Papias of Hierapolis

Papias (Template:Langx) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD<ref>From Stories to Canon oyc.yale.eduTemplate:Webarchive</ref><ref>Papia Hierapolitanus, Fragmenta Template:Webarchive</ref> He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Template:Langx) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (Template:Circa) and Eusebius of Caesarea (Template:Circa), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels.

Life

Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180).<ref name="Irenaeus">Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33 Template:Webarchive.4. The original Greek is preserved apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.1.</ref>

Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch.<ref name="Eusebius 3.36.2">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.36 Template:Webarchive.2.</ref> In this office Papias was presumably succeeded by Abercius of Hierapolis.

The name Papias was very common in the region, suggesting that he was probably a native of the area.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Date

The work of Papias is dated by a few modern scholars to about 95–110.Template:Sfnp<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Later dates were once argued from two references that now appear to be mistaken. One dating Papias' death to around the death of Polycarp in 164 is actually a mistake for Papylas.Template:Sfnp Another unreliable source in which Papias is said to refer to the reign of Hadrian (117–138) seems to have resulted from confusion between Papias and Quadratus of Athens.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Eusebius refers to Papias only in his third book, and thus seems to date him before the opening of his fourth book in 109. Papias himself knows several New Testament books, whose dates are themselves controversial, and was stated to be informed by John the Evangelist, Aristion, the daughters of Philip and others who had themselves heard the Twelve Apostles. He is also called a companion of the long-lived Polycarp (69–155),<ref name="Irenaeus" /> Agapius of Hierapolis dates one of his histories to the 12th year of Trajan's rule (110 AD). For all these reasons, Papias is thought to have written around the turn of the 2nd century.

Sources

Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface:<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.3-4">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.3–4. Translation from Template:Cite journal</ref>

Papias, then, inquired of travelers passing through Hierapolis what the surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders—those who had personally known the Twelve Apostles—were saying. One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna,<ref>Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 Template:Webarchive.8.</ref> and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> residing in nearby Ephesus, of whom Papias was a hearer;<ref name="Irenaeus" /> Papias frequently cited both.<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.7,14">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.7, 14.</ref> From the daughters of Philip, who settled in Hierapolis, Papias was said to have learned still other traditions.<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.9">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.9.</ref>

There is some debate about the intention of Papias' last sentence in the above quotation, "For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice." One side of the debate holds with the longstanding opinion of 20th-century scholarship that in Papias' day written statements were held at a lower value than oral statements.<ref>E.g., see Loveday Alexander, “The Living Voice: Scepticism towards the Written Word in Early Christian and in Graeco-Roman Texts,” in Template:Cite book</ref> The other side observes that "living voice" was a topos, an established phrase referring to personal instruction and apprenticeship, and thus Papias indicates his preference for personal instruction over isolated book learning.<ref>E.g., see Template:Cite book</ref>

Fragments

There are indications that the work of Papias was still extant in the late Middle Ages,<ref>Template:Cite book See Template:Usurped by Stephen C. Carlson.</ref> but the full text is now lost. Extracts, however, appear in a number of other writings, some of which cite a book number.<ref>For an extensive assessment of the fragments as reproduced in Norelli and Holmes, see Timothy B. Sailors Template:Cite news</ref> MacDonald proposes the following tentative reconstruction of the five books, following a presumed Matthaean order.Template:Sfnp

Gospel origins

File:Pasquale Ottino San Marcos escribe sus Evangelios al dictado de San Pedro Musée des Beaux-Arts, Bordeaux.jpg

Pasqualotto, St. Mark writes his Gospel at the dictation of St. Peter, 17th century.

Papias provides the earliest extant account of who wrote the Gospels. Eusebius preserves two (possibly) verbatim excerpts from Papias on the origins of the Gospels, one concerning Mark<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.15">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.15. Translations from Template:Harvtxt p. 203.</ref> and then another concerning Matthew.<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.16a">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.16a. Translations from Template:Harvtxt</ref>

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder: Template:Blockquote

The excerpt regarding Matthew says only: Template:Blockquote

How to interpret these quotations from Papias has long been a matter of controversy, as the original context for each is missing and the Greek is in several respects ambiguous and seems to employ technical rhetorical terminology. It has been questioned if Papias is even referring to the canonical Gospels bearing those names. However Eusebius, who had the complete text and context before him, understood Papias in these passages to be referring to the canonical Gospels.

The word logia (Template:Lang)—which also appears in the title of Papias' work—is itself problematic. In non-Christian contexts, the usual meaning was oracles, but since the 19th century it has been interpreted as sayings, which sparked numerous theories about a lost "Sayings Gospel", now called Q, resembling the Gospel of Thomas.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> But the parallelism implies a meaning of things said or done, which suits the canonical Gospels well.Template:Sfnp<ref name="Thomas">Template:Cite book</ref>

The apparent claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew—which in Greek could refer to either Hebrew or AramaicTemplate:Sfnp—is echoed by many other ancient authorities.<ref>E.g., Irenaeus, Template:Usurped; Ephrem, Template:Usurped; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.10 Template:Webarchive.3.</ref> Modern scholars have proposed numerous explanations for this assertion, in light of the prevalent view that canonical Matthew was composed in Greek and not translated from Semitic.<ref name="Thomas" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> One theory is that Matthew himself produced firstly a Semitic work and secondly a recension of that work in Greek. Another is that others translated Matthew into Greek rather freely. Another is that Papias simply means "Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ" as a Hebrew style of Greek. Another is that Papias refers to a distinct work now lost, perhaps a sayings collection like Q or the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews.Template:Sfn Yet another is that Papias was simply mistaken.

As for Mark, the difficulty has been in understanding the relationship described between Mark and Peter—whether Peter recalled from memory or Mark recalled Peter's preaching, and whether Mark translated this preaching into Greek or Latin or merely expounded on it, and if the former, publicly or just when composing the Gospel; modern scholars have explored a range of possibilities.Template:Sfnp Eusebius, after quoting Papias, goes on to say that Papias also cited 1 Peter,<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.16">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.16.</ref><ref name="Eusebius 2.15.2">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15 Template:Webarchive.2.</ref> where Peter speaks of "my son Mark",<ref>Template:Bibleverse.</ref> as corroboration. Within the 2nd century, this relation of Peter to Mark's Gospel is alluded to by Justin<ref>Justin Martyr, Template:Usurped.</ref> and expanded on by Clement of Alexandria.<ref>Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis 8, apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1–2 Template:Webarchive, Template:Usurped; Clement of Alexandria, Adumbr. in Ep. can. in 1 Pet. 5:13 Template:Webarchive, apud Cassiodorus, In Epistola Petri Prima Catholica 1.3.</ref>

We do not know what else Papias said about these or the other Gospels—he certainly treated John<ref name="Hill">Template:Cite journal</ref>—but some see Papias as the likely unattributed source of at least two later accounts of the Gospel origins. Bauckham argues that the Muratorian Canon (c. 170) has drawn from Papias; the extant fragment, however, preserves only a few final words on Mark and then speaks about Luke and John.Template:Sfnp Hill argues that Eusebius' earlier account of the origins of the four Gospels<ref>Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.24 Template:Webarchive.5–13.</ref> is also drawn from Papias.<ref name="Hill" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Eschatological

Eusebius concludes from the writings of Papias that he was a chiliast, understanding the Millennium as a literal period in which Christ will reign on Earth, and chastises Papias for his literal interpretation of figurative passages, writing that Papias "appears to have been of very limited understanding", and felt that his misunderstanding misled Irenaeus and others.<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.11-13">Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Template:Webarchive.11–13.</ref>

Irenaeus indeed quotes the fourth book of Papias for an otherwise-unknown saying of Jesus, recounted by John the Evangelist, which Eusebius doubtless has in mind:<ref>Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33 Template:Webarchive.3–4.</ref><ref>Template:Harvp Another translation Template:Webarchive is given online by T. C. Schmidt, and another Template:Usurped by Ben C. Smith.</ref>

Parallels have often been noted between this account and Jewish texts of the period such as 2 Baruch.<ref>Cf. 2 Baruch 29:5 Template:Webarchive: "The earth also shall yield its fruit ten-thousandfold and on each vine there shall be a thousand branches.…"</ref>Template:Sfnp

On the other hand, Papias is elsewhere said to have understood mystically the Hexaemeron (six days of Creation) as referring to Christ and the Church.<ref>Template:Harvp Cf. Schmidt's translation Template:Webarchive, Template:Usurped.</ref>

Pericope Adulterae

File:Henri Lerambert, Le Christ et la Femme adultère.jpg

Template:Ill,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Christ and the Adultress, 16th century

Eusebius concludes his account of Papias by saying that he relates "another account about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews".<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.16"/> Agapius of Hierapolis (10th century) offers a fuller summary of what Papias said here, calling the woman an adulteress.<ref>Template:Harvp Cf. Schmidt's translation Template:Webarchive.</ref> The parallel is clear to the famous Pericope Adulterae (Template:Bibleverse), a problematic passage absent or relocated in many ancient Gospel manuscripts. The parallel is not exact since, in the version known to Papias, the woman "was accused of many sins", unlike the account found in the Pericope Adulterae in which her accusers simply say that she was "caught in the act of adultery." The remarkable fact is that the story is known in some form to such an ancient witness as Papias.

What is less clear is to what extent Eusebius and Agapius are reporting the words of Papias versus the form of the pericope known to them from elsewhere.Template:Sfnp A wide range of versions have come down to us, in fact.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Since the passage in John is virtually unknown to the Greek patristic tradition;<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Eusebius has cited the only parallel he recognized, from the now-lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, which may be the version quoted by Didymus the Blind.Template:Sfnp

The nearest agreement with "many sins" actually occurs in the Johannine text of Armenian codex Matenadaran 2374 (formerly Ečmiadzin 229); this codex is also remarkable for ascribing the longer ending of Mark to "Ariston the Elder", which is often seen as somehow connected with Papias.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Death of Judas

According to a scholium attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Papias also related a tale on the grotesque fate of Judas Iscariot:<ref>Template:Harvp Cf. Schmidt's translation Template:Webarchive, Template:Usurped.</ref>

Death of John

Two late sources (Philip of Side and George Hamartolus) cite the second book of Papias as claiming that John was killed by the Jews.<ref>Template:Harvp For Philip of Side, cf. Schmidt's translation Template:Webarchive, Template:Usurped; for George Hamartolus, cf. Schmidt's translation, Template:Usurped .</ref> However, some modern scholars doubt the reliability of the two sources regarding Papias,<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref> while others argue that Papias did speak of John's martyrdom.<ref>Ernst Haenchen, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 1–6, trans. Robert W. Funk (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 10; Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1989), 21; 158 n. 121b; James H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press, 1995), 240</ref> According to the two sources, Papias presented this as fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus on the martyrdom of these two brothers.<ref>Template:Bibleverse.</ref>Template:Sfnp

Barsabbas

Papias relates, on the authority of the daughters of Philip, an event concerning Justus Barsabbas, who according to Acts was one of two candidates proposed to join the Twelve Apostles.<ref>Template:Bibleverse.</ref> The summary in Eusebius tells us that he "drank a deadly poison and suffered no harm,"<ref name="Eusebius 3.39.9"/> while Philip of Side recounts that he "drank snake venom in the name of Christ when put to the test by unbelievers and was protected from all harm."<ref>Template:Harvp Cf. Schmidt's translation Template:Webarchive, Template:Usurped.</ref> The account about Justus Barsabbas is followed by a one about the resurrection of the mother of a certain Manaem. This account may be connected to a verse from the longer ending of Mark: "They will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them."<ref>Template:Bibleverse.</ref>

Reliability

Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect",<ref name="Snodgrass2004">Template:Cite journal</ref> but knew that Irenaeus believed Papias to be a reliable witness to original apostolic traditions.<ref>Template:Cite book "…has three divisions: (1) Sections l–8a are concerned with Eusebius's attempt to use Papias's preface to his five books of… Thirdly, Eusebius knew that Irenaeus believed Papias to be a reliable witness to the original apostolic tradition."</ref>

Modern scholars have debated Papias' reliability.<ref>Template:Cite book "quoted Papias and took him so seriously, if his theology was such an embarrassment. The answer may be that Papias… None of this, naturally, is tantamount to an assessment of Papias's reliability, on which we are not yet prepared to pass."</ref><ref>Template:Cite book "The reason this matters for our purposes here is that one of the few surviving quotations from Papias's work provides a reference to…. But unfortunately, there are problems with taking Papias's statement at face value and assuming that in Mark's Gospel we have a historically reliable account of the activities of Peter. To begin with, some elements of Papias's statement simply aren't plausible."</ref> Much discussion of Papias's comments about the Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew is concerned with either showing their reliability as evidence for the origins of these Gospels or with emphasizing their apologetic character in order to discredit their reliability.<ref>Template:Cite book "Much discussion of Papias's comments about Mark and Matthew, preoccupied either with showing their reliability as evidence for the origins of these Gospels or with emphasizing their apologetic character in order to discredit their reliability…."</ref> Yoon-Man Park cites a modern argument that Papias's tradition was formulated to vindicate the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel, but dismisses this as an unlikely apologetic route unless the Peter-Mark connection Papias described had already been accepted with general agreement by the early church.<ref>Template:Cite book "Before using this source as evidence it is necessary to discuss the much debated issue of the reliability of Papias's testimony. Many modern scholars have dismissed the reliability of the tradition from Papias primarily because they believe it was formulated to vindicate the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel. Yet what is to be noted is that Papias's claim to apostolicity for the second Gospel is indirectly made through Peter rather than through Mark himself. The question is that if Papias wished to defend the apostolicity of Mark's Gospel, why did he not directly appeal to apostolic authorship… instead of fabricating the relationship between Mark and Peter? Besides…"</ref> Maurice Casey argued that Papias was indeed reliable about a Hebrew collection of sayings by Matthew the Apostle, which he argues was independent of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, possibly written by another Matthew or Matthias in the early church.<ref>Template:Cite book "It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. I suggest that a second source of the confusion lay with the real author of this Gospel. One possibility is that he was also called Matthias or Matthew. These were common enough Jewish names, and different forms were similar enough."</ref>

Others argue Papias faithfully recorded what was related to him, but misunderstood the subjects of narrations he was unfamiliar with.Template:SfnTemplate:Page needed

See also

• Q+/Papias hypothesis

Bibliography

• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book
• Template:Cite book (with the annotated English translation of the fragments, pp. 105–260).
• Template:Cite book

External links

• Chronicon.net – Complete Fragments of Papias with new discoveries listed
• Biblical Audio – 2012 Papias translation and audio version (based on Chronicon.net fragments)
• Christian Classics Etheral Library – Fragments of Papias
• Early Christian Writings – Fragments of Papias
• Patristics In English Project – Fragments of Papias
• Template:Cite EB1911
• Template:Cite Catholic Encyclopedia (including an explanation of why logia is not to be rendered as "sayings", but as "oracles")
• Template:Librivox author