Papias was a church elder in Hierapolis, a city in Asia Minor. His five-volume work, An Exposition of the Logia [1] of the Lord, is no longer extant, but parts of the work have been preserved in later writings, most notably Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (HE).
He is an important witness to the authorship of Matthew and Mark, his comments on which can be found in HE 3.39. But for whatever reason, we have no mention of the Gospel of John in Papias’s extant fragments. I am convinced, however, that we can reconstruct Papias’s view on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel through later sources dependent on him. If this is correct, it adds yet one more piece of external attestation to the Fourth Gospel’s authorship by John the apostle.
Prior evidence for Papias’s reliability
And, I should add, a this would be a piece of attestation we have good reason to trust a priori. Some later writers thought that Papias was a disciple of John himself. Irenaeus calls Papias a “hearer of John” [2], Philip of Side says that Papias was a “disciple of John the theologian” [3], and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John calls him “John’s dear disciple”. However, the fragment attributed to Papias in HE 3.39.4 seems to suggest that he got his information from the disciples at one remove — Papias asks the “followers of the elders”, not the elders themselves, about the elders’ words. Even if Papias was not a disciple of John himself, he was at least only one remove from him.
Papias was writing at an early time as well, much earlier than Theophilus of Antioch and Irenaeus, with whom discussions of external evidence for Johannine authorship often start. Robert Yarbrough has argued persuasively that Papias was writing between 95-110 AD, right at the close of the apostolic age. [4] Eusebius discusses Papias in book 3 of HE, where he discusses events no later than the reign of Trajan (97/98-117 AD), and in book 4 Eusebius opens up with the 12th year of Trajan’s reign (AD 109). Eusebius here places Papias as contemporaries of Polycarp and Ignatius, immediate successors of the apostles. [5] Yarbrough also writes:
Eusebius’ Chronicon also furnishes a second and related clue for dating Papias. Eusebius places the aged apostle John, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius—in that order—in the same entry. Next to this entry Eusebius has, as part of his running table of dates, the year “100”. With this entry he concludes his treatment of the first century. Unquestionably Eusebius here links Papias with the apostle John as a Church leader at the close of the first century and as a contemporary of Ignatius and the young Polycarp. [6]
More importantly, Papias was gathering and compiling his material even earlier. In the fragment quoted in HE 3.39.4, he distinguishes between what the elders “had said” (εἶπεν, aorist tense) and what Aristion and John the Presbyter “were still saying” (λέγουσιν, present tense). When Papias was gathering information from the followers of the elders, John the presbyter was still alive.
That this presbyter John is to be identified with John the son of Zebedee can be shown from a HE 3.39.4:
And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I asked about their words: what Andrew or Peter had said, or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying. [7]
It seems that Papias uses “disciples of the Lord” as a broader category which includes the Twelve as well as Aristion and the presbyter John. The phrase “or any other of the Lord’s disciples” follows Papias’s lists of the Twelve, and the synonymous phrase “disciples of the Lord” follows his listing of Aristion and the presbyter John. The category of “elder” seems to be confined to the Twelve, however. Immediately after speaking of “the elders” (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων), he proceeds to list members of the Twelve. The reason why Papias attaches the title of “presbyter/elder” (πρεσβύτερος) seems to be distinguish him as one of the Twelve from Aristion, who is not one of the Twelve. In short, the distinction Papias is making between those listed before καὶ (“and”) and those listed after is one of time, not apostolic status. Moreover, the article in the phrase ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης is best taken as anaphoric, so as to render the phrase something like “the aforementioned John”. If Eusebius were trying to introduce a new “elder John”, other than the John listed with other members of the Twelve, he would have written Ἰωάννης ὁ πρεσβύτερος. As it stands, the Greek syntax supports the interpretation that ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης is John son of Zebedee. [8]
Thus John the son of Zebedee was still alive while Papias was inquiring of the followers of the elders, which means that he was compiling his material no later than 98 AD (AH 3.3.4), and probably earlier. What Papias reports concerning matters of first century Christiany, then, we have good reason to trust. (See [9] for the objection against Papias’s trustworthiness concerning his treatment of Judas’s death.)
Papias and the Fourth Gospel
What exactly does Papias say concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel?
To start, it is certain that Papias was at least familiar with John’s gospel, which the following fragment preserved by Eusebius shows:
Along with the interpretations, I shall not hesitate to add all that I ever learned and carefully remembered from the elders, for I am sure of its truth. Unlike most, I did not delight in those who say much but in those who teach the truth; not in those who recite the commandments of others but in those who repeated the commandments given by the Lord. And whenever anyone came out who had been a follower of the elders, I asked about their words: what Andrew or Peter had said, or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying. For I did not think that information from books would help me as much as the word of a living, surviving voice. [10]
The order in which Papias list the disciples — Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, and John — is the exact order in which they appear in John’s Gospel. [11]
But what did Papias say about Fourth Gospel? In the late second century, sometime after 180, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John reports that Papias had written that John dictated the Fourth Gospel:
The gospel of John was published and given to the churches by John while he was still in the body, as Papias of Hierapolis, John’s dear disciple, has related in his five exoteric, [12] that is his last, books. He wrote down the gospel accurately at John’s dictation. But the heretic Marcion was rejected by John, having been condemned by him for his contrary views. Marcion had carried writings or letters to him from the brother in Pontus. [13]
The only extant version of the Prologue is in Latin, and it is clearly a translation from a Greek text that is no longer extant. The statement that it was Papias who “wrote down the gospel accurately at John’s dictation” is certainly odd. F. F. Bruce, following Lightfoot, attempts to salvage the Prologue here and suggests that the word “He” in “He wrote down the gospel” was a mistranslation from an original “they”, either referring to “the churches”. He writes:
If Papias wrote apegraphon (imperfect tense), this could be either first person singular or third person plural. If he wrote apegrapsan (third person plural, aorist tense), this, in certain positions, could have been written apegrapsā, which then, by the obscuring of the stroke above the final letter, was misread apegrapsa (first person singular). [14]
As ingenious as this reconstruction is, it is unlikely that an original third person plural pronoun referring to “the churches” stood behind the text’s current “He”, because the author identifies “the churches” as those who receive the gospel, not those who publish it. It is more likely that the Prologue is simply mistaken that Papias wrote the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, we may justifiably cite the Prologue’s claim that Papias related the Fourth Gospel to John because it coheres with other evidence from sources that used Papias, which we now explore.
One of these sources is the Muratorian Fragment (MF). From numerous points of contact occur between the MF and Papias, we can infer a dependance of the former on the latter. [15]
1) In HE 3.39.15, Papias excuses Mark’s gospel for its lack of “order” (τάξει), citing the fact that Mark “neither heard the Lord nor followed him”. The author of the MF says that John wrote the “marvelous deeds of the Lord” in the Fourth Gospel “in their order” (per ordinem). In both accounts, the writer is explaining a Gospel in terms of order and eyewitness authority; for each Gospel, however, opposite answers are given: Mark is out of “order” because Mark isn’t an eyewitness, and John is in “order” because John is an eyewitness. Could the Fragment be preserving what Papias said about the Gospel of John in comparison to Mark’s gospel? Consider as well the first line of the Muratorian Fragment. It is cut off at what appears to be the end of a discussion of the Gospel of Mark. It reads: “…at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative].” This line, however fragmented, makes sense if we again compare it to what Papias says about Mark in HE 3.39.15 — specifically, that Mark was present at the preaching of Peter. In this case the Fragment would plausibly be preserving both Papias’s discussion of Mark and his discussion of John, and his comparison of both Gospels concerning “order” and eyewitness authority.
2) Both accounts are concerned with “different beginnings”. The MF says that “though different beginnings may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith of believers”. [16] The Fragment also says of Luke: “Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; [17] and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.” The MF’s concern to excuse the Gospels’ different beginnings parallels Papias’s use of the word τάξις. The word is τάξις best understood as referring not to chronology [18] but literary arrangement, in the sense used by the rhetorical schools. [19] For example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his critique of Thucydides writes: “Some blame his τάξις on the grounds that he did not adopt the proper beginning for his history, or give it its proper conclusion.” A proper beginning, writes Dionysus, is “a point which nothing could possibly precede”, and a proper conclusion is “an ending which is felt to have nothing lacking.” [20] Understanding τάξις to refer to literary arrangement rather than chronology also explains why Papias says that Matthew “arranged together [συνετάξατο]” the logia of Jesus in the Hebrew language. Here he affirms that Matthew has τάξις but not Mark, even though the two gospels are similar chronologically. [21] Papias may have in mind Mark’s abrupt beginning with John the Baptist as opposed to Matthew’s beginning with the genealogy and Virgin Birth. [22] (See my blog post here for more detail on Papias’s τάξις).
3) Not only is there conceptual interlocking between these two sources, but also similar vocabulary is used. Papias says that Mark wrote “some things [ἔνια] just as he recalled them” even though he wasn’t an eyewitness; The MF says that John wrote “particular points” (singula) because he was an eyewitness.
4) Eusebius tells us in HE 3.39.16 that “Papias also used evidence from 1 John and 1 Peter”. The author of the MF, interestingly enough, cites 1 John in order to prove that John was an eyewitness of Jesus who wrote down Jesus’ deeds “in their order”.
5) The Fragment states that John’s fellow disciples and bishops “had been urging” (cohortantibus) him to write a Gospel. While this statement finds no parallel in any extant writing of Papias, it does parallel a statement which Eusebius attributes to Clement of Alexandria and says is also supported by Papias (HE 2.15, cf. 6.14.7). Eusebius says of Clement’s account:
Peter’s hearers, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine message, pleaded with Mark, whose Gospel we have, to leave them a written summary of the teaching given them verbally, since he was a follower of Peter. Nor did they cease until they persuaded him and so caused the writing of what is called the Gospel of Mark… Clement quotes the story in Outlines, Book 6, and Bishop Papias of Hierapolis confirms it. [23]
In both cases, the writer describes a Gospel as having been written by the initiation of others. John was “urged” to write because of his “disciples”; Mark was “persuaded” to write because of Peter’s “hearers”.
Conclusion
A fairly strong case can be mounted for the hypothesis that Papias affirmed the Fourth Gospel’s authorship by John. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John says so explicitly, and its testimony is confirmed by the MF’s probable dependence on Papias’s information about John. These points therefore add to the weight of the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel’s authorship by one of the Twelve.
Notes
[1] This is a hard word to translate; some translators prefer “oracles” or “sayings”.
[2] AH 5.33.4.
[3] Codex Baroccianus 142, cited by N. T. Wright and Michael F. Bird, The New Testament in its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 654 n. 25.
[4] Robert Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26, no. 2 (1983): 181-191.
[5] HE 3.36.1-2. “Celebrated at that time in Asia was a companion of the apostles, Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Lord. Distinguished contemporaries of his were Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, and Ignatius, still a famed name as second after Peter to succeed to the bishopric of Antioch.” Trans. Paul L. Meier, Eusebius: The Church History. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2007).
[6] Yarbrough, “Date of Papias”, 186.
[7] Trans. Meier, Eusebius, 112.
[8] See C. S. Petrie, “The Authorship of the ‘Gospel According to Matthew’: A Reconsideration of the External Evidence,” NTS 14 (1967-68): 21.
[9] One might counter this claim with evidence that Papias reports a clearly exaggerated tale of Judas’s death. For an analysis of this evidence, see Stephen C. Carlson, Papias of Hierapolis, Exposition of the Dominical Oracles: The Fragments, Testimonia, and Reception of a Second-Century Commentator. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 40-56. According to the fourth-century commentator Apollinarius of Laodicea, Papias wrote that “Judas was a terrible, walking example of ungodliness in this 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 (φασί)... [here he goes on to swollen and sunken eyes, bloated genitals with pus and worms coming out, and a death that stunk]” (40-41). But this quotation is suspect because it derives from a lost fourth-century commentary, and “[a]ll that remains of it are scattered quotations and plagiarisms by later commentators and cantina compilers”. Stephen Carlson is convinced that Papias only wrote, “Judas walked around as a great example of ungodliness in this world, as his flesh got so bloated that he could not pass through a place where a wagon passes through easily” (125). He writes, “The following sensational description — signaled by a change in information with φασί (“they say”) — cannot be independently traced back to Papias and probably belongs to the fourth-century sources of Apollinaris. In fact, it has more to do with the gruesome death of Galerius, which Eusebius and Lactantius declaimed in lurid detail. Both Galerius and... Apollinaris’s Judas enjoyed the well-deserved ‘deaths of the persecutors’ of popular imagination in the soil of the fourth century after the end of the Great Persecution” (56). What remains of Papias’s quotation can plausibly be explained “as a pedagogical example for other Christians about the dangers of greed”, according to Candida Moss, “A Note on the Death of Judas in Papias” NTS 65, no. 3 (2019): 388-397. For an explanation of Papias’s rhetoric as “ekphrasis”, see Christopher B. Zeichmann, “Papias as Rhetorician: Ekphrasis in the Bishop’s Account of Judas’ Death.” NTS 56 (2010): 427-229.
[10] Trans. Meier, Eusebius, 112.
[11] O’Connell concludes that “the odds that this correspondence is not by chance are greater than 99 percent.” Jake H. O’Connell, “A Note of Papias’s Knowledge of the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 129, no. 4 (2010): 794. In reply to O’Connell, see Nevin Climenhaga, “Papias’s Prologue and the Probability of Parallels.” Journal of Biblical Literature 139, no. 3 (2020): 591-596.
[12] Bruce notes: “The Greek adjective exēgētikois was evidently corrupted to exōterikos (‘external’), which was taken over into the Latin version (exotersis) and explained by the Latin adjective externis; externis was then corrupted in the Latin transmission to extremis (‘last’).” F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 156.
[13] Trans. as found in Bruce, Canon, 156.
[14] Bruce, Canon, 156 n. 21.
[15] Many of the following points are noted by Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said About John (and Luke): a ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” The Journal of Theological Studies 49, no. 2, (1998): 586-587; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017) 427-428.
[16] I have chosen to use Charles Hill’s translation of varia… principia as “different beginnings” because the Fragment is clearly concerned with Luke’s “beginning”: “Yet he himself [Luke] had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.” See Hill, “What Papias Said”, 586 n. 13. Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Muratorian Fragment: the State of Research.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57.2 (2014): 236-238, translates varia... principia as “various elements”.
[17] Note how the MF here parallels Papias in the way that a Gospel writer who isn’t a direct eyewitness is excused.
[18] Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “Τάξει in Papias: Again.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 3, no. 4, (1995), 489. Citing Philostratus’s appraisal of Apollonius’s accuracy τοῖς δὲ χρόνοις, he notes that ancient historians used different words when referring to chronology.
[19] See F. H Colson, “Τάξει in Papias. (The Gospels and the Rhetorical Schools.)” The Journal of Theological Studies 14.53 (1912): 62-69.
[20] On Thucydides 10. Trans. as found in Colson, “Τάξει in Papias”, 65.
[21] Trans. Dean Furlong, “Theodore of Mopsuestia: New Evidence for the Proposed Papian Fragment in Hist. eccl. 3.24.5-13.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 39.2 (2016): 217. I am assuming here that Papias is referring to the Gospel of Matthew of as we have it today, or at least a version of Matthew whose τάξις doesn’t vary substantially from our Greek text.
[22] Colson, “Τάξει in Papias”, gives five reasons Papias might have affirmed Matthew’s τάξις but not Mark’s: “...(1) his abrupt beginning, (2) his incomplete ending, (3) his habit of emphasizing trivial points and occasionally dealing inadequately with important ones, (4) the comparative absence of set speeches, (5) his inferior grouping, presents a complete contrast to the other” (67).
[23] Trans. Meier, Eusebius, 64.
No comments:
Post a Comment