Overview of Papias: Gospel Traditions and the Early Church
In our last blog, we did a brief background on Papias, bishop of Hierapolis from the late first to early second century. Today, we’ll look over some of his quotes that remain with us today, which scholars have spent much time debating over its authenticity, reliability, and even meaning.
We’ll look at some of the quotes, give a couple interpretations, and I’ll share some of my own thoughts on Papias. We certainly won’t be solving any of the debates surrounding this Apostolic Father. But I hope this will be informative for those not too familiar with Papias, and can possibly give us some insight into the early Church.
John: Apostle or Elder?
The tradition that Papias learned from John comes from 4th century Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea. He first quotes what Irenaeus (2nd century) had to say about Papias, followed by a quote from Papias himself. For the sake of this blog’s discussion, we won’t be looking over the entire passage:
“There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: ‘These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.’ These are the words of Irenaeus.
But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.
He (Papias) says: ‘But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth…
…If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Ariston and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”
Here we see Irenaeus claiming Papias to be a companion of Polycarp and disciple of the Apostle John. Eusebius isn’t so sure, showing that Papias doesn’t explicitly state in his writings to be a disciple of the Apostle, but rather one who gathered the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles. Whether such testimonies were firsthand from the Apostles, or given by a hearer of the Apostles is up for debate.
As previously mentioned, scholars like Richard Bauckham are convinced Papias didn’t personally know any of the Apostles, but gathered testimony from a different John, the “presbyter (or elder) John” from the quote above. And even then, Bauckham believes Papias didn’t learn this firsthand from the Elder John, but from someone who learned from the Elder John. (Bauckham, 2017, Pg. 19)
On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that Irenaeus claimed to learn from Polycarp in person when he was younger. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4) If Irenaeus’ testimony is trustworthy, that can give more credibility toward his claim of Papias being a hearer of the Apostle John, since Irenaeus also claims Polycarp was John’s disciple.
One thing that can be taken away from Eusebius’ quote of Papias is that whether or not he personally heard from an Apostle, Papias cared deeply about the testimony of those who actually saw Jesus more than any other person’s claim. Papias wanted accuracy about who Jesus is and His teachings.
The Gospel of Mark
When the four Gospel accounts were written, they didn’t have an author ascribed to the writings. Over time, the titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were ascribed by the Church based on the tradition that those were the individuals who wrote the Gospel accounts. Papias gives us the earliest witness of Mark’s Gospel being written by a companion of the Apostles named Mark.
“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”
Presumably the same Mark mentioned in 1 Peter 5:13, this tradition of authorship regarding Mark’s Gospel became common tradition in the Church. As early as the mid-second century, we also have Justin Martyr referring to what is most likely the Gospel of Mark as the “memoirs” of Peter. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 106.3)
The description the “presbyter” (John?) gives along with Papias’ own comments regarding Mark is interesting, yet it brings many questions left to interpretation. For the sake of time, I want to focus on whether or not this testimony of Mark can be accepted based on what we know today.
My belief is that Papias was correct in stating that Mark wrote this Gospel account through the testimony of Peter, but his understanding of Mark’s intent wasn’t completely accurate. While it is true the Gospel of Mark isn’t completely told in chronological order, it is in my opinion a miscalculation to believe Mark had “no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses.”
Mark’s Gospel is short, and has a unique narrative style that is different from the other three Gospel accounts. But more scholars have been pointing out that this was done on purpose. Mark has a specific agenda in writing this Gospel account, and the stories he pieces together are done in a way to drive this agenda. For further study on Mark, I’d heavily recommend Timothy G. Gambia’s work on Mark. Remnant Radio is also currently posting free videos with Craig Keener breaking down each chapter of Mark.
So how did Papias misunderstand Mark? Bauckham believes Papias failed to see this in Mark’s Gospel due to his own preferred style of writing:
“Papias’s contention that Mark did no more than record, with scrupulous accuracy, the chreiai (anecdotes) as Peter related them, is mistaken. However, we should remember that it is from the perspective of his own ideals of historiographic composition that Papias views Mark’s Gospel.”
Considering the testimonies of Irenaeus and Eusebius, this actually makes sense to me. The witness Papias gave was of great value to the Church Fathers, but his critical intellect and interpretation was questioned even back then by Christian leaders. (Jefford, 2012, Pg. 64) Therefore, it is possible that Papias accurately shared the origin of Mark’s Gospel while not entirely giving an accurate interpretation of Mark’s account.
The Gospel of Matthew
In regards to Matthew, I have less to say because Papias has less to say in comparison to Mark:
“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
As already stated in the introduction, this claim by Papias is questionable at face value. Most scholars agree the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek, so if Papias is saying Matthew’s text was in Hebrew, this would seem to be inaccurate. (Hill, 2006, Pg. 311)
If, however, Papias is a giving a more nuanced meaning to “Hebrew language”, this could actually make a lot of sense. If what Papias means is that Matthew wrote his Gospel account specifically toward a Hebrew audience in a way Jewish communities would understand, that is certainly believable. Matthew is commonly believed to be an account that has a primary focus of showing Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, fulfilling the Law and Prophets.
Irenaeus, who was influenced by Papias, says Matthew wrote his Gospel account to the Hebrews, “in their own dialect.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1) Depending on how one reads this, Irenaeus gives a little more nuance to Matthew’s writing. Nevertheless, this theory has not gained wide support in scholarship, and it’s commonly believed Papias meant what he said at face value. (Bauckham, 2017, Pg. 223)
Aside from Matthew and Mark, the surviving fragments of Papias also give early witness to other New Testament books like John, 1st Peter, 1st John, and Revelation. (Holmes, 2006, Pg. 302. Hill, 2006, Pg. 312)
The fate of Judas and the testimony of Philip’s Daughters
Papias also gives us a graphic description of Judas’s death. This testimony connects both Matthew and Acts together. According to Papias, Judas survived hanging himself (Matthew 27:5), but suffered horrific bodily harm from the suicide attempt. His body and face became puffed up and disfigured, and eventually he died in the way Acts 1:18 describes. (Apollinaris, Antilegomena)
Speaking of Judas, Eusebius shares an interesting story from Papias regarding Justus, the one nominated alongside Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th Apostle. The position would end up going to Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), but Eusebius briefly shares a story about Justus from Papias.
Philip the Evangelist’s daughters, who are recorded in Acts as prophetesses (Acts 21:9) apparently became acquainted with Papias and told him a story about Justus drinking deadly poison and miraculously suffering no harm. (Eusebius, Church History 3.39)
Unfortunately, we don’t get to hear the full story from Papias, but simply Eusebius mentioning it. A century later, Philip of Side also briefly shares this story about Justus from Papias. He doesn’t add much for us, except that it was done in witness to unbelievers. (Philip of Side, Church History)
The Woman caught in adultery
The story in John 8 about Jesus saving a Jewish woman caught in adultery is legendary. It is one of the most famous and compelling stories of Jesus. And yet, it’s placement in John’s Gospel is highly controversial. The earliest known manuscripts of John do not contain this story, bringing debate as to whether or not the story belongs in the Bible.
Interestingly, the story of a woman caught in sin, being brought before Jesus, and being saved from execution by Jesus was very popular in the early Church. According to Eusebius, this story was shared both by Papias and one of the lost gospel accounts. (Church History 3.39)
There are actually a couple different Papias fragments that retell this story, which has led to debate among scholars as to which one actually came from Papias himself. Michael W. Holmes believes that although we cannot be certain, the tradition most likely known to Papias is a shorter paraphrase version found in the 3rd century Church manual Didascalia Apostolorum. (Holmes, 2006, Pg. 304-305)
It is important for Christians to know the earliest copies of John’s Gospel do not contain this famous story. However, with the testimony of the Church Fathers, it seems pretty reasonable to believe the story itself did actually happen.
Jewish Eschatology
The last bit of Papias I want to examine for this blog comes from Irenaeus. Papias shares a saying from Jesus regarding what the end times will look like:
“As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, 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 true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when anyone 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] a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every 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, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man…
Now these things are credible to believers.’ And Judas the traitor, not believing, asked, ‘How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?’ The Lord said, ‘They shall see who shall come to them.”
There are a couple main takeaways I want to highlight regarding this saying from Jesus. The first is the emphasis on physical abundance. While this would become less popular in the later centuries of the Church, there were some Church Fathers such as Papias who shared an understanding of the New Earth that had physical blessings alongside spiritual blessings.
Like a lot of theology, the pendulum can swing too far one side. We don’t want to overemphasize an eschatology of material blessing. The danger of this is obvious, with the hope being less on communion with our Lord and more towards materialism and personal prosperity.
At the same time, we don’t want to swing the other way too far, only emphasizing the spiritual. It is true Jesus says the state of our resurrected bodies won’t be like our current ones, and be more angelic. (Matthew 22:30) However, the hope of the New Earth still describes a physical existence, being in a city, and feasting in fellowship. (Matthew 8:11, Revelation 21-22) Yes, many of these descriptions are more symbolic than others, but we should still be careful to assume the hope of the resurrection and New Earth is purely spiritual or metaphorical.
The second takeaway from this passage is how Jewish the description is. The eschatology Papias shares reflects Jewish apocalyptic literature of the time. (Hill, 2006, Pg. 313) Stephen Carlson goes deeper in interpreting this passage, arguing that Jesus is actually promising a fulfillment of Genesis 27:27-29. (Carlson, 2021, Pg. 338-340)
With this Jewish background in mind, I believe this gives more credibility to the quote being authentically from Jesus. It also shows the earliest witnesses of the Church still had Jewish roots in its understanding of the Christian faith.
Conclusion
In time we may discover more fragments from Papias. Until then, we only have what we have. While we do need to read Papias with discernment, he still gives us some fascinating insight into the early Church despite the limitations. Clayton N. Jefford writes that Papias clearly wanted to record Christianity’s history for the next generation. (Jefford, 2012, Pg. 67) Not only did Papias succeed for the 2nd century, considering the influence he had on guys like Irenaeus, but he still influences historians today.
Bibliography
Schaff, P. (2016). The Complete Anti-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers. Toronto, Canada.
Bauckham, R. (2006, 2017). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2nd Edition). Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Jefford, C.N. (2012). Reading the Apostolic Fathers: A Student’s Introduction (2nd Edition). Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.
Hill, C. (2006). Papias of Hierapolis. The Expository Times, Vol. 117 (8), Pg. 309-315. SAGE Publications.
Holmes, M. (2006). The Apostolic Fathers in English (3rd Edition). Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic.