ἐξηγήσεως EUSEBE; JEROME, De uiris, xvm (explanatio) ; ἐξηγήσεις M.  ↩

Ἀριστίων : le syr. suppose partout Aristôn.  ↩

ὃς mss., « und » syr., om. RUFIN; le sujet dans les deux traductions se trouve donc être Marc. — λογίων : λόγων AT1. —16 : λογία mss., « das Evangelium » syr., om. RUFIN. — συνετάξατο : συνεγράψατο AM.  ↩

ἐπιτετηρήσθω : ἐπιτετηρήσθω ἀμφὶ δὲ τὸ δωδέκατον ἔτος τῆς Τραϊανοῦ βασιλείας Τ. ↩

logion kuriakon exegeseis. This work is no longer extant, but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and others, which are published in the various editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn's edition, Vol. I. Appendix), and by Routh in his Rel. Sacrae, I. p. 3-16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. p. 151 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and sharply disputed. Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions in regard to the Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a commentary upon these traditions, others that it was a complete Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already existing Gospel or Gospels. The last is the view which accords best with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though there is controversy among those who accept it as to whether the Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of our canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell at this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the base of Papias' work, concludes that the work contained, first, the text; secondly, "the interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work"; and thirdly, the oral traditions, which "were subordinate to the interpretation" (Contemporary Review, 1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good a description of the plan of Papias' work as can be given, whatever decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used with any one of our Gospels. Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for his view, and has discussed at length various other views which it is not necessary to repeat here. On the significance of the word logia, see below, note 26. As remarked there, logia cannot be confined to words or discourses only, and therefore the "oracles" which Papias expounded in his work may well have included, so far as the title is concerned, a complete Gospel or Gospels. In the absence of the work itself, however, we are left entirely to conjecture, though it must be remarked that in the time of Papias at least some of our Gospels were certainly in existence and already widely accepted. It is difficult, therefore, to suppose that if written documents lay at the basis of Papias' work, as we have concluded that they did, that they can have been other than one or more of the commonly accepted Gospels. But see Lightfoot's article already referred to for a discussion of this question. The date of the composition of Papias' work is now commonly fixed at about the middle of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150 a.d. The books and articles that have been written upon this work are far too numerous to mention. Besides the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, which has been already referred to, we should mention also Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christian Biography, Schleiermacher's essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 735 sq.,--the first critical discussion of Papias' testimony in regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable,--dissertations by Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews of the last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879. See also p. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2. ↩

hos monon auto graphenton. Irenaeus does not expressly say that these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says, "For five books have been written by him" (?sti gar auto pente biblia suntetagmena). Eusebius' interpretation of Irenaeus' words is not, however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenaeus' meaning. ↩

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 33. 4. ↩

The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, has been questioned by many, who have held that, in the passage quoted just below from Papias, the same John is meant in both cases. See the note of Schaff in his Church History, II. p. 697 sq. A careful exegesis of the passage from Papias quoted by Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion which Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two different persons bearing the same name,--John. In fact, no other conclusion can be reached, unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of writing. Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is no possible excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On the other hand, if we accept Eusebius' interpretation, we are met by a serious difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there lived in Asia Minor, early in the second century a man to whom Papias appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is mentioned by no other Father; who is, in fact, otherwise an entirely unknown personage. And still further, no reader of Papias' work, before the time of Eusebius, gathered from that work, so far as we know, a single hint that the John with whom he was acquainted was any other than the apostle John. These difficulties are so serious that they have led many to deny that Papias meant to refer to a second John, in spite of his apparently clear reference to such a person. Among those who deny this second John's existence are such scholars as Zahn and Salmon. (Compare, for instance, the latter's able article on Joannes the Presbyter, in the Dict. of Christian Biography.) In reply to their arguments, it may be said that the silence of all other early writers does not necessarily disprove the existence of a second John; for it is quite conceivable that all trace of him should be swallowed up in the reputation of his greater namesake who lived in the same place. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that Papias, writing for those who were well acquainted with both Johns, may have had no suspicion that any one would confound the presbyter with the apostle, and would imagine that he was referring to the latter when he was speaking of his personal friend John; and therefore he would have no reason for stating expressly that there were two Johns, and for expressly distinguishing the one from the other. It was, then, quite natural that Irenaeus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a John in Papias' works, should simply take for granted that the same John was meant; for by his time the lesser John may easily, in the minds of most people, have become lost in the tradition of his greater namesake. In view of these possibilities, it cannot be said that the silence of other Fathers in regard to this John is fatal to his existence; and if this is so, we are hardly justified in doing such violence to Papias' language as is required to identify the two Johns mentioned by him in the passage quoted below. Among those who accept Eusebius' conclusion, that Papias refers to two different persons, are such scholars as Tischendorf, Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot. If Eusebius has recovered for us from the ancient history of the Church an otherwise unknown personage, it will not be the only time that he has corrected an error committed by all his predecessors. In this case, as in a number of other cases, I believe Eusebius' wide information, sharp-sightedness, and superiority to the trammels of traditionalism receive triumphant vindication and we may accept his conclusion that Papias was personally acquainted with a second John, who was familiarly known as "the Presbyter," and thus distinguished from the apostle John, who could be called a presbyter or elder only in the general sense in which all the leading men of his generation were elders (see below, note 6), and could not be designated emphatically as "the presbyter." In regard to the connection of this "presbyter John" with the Apocalypse, see below, note 14. But although Papias distinguishes, as we may conclude, between two Johns in the passage referred to, and elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces himself a hearer of the second John, it does not necessarily follow that Irenaeus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the apostle John; for Irenaeus may have based his statement upon information received from his teacher, Polycarp, the friend of Papias, and not upon the passage quoted by Eusebius, and hence Papias may have been a hearer of both Johns. At the same time, it must be said that if Papias had been a disciple of the apostle John, he could scarcely have failed to state the fact expressly somewhere in his works; and if he had stated it anywhere, Eusebius could hardly have overlooked it. The conclusion, therefore, seems most probable that Eusebius is right in correcting Irenaeus' statement, and that the latter based his report upon a misinterpretation of Papias' own words. In that case, we have no authority for speaking of Papias as a disciple of John the apostle. ↩

This sentence gives strong support to the view that oral traditions did not form the basis of Papias' work, but that the basis consisted of written documents, which he interpreted, and to which he then added the oral traditions which he refers to here. See Contemporary Review, 1885, II. p. 388 sq. The words tais hermeneiais have been translated by some scholars, "the interpretations of them," thus making the book consist only of these oral traditions with interpretations of them. But this translation is not warranted by the Greek, and the also at the beginning of the sentence shows that the work must have contained other matter which preceded these oral traditions and to which the "interpretations" belong. ↩

As Lightfoot points out (Contemp. Rev. ibid. p. 379 sq.), Papias uses the term "elders" in a general sense to denote the Fathers of the Church in the generations preceding his own. It thus includes both the apostles and their immediate disciples. The term was thus used in a general sense by later Fathers to denote all earlier Fathers of the Church; that is, those leaders of the Church belonging to generations earlier than the writers themselves. The term, therefore, cannot be confined to the apostles alone, nor can it be confined, as some have thought (e.g. Weiffenbach in his Das Papias Fragment), to ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the official sense. Where the word presbuteros is used in connection with the second John (at the close of this extract from Papias), it is apparently employed in its official sense. At least we cannot otherwise easily understand how it could be used as a peculiar designation of this John, which should distinguish him from the other John. For in the general sense of the word, in which Papias commonly uses it, both Johns were elders. Compare Lightfoot's words in the passage referred to above. ↩

paraginomenois, instead of paraginomenas, agreeing with entol?s. The latter is the common reading, but is not so well supported by manuscript authority, and, as the easier reading, is to be rejected in favor of the former. See the note of Heinichen in loco. ↩

That is, "to those that believe, to those that are possessed of faith." ↩

Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this mention of him by Papias. ↩

See above, note 6. ↩

ek ton biblion. These words have been interpreted by many critics as implying that Papias considered the written Gospel accounts, which were extant in his time, of small value, and preferred to them the oral traditions which he picked up from "the elders." But as Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 390 sq.), this is not the natural interpretation of Papias' words, and makes him practically stultify and contradict himself. He cannot have considered the written documents which he laid at the base of his work as of little value, nor can he have regarded the writings of Matthew and Mark, which he refers to in this chapter as extant in his time, and the latter of which he praises for its accuracy, as inferior to the oral traditions, which came to him at best only at second hand. It is necessary to refer the ton biblion, as Lightfoot does, to "interpretations" of the Gospel accounts, which had been made by others, and to which Papias prefers the interpretations or expositions which he has received from the disciples of the apostles. This interpretation of the word alone saves us from difficulties and Papias from self-stultification. ↩

See above, note 4. ↩

The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John is attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII. chap. 25, below) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 9). The latter, however, says that some regard them both as memorials of the one John, the apostle; and Zahn, in his Acta Joannis, p. cliv. sq., endeavors to prove that a church stood outside of the walls of Ephesus, on the spot where John was buried, and another inside of the walls, on the site of the house in which he had resided, and that thus two spots were consecrated to the memory of a single John. The proof which he brings in support of this may not lead many persons to adopt his conclusions, and yet after reading his discussion of the matter one must admit that the existence of two memorials in Ephesus, such as Dionysius, Eusebius, and Jerome refer to, by no means proves that more than one John was buried there. ↩

A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in the passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius was undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words. The suggestion is a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does not pretend to be more. Dionysius concludes that the Apocalypse must have been written by some person named John, because it testifies to that fact itself; but the style, and other internal indications, lead him to think that it cannot have been written by the author of the fourth Gospel, whom he assumes to be John the apostle. He is therefore led to suppose that the Apocalypse was written by some other John. He does not pretend to say who that John was, but thinks it must have been some John that resided in Asia; and he then adds that there were said to be two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John,--evidently implying, though he does not say it, that he is inclined to think that this second John thus commemorated was the author of the Apocalypse. It is plain from this that he had no tradition whatever in favor of this theory, that it was solely an hypothesis arising from critical difficulties standing in the way of the ascription of the book to the apostle John. Eusebius sees in this suggestion a very welcome solution of the difficulties with which he feels the acceptance of the book to be beset, and at once states it as a possibility that this "presbyter John," whom he has discovered in the writings of Papias, may have been the author of the book. But the authenticity of the Apocalypse was too firmly established to be shaken by such critical and theological difficulties as influenced Dionysius, Eusebius, and a few others, and in consequence nothing came of the suggestion made here by Eusebius. In the present century, however, the "presbyter John" has again played an important part among some critics as the possible author of certain of the Johannine writings, though the authenticity of the Apocalypse has (until very recently) been so commonly accepted even by the most negative critics that the "presbyter John" has not figured at all as the author of it; nor indeed is he likely to in the future. ↩

In chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with the apostle Philip, see that chapter, note 6. ↩

That is, in the time of Philip. ↩

Acts i. 23. ↩

Compare the extract from Papias given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V. 32), in which is contained a famous parable in regard to the fertility of the millennium, which is exceedingly materialistic in its nature, and evidently apocryphal. "The days will come when vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty measures of wine," &c. ↩

Chiliasm, or millennarianism,--that is, the belief in a visible reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before the general judgment,--was very widespread in the early Church. Jewish chiliasm was very common at about the beginning of the Christian era, and is represented in the voluminous apocalyptic literature of that day. Christian chiliasm was an outgrowth of the Jewish, but spiritualized it, and fixed it upon the second, instead of the first, coming of Christ. The chief Biblical support for this doctrine is found in Rev. xx. 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to so constantly by chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius, Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic authorship. Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the doctrine were Caius, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. After the time of Constantine, chiliasm was more and more widely regarded as a heresy, and received its worst blow from Augustine, who framed in its stead the doctrine, which from his time on was commonly accepted in the Church, that the millennium is the present reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection. See Schaff's Church History, II. p. 613 sq., for the history of the doctrine in the ante-Nicene Church and for the literature of the subject. ↩

sphodra smikros ton noun. Eusebius' judgment of Papias may have been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strong chiliasm of the latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Papias' writings will lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far wrong in his estimate of the man. On the genuineness of the words in his praise, given by some mss., in chap. 36, §2, see note 3 on that chapter. ↩

See above, note 19. ↩

We cannot, in the absence of the context, say with certainty that the presbyter here referred to is the "presbyter John," of whom Papias has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the previous paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach's Die Papias Fragmente über Marcus und Matthaeus, p. 26 sq. ↩

Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by those who came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical gospel has been a very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias. Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from other sources (e.g. Justin Martyr's Dial. c. 106) that our second Gospel was in existence in any case before the middle of the second century, and therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of any other Gospel when he spoke of the Gospel written by Mark as the interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow from this that it was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose composition Papias here speaks. He may have written a Gospel which afterward formed the basis of our present Gospel, or was one of the sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole; that is, he may have written what is commonly known as the "Ur-Marcus" (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we cannot decide with absolute certainty, but we may say that Papias certainly understood the tradition which he gives to refer to our Gospel of Mark. The exact significance of the word hermeneutes as used in this sentence has been much disputed. It seems best to give it its usual significance,--the significance which we attach to the English word "interpreter." See Weiffenbach, ibid. p. 37 sq. It may be, supposing the report to be correct, that Peter found it advantageous to have some one more familiar than himself with the language of the people among whom he labored to assist him in his preaching. What language it was for which he needed an interpreter we cannot say. We might think naturally of Latin, but it is not impossible that Greek or that both languages were meant; for Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance with Greek, might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in it with perfect ease. The words "though not indeed in order" (ou mentoi t?xei) have also caused considerable controversy. But they seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps to a lack of logical arrangement also. The implication is that Mark wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and deeds of Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most other critics have supposed that this accusation of a "lack of order" implies the existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order, with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Lightfoot, Zahn, Renan, and others suppose). This is a natural supposition, but it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this lack of order is not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but merely of the order of events which he had received from tradition as the true one. ↩

logon, "discourses," or logion, "oracles." The two words are about equally supported by ms. authority. The latter is adopted by the majority of the editors; but it is more likely that it arose from logon under the influence of the logion, which occurred in the title of Papias' work, than that it was changed into logon. The matter, however, cannot be decided, and the alternative reading must in either case be allowed to stand. See the notes of Burton and Heinichen, in loco. ↩

men oun. These words show plainly enough that this sentence in regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately follow the passage in regard to Mark, quoted above. Both passages are evidently torn out of their context; and the latter apparently stood at the close of a description of the origin of Matthew's Gospel. That this statement in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority of "the presbyter" we are consequently not at liberty to assert. ↩

On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above, chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of Barnabas, which was written not later than the first quarter of the second century. There is, therefore, no reason for assuming that the Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted with was a different Gospel from our own. This, however, does not prove that the logia which Matthew wrote (supposing Papias' report to be correct) were identical with, or even of the same nature as our Gospel of Matthew. It is urged by many that the word logia could be used only to describe a collection of the words or discourses of the Lord, and hence it is assumed that Matthew wrote a work of this kind, which of course is quite a different thing from our first Gospel. But Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 399 sq.) that the word logia, "oracles," is not necessarily confined to a collection of discourses merely, but that it may be used to describe a work containing also a narrative of events. This being the case, it cannot be said that Matthew's logia must necessarily have been something different from our present Gospel. Still our Greek Matthew is certainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence there may be a long step between Matthew's Hebrew logia and our Greek Gospel. But if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if it is not a translation of a Hebrews original, then one of two alternatives follows: either he could not accept the Greek Matthew, which was in current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was not acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew. Of the former alternative we have no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the latter, from the way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew logia, seems highly probable. It may, therefore, be said to be probable that Papias, the first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks not from personal knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition only. ↩

Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are indisputably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18), Papias' testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is what his use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Gospel also. ↩

On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above, chap. 3, note 1. ↩

It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some mss., at the close of the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. The story was clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not know from what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related by Papias was found. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but only that it was contained in that Gospel. We are consequently not justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that Papias himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above, chap. 25, note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he may, on the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost original Gospel, the "Ur-Matthaeus." ↩