Chapter 5: Papias and His Witness to the New Testament
5
Papias and His Witness to the New Testament
Common Conjectures about Papias
Few figures in the church’s history have been more misunderstood than Papias, and examples of such confusion are not difficult to find. Carl Clemen wrote concerning the association of the apostle John with the city of Ephesus that “Nevertheless it might be possible also, that the presbyter John of Papias to whose existence we must hold fast, although he is mentioned by no one again until the time of Eusebius, actually lived in Asia Minor, but that Papias did not meet him, either because he had died earlier or had lived in another locality. And, further, since Irenaeus seems to have heard Polycarp only as a boy, it might also be conceived that he had only misunderstood the latter, but that he himself had in mind that very presbyter.”914
Support for such conjectures can be found in the faulty explanations of ancient historians, such as Eusebius, and modern scholars who in spite of evidence to the contrary, and with almost religious fervor, demand that Papias not be associated with the apostle John. Johannes Munck is an example among several who, while recognizing that the data could very well support a different conclusion, rejected that Papias had any direct connection with the apostle John. Although Munck was aware that Eusebius’s treatment of Papias was “entirely one-sided,” and that Papias was able to travel in order to receive instruction from those he believed to be the most trustworthy sources, and that he applied the term “presbyter” to seven of the twelve apostles, and that his use of it was not as broad as that of Irenaeus, Munck still contended that Papias should not be associated with the apostle John.915 He defended this position by arguing that
It is true that the two Fathers knew far more than we do, since they read—or could have read—the whole of Papias’ work, and in addition to this Irenaeus must have known a good deal about Papias’ generation through his connection with Asia Minor, especially through Polycarp. Nevertheless, it may be of importance here to disregard all this, which cannot lead to greater clarity, being merely guesswork. Let us instead assume that the interpretation given here describes what Irenaeus found in Papias’ preface, and what made him call Papias “John’s hearer.” Eusebius found something different because he was interested in the otherwise unknown presbyter John. On the other hand, Eusebius probably remains right in thinking that there were two men called John, although it is not certain that the other lived in Ephesus. The reason given him by Dionysios for such an assumption is without value. But the attempts that have been made to identify John the apostle with “John the presbyter” in ll.18–20 must be rejected. It would be unnatural to describe the same person in this way with an interval of barely more than a line.916 It seems to be no reason for such an artificial device. . . . We must assume that the other John, who was both a “disciple of the Lord” and a “presbyter,” but not an apostle (nor an apostle’s disciple), being the only duplicated in the list of names, had to be distinguished from his great namesake by a description that indicated that this was John the non-apostle.917
There are others, of course, who also have employed the most questionable Papian fragments to support their superficial knowledge of Papias and his writings. An example of such is J. Merle Rife, who wrote,
Following the example of Eusebius, later scholars have made endless attempts to get at the meaning of Papias. His statements about our First and Second Gospels are reported in coalescing with these Gospels. Irenaeus used Papias in a desperate attempt to prove the Fourth Gospel was written by the son of Zebedee.918 He too has had many followers.
Other Papias fragments report legends about Judas Iscariot, the fallen angels, views on the authenticity of Revelation, the martyrdom of John at the hand of Jews in fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy that he and James would indeed drink the cup he was going to. It is from Papias that the idea that two Johns at Ephesus is derived.919
Statements such as those made by Clemen, Munck, and Rife suggest an inability on the part of some to interact objectively with the data concerning Papias and his relationship with the apostle John. The fact remains that if Eusebius had never written his thirty-ninth chapter of Ecclesiastical History few would doubt Irenaeus’s claim that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John and a companion of Polycarp, which is a claim that even Eusebius himself affirmed earlier in his life in his work titled Chronicle.920 In order to illustrate the weight of evidence that associates Papias with the apostle John and his knowledge of certain books of the New Testament, a brief summary of the Papian fragments is here provided.921
Evidence from the Papian Fragments
The earliest reference to Papias is from the hand of Irenaeus who wrote that Papias had heard the apostle John and was a companion of Polycarp, and had authored a five-volume work (fragment 1). Eusebius, also relying upon Irenaeus, wrote that the apostle John survived until the reign of Trajan and that both Papias and Polycarp had heard him (fragment 2). He again referred to Papias as a bishop of Hierapolis who provided corroboration to the tradition that Mark composed the Second Gospel based upon the reminiscences of the apostle Peter. Eusebius also stated that Papias quoted 1 Peter 5:13 as proof of Mark’s association with Peter. Consequently, he attested that Papias was aware of the Gospel of Mark and 1 Peter (fragment 3). He also wrote that at the time of Polycarp’s ascension to the bishopric at Smyrna Papias was also a well known bishop at Hierapolis (fragment 4). Lastly, Eusebius confirmed that Papias composed a five-volume work titled Exposition. It was at this point in his Ecclesiastical History, however, that he rejected Irenaeus’s claim that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John and provided three quotes from Papias’s writings.
The first quote was Papias’s claim that he had successfully learned and remembered certain traditions of the apostolic elders and that he was committed to their instructions. He also stated that he regularly examined the “words” or teachings of visiting itinerants who claimed to have associated with any apostolic elders. A portion of this quote can be understood as Papias’s claim to have personally heard the apostle John and a second disciple of Jesus named Aristion. Although Eusebius rejected Papias’s claim to have heard the apostle John, he did interpret his statement as a claim to have heard two specific disciples of Jesus, and stated that they were important sources for his five-volume work. He also indicated that Papias preserved certain oral traditions that he had received from the daughters of the apostle Philip. He claimed that Papias’s belief in a literal millennial kingdom was based upon oral sources that Papias believed originated from Jesus. Eusebius questioned Papias’s intelligence because of his eschatology and his approach to apostolic material. He also recognized, however, that Papias had influenced several significant Christian leaders, his primary example being Irenaeus.
After stating that Papias had quoted traditions from “John the elder,”922 Eusebius provided a second quote from Papias that in reality is a quote from an individual that Papias referred to as “the Elder.” This quote corroborates Mark’s association with the apostle Peter and his part in the composition of the Second Gospel. Papias’s source indicated that Mark alone was the compiler of his materials, materials that came exclusively from the testimonials and sermons of the apostle Peter, testimonials that Mark was careful not to falsify or contaminate with his own imaginative stories.
In the last Papian quote provided by Eusebius Papias wrote that Matthew’s initial Gospel was written in Aramaic. Lastly, Eusebius claimed that Papias “utilized testimonials” from 1 John and 1 Peter, and that he also recorded an account of the event commonly referred to as the pericope adulterae. Consequently, with respect to certain canonical books of the New Testament, Eusebius attested that Papias was aware of the Gospel of Mark, 1 Peter, and 1 John (fragment 5).
Fragment 6 is attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicaea.923 This fragment states that Papias was a disciple of John. It is devoted to a tradition concerning the death of Judas Iscariot, which appears to be a gross embellishment of the tradition of his demise as found in the book of Acts. It does not, however, provide concrete evidence proving that Papias was aware of any books of the New Testament.
The great church doctor Jerome referred to Papias as a disciple of the apostle John and the bishop of Hierapolis who authored Exposition (fragment 7). He also believed that Papias had mentioned Eusebius’s character known as John the elder; however, there is little evidence to suggest that Jerome believed this individual to have authored any canonical writings. Jerome also corroborated that Papias’s eschatology was millenarian. Jerome’s descriptions imply that he was personally familiar with Exposition (fragment 8). However, in fragment 9 he only indicated that Papias was an author and provided no information about his relationship to the apostle John or his awareness of any New Testament books. Nevertheless, in fragment 10 he again affirmed Papias was “a hearer” of the apostle John, although he provided no indication that Papias any had knowledge of any New Testament writings in this fragment. One could also infer, however, from this fragment that Jerome believed that Irenaeus had personally known Papias. There is, however, no additional evidence within this fragment corroborating this possibility.
Fragment 11 is attributed to Philip of Side and provides no direct quote from Papias.924 This fragment affirms that Papias’s bishopric was at Hierapolis and that he was also a “hearer” of the apostle John and a companion of Polycarp. It also states that Papias preserved certain oral traditions. The author of this fragment appears to have been familiar with Papias’s Exposition. It is most famous for stating that Papias claimed that the apostle John suffered the same fate as his brother James and was martyred by the “Jews.” It provides no evidence that Papias was aware of any New Testament writings.
Andrew of Caesarea wrote one of the earliest extant commentaries on the book of Revelation. He affirmed in his preface that Papias was aware of the book of Revelation (fragment 12). In another fragment (fragment 13), he provided a direct quote from Papias concerning Satan’s fall from heaven as commentary on Revelation 12:7–8. This quote, however, provides no additional evidence proving that Papias was aware of any other books of the New Testament.
Fragments 14 and 15 are both attributed to Maximus the Confessor. In fragment 14 Maximus affirmed that Papias wrote Exposition. His reference to the first volume of Exposition implies that he was personally acquainted with the work, and from his reference one can infer that Papias was familiar with 1 John, and possibly 2 and 3 John, although this is not a certainty. Maximus indicated in fragment 15 that Papias was a bishop at Hierapolis who “flourished” in the days of the apostle John. He also recognized that Papias’s eschatology had influenced other leading Christian thinkers in later generations.
Fragment 16 is from an unknown author who wrote an early seventh-century chronology. His chronology gives no indication that Papias was aware of any New Testament writings. It does, however, refer to Papias as having been martyred in Pergamum.
Fragments 17 and 18 are from Anastasius of Sinai, neither of which contains a direct quote from Papias. Anastasius referred to Papias in both fragments as a disciple of the apostle John, as well as stating that Papias believed that certain Old Testament passages should be interpreted as references to the church. The implication of these statements is that Papias was not unilaterally opposed to employing typology in his approach to the Scriptures. Neither fragment, however, provides evidence that Papias was aware of any New Testament writings.
Fragment 19 has been associated with George the Sinner, but in all probability he is not its author. This fragment contains no direct quote from Papias, or any evidence that the author had independently read Exposition. Moreover it provides no evidence that Papias was aware of any books of the New Testament. Consequently, this fragment is one of the least credible of all the Papian fragments. It does, however, affirm that Papias was a bishop at Hierapolis, that he wrote Exposition, and that he had seen the apostle John. This fragment, as with the one associated with Philip of Side, is most famous for stating that Papias claimed that the apostle John was “killed” by the Jews.
A scholar known as Photius also provided two brief references to Papias, and in both he affirmed that Papias was a bishop in Hierapolis. He did not, however, quote Papias or provide evidence that he was aware of any New Testament books. Photius stated in his first reference to Papias that he was a martyr and corroborated Papias’s chiliastic beliefs (fragment 20). Photius affirmed in his second reference to Papias his orthodoxy, as well as his own respect for Papias as an early church leader, even though he disagreed with some of Papias’s theological positions (fragment 21).
The author of fragment 22 is unknown. This fragment is drawn from material that is commonly referred to as the anti-Marcionite prologues to the Gospels. The author claimed, in the prologue to the Gospel of John, that Papias of Hierapolis was not only a disciple of the apostle John and aware of the Fourth Gospel, but that he also served as John’s amanuensis as he dictated his Gospel. The author indicated that this information could be found in the last volume of Exposition, thus implying that to some degree he was familiar with Papias’s writings. His statement about Papias’s knowledge of the Gospel of John, whether based upon a misunderstanding of a verb in the first person singular (e.g., “I wrote”) or third person plural (e.g., “they wrote”) demands that Papias was aware of the Fourth Gospel.925 While the information found within this fragment is intriguing, some doubt its credibility because its author is unknown and because he failed to provide a direct quote from Exposition supporting his claim.
Fragment 23 is attributed to Andrew of Caesarea, but it is unlikely that he was in fact its author. This fragment is found in an Armenian translation of Andrew’s commentary on the book of Revelation and is an anonymous “catena” expositing Revelation 12:7–9. Its author, however, claimed to provide an exact quote from Exposition, thus making this fragment of considerable importance. Regrettably, he did not identify where it could be found in Papias’s five-volume work. This fragment, in a similarly fashion to fragment 1, appears to provide an excellent example of how Papias “exposited” certain “oracles” of Jesus. It reveals that Papias was not only aware of the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g., the book of Daniel) but quite possibly some writings from the New Testament, the most likely candidates being Colossians and the Gospel of Luke. The author’s quote of Papias indicates that Papias drew some of his theology about Christ’s eschatological victory over Satan from an individual that Papias referred to as “the apostle.” Which apostle Papias meant is uncertain, however, the apostle Paul appears to be the more probable candidate. This fragment also concludes with a quote of Luke 10.18; consequently, it provides evidence that Papias was aware of the Third Gospel.
Fragment 24 was written in Arabic. Its author is Agapius of Hierapolis, which was located in present-day Syria.926 Agapius stated that Papias devoted one of his “treatises” or volumes to the Gospel of John, thus indicating that Papias had knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. Agapius, however, also associated the pericope adulterae with the John’s Gospel. This should not be surprising since Papias’s knowledge of this account was corroborated by Eusebius, although he never records that Papias associated it with any specific canonical Gospel. Concerning this pericope, it is not clear whether Agapius provided an exact quote from Papias’s Exposition or whether his discussion of the pericope was drawn from his memory. Agapius version of the pericope differs somewhat from the account that is traditionally associated with the Gospel of John. Nevertheless, he openly stated that Papias was aware of the Fourth Gospel.
Fragments 25 and 26 are from an Armenian scholar named Vardan Vardapet. Fragment 25 in all probability should not be associated with Papias. Regardless of its possible connection to Papias, it provides no quote from him or concrete evidence that he was aware of any books of the New Testament. Even though Vardan clearly disdained Papias he affirmed that Papias had been a disciple of John (fragment 26). He also claimed that Papias was the composer of the pericope adulterae and that he was the one responsible for motivating “other Christians” to place it into “their gospel.” Unfortunately he did not identify the Gospel(s) into which it had been inserted. Early Armenian manuscripts, however, indicate that it was only associated with the Gospel of John, being found either after John 7:52, at the end of the Gospel of John, or omitted altogether.927 Fragment 26, as with Vardan’s other fragment, provides neither a Papian quote or any demonstrable evidence that Papias was aware of any books of the New Testament.
Fragment 27 is an anonymous catena found in a Greek commentary on the Gospel of John. It also associates Papias with the apostle John, calling him John’s disciple and amanuensis as he “dictated” his Gospel. Its author(s) and date are unknown. The author openly stated his dependence upon other patristic sources and provided no evidence that he was personally familiar with Papias’s writings.
Conclusions Drawn from These Fragments
Although some fragments are clearly more credible than others, there are several conclusions that may be drawn from them regarding Papias and his knowledge of books found within the New Testament. They are as follows. Papias appears to have been a Phrygian who was born at or near the beginning of the last quarter of the first century (ca. 75). He became a bishop of the church at Hierapolis in Asia Minor around the commencement of the second century. He was a contemporary of Polycarp who was also the bishop of the church(s) at Smyrna during the same time. There is no demonstrable evidence suggesting that the two were anything but companions and important leaders of the Asiatic church during the first half of the second century. Papias was literate and appeared to have attained an acceptable level of education, both pagan and Christian. Papias claimed with respect to his Christian training that he had received from the specific apostles “trustworthy” traditions that he had perceptively understood and accurately remembered.
Papias wrote a five-volume work titled An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord in which he attempted to explain certain sayings of Jesus Christ, some of which were from oral sources while others were from literary sources. His eschatology was millenarian and he influenced other important pastors and Christian apologists who came after him (such as Irenaeus). Concerning those who immediately followed Papias’s generation we know of only one person that spoke of Papias who could have also personally known him. He is Irenaeus of Lyons, and he claimed that Papias had “heard” the apostle John. Eusebius corroborated that Papias claimed to have heard personal disciples of Jesus. He appears to have had a long and successful ministry, and to have died around the middle of the third quarter of the second century, possibly as a martyr in Pergamum. Given his place in the patristic time line it is very probable that many of the traditions he received about Jesus and the apostolic writings originated deep within the first century.
One of the more debated issues with respect to Papias is his possible association with the apostle John and the possible existence of a second individual that some refer to as “John the Elder.” Of the twenty-seven fragments listed in this book, twelve different fragments from ten different authors claimed that Papias had to some degree personally known the apostle John. It is recognized that some of these authors depended upon others for their knowledge of Papias’s connection to the apostle. Nevertheless, some of the more credible witnesses of the apostle John’s mentoring of Papias are Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Anastasius of Sinai. The only person that questioned Papias’s association with the apostle was Eusebius, who later in his life unashamedly and unjustifiably displayed gross prejudice towards Papias for his eschatology and hermeneutical approach to the Scriptures. Only Eusebius denied Papias’s knowledge of the apostle John, and in his stead he claimed that Papias had known a second church leader also named John. Eusebius’s support for his contention, however, was poorly defended and reflects badly upon his own credibility rather than the credibility of Papias. Concerning the existence of Eusebius’s second John, Petrie aptly wrote,
For here we have the genesis of “John the Elder,” that elusive mythical figure that for long has bedevilled students of the Fourth Gospel. We must see just how Eusebius brings him into the picture and why; and then, after wondering at the fuss he has been allowed to cause, consign him to oblivion. In conjuring up this “John the Elder,” Eusebius is indulging in what these days is called “cross-talk,” and for those who read with reasonable care he does not conceal his motive. Perhaps he anticipated those moderns who hold that the bigger the bluff, the more likely it is to succeed. At any rate, he has met with extraordinary success in having the figure of his imagination so widely accepted, and in some quarters having him regarded as rather more respectable than the brother of James son of Zebedee. The persistence with which the “John the Elder” has reared his head is probably due in no small measure to the manner in which the Papias extract is so often quoted—with, at most, only part of Eusebius’ comments.928
Consequently, it is only upon the baseless conjectures of Eusebius—who built his theory about this mythical second John upon the equally speculative theory that originated from Dionysius of Alexandria—that the legend of “John the Elder” continues today.
Some authors were more familiar with Papias and his writings than others. Several of them displayed a personal knowledge of Exposition by providing either an actual citation or allusion to four different volumes of Papias’s five-volume magnum opus.929 Papias shows no evidence of a New Testament canon as it is known today. He does, however, attest to a period when certain leaders of the church discerned that the foundation of the Christian faith was laid out in the very words of Jesus and the instructions he gave to his immediate followers. Before the close of the first century these “traditions” were being coalesced into a recognized body of instruction and church dogma, a coalescing that was supervised by some of the actual followers of Jesus (e.g., the apostle John and Aristion) and their disciples (e.g., Mark, Luke, Polycarp, and Papias). Papias did have knowledge of some books of the New Testament. The authors of the Papian fragments stated that Papias was aware of the canonical Gospels of Mark and John. Moreover, there is credible evidence indicating that he was also aware of the Gospel of Luke (fragment 23).
Some have inferred from Papias’s reference to an Aramaic Gospel written by Matthew that he must have known about the canonical Gospel of Matthew. This, however, is not a certainty. Setting aside the questionable theory that Matthew wrote his canonical Gospel in a Jewish rhetorical style rather than in the Aramaic language as Papias stated, there are three other reasonable conclusions concerning the relationship of Matthew’s Aramaic Gospel and the canonical Gospel of Matthew. The first is that the two Gospels have absolutely nothing in common with respect to their author or content.930 The second is that the canonical Gospel of Matthew is actually a Greek translation of Matthew’s original Aramaic work, a translation supervised by someone other than Matthew.931 The last alternative is that Matthew wrote both Gospels. The more probable chronology of these two works is that he first wrote a Gospel in Aramaic very early in the church’s history (ca. 50) for an Aramaic speaking audience that was presumably in Jerusalem or its surrounding area (which is supported by the historical data preserved by Eusebius). Regrettably this document, whatever its literary style may have been, has not survived the erosion of time. Later in Matthew’s ministry, however, he moved to a location that was primarily Greek speaking, as a result he also wrote a second Gospel in Greek that appears to have depended not only on his own memories of Jesus, but also relied heavily upon the Gospel of Mark.932 Regardless of the question concerning the relationship of Matthew’s Aramaic and Greek Gospels, the fragments only confirm that Papias understood that Matthew wrote for an Aramaic audience a Gospel in their own language. Regrettably, therefore, they provide no definitive answer to the question concerning which of these three theories most accurately reflects the origin of the canonical Gospel of Matthew.
Although there is no evidence that Papias held to a fourfold Gospel corpus, it appears that he valued Gospels that originated from the apostles or their personal followers above all other sources (fragment 5.3). Papias also provided no evidence that the early church understood the canonical Gospels to be anything other than the accurate reminiscences of their apostolic sources, rather than compilations of serial redactors who finally sewed together multiple gospel traditions into four separate volumes sometime during the second century. While Papias’s exposition in fragment 23 displayed some affinities with Pauline theology, we have no concrete evidence indicating he had knowledge of a Pauline corpus. If one were to conjecture about whether Papias was aware of any of the Pauline epistles, then Colossians appears to have the best claim, since specific themes and subject matter in fragment 23 are also found in Colossians 2:14–15. Colossians is also the only epistle that actually documents Paul’s awareness of and connection to the church at Hierapolis. There is also no concrete reference to indicate that Papias knew of the book of Acts. Concerning the catholic epistles, the Papian fragments provide no indication that Papias knew of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, or Jude; although there is some evidence that he was possibly familiar with 2 and 3 John. They do indicate, however, that he employed passages from 1 Peter and 1 John, as well as an awareness of the book of Revelation.
That the fragments of Papias show no demonstrable evidence of the majority of the books of the New Testament should not be a major concern. So little of his writings have survived and so few references to him are known that to conclude he only knew of a few canonical New Testament books would be an unwarranted assumption based upon silence. At best one can only recognize that the evidence is insufficient to suggest that he knew of any New Testament books other than the Gospels of Mark, John, and Luke, the epistles of 1 Peter and 1 John, the book of Revelation, and lastly possibly Colossians as well as 2 and 3 John.
Papias may have also known about certain debatable materials that are currently included within the New Testament. He was aware of an account of the pericope adulterae. One can only conjecture about what part if any he may have had in its association with the Gospel of John. Whether or not he knew of the traditional ending of Mark’s Gospel, or whether his Exposition influenced its composition or employed common source material from it is equally as speculative.
When researching the apostolic fathers Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, and Papias, the most mischaracterized and least understood figure is Papias. Along with Polycarp, Papias began his ministry on the cusp of the first era without living apostles, i.e., the original twelve disciples of Jesus. It was his contention, however, that the Lord had given commandments to and for the Christian faith. He believed that these commandments were from the essence of Truth itself, and thus they were by their very nature truth. He understood that Jesus had divinely spoken and had passed on his “oracles” to his immediate followers, and that if one wanted to know truth and the truth about Jesus one must adhere not only to the words of Jesus and his followers, but also to their correct meanings as well, meanings that Papias confessed that he had well learned and accurately remembered.
At some point in Papias’s ministry, possibly because of growing confusion concerning the exact meanings of some of Jesus’ teachings, Papias felt the need to write a five-volume work that attempted to accurately exposit certain sayings of Jesus, some of which he had received through oral transmissions, while others were contained in apostolic narratives, narratives that we know of today as the canonical Gospels. One of the themes that Papias was most interested in was the return of the risen Christ and the establishment of his earthly kingdom. His work also appears to have had a historical concern. Papias also interacted with certain Old Testament passages in Exposition. Evidence indicates that his hermeneutical approach was predominately Antiochene, although he was not opposed to employing typology while interpreting Old Testament passages.
Those who interacted with his writings thought of him variously as an honorable apostolic leader, a teacher, a theologian, a buffoon, and a heretic. Regardless of how they described him, Papias said his greatest concern was the preservation of the truth of Christ, both the truth that was found in the words that Jesus spoke as well as the truth about him. Papias claimed to have only employed what in his opinion were the most trustworthy apostolic sources—both oral and written—in order to accurately explain Jesus and his meanings. Walls, writing about Papias’s highest concern, stated that “for him, authenticity meant apostolicity; and apostolicity was patient of historical verification. Far from being uninterested in the literary preservation of the tradition, he is wrestling manfully with the problems involved in it.”933
Some conclusions based upon the evidence found within the fragments of Papias are that Papias witnesses to a period of time in which the church was collecting authoritative literature that would be foundational to its future. The materials and traditions most valued were those known to have been received from Jesus via his immediate followers. Papias’s witness does not testify to the “creation” of this literature, but to the “collection” of apostolic writings and traditions that were already in existence during the period in which he ministered and wrote. His witness also testifies to a period in which oral traditions that originated from trustworthy sources were still being investigated and valued. Some of these traditions were viewed as accurate preservations of the words of Jesus (fragment 1); consequently, for some they were viewed as authoritative. Other “traditions” appeared to have been provided for their historical importance or to confirm that certain prophetic oracles of Jesus (possibly those contained in written sources) had been fulfilled (e.g., Barsabbas’s drinking of poison in fragment 5.9 and Luke 10:19; or Jesus’ words in Matt 10:8 and the raising of some from the dead, also in fragment 5.9).
Oral traditions, however, were not the only source of authority in Papias’s church. Papias also valued “apostolic” writings. Consequently, he reflects a segment of the early church and her leadership that viewed the apostolic writings and traditions as the source of truth and the basis of her authority. Apostolic material was considered trustworthy if it came from those known to have been personal disciples of Jesus (e.g., Aristion and the apostle John), or who were from their immediate circle of influence (e.g., Mark and the daughters of the apostle Philip). While this was not the opinion of everyone in the early church in Papias’s day (cf. 3 John 9–10; Rev 2:15, 20; fragment 5.3), it was the opinion of orthodox bishops such as Papias, Polycarp, and Clement. Papias is, therefore, an important witness to a period of time in the Asiatic church in which literature that would inevitably form today’s New Testament canon was viewed as authoritative sources for truth and the reservoir from which recognized orthodox traditions should be drawn. He displayed values that were consistent with criteria that someday would be used to determine which books would comprise the New Testament canon, criteria such as “apostolic authority” and “antiquity.”934 Papias quite literally believed in a canon, but for him that canon was found in the “oracles” of Jesus, which could be found in the Old Testament and materials originating from Jesus’ personal disciples and their immediate followers, materials that were both written and oral. We have no evidence to suggest that Papias knew of today’s New Testament canon. Nevertheless, in him we have an early second-century Christian leader who provided evidence that several books of the New Testament were viewed as authoritative, as well as one whose approach towards those writings was consistent with the values that the church later used to collect, determine, and close what is commonly recognized today as the New Testament canon.
914. Clemen, “John at Ephesus,” 673–74.
915. Munck, “Presbyters,” 226, 229, 231, 233, 235. Concerning the possibility that Papias used the word “presbyter” when referring to the apostles, Munck wrote that “this last reflection takes us straight on to Papias’ text, since it is obvious from the above that the word presbyter does not mean disciples of the apostles, although it can quite well be used to describe them, also when the context makes it clear. And this vaguer definition, in which antiquity and authority are the basic meaning, shows that we cannot exclude the possibility that ‘presbyters’ might be used of the apostles, even though there is instance of it in later literature. But this could in fact not occur in the later literature, but only in Papias’ generation.” Munck, “Presbyters,” 236. Italics mine.
916. This line of argument indicates that either Munck had no understanding of the anaphoric use of a Greek article, or he lacked the objectivity to recognize it.
917. Munck, “Presbyters,” 237–38. Italics mine.
918. To date I have found no evidence supporting this assertion.
919. Rife, The New Testament, 135–36.
920. See the discussion concerning fragment 2, p. 111.
921. Refer to chapter 4 for in-depth analysis of each fragment. It is assumed that all references to Papias’s five-volume work are references to Exposition regardless of how the title is worded.
922. Understood as the apostle John.
923. There are considerable questions concerning the exact author and extent of this fragment.
924. There is some question concerning the identity of this fragment’s author, as well as whether all of the information it contains is accurate, or was actually drawn directly from Philip’s Church History.
925. See the discussion on fragment 22, p. 243, in the previous chapter for a more comprehensive analysis of this issue.
926. Which is not to be confused with Hierapolis of Asia Minor.
927. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 188.
928. Petrie, “Matthew,” 20.
929. There is no reference to vol. 3 in any of the Papian fragments.
930. This conjecture has little historical support.
931. A survey of the majority of Gospel scholars suggests that the Gospel of Matthew is not a translation of an Aramaic original but was originally written in Greek. See Carson and Moo, Introduction, 143–44; Morris, Matthew, 12–15, Stein, Synoptic Gospels, 143–45.
932. This theory seems the most attractive with respect to the historical evidence. It is, however, only a theory.
933. Walls, “Papias,” 139.
934. For a more complete discussion of the factors that were used in the canonical debate see Bruce, The Canon, 255–69.