more intriguing question, however, is what was the original source of this tradition? Could it have been Papias’s own writings? If so, then it is just as possible that this author had read Papias’s Exposition and had arrived at his conclusion independently of the tradition contained in fragment 22, which was that Papias had at some point and to some degree served as the apostle John’s secretary. Incontrovertible proof for either position is regrettably not available; thus, certitude concerning this issue remains elusive. Consequently, that Papias may have served as an amanuensis of the apostle John remains a possibility.

386. For the most recent compilation and comparison of lists of Papian fragments see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 730–31.

387. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 579–81. In this edition this text is the fourteenth Papian fragment. Schoedel, Kleist, and Ehrman appropriately began their lists with this fragment. Schoedel, The Fragments, 94–96; Kleist, Papias, 114–18; Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:92–95).

388. See chapter 3 for more information regarding Irenaeus’s relationship to Papias and other apostolic fathers.

389. For other examples of fragments attributed to this “anonymous” group see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 769–73; Schoedel, The Fragments, 124–27.

390. Irenaeus generally referred to the “elders” as those who followed the Lord’s disciples, and not those who had seen and heard the Lord (i.e., the apostles and their contemporaries). Chapman argued that this was also Papias’s understanding of this term. Chapman, John the Presbyter. For a more comprehensive critique of Chapman’s arguments see chapter 2.

391. Schoedel, The Fragments, 94–95; Körtner, Papias, 41–42. Lightfoot believed that a different literary work was the source for the fragment in the middle paragraph; however, he also provided a well reasoned theory that Irenaeus may have in fact relied upon Papias’s Exposition as the source for the fragment. Lightfoot, Essays, 196–99.

392. Lightfoot speculated that Irenaeus’s context implies that this fragment preserves a portion of Jesus’ discourses during his last Passover regarding when he would again drink from the fruit of the vine, the inference being that Papias was aware of some or all of the canonical Gospels. Lightfoot, Essays, 158–59. His conjecture, while intriguing, is impossible to validate with certainty.

393. Hill, “Papias,” 313–14. Hill considered these traditions as coming from “Jewish converts who carried over eschatological ideas of nationalistic apocalypses and perhaps from the synagogues,” or from Gentiles who were engaged in “Jewish-Christian dialogue and debate.” It was his position that these traditions were primarily Jewish in nature and, consequently, they do not appear to have originated with Jesus or his followers. Hill also conjectured that Papias included this tradition as he attempted to explain Jesus’ meanings in Matt 26:27–29; ibid., 310. Rigg believed Papias confused themes found in Jewish literature with the teachings of Jesus; Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 165.

394. Willett, 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, 77–79. Second Baruch, trans. Klijn, 616–17.

395. Second Baruch, trans. Klijn, 630.

396. 1 Enoch, trans. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 30. Schoedel stated that Irenaeus’s tradition was dependent upon “Jewish apocalyptic ideas,” but believed that it was a later development of themes found in the passages of 2 Baruch and 1 Enoch. Schoedel, The Fragments, 94.

397. 1 Enoch, trans. Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 3. E. Isaac also dated this portion of 1 Enoch as “late pre-Maccabean.” 1 Enoch, trans. Isaac, 1:7.

398. Hill, “Papias,” 313–14.

399. See fragment 8, p. 208.

400. Lightfoot, Essays, 160–61. Regarding Papias’s possible interaction with Gnosticism see also Körtner, Papias, 167–72. Schoedel, however, saw little evidence of a gnostic threat in the writings of Papias. Schoedel, The Fragments, 95–96.

401. Smith, No Longer Jews, 152.

402. Smith argued that “gnostic dualism arose in the context of the disappointed messianism of the Jewish revolts in Judea and the Diaspora, and that its full expression did not develop until after the revolt in Cyrenaica and Egypt in 115–117 C.E.” Ibid., 113. While some may view Smith’s thesis as ambitious, he provided a helpful overview of the possible origins and development of Gnosticism that confronted the late second-century church, while also dealing with pre-gnosticism themes commonly found in the New Testament; ibid., 113–14. Lightfoot believed Papias to have written after 130 or even 140; Lightfoot, Essays, 151. If true, then the possibility that Papias might have confronted some form of Gnosticism increases with each passing year.

403. It is recognized that ancient authors, both Christian and pagan, were not as concerned with plagiarism as modern scholars; therefore, it should not be assumed that Papias’s writings are only preserved in known Papian fragments. As Lightfoot wrote, “Literary property was not an idea recognized by early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to concern themselves with their obligations to others. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they had all literary things in common.” Lightfoot, Essays, 202. It is likely, therefore, that some Papian material is preserved or assumed without any reference to Papias at all. In such a literary context, it is certainly possible that Papias confronted some gnostic or pre-gnostic tenets. The lack of available data, therefore, proves very little. For example, if one found a bank statement of an account held by Bill Gates that indicated that he only had fifty dollars, it would not prove that Bill Gates was poor. The available data, however, does seem to suggest that pre-gnostic or “full blown” Gnosticism was not a major focus of Papias’s writings. For a more thorough investigation of the tenets of Gnosticism see Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 29–97; and Smith, No Longer Jews, 5–18.

404. Nielsen, “Papias,” 532. This should not be construed as arguing that “full blown” Gnosticism could not have existed during the period in which Papias wrote. It is possible that Gnosticism existed at that time and that Papias, for whatever reason, was not interested in addressing it in Exposition.

405. In the Latin the phrase regarding Papias’s relationship to John is Haec autem et Papias Johannis auditor. Eusebius preserved Irenaeus’s Greek in his Ecclesiastical History, which refers to Papias as a ἀκουστής of John. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 752.

406. Fragments of Papias 4 (ANF 1:154).

407. Polycarp To the Philippians 9.3 (LCL 24: 381).

408. Regarding the question of whether Irenaeus thought there was one or two “Johns,” see Lewis, Fourth Gospel, 9–23. For an opposing view see Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 332–37.

409. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 563. Holmes identified this fragment as from Eusebius and cited a work by the ninth-century chronographer George Synkellos as his source for Eusebius’s text. Eusebi, Chronicon, 162. In an earlier edition of his Apostolic Fathers, Holmes also cited Jerome’s Latin version of Eusebius’s Chronicle, which Jerome translated ca. 374–379; see Eusebius, Chronicle, 193–94; Eusebii Pamphili, Chronici, 275–76; Hamell, Handbook of Patrology, 144. Eusebius composed his Chronicle before writing his Ecclesiastical History; consequently, it is placed here before other Papian fragments found in Eusebius’s history of the church.

410. Eusebii Pamphili, Chronici, 275–76.

411. This is based upon the assumption that Papias was at least in his mid to late twenties, or more reasonably, in his early thirties when he ascended to the bishopric at Hierapolis. Hill argued that Papias had received many traditions from an individual he knew as “the elder;” consequently, these traditions were considerably older than Papias. Hill, “Papias,” 313.

412. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 733.

413. Eusebi, Chronicon, 162; Eusebii Pamphili, Chronici, 275–76. Holmes only cited the text from Schoene in the third edition (also spelled Schöne in some editions). Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 733. Hereafter, George Syncellus will simply be referred to as Synkellos. Theoretically, one could place this fragment as originating in the ninth century and attribute it to Synkellos. However, this would be an uncritical denial of Synkellos’s and Jerome’s actual source, which appears to be the reason why Holmes has attributed this fragment to Eusebius. For an English translation of Synkellos’s chronography see Synkellos, The Chronography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). For the dating and value of Synkellos’s chronography see Alder’s and Tuffin’s introductory remarks on pages xxix–xxxvi. Alder and Tuffin stated that Synkellos “depended heavily” on Eusebius’s chronicle (see pages lx–lxi). Consequently, by comparing Jerome’s Latin translation with Synkellos’s Greek text concerning this reference to Papias it can be reasonably argued that Synkellos has either preserved Eusebius’s original Greek or a text close to it.

414. A variant has ἐπίσκοποι in the singular, see Syncelli, Ecloga Chronographica, 424.

415. Grant, “Papias in Eusebius,” 209–13.

416. See appendix 1 for a more thorough discussion of Eusebius’s development as a theologian and his opinion of Papias.

417. See 1 Pet 5.13.

418. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 587.

419. This fragment is missing from the lists of Kürzinger, Kleist, Ehrman, and Schoedel.

420. For a discussion on Peter’s possible presence in Rome see Wenham, Redating, 136–72.

421. A valid question regarding Clement of Alexandria’s witness to this tradition is whether he provided an independent witness or did he rely upon Papias who wrote approximately fifty years earlier. Regrettably, neither of these sources is extant, and so it is not possible to answer this question conclusively.

422. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 210–11. This challenge, however, does not detract from Bauckham’s well argued thesis that Mark’s Gospel was a history of the life and teachings of Jesus based upon the eyewitness testimony of Peter. For a more thorough discussion regarding Mark’s responsibility as the preserver of Peter’s testimony of Jesus see ibid., The Eyewitnesses, 155–82, 205–21.

423. If accurate, and there appears little reason to doubt Eusebius’s accuracy on this point, then this fragment provides a weighty challenge to the overly employed adage that first-century audiences placed little value on written testimony.

424. This conjecture seems extremely unlikely given that Eusebius himself was an author who would have been quite familiar the normal practices involved in the publication of books.

425. It is not in the purview of the book to exhaustively investigate what may or may not have been the relationship of “Ur-Mark” and the Gospel of Mark. For an analysis of the possible sources of the Synoptic Gospels see Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 29–152; Carson and Moo, An Introduction, 77–133.

426. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 563. This fragment was not included in the lists of Kleist and Ehrman. The text in italics has been added and it is a translation of a variant of the text that will be explained in greater detail during the discussion of this fragment.

427. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. Cruse, 120. This variant was also retained in Bright’s Greek edition of Eusebius’s history, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, ed. Bright, 95. For a more detailed discussion regarding the textual history of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History see Kirsopp Lake’s introductory remarks in his translation of Eusebius Ecc. Hist. (LCL 153: xix–xxxiii); see also Lawlor, Eusebiana, 243–91.

428. Lawlor, Eusebiana, 291.

429. Grant, “Papias in Eusebius,” 212–13.

430. For a discussion of chiliasm in the early church see Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20,” 237–44; Schaff, History of the Church, 2:613–20; Körtner, Papias, 194–96. Showers, Difference, 113–35.

431. Eusebius, Die Kirchengeschichte, 274.

432. Eusebius, Historica (PG 20: 288).

433. Metzger, The Text, 209.

434. Section 10 is omitted because it is not viewed as an actual Papian fragment, but rather as Eusebius’s opinion that the Barsabbas mentioned by Papias was the same individual referred to in Acts 1.23. While it is reasonable to assume that Eusebius was correct, Ehrman appropriately recognized this section as Eusebian. Consequently, a detailed analysis of it is not included in this study. The Fragments of Papias (LCL 25:101).

435. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 563–69.

436. Munck, “Presbyters,” 224; see also, Petrie, “Matthew,” 15.

437. Exegeting particular portions or even words of this chapter has been the focus of many scholars, such as Munck, “Presbyters,” 221–43; Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 167–204; Matthew Black wrote an article on rhetorical vocabulary in Papias’s preface. Black, “Rhetorical Terminology,” 31–41. Mullins wrote an article that focused on the word ἔνια as found in Papias’s preface. Mullins, “Papias,” 216–24. More recently Armin Baum wrote an article on the clause “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter.” He contended that Mark did not receive data for his Gospel directly from Peter, but that Peter, being bi-lingual, wrote his sermons in Greek, from which Mark “interpreted” Peter’s meanings, which he redacted into the Gospel bearing his name. Baum, “Der Presbyter des Papias,” 23, 35.

438. Having already discussed Irenaeus’s reference to Papias in the analysis of fragment 1, p. 106, this portion of this book will primarily focus upon Eusebius’s comments and preservation of Papian material.

439. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 732. English translations of Papias title usually reverse the word order of his Greek words; consequently the words in Papias’s title will be discussed in the order in which they are generally found in English translations.

440. Schoedel, The Fragments, 96–97. An example can be found in LSJ notation on this word; see LSJ, s.v. “ἐξηγήσις.” The work was from a pre-Socratic philosopher known as Zeno Eleacticus or “Zeno of Elea” (firth century BC). LSJ cited the title as “Ε* των Εμπεδοκλους,” which in English is translated as An Exposition of the “Sayings” of Empedocles. It does not appear that LSJ provided the entire title; thus “Sayings” has been supplied in this title; nor does LSJ indicate whether ἐξηγήσις was nominative or genitive, or whether it is singular or plural. Zeno of Elea was a contemporary of Empedocles in the fifth century BC; therefore, it is possible that Zeno interacted with the writings of Empedocles. For an overview of the lives of these two early Greek philosophers see Barnes, Early Greek Philosophy, 150–201; and Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 202.

441. Lawlor argued that it is a misreading to keep ἐξηγήσεως in the genitive. He believed that it should be read in the nominative (ἐξηγήσις or ἐξηγήσεις; thus following the text “M”). Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 167. See also Petrie, “Matthew,” 16. His theory is to be rejected since it is contrary to the witness of the majority of texts, being testified to by only one manuscript. Not only is this theory contrary to witness of manuscripts A, T, E, R, B, and D (for the manuscript evidence see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 732), but it also ignores the references to Papias’s title as preserved by Eusebius, Apollinaris, and Maximus. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 732, 754.

442. Lightfoot, Essays, 142. For the most exhaustive discussion concerning the title of Papias’s work see Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 167–204. Hill also interpreted ἐξηγήσεως in the plural, although he was aware that it was singular. Hill, “Papias,” 310, 313. Schoedel and many others correctly translate the word as singular. Schoedel, “Papias,” in ABD 5:140; Bartlet, “Papias’s Exposition,” 15–16.

443. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 742.

444. Ibid., 744.

445. Ibid., 746–47. For a discussion of the Latin translation and interpretation of ἐξηγήσεως see Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 169–71. Körtner believed that Jerome misinterpreted Papias’s title. Körtner, Papias, 156.

446. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 752, 754. From Maximus’s title it could be inferred that Maximus understood that some of the interpretations contained in Papias’s Exposition came directly from Jesus. For examples of Jesus providing interpretations of his teachings see Matt 13:1–23, 34–50; 15:1–20.

447. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 754. Apollinaris changed λογίων (oracles) to the more generic λογων (sayings, teachings, or books). He did, however, retain ἐξηγήσεως in the singular and genitive.

448. See fragment 21, p. 242.

449. See Higgins, “Family Genealogy,” 3. See also Von Campenhausen’s remarks; Von Campenhausen, The Christian Bible, 134–35.

450. Schoedel was not completely clear whether he thought exēgēseōs was clumsy because it was in the singular, or because it was in the genitive, or for both reasons. Regardless of his vagueness, he chose to follow Lawlor with respect to reading the last word of Papias’s title in the nominative singular (i.e., exēgēsis). Schoedel, The Fragments, 96–97.

451. Smyth explained the translation of περί with a genitive object in this manner, “Other relations: about concerning (Lat. de), the subject about which an act or thought centers.” Smyth, Grammar, 383. This very construction can be found in sections 14, 15, and 16 of Eusebius’s quotes of Papias. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738–41.

452. Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 193–98.

453. Hill, “Papias,” 310.

454. Ignatius, Papias’s contemporary, used this adjective in his letter to the Magnesians. Ehrman translated the phrase containing it as “the Lord’s day.” Ignatius To the Magnesians 9 (LCL 24: 250–51).

455. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 12.

456. For a thorough discussion on λόγια see Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 351–407; Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 189–93. Kürzinger appeared to translate λόγια and variations of it as found throughout Eusebius’s handling of Papian material as diminutive, meaning “words” or “brief or concise reports” (kurzen Berichte). Kürzinger, Papias, 25. Black rightly criticized Kürzinger for failing to consider how λόγια was used in contexts dealing with divine utterances. Black, “Rhetorical Terminology,” 32.

457. Rom 3:2, Heb 5:12, Acts 7:38, and 1 Pet 4:11.

458. Hunter, Cultural Wars, 135–70, 197–224.

459. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 365–66. For a discussion about “oracles” of Apollo associated with the city of Hierapolis see Parke, The Oracles of Apollo, 153–57, 180–83.

460. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 369.

461. Ibid., 374.

462. Kittel, “λόγιον,” in TDNT, 4:137.

463. Ibid., 4:138.

464. Ibid., 4:139.

465. Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 191.

466. Ehrman’s dating of this epistle is not entirely critical. He relied completely upon P. N. Harrison’s theory, the result being that he believed that material in this letter can be dated anywhere between 110 to 150. See his introductory remarks in Polycarp To the Philippians (LCL 24: 326–29). Schoedel’s explanation of the dating of this letter is more objective. He relied upon Eusebius, who dated Ignatius’s death as occurring in the eleventh year of Trajan’s reign (ca. 109–110), which began 98. Polycarp, To the Philippians, trans. Schoedel, 5:4. Polycarp’s letter in chapter nine acknowledges that Ignatius had suffered but without specifics, while in chap. 13 Polycarp requested more detailed information concerning Ignatius’s sufferings. Consequently, this letter appears to have been written around the time of Ignatius’s martyrdom, for certainly in the following years details about Ignatius’s martyrdom would have become well known among the Asiatic churches. Therefore, Polycarp’s letter can hardly have been written later than 115. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 204.

467. Polycarp Letter to the Philippians 7 (LCL 24: 343). Italics mine. Ehrman’s footnotes citing biblical references have been inserted within the block quote. Körtner argued that this phrase in Polycarp’s letter is to be distinguished from the phrase Λογίων κυριακῶν found in Papias’s title because in Papias’s title “the Lord” is the object and not the subject. Körtner, Papias, 156. Consequently, Körtner believed that Papias was expositing oracles that were about the Lord rather than expositing oracles from the Lord. However, fragments 1 and 23 argue against his theory, for in each of them Papias’s discussion was about what the Lord said instead of being a discussion about the Lord. Körtner believed, however, that although the term λόγια was not identical to the Gospels, it did refer to materials (Stoffe) found within them (ibid.).

468. This issue will be investigated with greater depth later.

469. Literally translated: “The making of Lord’s oracles.”

470. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738–40.

471. Kittel, “λóγιον,” in TDNT, 4:140–41.

472. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 163.

473. While understanding “oracles” as utterances from the lips of Jesus (and thus understanding this word as a subjective genitive), translating Papias’s title in this fashion also respects the possibility that at times Papias may have also discussed traditions about Jesus. Körtner, Papias, 154–63. As mentioned earlier, throughout this book Papias’s five-volume work will simply be referred to as Exposition.

474. Having already discussed Irenaeus’s statement about Papias in chapter 3, and in the analysis of fragment 1, p. 106, as well as in appendix 1, the current discussion concerning the Papian fragments in Eusebius’s thirty-ninth chapter will focus primarily upon the statements Eusebius made about Papias, and any additional information Eusebius may have provided about his writings.

475. Petrie, “Matthew,” 16, 18.

476. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 734–35.

477. Hill, “Papias,” 309.

478. Eusebius wrote concerning Papias’s relationship to the apostolic generation that “So says Irenaeus. Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, indicates that he was by no means a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, but shows by the language he uses he received the matters of the faith from those who had known them.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735. See also Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 335.

479. See the discussion on fragment 2 of this book, p. 111, and Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.36.1; V.20.6–7; V.24.16 (LCL 153: 281, 497–99, 511).

480. Munck, “Presbyters,” 226.

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

482. Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 334–45.

483. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 14–30. Lightfoot identified the verb as an historical present; however, he contended that it was provided only for the sake of variety. Lightfoot, Essays, 150; see also Schoedel, The Fragments, 99. Munck interpreted this verb to mean that both Aristion and John were still living. Munck, “Presbyters,” 230–31. Gundry provided an insightful discussion on the use of the historical present. Gundry, Matthew, 1028–31.

484. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History VII.25.12–16 (LCL 265:201–3).

485. Later references to a “John of Ephesus” should not be understood as references to the apostle John.

486. See appendix 1 of this book for a much more comprehensive discussion of this issue.

487. Lightfoot, Essays, 143. This is assumed by the clause Οὐκ ὀκνήσω δέ σοι. It was not uncommon in ancient literature for authors to address their sponsors. It is also possible, although less likely, that Papias may have been addressing an adversary.

488. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 734.

489. The last clause could also be rendered as “guaranteeing on their behalf truth.”

490. Kleist suggested that Papias’s work was a type of “running commentary” in which some of the “explanations” he set down were from his “presbyters.” Kleist, Papias, 105–6.

491. Lake translated this portion of Papias’s preface as “And I shall not hesitate to append to the interpretations all that I ever learnt well from the presbyters and remembered well.” His translation correctly leaves the infinitive συγκατατάξαι indefinite. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.3 (LCL 153:290–91). See also Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 165. There is a question of whether the text should read συγκατατάξαι or συγταξαι. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 734. The manuscript evidence is equally divided. Both Lake and Holmes preferred συγκατατάξαι. This infinitive is somewhat difficult to translate. Lake’s “to append” is not very satisfying since it appears that Papias intended to do more than simply “add” interpretations. He intended to provide them in an orderly arrangement (τάξις) along with the things he had learned from the elders. Holmes’s “along with” seems to be a good translation for the prefix συγκατα of τάξαι. Consequently, a possible translation for this infinitive as, “within an orderly arrangement.” Walls translated this word as “setting down alongside.” Walls, “Papias,” 138. Τάξις appears to be a cognate of τάσσω, which is interpreted as “to arrange.” LSJ cited the use of a “συγκατατάσσω,” which was interpreted as “to arrange or draw up together.” LSJ, s.v. “συγκατα*σβέννῡμι.” Therefore, Holmes translation “to arrange” is preferred, although it should be understood as indefinite.

492. Lightfoot, Essays, 147.

493. Research in Greek literature, philosophy, and rhetoric is vast and diverse. Concerning proper and acceptable styles, what was acceptable among philosophers was not acceptable at times for rhetoricians. Schenkeveld, “Philosophical Prose,” 196–264. Galen Rowe provided a survey of rhetorical devices that he categorized as “tropes.” While discussing rhetorical devices that create a change in meaning he wrote, “As in the case of trope, where a word or brief phrase is changed from its proper meaning into another meaning in order to achieve a certain effect, so this category designates thought figures in which one thought may be expressed through another, dissimilar thought.” Rowe, “Style,” 150. Among Rowe’s categories, the trope that possibly could best fit Papias’s use of ἀλήθεια is “Emphasis” (ibid., 127). This should not be understood as arguing that Papias was an accomplished philosopher or rhetorician, only that it is possible that while writing he attempted to employ a style that would effectively engage his audience. R. Dean Anderson noted that rhetoricians such as Cicero and Quintilian associated “word-play” with “wit;” however, word-play was “not the figure of choice when dealing with important (or) serious subjects.” Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory, 285. It is equally as possible that on this point Papias was simply imprecise.

494. Bacon held that Papias “was not even a hearer of the ‘disciples of the apostles.’” Bacon, “Syriac Translator,” 8.

495. This should not be understood to suggest that Papias never learned anything new about Jesus or about the traditions of the elders from some who came to Hierapolis. For certainly if a recognized disciple of Jesus, or a well known companion of Peter or Paul, came to Hierapolis, then there is little doubt that Papias would have received their fellowship and sought out new information. However, this does not appear to be the situation that Papias was describing in section 4.

496. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 15. This verb (παρηκολουθηκώς) is a perfect participle and should probably be understood as an aoristic or dramatic historic perfect. Wallace defined this use of the perfect as “The aorist/dramatic perfect is used as a simple past tense without concern for present consequences. In this respect, it shares a kinship with the historic present. This use is informed by the contextual intrusions (narrative). The key to detecting a dramatic perfect is the absence of any notion of existing results.” Wallace, The Basics, 249. This is precisely what we see in Papias’s use; he employed this verb in a narrative describing his own experience with no reference to any existing results. Bauckham translated it as “had been in attendance” (also see page 15). Petrie compared the definition of this word as found in Liddell and Scott to that found in Arndt-Gingrich, and decided that the debate over its exact meaning was “inconclusive,” and then chose to translate it as “closely associated.” Petrie, “Matthew,” 16–17 n. 4. If the possibilities of understanding the exact nature of the relationship between these travelers and the elders is truly “inconclusive,” then translating this participle as “having attended” or as “having associated with” rather than “closely associated” seems sufficient since such translations provide no bias with respect to the extent of the possible relationship that travelers may have had with Papias’s elders.

497. These “travelers” were clearly unfamiliar to Papias, for why else would he have felt the need to “examine” them if in fact he already knew them.

498. The verb “ἀνέκρινον” is the imperfect of ἀνακρίνω. This word describes Papias’s investigative activities. It is understood as a customary imperfect, although it could also be understood as an ingressive imperfect, which would be translated “I began to examine them.” For uses of the imperfect tense see Wallace, The Basics, 232–38. Bacon contended that Papias’s investigations occurred during his “boyhood.” Bacon, “An Emendation,” 176. It hardly seems likely that it would have been appropriate for a child to perform such examinations upon his elders.

499. BAGD, s.v. “ἀνακρίνω.”

500. Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 334.

501. Gundry, Mark, 1029.

502. Wallace, The Basics, 89. Italics mine. Schoedel denied that these clauses were appositional. Schoedel, “Papias,” 250. He did not, however, explain or provide an alternative syntactical relationship.

503. Bauckham, “Papias and Polycrates,” 60.

504. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 16–17. Italics mine.

505. Gundry, Mark, 1029. Chapman argued that instead of seeing these accusatives as “co-ordinating, . . . it is possible to subordinate it (τί) to λόγους, thus making ‘what Andrew and Peter said’ the subject of the Presbyters’ discourses: ‘I used to inquire the words of the Presbyters, what (they said) Peter and Andrew said.’” Chapman, John the Presbyter, 10. Chapman, however, did not provide a corroborating example of an accusative being used in such a manner to substantiate his theory.

506. Smyth, Grammar, 360. The definitions of the accusative of general reference that follow are also taken from Smyth’s discussion in his Greek grammar found on pages 360–61.

507. Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 203–4.

508. Wallace, The Basics, 91. Italics mine.

509. What is so troubling about this approach is that it continually surfaces in literature concerning Papias in spite of the fact that even Chapman recognized Irenaeus’s use of the word elder was at times both unnatural and untrustworthy. Moreover, Chapman himself admitted that for Irenaeus the term “elder” was synonymous with the term “apostle,” stating, “Who were the Presbyters? Undoubtedly the simplest way to translate (πρεσβυτέρων in Papias’s clause) is this: ‘I inquired the word of the Presbyters, that is to say, what Andrew or Peter said,’ etc., thus identifying the Apostles enumerated with the Presbyters whose words are asked for. At first sight this even appears to be the only possible meaning.” Italics mine. And again, Chapman, quoting Lightfoot, wrote, “What classes of persons he intends to include under the designation of ‘elders’ he makes clear by the names which follow. The category would include not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other personal disciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second John. In other words, the term with him (i.e., Irenaeus) is a synonyme for the Fathers of the Church in the first generation.” Chapman, John the Presbyter, 9–10, quoting Lightfoot, Essays, 145.

510. Munck, “Presbyters,” 235.

511. Gundry, Mark, 1029.

512. Paul called James (who was the half brother of Jesus) an apostle in Gal 1:19.

513. For historical references to James’s death see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 4:140; and Eusebius Ecc. Hist. II.23.1–25 (LCL 153: 169–79). For a discussion concerning the historicity of the narratives concerning the death of James, Weiss, and Knopf, Earliest Christianity, 2:707–12.

514. Deeks believed that Papias was referring to James of Zebedee simply because Papias’s list of apostles included James’s brother John. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 297. Munck also believed that when Papias referred to James and Philip he had the apostles in mind. Munck, “Presbyters,” 231.

515. Körtner, Papias, 145–46.

516. Matthews, Philip, 33.

517. For a more thorough discussion see appendix 2.

518. Matthews, Philip, 20–21. In the quote above, Matthews also quotes Munck. For Munck’s quote see Munck, “Presbyters,” 239.

519. While there has been considerable debate about the possible meanings of the term πρεσβύτερος, there are very few that would argue that it could not mean “members of the older generation who are regarded as mediators of the authentic tradition and reliable teachers.” Bornkamm, “πρεσβύτερος,” in TDNT, 6: 676. See also Kümmel, Introduction, 172. Even some, who do not believe that Papias’s second reference to this John should be understood as meaning that he was a recognized tradition bearer of the church, do acknowledge this meaning was applied to Papias’s initial list of apostles. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 296.

520. Metzger, The Text, 51.

521. Lightfoot argued that the designation of the second John as “the elder” was a reference to his “official title, designating a member of the order of the presbyterate.” Lightfoot, Essays, 146.

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

523. The word Papias employed was τἀληθη~, which is a crasis of τά and ἀληθής.

524. Munck translated this phrase as “strange commandments.” Munck, “Presbyters,” 224. Ehrman translated it as “the commandments of strangers.” Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:99). Holmes’s translation is appropriate since the phrase “τὰς ἀλλοτρίας ἑντολὰς” does not suggest a subversive or mysterious source, but rather a source that Papias did not prefer since it did not adhere to apostolic traditions.

525. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735. It should be noted what Papias did not “enjoy” was “the many things” being spoken and not necessarily those who were speaking. In other words, τὰ πολλα is in the accusative and is the object of the verb ἕχαιρον (I was enjoying). Literally translated, the clause should read, “For I was not enjoying the many things by the ones speaking. . . .”

526. Polycarp To the Philippians 7.2 (LCL 24:343).

527. Nielsen, “Papias,” 530–35.

528. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 734. The antecedent for the article τοῑς is “the ones remembering,” while τὰς δεδομένας refers to the “commandments” of Jesus in contrast to the commandments of others.

529. Papias’s reference to “faith” is articular and, therefore, definite. Consequently, Papias believed that Jesus had given doctrine to “The Faith,” and not just teachings to encourage “faith” for the purpose of promoting virtuous living.

530. Walter Bauer argued that “east of Phrygian Hierapolis we could hardly discern any traces of orthodoxy. Christianity and heresy were essentially synonymous there.” Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 229.

531. See also Matt 28:18–20; John 8:31 and 14:23.

532. The clause in Greek is “καὶ ἀπ αὐτῆς παραγινομένας τῆς ἀληθείας.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 734–35.

533. Petrie, “Matthew,” 16. Ehrman translated this word as “proceed.” Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:99).

534. Schoedel translated τῆς ἀληθείας as “the Truth.” Although he failed to elaborate upon what he meant, it is assumed that he believed Papias was referring to Jesus. Schoedel, The Fragments, 99; see also Lightfoot, Essays, 143. For a biblical reference to Jesus as “the Truth” see John 1:14; 14:6. Such a conclusion is reasonable given Papias’s association with the apostle John, and the fact that a major theme within John’s writings was to identify Jesus as “the truth”; see Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 21.

535. John 1:17; 14:6; 17:19; 18:37; 1 John 2:21; 3:19; 2 John 2–4; 3 John 3–4, 8.

536. Polhill, “2 John and 3 John,” 30.

537. Given his knowledge of Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel, there is little doubt that Papias was aware that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. However, through his association with the apostle John and other disciples of Jesus, Papias was confident that although the other apostolic Gospels were not written in Jesus’ native language, they accurately communicated Jesus’ meanings.

538. It should not be assumed, as with the case of Aristion, that everyone who followed Jesus was elevated to the status of “elder.”

539. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 20.

540. Several have commented upon the Johannine nature of Papias’s list of apostles. See Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 20–21, 418; Hengel, The Question, 16–19. One should no more lightly esteem those listed by Papias as those listed in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews.

541. See Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; 2 Pet 3:2; Rev 21:14.

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

543. Munck argued there was “no significance” to be found in the repetition of τί. Munck, “Presbyters,” 224.

544. Kleist, Papias, 110. Perumalil, “Papias,” 363.

545. Munck discussed the syntactical relationship of this relative pronoun (which he recognized as appositional to the preceding interrogative clause) but failed to acknowledge Papias’s shift from singular interrogative pronouns to a plural relative pronoun, as well as the implications of such a shift. See Munck, “Presbyters,” 237 n. 42. Munck also disagreed with Lawlor, who argued the text as it stands at this point is “awkward”; thus, it appears that Eusebius omitted “a portion of the text.” Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 210. This suggestion is not only purely speculative, but Eusebius’s quote of Papias makes perfect sense without the need of any textual emendation.

546. The Greek verb λέγουσιν is interpreted as a historical present, thus enabling Papias to speak of an earlier period in his ministry in real time. The significance of Papias’s syntax will be discussed more fully below. About the coalescing of recognized apostolic traditions in a single body of church dogma, Von Campenhausen ironically argued that Papias’s influence upon this process was destabilizing rather than being an attempt on his part to protect the orthodox traditions that he had received. Von Campenhausen, The Christian Bible, 134–35. His assertion, however, is unwarranted.

547. Hill believed that it is “unclear” whether Aristion and Eusebius’s John the elder had “personally” known Jesus. Hill, “Papias,” 310. His skepticism is unwarranted. Some have suggested that Aristion and the elder John were not disciples of the Lord, but students of the disciples of the Lord. Abbott, “The ‘Elders’ of Papias,” 333ff.; Bacon, “An Emendation, 176–83; Bacon, “Syriac Translator,” 1–23. Bacon and Abbot support their positions by conjectural emendations of the text or by relying upon terminology found in the writings of Irenaeus and applying it to Papias. Their arguments have little substance, being predominately built upon conjectures.

548. Bacon, “An Emendation,” 177.

549. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 297. Even though Deeks observed that Papias had not labeled Aristion as an elder, he later argued that Aristion did in fact have “presbyteral authority,” (see page 300 n. 8). Munck also argued that Aristion was a presbyter. Munck, “Presbyters,” 239–40.

550. Deeks insisted that “presbyter and disciple of the Lord” were synonymous. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 297.

551. It is noted that πρεσβύτερος is in the first attributive position. It is, therefore, correctly translated as “the elder John.” Wallace, citing Roberston, stated that in such cases “the adjective receives greater emphasis than the substantives.” Wallace, The Basics, 135. Robertson, A Grammar, 776. Consequently, Papias was emphasizing John’s rank as a tradition bearer. An adjective in the attributive position does not demand that it be preceded by an article. An anarthrous adjective in the first attributed position is common in Koine Greek, although not as common as the “article-adjective-noun” construction. Wallace, The Basics, 138. See also Black, Read New Testament Greek, 41–42. It is possible that the article indicates that the adjective πρεσβύτερος was being used as a substantive rather than a comparative adjective (Wallace, The Basics, 130–31). This again would mean that Papias was emphasizing the office John held (i.e., that of an elder) and not his age. This is consistent with the context of Papias’s statements, which is clearly focused upon sanctioned leaders who were recognized as official bearers of the church’s traditions. However, because Papias employed an article with his second reference to one named John, the article is, therefore, simply understood as anaphoric.

552. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 296. See also Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 422. Munck understood the reference to “the elder John” as distinguishing this John, who was an office bearer in the church, from the apostle John. Munck, “Presbyters,” 238. See also Hill, “Papias,” 310. Petrie in some sense combined the usage of “elder” to be both speaking of one who was old, but also as a reference to one who is worthy and held “prestige and authority.” He argued, however, it did not refer to an office in “any official sense.” He also gave a good explanation of how the Jewish usage of this word influenced the church’s usage. Petrie, “Matthew,” 18–19. For a more thorough explanation of how the church’s Jewish roots influenced its usage of this word see Giles, “Church Order,” 219–26. A great problem with viewing Papias’s usage of this word as referring as only a comparative adjective is that by approximately AD 50 the word “elder” with respect to the church’s leadership referred to one who held an official position of leadership that afforded him the authority to make binding decisions upon the church at large (see Acts 15:1–22). Also, Paul’s qualification for an elder in 1 Tim 31ff. and Titus 1:5ff. does not intend that an elder must be “elderly” (that is “old”). In fact, Paul expected an elder to manage his household well and have believing “children,” implying that an elder could still be of child-bearing age or at least have “children” under his management. Paul’s instructions for appointing elders emphasized spiritually mature leadership, not only leaders who were “old.”

553. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 297.

554. Ibid. Deeks quoted J. W. Wenham for support of his position. See Wenham, New Testament Greek, 36.

555. An interestingly observation is Eusebius’s own employed an anaphoric article with Aristion’s name when he mentioned him after his quote of Papias, indicating that he was speaking about the previously mentioned Aristion; see Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.4–5 (LCL 153: 292).

556. Deeks, “Papias Revisited,” 297.

557. Smyth, Grammar, 290.

558. Eusebius, Chronicle, 193, and Eusebii Pamphili, Chronici, 275. The following dates are provided as estimates. It is recognized that there is considerable debate regarding them. They are provided, however, for the sake of discussion.

559. It is assumed that Jesus was born relatively close to Herod the Great’s death, which occurred ca. 4 BC.

560. Assuming Jesus was crucified ca. 30 (see Carson and Moo, Introduction, 126). If Jesus was crucified in 33 then John would have been approximately twenty-six years old. The exact date of Jesus’ crucifixion is greatly debated. However, it is not in the purview of this book to prove the year of Jesus’ crucifixion. Consequently, these dates are provided only for the sake of estimating the approximate ages of the apostle John and Aristion.

561. For the sake of discussion it will be assumed that Aristion was younger than John, although this is not a certainty.

562. This approximates Aristion’s birth ca. 14. This year is merely suggested as the latest one could have been born and still be viewed as a respectable follower of Jesus.

563. The aorist is understood as simple past tense, indicating that they had spoken. For other theories of the relevance of this shift and what is commonly referred to as a “historical present,” see the discussion associated with footnote 98 on page 133.

564. Although not the position of this book, it is recognized that this present tense verb could indicate that Papias was referring to the state of affairs in the church as he wrote. See Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 334; and Perumalil, “Papias,” 363.

565. Petrie, “Matthew,” 17. Italics mine.

566. Petrie himself saw the article before the second mentioning of John’s name as anaphoric; thereby indicating that Papias was speaking of the previously mentioned John. Petrie, “Matthew,” 21.

567. Ibid., 19. Petrie understood the word elder to mean “ancient worthies.”

568. Ibid., 20, 24. Bauckham argued that Papias had not only not heard the apostle John, but had also not personally heard Eusebius’s John the elder, but had learned what they had to say from their followers. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 19. Given Bauckham’s position, one could certainly question whether Papias had any right to confidently assert that he had accurately learned anything that the apostle John had said or taught.

569. Hill asserted that it was unclear whether Papias had heard the apostle John. Hill, “Papias,” 310.

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

571. Mansfeld, “Galen, Papias,” 320.

572. Alexander, “The Living Voice,” 243.

573. This should not be understood as arguing that Judaism in its many forms was exclusively a text-based religion, but only that it was not exclusively an oral-based religion. Instead it was quite comfortable with its sacred texts.

574. Ibid., 245.

575. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 27.

576. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 723.

577. 2 Cor 10:10; 3 John 9.

578. 1 Cor 4:6; 14:38; Gal 1:8–9; 2 Tim 4:1–2; 1 John 5:13.

579. In Greek, the phrase is “παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης.” The Greek verb for “abiding” is μένω, which occurs in the New Testament a little over 110 times. Metzger, Lexical Aids, 12.

580. Alexander, “The Living Voice,” 225.

581. See 1 Pet 1:23, and possibly Gal 2:5.

582. John 15:7 and 10.

583. Holmes observed that “abiding” could possibly be interpreted as “surviving.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735. While μένω can be translated as “to survive,” this would be rather redundant since one who is living would be by definition “surviving.” Given the presence of ζώσης and the significance of the concept of “abiding” in Johannine literature, there is good reason for understanding Papias’s employment of μένω as a reference to remaining faithful to Jesus and his teachings rather than a reference to one’s enduring life. Bauckham also translated μένω as “surviving.” He recognized that it may have been an allusion to John 21:22. He did not, however, discuss the more significant nuance of this word with respect to faithfulness to Jesus and his teachings found throughout the Gospel of John. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 21–22.

584. Lightfoot, Essays, 161. See also Hill, “Papias,” 312.

585. Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 176–77.

586. A more literal translation would be “I will not hesitate for you to set down along with the interpretations whatsoever at that time I carefully learned and I carefully remembered from the elders, (thus) guaranteeing on their behalf truth. For I was not enjoying the many things by the ones speaking—even as the many, but the truth by the ones teaching. Neither the other commandments by the ones remembering, but by those (remembering) the things [or commandments] having been given from the Lord to the faith, and coming from the truth itself. And if perhaps having arrived one having associated with the elders, I was examining the words of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas, or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, (and) which Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I was not thinking I would benefit so much (by) the things from books, as much as the things from a living and abiding voice.” The words in parenthesis are added to provide a smoother translation, while words in brackets provide an alternate reading. The above translations are provided with the hope of avoiding the dramatic liberties that can be observed in other translations. For an example of such a translation see Kleist, “Rereading the Papias,” 11–12, 16–17.

587. One might suggest that in Papias’s initial list he mentioned only apostles. Aristion and Eusebius’s John the elder were not apostles; therefore, Papias would not have been concerned about mentioning Aristion before any apostle. It was Eusebius’s conjecture, however, that prestige would have determined any ordering of names (even among apostles), which is demonstrably not the case. Secondly, it should be recognized that Papias also called Aristion a disciple of the Lord in the same manner as the other apostles. Consequently, although he was not an apostle, he was a prestigious Christian.

588. Polhill, “2 John and 3 John,” 30. Italics mine.

589. This issue is addressed extensively in appendix 1.

590. Schoedel, The Fragments, 102.

591. Eusebius was quite familiar with Dionysius’s theory on the authorship of the book of Revelation. See Eusebius Ecc. Hist. VII.25.1–27 (LCL 265:197–209). See also Munck, “Presbyters,” 224–25.

592. “εἰ μή τις ἐθέλοι τὸν πρῶτον.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 736.

593. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.25.1–4 (LCL 153:256). Dionysius himself, while not believing the book of Revelation was written by the apostle John, still contended it was sacred and part of the canon; see ibid., Ecc. Hist. VII.25.4–5 (LCL 265: 197–98).

594. Holmes’s translation is here provided: “And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had followed them, but he says that the was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the elder.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735–37.

595. Petrie, “Matthew,” 16.

596. Holmes translated sections 8 through 10 as “It is worthwhile to add to the statements of Papias given above other sayings of his, in which he records some other remarkable things as well, which came done to him, as it were, from tradition. That Philip the Apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters has already been stated, but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their contemporary, recalls that he heard an amazing story from Philip’s daughters. For he reports that in his day a man rose from the dead, and again another amazing story involving Justus, who was surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and yet by the grace of the Lord suffered nothing unpleasant.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 737.

597. Schoedel, The Fragments, 103. For a more detailed discussion of this issue see appendix 2. Lightfoot, having previously thought that Papias had only known Philip the evangelist later changed his position and argued that he also knew the apostle Philip; see Lightfoot, Essays, 149; ibid., Colossians, 45–46.

598. Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2:116–18.

599. The Greek word is παρειληφέναι, which is a perfect active infinite of παραλάμβανω. Given Papias’s context this word is properly translated as “to receive.”

600. Holmes translated the Greek word διήγησιν as “story.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 737. See also Schoedel, The Fragments, 103; and Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:101). One could infer from his translation that the truthfulness of the event or its accuracy was in doubt. This Greek word is used with reference to narratives or historical reports; therefore, “story” hardly seems the most appropriate translation. Just because Eusebius understood this account as “amazing” does not imply that he doubted its truthfulness or accuracy. He reported many other amazing accounts throughout his Ecclesiastical History, accounts that he clearly believed were true.

601. Matthews, Philip, 27.

602. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 737; Schoedel, The Fragments, 103; Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:101).

603. A literal translation is “And that Papias having been among them.”

604. Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2:114–15. Schoedel, while recognizing Eusebius’s contradiction, argued that the clause κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς should probably be understood as a euphemism for “chronous” or “time.” However, he provided no substantive support for his position. Schoedel, The Fragments, 103.

605. While Eusebius stated that Papias recorded that a man had been raised from the dead, Philip discussed the raising of a woman and others, as well as the longevity of some of their lives. One could infer from such details that the author of fragment 11, p. 215, also had access to a manuscript of Papias’s Exposition.

606. They may have also been recorded simply for their historical value.

607. It is the author’s position that Mark 16:9–20 is an addition to the Gospel, and that Mark’s original ending was lost. For a discussion of the text critical analysis of the endings of the Gospel of Mark see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 102–7. For a discussion on the major views regarding Mark’s ending see Gundry, Mark, 1009–21. This author also assumes a pre-AD 70 composition of the Gospel of Mark. For theories on the dating of Mark’s Gospel see Carson and Moo, Introduction, 177–82. Bacon believed that an Armenian manuscript containing Mark 16:9–20 under the “formal title” of “From the Presbyter Ariston” was actually a reference to Papias’s source Aristion. Bacon, “An Emendation,” 177. He judicially questioned, however, whether these verses could have come from an actual disciple of Jesus. While the idea is provocative, little weight can be placed on the theory that Mark 16:9–20 was originally from the hand of Papias’s Aristion.

608. Eusebius identified Barsabbas as one of the possible apostolic replacements for Judas in Acts 1:23. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.9–10 (LCL 153:295). As stated earlier, this section is understood as Eusebius’s personal explanation of specific identity of the Barsabbas’s that Papias had written about, and while Eusebius was in all probability accurate in his assessment, his theory, nonetheless, will not be dealt with as an actual Papian fragment.

609. Irenaeus Against Heresies III.10.5–6 (ANF 1:425–26); Tatian Diatessaron LIII–LV (ANF 9:125–29).

610. Other possible examples of fulfillments of Jesus’ oracles are Luke 10:19 and the ability to drink poison without harm, or Matt 10:8 and the ability of Jesus’ followers to raise the dead.

611. Metzger believed that Mark 16:9–20 was composed sometime during the “first half of the second century.” Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 105.

612. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 165.

613. “ἄλλα . . . ἐκ παραδόσεως ἀγράφου.”

614. The Greek word that Holmes translated as “Lord” is actually σωτῆρος, which is more appropriately translated as “savior.” For the correct translation see Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:101).

615. While there is no direct reference to Jesus reigning with resurrected saints on the earth in Rev 20:1–6, the following verses (Rev 20:7–9) reveal that the kingdom mentioned in verses 4–6 had been established upon the earth.

616. Burton, Lectures, 392–93.

617. Perumalil, “Papias,” 363.

618. Perumalil was not clear about whether he thought Papias’s Exposition was the first known commentary on the words of Jesus for the first-century church or for modern historians.

619. Holmes, in the third edition of The Apostolic Fathers, corrected δηγήσεις to διηγήσεις, which is translated as “an account, a historical record, a narrative.” See the fragment from Ecc. Hist. III.39.12 in Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 566, and compare it with Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738. Apparently Kleist incorrectly translated this word as “interpretations.” Kleist, Papias, 117. Kleist’s translation of the last half of section 12 takes considerable liberties. Eusebius’s comment is rather difficult to translate. It seems, consequently, that the most appropriate translation is, “Which things I was thinking to suppose (as) being misconstrued apostolic accounts.” This translation understands the infinitive ὑπολαβεῑν as complementary of the verb ἡγοῡμαι, which has Eusebius as its subject. For alternate readings see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 739. Lake’s translation of the participle παρεκδεξάμενον as “perverse” could be construed as being polemical; consequently, “misconstrued” is preferred. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.12 (LCL 153:294–95). Ehrman chose not to translate the last portion of section 12 through 13. He rightfully saw it as Eusebius’s comments on Papias’s writing and his intelligence; therefore, this entire section is not considered a Papian fragment. Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:101–3). However, his commentary about Papias’s writings does provide valuable insights from Eusebius about the nature of Papias’s work; consequently, they are important.

620. This clause in Greek is “τὰ ἐν ὑποδείγμασι πρὸς αὐτῶν μυστικῶς εἰρημένα μὴ συνεωρακότα.” The translation of this clause is provided by the author. For the text see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738. The preposition πρὸς before the genitive pronoun αὐτῶν is difficult to interpret since the construction is rare. Schoedel interpreted the clause as meaning things spoken “by them” Schoedel, The Fragments, 104. Similarly, see also Lake in Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.12 (LCL 153:297); and Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 739.

621. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738–39. Italics mine. The entire Greek text is “ἅ καὶ ἡγοῡμαι τὰς ἀποστολικὰς παρεκδεξάμενον διηγήσεις ὑπολαβεῑν, τὰ ἐν ὑποδείγμασι πρὸς αὐτῶν μυστικῶς εἰρημένα μὴ συνεωρακότα.”

622. Some scholars question whether there ever truly existed a sharp distinction between an “Antiochene” approach to interpreting the Scriptures and that of the “Alexandrian school.” For an introduction to differing hermeneutical approaches found in early church see Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 8–23. What is apparent, however, is Eusebius’s distain for Papias’s hermeneutical approach to certain “apostolic accounts.” Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.12 (LCL 153: 297).

623. Translation mine. For the Greek text see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738. Schoedel questioned if Eusebius was using Papias’s own self-effacing comments against him. Schoedel, The Fragments, 104. It seems unlikely that Eusebius would have based his entire evaluation on this type of common authorial statement. Eusebius himself made a similar attempt at humility, see Eusebius Ecc. Hist. I.1.3–4 (LCL 153:9). Consequently, it seems more reasonable to assume that Eusebius’s critique was based upon his exposure to the whole of Papias’s Exposition rather than a simple introductory remark by its author.

624. Kürzinger’s work notwithstanding.

625. See appendix 1 for a more thorough discussion on this issue.

626. “καὶ τοῑς μετ’ αὐτὸν πλείστοις ὅσοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν . . . ,” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738. This clause may be translated as “And after him many devout ecclesiastical (leaders) . . .” Holmes and others have labeled those influenced by Papias as ecclesiastical “writers,” see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 739. Schoedel more appropriately translated ἐκκλησιαστικῶν as “churchmen.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 104.

627. The Greek phrase is: “τὴν ἀρχαιότητα τἀνδρὸς προβεβλημένοις,” which is translated as “the ones having put forth” or “relied upon the antiquity of the man.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738.

628. Mansfeld conjectured that Papias had achieved a “solid pagan education.” Mansfeld, “Galen, Papias,” 328.

629. Translation mine. “καὶ ἔι τις ἄλλος τὰ ὅμοια φρονῶν ἀναπέφηνεν.” For the Greek text see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738.

630. Munck, “Presbyters,” 226. Perumalil believed Eusebius’s insult was the product of a moment of “excitement” over Papias’s chiliastic views. Perumalil, “Papias and Irenaeus,” 335. Eusebius, however, was more calculating than he was petulant.

631. “δὲ τῇ ἑαυτοῡ γραφῇ παγαδίδωσιν Ἀριστίωνος . . . τῶν τοῡ κυρίου λόγων διηγήσεις” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738.

632. He did not, however, share their status as “apostles.”

633. As stated in the introduction, this book will not explore the subject of “Q” material.

634. Kleist, Papias, 111.

635. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 161.

636. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. II.15.1; III.34.6; III.39.14 (LCL 153:143, 251, 297). See also fragment 3, p. 114.

637. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738–39.

638. Lawlor, “Eusebius on Papias,” 200. Schoedel also translated ἑρμηνευτής as “translator.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 106, as did Ehrman. Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:103). Bauckham believed that since Peter probably spoke Greek that Papias meant Mark had translated Peter’s Greek oral messages into Greek literature. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 205–7. In the Greek this sentence is: “Μάρκος μέν ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐρμημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738. This clause is literally translated as, “Mark, indeed having been the translator (or interpreter) of Peter, whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately.” The initial clause (ἑρμηνευτής Πέτρου γενόμενος) appears to speak of a period prior to the composition of Mark’s Gospel, although this is certainly debatable. See Baum, “Der Presbyter des Papias,” 22–23. Baum argued that Mark “interpreted” Peter’s sermons that Peter had preserved in Greek (page 35). However, Baum too narrowly restricted the temporal aspect between aorist participles, as well as too narrowly defined the range of nuances that are implied by the word “ἑρμηνευτής.” For a more thorough range of meanings of this word see LSJ, s.v. “ἑρμηνεία.” It is the position of this author to interpret this clause as antecedent to the action of the verb, with the aorist participle also having a causal force. This would mean that before Mark composed his Gospel he had functioned as Peter’s translator and/or his interpreter. This fits the context well since it is not uncommon for one who functions as a translator for an audience to have to make interpretive decisions concerning the exact meaning of the speaker. Whether one takes Bauckham’s or Baum’s view, or an alternative, the witness of Papias and Eusebius is that Mark was a close associate of Peter and familiar with his messages.

639. Baum, “Der Presbyter des Papias,” 22–25, 35.

640. See also fragment 3, p. 114. Rigg, relying upon Zahn, believed Mark may not have associated with Peter for an “entire year.” Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 168. Regardless what some scholars may conjecture about the length of their relationship, Irenaeus stated that Mark was Peter’s “disciple,” see Eusebius Ecc. Hist. V.5.3 (LCL 153: 455); while Clement of Alexandria also confirmed that Mark had been a follower of Peter; ibid., VI.14.6 (LCL 265: 49). Consequently, there is no evidence to imply that Mark was only incidentally associated with the apostle Peter. Given that the earliest records of the church state that Peter mentored Mark, if one is inclined to assume anything, it should be that Mark was a close associate of this leading apostle.

641. Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 185.

642. Mansfeld, “Galen, Papias,” 326.

643. It should be noted that this description of Mark’s Gospel comes from the apostle John through Papias. More precisely, unless one is inclined to completely discount this record, this witness is not of Papias’s own invention. It is also highly likely that Papias was in complete agreement with this tradition, or why else would he have submitted it in defense of Mark’s effort? Bauckham had doubts about Papias’s statements, writing, “To be sure, we cannot easily suppose that Papias quotes the words of the Elder verbatim. After all he does not report what the Elder said on a specific occasion, but what the Elder ‘used to say on this topic. . . .’ We cannot tell how far he has attributed to the Elder his own glosses on what the Elder said.” Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 204. Kleist actually translated τάξει as “verbatim.” Kleist, Papias, 115, 207–8. In a previous article he translated this word as “completeness.” Kleist, “Rereading Papias,” 14–16. Rigg believed that Papias’s “old age” had undermined his ability to read his “rough notes” or to communicate effectively with his amanuensis. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 172. Schoedel theorized that the literary style of Papias’s preface and his quote of John are the same, which meant that Papias had “reworked” what he had received from the Elder. Consequently, it is impossible “to distinguish between Papias and his source.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 106. Such suspicions are unwarranted. Papias claimed he had remembered well the things he learned from his instructors, i.e., the “elders.” One may also infer from what Papias wrote that this tradition concerning the source of Mark’s Gospel was something the apostle John was in the habit of stating (ἔλεγε being translated as a habitual imperfect, which is consistent with Bauckham’s reading). Consequently, while Papias may not have quoted the apostle John “verbatim,” there is no reason to believe that he did not accurately record the precise meaning of the apostle John. Lastly, Papias would not be the first student whose personal writing style in some ways mimicked the mentor that he so respectfully admired.

644. The actual clause in Greek is “ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738. Schoedel translated τάξει as “order.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 106.

645. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 161, 171.

646. See section 3 and second half of section 15 of Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.

647. Colson, “Τάξει,” 63; as did Kürzinger. Kürzinger, Papias, 49.

648. Wright, “Τάξει in Papias,” 299.

649. Stewart-Sykes, “Τάξει Again,” 490.

650. Wright, “Τάξει in Papias,” 299.

651. Rigg, “Papias on Mark,” 170.

652. Stewart-Sykes suggested that these criticisms may have come from within the church. Stewart-Sykes, “Τάξει Again,” 488.

653. Colson provides a helpful list of things that may have been expected of ancient histories and/or biographies. Colson, “Τάξει,” 67.

654. Kinzig, “The Greek Christian Writers,” 634–35.

655. Bauckham preferred “orderly” or “coherent arrangement.” Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 220–21.

656. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 739. There is a textual question concerning whether the text should read “Christ” or “Lord.” For the manuscript evidence see ibid., 738. The textual support for both is equally divided.

657. Contrary to Kümmel’s conjectures. Kümmel, Introduction, 64–68.

658. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 221. See pages 202–39 for a more a thorough explanation of Mark’s fidelity to Peter’s message and its impact upon the Second Gospel.

659. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738–39. The Greek clause is ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῑτο τὰς διδασκαλίας. It is noted that ἐποιεῑτο is the imperfect of ποιέω, and is interpreted as a customary or habitual imperfect.

660. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 214.

661. Ibid., 215. R. O. P. Taylor is considered to be responsible for bringing to the fore the critical research concerning the meaning of chreia in Hellenistic rhetorical contexts. Taylor, Groundwork, 75–90. Concerning chreia Kürzinger confidently asserted that “auf jeden Fall bestätigen die Untersuchungen, daß χρεία ein in der hellenistischen Rhetorik viel gebrauchter Terminus technicus ist.” Kürzinger, Papias, 52. His discussion addressed many of the same examples put forth by Taylor. Schoedel’s transliteration/translation of chreia as “chria-form” is not very helpful. Schoedel, The Fragments, 107. Kleist without explanation apparently translated chreia as “the Lord’s ministry.” Kleist, Papias, 118.

662. Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 215–16.

663. Hock, “General Introduction,” 26. By the word “character” Hock was not arguing that the individual or event being described was fictional. Hock suggested that a difference between “reminiscences” and “chreiai” is that of “length,” with reminiscences being longer. Hock briefly described chreia as “a concise and praiseworthy reminiscence about some character,” see ibid., 9.

664. Ibid., 4.

665. Taylor, Groundwork, 81.

666. Hock, “General Introduction,” 24.

667. Lake translated this chreia as “as necessity demanded.” Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.25.15 (LCL 153:297). Ehrman translated it as “for the needs at hand.” Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:103). Neither translations seems accurate since they raise more questions than they answer.

668. Black suggested that given the context of Papias’s statement about Mark, that chreia and λόγια were “virtually synonymous expressions.” Black, “Rhetorical Terminology,” 34.

669. Taylor explained that in order for chreias to be effective it was important to “establish the prestige of the person, in order to give authority to the words of the example.” He believed this is exactly what one observed in the preface to Mark’s Gospel, chapter 1:1–11. Taylor, Groundwork, 81.

670. See fragment 3, p. 114.

671. There is a textual variant that witnesses to “λόγων,” which is translated as “sayings,” which is the translation Holmes provided. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 740–41; as did Ehrman. Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:103). The majority of texts, however, witness to λογίων as being original. Lake correctly translated this word as “oracles.” Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.15 (LCL 153: 297); as did Schoedel. Schoedel, The Fragments, 107. Bauckham translated this entire clause as “short reports of what the Lord said and did.” He believed this best paralleled the preceding phrase “the things either said or done by the Lord.” Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 214. The structure of these clauses, however, gives no indication that there was any attempt at parallelism.

672. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 741. Papias’s defense of Mark’s effort hardly suggests Zahn’s inference that Papias was “dissatisfied with the information supplied by the Gospel literature already in existence.” Zahn, Introduction, 2:441. That Papias was interested in correctly interpreting such literature can hardly be doubted, that is not to say, however, that he viewed it as insufficient or flawed.

673. Mullins, “Papias,” 216–24.

674. Ibid., 219.

675. Ibid., 224, see also page 222. Schoedel believed “some” referred to some “oracles” from Jesus since Mark’s Gospel, as compared to Matthew’s, contained fewer of them. Schoedel, The Fragments, 108.

676. For a detailed explanation see Bauckham, The Eyewitnesses, 210–21.

677. Contrary to Zahn’s interpretation which argued that “some” referred to Peter’s input upon the Second Gospel. Zahn, Introduction, 2:440.

678. The text reads, “ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν,” which is translated as “He made (his) one concern.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 740–41.

679. For an example of a possible Markan thematic arrangement see the collection of Jesus’ parables in Mark 4.1–33.

680. For a more thorough treatment of Mark’s editorial influence upon his Gospel see Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 76–94, 262–72.

681. Kleist suggested a similar theory concerning the meaning of what “some things” referred to, but he failed to elaborate more thoroughly upon it since it was not completely compatible with the theory he held; see Kleist, “Rereading Papias,” 9–10.

682. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 740.

683. See section 7.

684. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. II.14–15 (LCL 153:141–45).

685. Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel is referred to as his “initial” composition or Gospel narrative because to date there is no proof that he did not also compose the canonical Gospel of Matthew.

686. About the relationship of these two traditions Black wrote, “We cannot, therefore, be certain that the two statements were juxtaposed in this way by anyone other than Eusebius, nor can we assume (as many have done) that both are ‘traditions’ of ‘the elder.’” Black, “Rhetorical Terminology,” 32. Eusebius, however, deserves more credit than Black has given him. Even if the two fragments were books apart, Eusebius appears to have appropriately joined them thematically. Consequently, there is reasonable evidence to believe they came from the same source. Black is correct, however, that there is a possibility that they came from different sources.

687. While it is possible that Mark’s Greek Gospel was written before Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel, it seems more probable that Matthew wrote his Hebraic work first. However, without further data from the first century, certitude is not possible, for Eusebius’s chronology may preserve the actual order in which the two Gospels were composed. However, Eusebius preserved a fragment from Origen’s commentary on Matthew that indicated that Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel was written before the Greek Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John. Origin as quoted by Eusebius, indicating that “. . . as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a taxcollector (sic) but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew Language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter’s instructions. . . .” Origen, however, made no reference to the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. VI.25.4 (LCL 265:75).

688. There is a textual variant with συνετάξατο, but being the majority witness it is preferred. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 740. This verb is the aorist of συντάσσω, which is translated to mean “to put in order” or “to arrange, organize.” This word is commonly interpreted to mean “to compose or compile a narrative or book” when used in the context of literary works; see LSJ, s.v. “συντάσσω.”

689. Schoedel, The Fragments, 110.

690. Ibid., 109. For a more thorough discussion of Matthew’s Hebraic composition being associated with Q see Black, “Rhetorical Terminology,” 34–38.

691. This is also a common assumption. Given that Matthew’s canonical Gospel contains many Old Testament passages that the author believed were fulfilled by Jesus (Matt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9), and the fact that the early church understood that the oracles of God were contained in the Old Testament, it is reasonable to concluded that Matthew’s Hebraic composition, which Papias referred to as The Oracles, also contained some Old Testament passages.

692. Schoedel, The Fragments, 109–10.

693. Kürzinger wrote, “Und von diesen her kennt Papias wohl vor allem die Ἑβραΐς διαλέκτῳ, d.h. die dem Judentum eigentümlichen Stilund Darstellungsformen mit ihren besonderen Mitteln der Komposition und Gliederung . . . den Papias also vom griechischen AT her kennen mußte, erkennt er in der literarischen Art des Mt-Ev wieder.” Kürzinger, Papias, 22. See pages 20–24 and 33–36 for a thorough discussion on this issue. Kürzinger’s work is an insightful explanation of the rhetorical language employed by Papias. Among other things, his research provides support for the theory that Papias had achieved some formal level of Hellenistic education. Kürzinger’s weakness, however, was his propensity to interpret everything Papias wrote through the lens of rhetorical criticism. Consequently, his arguments concerning the phase Ἑβραΐς διαλέκτῳ seems forced and unnatural.

694. Gundry, Matthew, 619–20.

695. Schoedel, The Fragments, 110.

696. Jerome Illustrious Men 3 (NPNF2 3:362).

697. Thornton, “Jerome and the ‘Hebrew Gospel,’” 120

698. The actual Greek sentence is “ἡρμήωευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 740.

699. Augustine, Teaching Christianity, trans. Hill, 136. Just before this statement Augustine mentioned that there were only a few recognized translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew to Greek. Edmund Hill believed that Augustine was referring to Greek translations of the Hebrew Old Testament (see footnote 34 on page 163). Ironically, after his statement about these numerous Latin translations Augustine contended that “this state of affairs has been more of a help than a hindrance.” Although recognizing Augustine’s brilliance, his assessment seems overly optimistic.

700. Luke 1:1–2 states that “many (πολλοὶ) have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.”

701. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 723. Holmes also stated that “(2) even after gospels were written, oral tradition continued to circulate and to influence the written text.” Such a statement implies that oral traditions influenced later redactions of the canonical Gospels, which is something that Papias and the apostle John “clearly and forcefully” did not suggest, nor is there weighty evidence to suggest this occurred with regularity concerning any literature of the New Testament. Instead, the apostle John’s statements, springing the first century, suggest that he viewed Mark’s Gospel as a finished composition originating exclusively from Mark’s memory of Peter’s reminiscences. A composition that he was careful to insure contained no significant omissions or falsifications. Neither Papias nor the apostle John suggested that after Mark completed his Gospel that it underwent repeated redactions based upon oral traditions. Such conjectures find no defense in the statements of Papias or the apostle John, and to suggest so is to promote a gross inaccuracy.

702. Kleist believed that Papias was “not satisfied with any of the Gospels” of his day, which lead him to seek out more complete material. Kleist, Papias, 111. A more comprehensive investigation of the Papian fragments suggests, however, that he was satisfied with the existing material, and that his purpose was to corroborate and explain that material more clearly.

703. The answer to this question goes well beyond the scope of this book.

704. Lightfoot believed that the canonical Gospel of Matthew already existed by the time Papias wrote his five volume work. Lightfoot, Essays, 169. His suggestion is certainly warranted, as Ehrman has aptly observed that Polycarp was also familiar with Matthew’s canonical Greek Gospel. Polycarp, To the Philippians (LCL 24:329).

705. See the discussion on fragment 3, p. 114.

706. See the discussion on fragment 14, p. 230.

707. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.24.17 (LCL 153:255).

708. This depends upon one’s dating of Papias’s Exposition and Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians.

709. Since Eusebius referred to Papias’s quotes from 1 John as “testimonies” a reasonable conjecture would be that Papias may have employed passages such as 1 John 1:1–4; 2:25; 3:5, 7–8, 23; 4:21; 5:9–12.

710. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 724–25.

711. Ibid., 725–26.

712. For a more thorough discussion on this matter see fragment 24, p. 254.

713. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 559.

714. Lightfoot, Essays, 204–5.

715. One can assume that while the pericope found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews was essentially the same account, it is likely that it was a somewhat different version of the pericope. Lightfoot, Essays, 152. For a thorough discussion on the adulterae pericope see Burge, “The Woman Caught in Adultery,” 141–48; Cadbury, “Lukan Authorship,” 237–45; Wallace, “Adulteress Reconsidered,” 290–96; and Lightfoot, Essays, 203–5.

716. It would have been natural to make the suggestion that this account was found in Matthew’s Hebraic Gospel since he had just discussed it in the preceding lines.

717. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 582–85.

718. Younger, “Apollinaris the Elder,” 33–34. There is some confusion with respect to how to spell Apollinaris’s name, for an apt explanation of this issue see Schaff, History of the Church, 3:709 n. 1.

719. Salmon, “Apollinaris,” 33. Schoedel and Kürzinger acknowledged the possibility that this fragment may have originated with Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Kürzinger, Papias, 104–5; Schoedel, The Fragments, 111. If this fragment is indeed from Apollinaris of Hierapolis, then it should be listed as the second fragment.

720. Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, 1:25–27.

721. Schaff, History of the Church, 4:643–45.

722. The Fragments of Papias (ANF 1:153).

723. For a brief discussion concerning the account of Judas’s death in Acts and the Gospel of Matthew see Polhill, Acts, 92–93.

724. Schoedel, The Fragments, 111–13.

725. Ibid., 112. See also Polhill, Acts, 284–85; Bruce, Acts, 241–42.

726. Schoedel, The Fragments, 111.

727. Bartlet, “Papias’s Exposition,” 37–38.

728. See the analysis of fragment 5, p. 119.

729. Jerome Illustrious Men 9 (NPNF2 3:364–65). This fragment is absent from the lists of Holmes, Schoedel, Kleist, Körtner, Kürzinger, and Ehrman. While one might understand its absence (the argument being that it provides no new data regarding Papias), this fragment is significant because it testifies to the position that Papias was in fact a disciple of the apostle John. Hereafter, this work will be referred to as Illustrious Men. Jerome also mentioned Papias in his summary of Mark in Illustrious Men. If this Papian fragment were to be included in this book it might be listed as fragment “3b” since Jerome appears to have drawn his data about Papias from Eusebius. Alternatively, it might also have been included as fragment “7a” since technically it would have been Jerome’s first reference to Papias in Illustrious Men. Since his reference to Papias in his treatment of Mark only duplicates what Eusebius had previously written it will not be included as an independent fragment. Jerome reverently admitted in his preface dependence upon Eusebius for much of his information about the authors from the church’s earliest period; ibid., 3:359. He also wrote admirably of Eusebius in his summary of Eusebius in chapter 81 of Illustrious Men (see page 378). Jerome’s rejection of Eusebius’s opinion regarding Papias’s relationship to the apostle John is compelling given his respect for Eusebius.

730. Ibid., 3:359. Italics mine.

731. Jerome discussed the debate concerning the authorship of Hebrews in his treatment of the apostle Paul. Ibid., 363.

732. Jerome Letter 53: To Paulinus (NPNF2 6:102).

733. See Jerome’s comment in his chapter on Mark in Jerome Illustrious Men 7 (NPNF2 3:364–65). Illustrious Men was written ca. 393.

734. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 575. This fragment and other Papian fragments found in the writings of Jerome are absent from Kleist’s list.

735. If one reads Jerome’s treatment of the apostle John in Illustrious Men, it is clear that he believed Eusebius’s “John the elder” was a historical figure. Concerning this second “John,” Jerome acknowledged the debate as to whether or not he was the author of the “later epistles” of John. Regarding the other books attributed to the apostle John, however, it was his opinion that both the book of Revelation and the Gospel of John were composed by the apostle John who was a son of Zebedee and one of the twelve who followed Jesus. Jerome Illustrious Men 9 (NPNF2 3:364–65).

736. Compare with Eusebius’s quote of Papias in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 735.

737. Kelly, Jerome, 177.

738. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.24.3 (LCL 153:256–57).

739. Richardson’s translation of Jerome’s treatment of Papias implies that Jerome believed that Papias wrote an additional work titled, Second Coming of Our Lord or Millennium; see Jerome Illustrious Men 18 (NPNF2 3:367). This appears to be more than the Latin should bear; therefore, Holmes’s translation, which is cited above, is preferred.

740. As testified to by a group that Papias cryptically referred to as “the elders.”

741. For further discussion of this issue see fragment 1, p. 106.

742. Jerome might have concluded this from his readings of Eusebius, but to date I have not found a clear statement from Eusebius that his “John the Elder” authored the last two Johannine epistles. For a more thorough discussion of Eusebius’s treatment of Papias see appendix 1, and Grant, “Papias in Eusebius,” 209–13.

743. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 576–77.

744. Jerome Letter 71: To Lucinus (NPNF2 6:152).

745. To understand Jerome’s approach to translation see Jerome Letter 57: To Pammachius (NPNF2 6:112–19); see also Fremantle’s introductory comments on pages xxxii–xxxiii.

746. Blázquez, “Hispania and Palestine,” 165.

747. Jerome Letter 75: To Theodora (NPNF2 6:156).

748. See Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.11–13 (LCL 153:295–97), and also Jerome’s comment about Irenaeus above in Papian, see fragment 7, p. 206.

749. Contra Bruce’s assertion on this issue, see Bruce, The Canon, 227.

750. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 574–75.

751. Ibid.

752. In literature from this period, “John the Theologian” is commonly recognized as a reference to the apostle John. With regard to this title, it is not taken from a direct quote from Papias, as some have inferred from this statement (see Harris, Background to John, Internet), but rather it is Philip’s reference to the apostle John.

753. The vocabulary of this fragment (κυριακῶν λογίων) indicates that the writer was either referring to Papias’s actual title or a dominant characteristic of Exposition; therefore, the phrase “sayings of the Lord” is better translated as “oracles of the Lord.”

754. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 570–73.

755. Culpepper, John, 170–71.

756. This is a common reference to the writer who preserved Philip’s summary of Papias’s writings. In reality, it is not certain whether this fragment is completely from the hand of Philip or his epitomizer, or whether the epitomizer has credited some of his own conclusions to the more famous Philip of Side. Schoedel dated the manuscript containing this fragment as from the eighth century. Schoedel, The Fragments, 118. Since it appears that this epitomizer has to some degree recorded some material that could be found in Philip’s writings, this fragment is placed here. As will become evident, however, there is some question of whether all the material in this fragment came from Philip.

757. Schoedel, The Fragments, 120.

758. Photius, Bibliothèque, 1:20–21.

759. Also known as Socrates Scholasticus.

760. Socrates Ecclesiastical History (NPNF2 2:168). It is also noted that Socrates did criticize Philip for his chronology in Church History. However, this same charge has been appropriately leveled against Eusebius. Arthur McGiffert wrote in his introduction concerning Eusebius’s chronology that “In the third place, severe censure must be placed upon our author for his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should expect that one who had produced the most extensive chronological work that had ever been given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in the province, but in truth his chronology is the most defective feature of his work. . . . In fact, the critical spirit which actuates him in dealing with many other matters seems to leave him entirely when he is concerned with chronology; and instead of proceeding with the care and circumspection of an historian, he accepts what he finds with the unquestioning faith of a child. There is no case in which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his obtuseness is almost beyond belief. An identity of names, or a resemblance between events recorded by different authors, will often be enough to lead him all unconsciously by himself into the most absurd and contradictory conclusions.” Eusebius The Church History of Eusebius (NPNF2 1:50–51). An example of Eusebius’s carelessness with his chronology is his suggestion that Pionius died around the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom. He dated Polycarp’s death either late in the reign of Antonius (d. 161) or sometime during Marcus’s reign (d. 180). In Chronicle Eusebius dated Polycarp’s death ca. 166/167. However, Pionius was martyred during Decius’s reign (249–51), approximately eighty to ninety years later. See Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.14.10–15.1, VI.15.47. Concerning Philip, however, Socrates did not criticize him for his accuracy with respect to specific events in the church’s history.

761. The reference to this particular volume, as well as the details provided, implies that Exposition was still extant at the time this fragment was composed.

762. See fragment 5, p. 119.

763. This is in contrast to the translation maintained by Holmes, which described Papias as a “disciple” of the apostle John. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 742–43. Philip did not call Papias a “μαθητής” (i.e., “disciple”) of John. The term Philip employed is “ἀκουστὴς,” which referred to someone who had actually heard the voice of another (i.e., Papias had actually heard the voice of the apostle John). Consequently, Philip’s vocabulary suggests direct contact between the apostle John and Papias. The problem with Holmes’s translation is that one could consider his/herself a “disciple” of Jesus without ever having actually listened to his teachings in person. Holmes provided no explanation for providing such an egregious translation.

764. Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.39.9 (LCL 153:294–95). For a discussion regarding which “Philip” Eusebius believed Papias had known see the discussion concerning fragment 5, p. 119, and appendix 2 of this book.

765. There is some question as to whether Papias received this account from Philip’s daughters. The author of this fragment indicated that he believed the daughters of Philip were also the authority for the tradition about Barsabbas.

766. Even Schoedel referred to this data as “fresh material.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 118.

767. Ibid., 5:119.

768. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 743.

769. “ Ἰουδαίων ἀνῃρέθησαν,” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 742.

770. For a discussion regarding the traditions about the death of the apostle John see Culpepper, John, 171–74.

771. Badham, “The Martyrdom of St. John,” 733–35; and idem, “The Martyrdom of John the Apostle,” 739; and Bernard, Studia Sacra, 260–61.

772. Hunter, “Johannine Studies,” 222.

773. Hengel recognized that there is no need to assume that the sons of Zebedee died as a result of the same event or around the same time. Hengel, The Question, 159.

774. Hill, “Papias,” 310.

775. Tertullian Against Heresies I.36 (ANF 3:260).

776. Origen Commentary on Matthew 16.6 (PG 13:1385).

777. See Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.23.14 (LCL: 153: 240–43). It is recognized that by the late second century the term “martyr” had developed the technical definition of one who had given their life as a witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. See Strathmann, “μάρτυς,” in TDNT, 4:505–6. However, the earliest patristic authors who wrote less than 100 years after the apostle John’s death testified that he was an exception to this “technical” meaning of μάρτυς.

778. Bernard, Studia Sacra, 265. Concerning the apostle John, Tertullian’s reference to his suffering because of his testimony to Christ and the gospel could explain why some awarded him the title of martyr in the late second century; see Tertullian Against Heresies I.36 (ANF 3: 260).

779. Bernard, Studia Sacra, 266.

780. Culpepper, John, 155.

781. Hengel, The Question, 21.

782. Hengel also speculated that one cannot be sure of how familiar Eusebius was with the entirety of Papias’s writings. Ibid., 21.

783. Moreover, Bernard argued that it would be “highly improbable” that Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, would have never heard about the apparent martyrdom of the apostle John, or that he would have mistaken Eusebius’s “John the Elder” for the apostle John, who he reported lived until Trajan’s reign. Bernard, Studia Sacra, 263.

784. Culpepper, John, 172. See also, Hengel, The Question, 157–59. For a more thorough discussion see Bernard, Studia Sacra, 274–84.

785. Ibid., 269.

786. Ibid., 270–75. Lightfoot recommended a different possibility, suggesting that this mistake was the result of lacunae. Lightfoot, Essays, 212.

787. This is assuming that Philip was the source of this mistake; however, the source of this mistake is uncertain.

788. Hengel believed that the only reason we know of a tradition of John’s martyrdom is because of Philip’s preservation of this Papian tradition. Hengel, The Question, 21. However, even if Philip or George the Sinner had not made this reference to the death of the apostle John his “martyrdom” would still be debated because of Eusebius’s preservation of Polycrates’s reference to the apostle John as a “martyr.”

789. Bernard, Studia Sacra, 274–75.

790. Ibid., 270.

791. Hadrian was born ca. 76.

792. It is also possible that Papias wrote Exposition several years before AD 110. However, the best estimation of when he wrote appears to be ca. 110 or shortly thereafter.

793. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 576–77.

794. Norris, “Andrew of Caesarea,” 52. Manlio Simonetti dated Andrew in the late sixth century. Simonetti, “Andrew of Caesarea,” 38.

795. Andrew of Caesarea, The Apocalypse of John the Theologian (PG 106: 224, 418).

796. Bruce, The Canon, 211–13.

797. Gregory, Canon and Text, 275.

798. Simonetti, “Andrew of Caesarea,” 38.

799. Bruce, The Canon, 210–13.

800. For a thorough discussion of Cyril’s life and ministry see McGuckin, “Cyril of Alexandria,” 205–36.

801. Irenaeus, On the Detection and Refutation, 175. The relevant Latin text reads, “significavit Joannes Domini discipulus in Apocalypsi,” which Grant translated as, “John the Lord’s disciple spoke yet more clearly . . . .” Grant’s translation, therefore, is superior to that of Rambaut and Roberts, which reads: “In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples. . . .” See Irenaeus Against Heresies V.26.1 (ANF 1: 554). For the Latin text see Irenaeus Contra Haereses (PG 7:1192).

802. For a more thorough analysis of how many “Johns” Irenaeus may have known see the review of Lewis’s book titled Fourth Gospel: Its Extent, Meaning, and Value in chapter 2 of this book.

803. Bruce, The Canon, 177–78. For a more thorough discussion of Hippolytus’s life see Schaff, History of the Church, 2:757–74.

804. Jerome Illustrious Men 61 (NPNF2 3:375).

805. Methodius, A Treatise on Chastity, 3–5.

806. Jerome Illustrious Men 83 (NPNF23:378–79).

807. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 576–79.

808. The text as it is laid out in the PG makes this clear. Andrew of Caesarea, The Apocalypse of John the Theologian 12:7–8 (PG: 106:325–27). Schoedel and Ehrman also end this Papian fragment before the quote of Rev 12:9. Schoedel, The Fragments, 113; Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:111).

809. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 580–81.

810. Louth, Maximus, 3–18. See also Schaff, History of the Church, 4:622–26.

811. Louth, Denys, 4–5, 199.

812. Louth, Maximus, 18.

813. For a discussion of the identity of the author of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and his theological and philosophical perspectives see Louth, Denys, 1–31; for an analysis of his influence on Maximus see pages 113–16 and Louth, Maximus, 28–32. Louth speculated that “Denys,” as he called him, wrote sometime at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century (page 17). If, however, Maximus was correct in his conjecture that Denys had relied upon Papias for information then there are two implications regarding Maximus’s understanding of the composition of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. The first would be that Maximus was aware that the writings of Denys were not truly composed by Dionysius the Areopagite of Acts 17:34; for it hardly seems reasonable to believe that a civic leader (presumably in his forties) in Athens during the time of Paul’s visit would have been familiar with Papias’s Exposition and then afterwards composed Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. (If Denys were forty years old in 49, approximately when Paul left Athens and came to Corinth, then Denys would have been around ninety-one years old at the turn of the century, and over 100 years old in 110—the proposed date of Papias’s composition of Exposition.) The second implication would be that the author of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy probably wrote after Papias had written his Exposition. This implies that the author wrote Ecclesiastical Hierarchy not at the end of the first century, but more probably no earlier than late in the first quarter of the second century. But, again, this conjecture is based upon the accuracy of Maximus’s speculation. There are others who argue that the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius originated in the late fifth to early sixth century. See Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 1–15. For the dating of Paul’s address to the Areopagus in Athens see Bruce, New Testament History, 295–317; and Polhill, Acts, 365–83.

814. The apostle John is viewed as the author of all three Johannine epistles. For a greater discussion concerning this question see Joslin, “An Introduction to 1 John,” 4–26; Polhill, “2 John and 3 John,” 29–38; Hiebert, The Epistles of John, 275–83; and Stott, The Epistles of John, 13–41.

815. See 1 John 2:1, 12, 13, 18, 28; 3:2, 7, 10, 18; 4:4; 5:2, 21. In the other Johannine epistle, see also 2 John 1, 4, 13; and 3 John 4.

816. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 582–83.

817. Apollinaris of Laodicea of the fourth century is also considered by some to have been a millenarian, see Newman, “Jerome’s Judaizers,” 441–43.

818. See fragment 1 of this book.

819. Chronicon Paschale (PG 92: 628). This fragment in Greek reads as follows: “καὶ ὲν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἔτεροι, ὲν οίς ἧν καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια.” It is absent from the lists of Ehrman, Schoedel, Körtner, Kürzinger, and Kleist. Lightfoot dated the CP as originating “in the first half of the seventh century.” Lightfoot, Essays, 147.

820. Chronicon Paschale 284–628, xi.

821. Ibid., ix–x.

822. Ibid., x.

823. For a more thorough discussion regarding the possible martyrdom of Papias see the discussion on the death of Papias in chapter 3.

824. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 578–79.

825. Krueger, “Anastasius of Sinaita,” 164–65.

826. The exact phrase is ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσαντος, which is literally translated, “the one frequenting upon the breast.” Consequently, “Bosom-Friend” is a good translation. LSJ, s.v. “στήθειος.” Schoedel stated that this was a common “epithet for John the Evangelist in the Greek Fathers.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 114.

827. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 579.

828. See the following fragment.

829. Keener, John, 1:81–115; Blomberg, Reliability of John’s Gospel, 22–35. For the argument that the “Bosom-Friend” or “Beloved Disciple” was not John, a son of Zebedee, see Culpepper, John, 72–85.

830. See Schoedel, The Fragments, 114–16 for a more detailed discussion of how Papias might have believed the creation account referred to both Christ and the church.

831. Kleist, Papias, 209; Schoedel, The Fragments, 114.

832. See fragment 23, p. 248.

833. See fragment 4, p. 116.

834. For an explanation of the genitive of relationship see Wallace, The Basics, 47, 105.

835. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 578–79.

836. Schoedel, The Fragments, 115.

837. “Παπίας ὁ πολὐς”

838. “Παπίου τοῡ πάνυ”

839. The Greek word Anastasius used for “interpreters” is “ἐξηγητικῶν.” Regarding this entire phrase “ἐκκλησιῶν ἐξηγητικῶν,” Holmes argued that the text should read as, “εκκηγσιαστικων εξηγητικων.” See note 13 on Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 750. Schoedel likewise translated the phrase as “the ecclesiastical interpreters,” Schoedel, The Fragments, 115.

840. There is also the possibility that Anastasius simply inherited a tradition from others who valued Papias.

841. LSJ, s.v. “φοιτητής.”

842. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 573–75.

843. Hereafter, “Hamartolus.”

844. For a discussion concerning possibilities of the apparent martyrdom of the apostle John see fragment 11, p. 215. As can be observed above, Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes dated Hamartolus’s work as from the ninth century. Consequently, this fragment is obviously later then the ninth century since it appears to be an insertion into Hamartolus’s work. Carl Clemen dated the manuscript containing this insertion as originating in the tenth or eleventh century. Clemen, “John at Ephesus,” 645–46.

845. Schoedel, The Fragments, 120. Origen’s comments can be found in Origen Commentary on Matthew 16.6 (PG 13:1385).

846. See Mark 10:35–38. This passage does not demand death as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy. The idea that apostle John had not died as a martyr was apparently viewed by some as evidence of failed prophecy. This seems to have created a challenge to the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. Ironically, as the first century drew to a close there were some in the church who were concerned that the apostle John might not live long enough to see the return of Jesus (see John 21:20–23).

847. Lightfoot, Essays, 212.

848. Schoedel, The Fragments, 120.

849. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 582–83.

850. For brief biographies on the life of Photius see René Henry’s introduction to Photius, Bibliothèque, 1:ix–xxv, and Schaff, History of the Church, 4:312–16, 636–42. Some, such as Burton, believe the reference to Papias’s martyrdom actually came from Stephen Gobarus, an obscure late sixth-century theologian (Burton, Lectures, 392). Since Photius did not provide an exact quote from him, it is unclear whether Gobarus was the writer who originally referred to Papias as a martyr, or if he had depended upon an earlier source.

851. Harnack, Dogma, 3:221, 4:240.

852. See fragment 16, p. 233. Schoedel suggested that Photius may have obtained his information about Papias from Irenaeus. Schoedel, The Fragments, 117.

853. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 586–87. Kürzinger included this fragment but passed over it without comment, Kürzinger, Papias, 120–21; as did Preuschen (Preuschen, Antilegomena, 97, 201. Körtner simply addressed a few textual variations. Körtner, Papias, 69, 252–53. It is absent from the lists of Schoedel, Kleist, and Ehrman.

854. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 585. Schoedel included this fragment but included additional material unrelated to Papias. Schoedel, The Fragments, 122. Holmes in the initial diglot edition included this same material in Latin but did not translate it into English. He removed it, however, in the third edition. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 756–57. This fragment is also included in the lists of Kleist, Papias, 124; Papias and Quadratus (LCL 25:117–18); Kürzinger, Papias, 124–25; and Körtner, Papias, 69–70.

855. For the view that this fragment has little historical value see Schoedel, The Fragments, 121–23.

856. Culpepper, John, 129–30.

857. Schoedel, The Fragments, 121.

858. Bruce, The Canon, 159–61.

859. There is some confusion regarding the Latin word exotericis in fragment 22, p. 243. Schoedel argued that it seems to be a mistake since it does not appear to be a word at all. Consequently, it should read as “exegetical.” Schoedel, The Fragments, 123. Lightfoot, however, while correctly understanding that exotericis was a Latin word, also believed it was a mistake; Lightfoot, Essays, 213. Ruppert Annand argued that the word referred to the “outermost part” or “original outer wrappings enclosing Papias own Five Books, or possibly to the cover protecting the original copy of the Fourth Gospel.” Annand, “Four Gospels,” 58. To argue that the author of this fragment, which is no later than ninth-century and may be as early as the fourth century, could possibly have had access to information contained on the “original wrapping” of Papias’s work or the original manuscript of the Gospel of John taxes the imagination. Consequently, Schoedel’s assessment that Annand’s theory is “farfetched” is justified. Alexander, however, may have the best explanation of the meaning of this Latin word, for he stated that “exoteric were treatises designed for a wider public (cf., e.g., EN 1102a26).” Alexander, “The Living Voice,” 238. Consequently, this word appears not to be a translation to any word in Papias’s title (e.g., of the Greek word ἐξηγήσεως), but rather it is a Latin description of his work, thus it should be translated as “treatise.”

860. For a brief summary of Prochorus’s supposed relationship to the Gospel of John see Taniguchi, Bovon, and Antonopoulos, “John the Theologian,” 338.

861. Lalleman, The Acts of John, 5–6. Lalleman dated the Acts of John as originating in the early to mid second century, see pages 268–73.

862. Zahn recognized the possibility that Papias could have served as an amanuensis for John, writing that “it is almost self-evident that John, like Paul, dictated extended portions of Greek writings to an amanuensis; and Papias, the friend of Polycarp, and a companion of the same age, can just as well as he would have been twenty-five or more years of age when the Fourth Gospel was written.” Zahn, Introduction, 3:197.

863. Badham wildly conjectured that the author of this fragment was terribly confused and conflated traditions from Eusebius, Papias, and the Acts of John by Prochorus. Badham, “The Martyrdom of St. John,” 737. Schoedel considered this an “anachronism,” thereby discrediting this fragment. Schoedel, The Fragments, 122. He assumed, however, a conjecture that has not been proven, which is either that Papias was not an associate of John or that John’s Gospel was written earlier in his life before he associated with Papias. If Papias had received a formal education and was a “beloved disciple” of the apostle John in his early twenties, there is nothing that prohibits him from having served as the apostle John’s amanuensis. This possibility, however, would mean that John wrote his Gospel very near the close of the first century. Some have argued for a pre-70 AD composition for this Gospel, which would make it impossible for Papias to have served in such a capacity. Robinson, Redating, 254–311; also Wallace, “The Fourth Gospel,” 177–205.

864. Lightfoot, Essays, 213–14; see also 214 n. 1.

865. The verb ἀπογράφω in the first person singular aorist active appears as ἀπέγραψα, while the third person plural aorist active form is ἀπέγραψαν. However, if the final “ν” were dropped then its form would be identical to the first person singular. Lightfoot’s theory essentially depends upon a mistake by either Papias or a scribe who erred as he copied a manuscript of Exposition. While Lightfoot believed this theory provided the most probable explanation regarding this question of who served as John’s secretary, to his credit he confessed that “no weight can be attached” to it. Lightfoot, Essays, 214.

866. The phrase in Latin is quinque libris retulit, which literally reads, “fifth of the book sees it.” A more fluent translation would be “it can be seen in the fifth book.” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 756.

867. It seems appropriate to refer to a disciple of the apostle John as the “beloved disciple” since John, the son of Zebedee, was in all probability the “beloved disciple” of Jesus. See the discussion on fragment 17, p. 234, for a more thorough explanation of this phrase and its significance in the Gospel of John. For a survey of the possible identities of the “beloved disciple,” see Culpepper, John, 56–84.

868. For a summary of Marcion’s life see Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 212–18. Schoedel called any confrontation between the apostle John and Marcion impossible. Schoedel, The Fragments, 121. Frend estimated Marcion to have been born ca. 85 and to have died ca. 165. Regarding Marcion’s possible association with Polycarp, Eusebius preserved an encounter between the two see Eusebius Ecc. Hist. IV.14.6–7 (LCL 153:337–39).

869. Kleist, Papias, 210; see also Lightfoot, Essays, 212.

870. Körtner, Papias, 69–70; see also Kleist, Papias, 210.

871. Contra, Lightfoot, Essays, 214.

872. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 588–91. This fragment is absent in Schoedel edition.

873. Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 605–6.

874. Ibid., 611. Ramsey, relying on L. Campbell, dated Constantine to have lived ca. 1000. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 1.1, 120 n. 14. Lightfoot appeared to have a slightly different version of this “catena” (maybe even Greek), which he stated bears “the names Ecumenius and Artheas.” Lightfoot, Essays, 201. Lightfoot also elaborated on some interesting similarities in what this catena records regarding Papias’s interpretation of Luke 10.18 and with what Anastasius of Sinai, who had read Papias’s Exposition wrote about this same verse (see Lightfoot, Essays, 200–201).

875. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 589; Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 607; and Kürzinger, Papias, 129. I wish to thank Timothy Michael Law, a D.Phil. candidate in Oriental Studies at Oxford University for his help in understanding more about this text. It is his opinion its author believed that Papias had quoted Luke 10:18. He also observed that the writing style is consistent with other writings from the medieval period.

876. The possibility that material in Luke’s Gospel might be considered “Scripture” is not without warrant as can be observed in the quote of Luke 10:7 in 1 Tim 5:18.

877. Lightfoot contended that “great stress” cannot be laid upon this fragment as evidence Papias knew Luke’s Gospel. In spite of his tenuous acknowledgment, he did admit that “it must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and native of Asia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching.” Lightfoot, Essays, 186.

878. See Dan 10:1–14; 12:1–4.

879. See Rev 12:3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 16–18; 13:2; 16:13; and 20:2.

880. Nielsen, “Papias,” 530.

881. Ibid., 532.

882. Lightfoot, Essays, 154.

883. Ibid., 151.

884. Hill, “Papias,” 312.

885. See section 17 of fragment 15, p. 232.

886. Both Siegert and Kürzinger referenced several New Testament passages with respect to this fragment, most of which are Pauline. Kürzinger, Papias, 133. Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 611.

887. See particularly Col 1:6, 22–23; 2:13–15.

888. Hill, “Papias,” 311.

889. For discussions regarding the authorship of Colossians see Polhill, Paul, 334–35; O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, xli–xliv; Lightfoot, Colossians, 73–126.

890. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 589; Kürzinger, Papias, 126–27. This fragment is absent from the lists of Schoedel, Holmes, Kleist, and Körtner.

891. I would like to thank Dr. Ihab Griess of Washington D.C. and Dr. Peter Gentry (a professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky) for assisting me in translating this Arabic text. Arabic is beyond my expertise; consequently, their help was very instrumental. The words in italics indicate words not in the original text; nevertheless, they are provided in order to create a smoother translation.

892. See fragments 18 and 15.

893. Dr. Griess informed me that the Arabic word used in the text, “’nğl ” when used alone is properly translated “Bible.” If it is constructed with a proper name, however, such as “John,” e.g., “’nğl yhn,” then it is translated “the Gospel of John.” For the Arabic text see Kürzinger, Papias, 126; and Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 760.

894. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 761.

895. See fragment 5, p. 119.

896. It is possible that Agapius has quoted Papias. If, however, Agapius quoted the Gospel of John, then it appears that he did so in a rather loose fashion.

897. Lightfoot included the pericope adulterae among his list of Papian fragments as it is found in John 7:53—8:11, Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 741–43. While it is understandable that he might desire to acknowledge this pericope, or provide a version of it in the form of an appendix or footnote, it probably should not be listed as a Papian fragment since there appears to be more than one version of this event. Holmes provided an insightful discussion about other traditions of this pericope. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 724–27. Regarding the possibility of multiple traditions of this event, Cadbury attempted to make a case that the pericope is actually Lukan. Cadbury, “Lukan Authorship,” 237–45. For a thorough analysis about the textual questions concerning this pericope and other related issues see Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 187–90; and Burge, “The Woman Caught in Adultery,” 141–48.

898. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 591. Kürzinger also cited this fragment, but provided little analysis of it. See Kürzinger, Papias, 132–34.

899. Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 607. Siegert provided the actual Armenian text for this fragment and the one to follow. He dated Vardan to have written sometime between 1274 and 1276.

900. Siegert concluded the reference to aloe is an allusion to John 19.39, apparently basing his decision on the Greek work “ἀλόη” Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 608. Why this Greek word has significance for a text written in Armenian Siegert did not explain. See also Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 765.

901. Concerning the confusion of names in this text Siegert stated that “die folgende Papias-Stelle ist in dieser Übersetzung durch Änderung des Namens unkenntlich geworden.” Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 608.

902. Ibid.

903. A bishop in Hierapolis of Asia Minor hardly makes a likely candidate for being an expert of aloes and ointments of India.

904. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 590–91.

905. See fragment 5, p. 119.

906. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 568–69.

907. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 188. Early Armenian translations do not associate this pericope with the Gospel of Luke.

908. Although Siegert did not give attention to this statement by Vardan, he did refer to Papias as an “Apostelschüler.” Siegert, “Papiaszitate,” 610.

909. “σφόδρα γάρ τοι σμικρὸς ὤν τὸν νοῡν” Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 3rd ed., 738.

910. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Diglot Edition, 584–85. This fragment is absent from the lists of Schoedel, Ehrman, and Kleist. It was published by B. Corder in 1630, but its actual origin(s) and age(s) are unknown. Although it apparently is a compilation of statements from several Greek “fathers,” for the sake of discussion, however, it will be addressed as having one author.

911. For a more thorough discussion of this possibility see fragment 22, p. 243.

912. Mark 3:17.

913. See Eusebius Ecc. Hist. III.28.1.6 (LCL 153: 263–67).

↑ Back to top