PAPIAS

AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES

A STUDY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE SECOND CENTURY

BY

EDWARD H. HALL

I. AN EARLY INVESTIGATOR

II. PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

III. TWO LEARNED DOCTORS

IV. THE MILLENNIAL REIGN

V. THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS

VI. THE MYSTIC GOSPEL

PAPIAS' LIFE.

THE only reliable sources from which we derive information with regard to Papias are the works of Irenaus and Eusebius. Irenaeus mentions him as "a hearer of John", "a companion of Polycarp", and calls him "an ancient man". There has been much dispute as to whether the John here mentioned was the apostle John; for Eusebius is decidedly of opinion that he was not a hearer of John the apostle. The historian has supplied us with his evidence. He appeals to a passage at the commencement of the work of Papias which runs thus : "But I shall not be slow to put down along with my interpretations those things which I learned well from the elders and remembered well, assuring you of the truth with regard to them. For I did not, like the many, delight in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; not in those who rehearsed the commands of others, but in those who rehearsed the commands given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If then any one who had attended on the elders came, I inquired diligently as to the words of the elders; what Andrew or what Peter said, or Philip or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I was of opinion that what could be got in books would not profit me so much as what I could get from the living and abiding voice".

Eusebius infers from the double mention of the name of John that two Johns existed, and that the latter mentioned John, called the elder or presbyter, was the instructor of Papias. We think Eusebius is right in his inference. As Eusebius well remarks, Papias makes a clear distinction between what Peter and John and the other apostles said, and what Aristion and the elder or presbyter John were still saying. He plainly confessed too that his information was derived not from the apostles themselves, but from those who had been in the company of the apostles. And Eusebius further informs us that Papias made frequent mention of Aristion and John the elder in his work, quoting their traditions. We scarcely think that Eusebius could have been mistaken on such a point as this, for the traditions of John the elder must have been easily dis- tinguishable from those of the apostle. At the same time we are inclined to think that Irenaeus meant the apostle John in his statement, but even this is by no means certain. For in mentioning John before, he simply calls him a disciple of the Lord, which John the presbyter was; while, if he had meant the apostle John, he would probably have called him apostle.

Besides, there is nothing impossible in the supposition that Papias should in his boyhood have listened to the Christian veteran, have failed to remember much of his discourse, and been therefore dependent on those who were older than himself. In fact, if he had met many of those who had conversed with the other apostles, who all left this world a considerable time before John, he must have been born before the death of John.

Of his life and death we know nothing on good authority, except that he was overseer of the church sojourning in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia and the birthplace of the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Later writers have described his martyrdom; some saying that he suffered with Onesimus at Rome, others that Pergamus was the scene of his death, and that the event happened at the same time as the martyrdom of Polycarp.

WRITINGS AND TEACHING.

Irenaeus mentions that Papias wrote five books, and Eusebius informs us that the name of the book was "An Exposition of the Lord's sayings". Of the nature of this work we can form no exact idea, as all the extracts, except one, which have come down to us are of an historical nature. This much we know from the passage already quoted, that it was based on unwritten tradition, and Eusebius also asserts that it contained some strange parables and teachings of the Lord and other things of a somewhat fabulous nature. Eusebius describes Papias as a man "most learned in all things, and well acquainted with the Scriptures". In another place, however, he estimates him from his work as having an exceedingly small mind. Various efforts have been made to reconcile these apparently discrepant statements, and some have entirely rejected the first, partly on account of the supposed discrepancy, and partly because the passage is not found in several manuscripts. It seems to me most likely that there is a real discrepancy, but that that discrepancy existed in the original work of Eusebius; that when mentioning him first in company with others he spoke of him as he ought to have done, but in coming suddenly upon a dogma which he disliked, he rashly pronounced the propounder of it a man of small capacity. At the same time there can be no doubt that the praise and the blame might justly fall on the same man; that a man might be logiotátos, a very great reader, and yet a very poor thinker.

The only point of doctrine on which we have the opinion of Papias is that of the millennium. He held, according to Eusebius, "that there would be some millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the personal reign of Christ would be established upon this earth". Eusebius was probably mistaken. Papias and most, perhaps all, early Christians believed, if they had a belief on the matter, that after the resurrection the just would dwell upon this earth renewed and beautified. It is likely that Eusebius identified this opinion with the belief in a millennium. Even modern critics have found a reference to the millennium in a speech which Papias set down as Christ's on the authority of the elders. We get our information from Irenaeus, who says that the "elders who had seen John, the disciple of Christ, remembered that they heard from him how the Lord taught with regard to those days, and said, "The days will come in which vines shall grow having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each real twig ten thousand shoots, and in each shoot ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me, bless the Lord through me'. In like manner he said that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and each ear would have ten thousand grains, and each grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals using as food what is received from the earth would become peaceable and harmonious, being subject to men in all subjection". Irenaeus says that these words of Christ were given in the fourth book of Papias. "And he [Papias] added, saying, 'These things can be believed by those who believe'. And Judas the traitor not believing and asking, how shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord? the Lord said, They shall see who shall come to them". There is nothing improbable in the statement that the Lord spoke in some such way, and it is not at all improbable that Papias took literally what was meant for allegory. We have no express quotation from Papias which showed that he referred these statements to a millennium, or that he took them literally. Irenaeus unquestionably did both.

The most important of the traditions of Papias which have reached us is that which relates to Matthew and Mark. With regard to Matthew he says that "he wrote the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could". The word loyia "sayings" is, as Schleiermacher has shown, applied to oracular utterances, words of divine origin; but considerable discussion has taken place as to whether it can mean here only the sayings of Christ or whether it might not include such narrative as we have in Mat- thew. The natural force of the word would unquestionably confine it to the 'sayings', but it would be rash to base upon this the assertion that Papias meant to say that Matthew gave no connecting narratives. How did Papias get this information? He has already told us the general sources of his information. In this instance we cannot be far wrong in ascribing it to John the elder, as in the information with regard to Mark, John is expressly quoted. The extract runs thus : "And the elder said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately what things he remembered. He did not, however, relate in exact order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who gave forth his teaching's to suit the wants of the people, and not as putting together a full account of the sayings of the Lord; so that Mark, thus writing some things just as he himself recollected them, made no mistake. For of this one thing he took especial care, to omit nothing of what he heard or to put nothing fictitious into them". Eusebius also informs us that he made quotations from the first Epistle of John and the first Epistle of Peter, and that he gave another story, that of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord; "which story", he adds, "is now contained in the gospel according to the Hebrews". This is, no doubt, the story which found its way into many manuscripts of John's gospel; though the expression 'another story' makes it perfectly possible that Papias gave a different version, or rather additional particulars, with regard to the woman there mentioned.

The other traditions of Papias have no dogmatic reference. He relates two miracles. The first of these was the resurrection of a dead man. The words of Papias do not imply that this was a miracle wrought by a man, but simply that it took place in the time of the apostle Philip, whose daughters were under the pastoral charge of Papias and told him the story. The other story seems also to have been authenticated by them. It was that Justus, surnamed Barsabas, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, drank deadly poison without being in the least injured. There are other two fragments, which have been attributed to Papias. One, as quoted by Ecumenius, relates that the death of Judas was caused by a carriage running over him and crushing out his intestines. Theophylact adds many absurd particulars to this statement, apparently as if he had found them in the work of Papias, but the best critics regard them as the fabrications of a later age. The other gives an account of the four Maries mentioned in the New Testament. It runs thus — "Mary, the mother of the Lord; Mary, the wife of Cleophas or Alpheus, who was the mother of James, overseer and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, the wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and of James; and Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of the aunt of the Lord. James also and John were sons of the other aunt of the Lord. Mary, the mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alpheus, was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names Cleophae, either from the father or the family of the clan or some other cause. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village; some say that she was the same as the wife of Cleophas, because she had two husbands". The information of this fragment, first published by Grabe, is interesting, if we could but depend on it. Unfortunately, there is no testimony to its genuineness but the inscription "Papia". The statements made here, as Routh remarks, differ from those of Epiphanius, Heeres. 78. num. et 8, and the Chronicle of Hippolytus Thebanus in a Bodleian MS.

The collectors of the fragments of Papias adduce several other very questionable quotations from Papias — one especially from Andreas Caesariensis, who says that Papias knew the Revelation of John. The date of this Andreas is unknown : Pearson supposes him to have flourished in the fifth century; but even were he better known, his assertion is not to be relied on, though not unlikely in itself.

Many scholars have thought that Papias was often the source from which Irenaeus derived the sayings of elders which he quotes anonymously. Nothing positive can be made of such a guess, and the matter, besides, belongs more to our discussion of Irenaeus than of Papias.

There is nothing in the fragments of Papias to enable us to speak with regard to his theology. He may have been a Jewish-Christian, but there is not the slightest proof. The only two circumstances which can be adduced to give a colour to this supposition are, that he concerns himself with the details of Christ's earthly life, and that he does not seem to have mentioned Paul's writings. He may, however, have quoted Paul for all that we know, and even if he did not, his subject was Christ's sayings. And surely it was no mean curiosity that concentrated itself on the truths to which the Son of God had given utterance. Nor would it be any disparagement to Papias if he had deemed them of far greater importance than those of Paul.

The work of Papias was extant in the time of Jerome. Perhaps it may yet be recovered, for some work with the name of Papias is mentioned thrice in the Catalogue of the Library of the Benedictine Monastery of Christ Church, Canterbury, contained in a Cottonian MS. written in the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century; and, according to Menard, the words, "I found the book of Papias on the Words of the Lord" are contained in an inventory of the property of the Church of Nimes, prepared about 1218.

The fragments of Papias are given in Halloix, Grabe, Gallandi, Migne, and Routh.