Jump to content

Papias of Hierapolis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saint

Papias of Hierapolis
Papias of Hierapolis from the Nuremberg Chronicle
Bishop of Hierapolis, Apostolic Father
Diedafter c. 100
Venerated inRoman Catholic Church
Eastern Catholic Church
Oriental Orthodox Church
Lutheranism
FeastFebruary 22[1]

Papias (Greek: Παπίας) was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. 60 – c. 130 AD[2][3] He wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Greek: Λογίων Κυριακῶν Ἐξήγησις) in five books. This work, which is lost apart from brief excerpts in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320), is an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels.

Life

[edit]

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).[4]

Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch.[5] 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.[6]

Date

[edit]

The work of Papias is dated by a few modern scholars to about 95–110.[7][8] 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.[9] 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.[10]

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 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),[4] 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

[edit]

Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface:[11]

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

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,[12] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,[13] residing in nearby Ephesus, of whom Papias was a hearer;[4] Papias frequently cited both.[14] From the daughters of Philip, who settled in Hierapolis, Papias learned still other traditions.[15]

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.[16] 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.[17]

Fragments

[edit]

Despite indications that the work of Papias was still extant in the late Middle Ages,[18] the full text is now lost. Extracts, however, appear in a number of other writings, some of which cite a book number.[19] MacDonald proposes the following tentative reconstruction of the five books, following a presumed Matthaean order.[20]

  1. Preface and John's Preaching
    • Preface
    • Gospel origins
    • Those called children (Book 1)
  2. Jesus in Galilee
    • The sinful woman
    • Paradise and the Church
    • The deaths of James and John (Book 2)
  3. Jesus in Jerusalem
    • The Millennium
  4. The Passion
    • Agricultural bounty in the Kingdom (Book 4)
    • The death of Judas (Book 4)
    • The fall of the angels
  5. After the Resurrection
    • Barsabbas drinking poison
    • The raising of Manaem's mother

Gospel origins

[edit]
Further information: logia
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[21] and then another concerning Matthew.[22]

On Mark, Papias cites John the Elder:

The Elder used to say: Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai,[note 1] but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the logia of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.

The excerpt regarding Matthew says only:

Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.[note 2]

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 (λόγια)—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.[23] But the parallelism implies a meaning of things said or done, which suits the canonical Gospels well.[24][25]

The apparent claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew—which in Greek could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic[26]—is echoed by many other ancient authorities.[27] 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.[25][28] 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.[29] 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.[30] Eusebius, after quoting Papias, goes on to say that Papias also cited 1 Peter,[31][32] where Peter speaks of "my son Mark",[33] as corroboration. Within the 2nd century, this relation of Peter to Mark's Gospel is alluded to by Justin[34] and expanded on by Clement of Alexandria.[35]

We do not know what else Papias said about these or the other Gospels—he certainly treated John[36]—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.[37] Hill argues that Eusebius' earlier account of the origins of the four Gospels[38] is also drawn from Papias.[36][39]

Eschatological

[edit]

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.[40]

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:[41][42]

The Lord used to teach about those times and say: "The days will come when vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when crushed will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, "I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me." Similarly a grain of wheat will produce ten thousand heads, and every head will have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine flour, white and clean. And the other fruits, seeds, and grass will produce in similar proportions, and all the animals feeding on these fruits produced by the soil will in turn become peaceful and harmonious toward one another, and fully subject to humankind.… These things are believable to those who believe." And when Judas the traitor did not believe and asked, "How, then, will such growth be accomplished by the Lord?", the Lord said, "Those who live until those times will see."

Parallels have often been noted between this account and Jewish texts of the period such as 2 Baruch.[43][44]

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.[45]

Pericope Adulterae

[edit]
Henri Lerambert [fr],[46] Christ and the Adultress, 16th century
Main article: Pericope Adulterae

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".[31] Agapius of Hierapolis (10th century) offers a fuller summary of what Papias said here, calling the woman an adulteress.[47] The parallel is clear to the famous Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), a problematic passage absent or relocated in many ancient Gospel manuscripts. The parallel is not exact since, in the version know 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.[48] A wide range of versions have come down to us, in fact.[49] Since the passage in John is virtually unknown to the Greek patristic tradition;[50] 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.[51]

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.[52][53]

Death of Judas

[edit]

According to a scholium attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, Papias also related a tale on the grotesque fate of Judas Iscariot:[54]

Judas did not die by hanging[55] but lived on, having been cut down before he choked to death. Indeed, the Acts of the Apostles makes this clear: "Falling headlong he burst open in the middle and his intestines spilled out."[56] Papias, the disciple of John, recounts this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord, as follows: "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, were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a doctor using an optical instrument, so far had they sunk below the outer surface. His genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anyone else's, and when he relieved himself there passed through it pus and worms from every part of his body, much to his shame. After much agony and punishment, they say, he finally died in his own place, and because of the stench the area is deserted and uninhabitable even now; in fact, to this day one cannot pass that place without holding one's nose, so great was the discharge from his body, and so far did it spread over the ground."

Death of John

[edit]

Two late sources (Philip of Side and George Hamartolus) cite the second book of Papias as claiming that John was killed by the Jews.[57] However, some modern scholars doubt the reliability of the two sources regarding Papias,[58][59] while others argue that Papias did speak of John's martyrdom.[60] According to the two sources, Papias presented this as fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus on the martyrdom of these two brothers.[61][62]

Barsabbas

[edit]

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.[63] The summary in Eusebius tells us that he "drank a deadly poison and suffered no harm,"[15] 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."[64] 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."[65]

Reliability

[edit]

Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect",[66] but knew that Irenaeus believed Papias to be a reliable witness to original apostolic traditions.[67]

Eusebius’ use of sources suggests that he himself did not always exercise the soundest of critical judgement, and his negative assessment of Papias was in all likelihood dictated simply by a distrust of chiliasm.[68]

Modern scholars have debated Papias' reliability.[69][70] 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.[71] 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.[72] 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.[73]

Others argue Papias faithfully recorded what was related to him, but misunderstood the subjects of narrations he was unfamiliar with.[74][page needed]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ A chreia was a brief, useful ("χρεία" means useful) anecdote about a particular character. That is, a chreia was shorter than a narration—often as short as a single sentence—but unlike a maxim, it was attributed to a character. Usually it conformed to one of a few patterns, the most common being "On seeing..." (ἰδών or cum vidisset), "On being asked..." (ἐρωτηθείς or interrogatus), and "He said..." (ἔφη or dixit).
  2. ^ Eusebius, "History of the Church" 3.39.14-17, c. 325 CE, Greek text 16: "ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’ εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. Various English translations published, standard reference translation by Philip Schaff at CCEL: "[C]oncerning Matthew he [Papias] writes as follows: 'So then(963) Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.'(964)" (Online version includes footnotes 963 and 964 by Schaff).

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Butler, Alban; Burns, Paul, eds. (1998). Butler's Lives of the Saints. Vol. 2. p. 220. ISBN 0860122514.
  2. ^ From Stories to Canon oyc.yale.eduArchived 5 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ Papia Hierapolitanus, Fragmenta Archived 12 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ a b c Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33 Archived 2019-01-29 at the Wayback Machine.4. The original Greek is preserved apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.1.
  5. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.36 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine.2.
  6. ^ Huttner, Ulrich (2013). Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley. p. 216. ISBN 978-9004264281.
  7. ^ Norelli (2005), pp. 38–54.
  8. ^ Yarbrough, Robert W. (June 1983). "The Date of Papias: A Reassessment" (PDF). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 26 (2): 181–191. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 August 2019. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
  9. ^ Norelli (2005), p. 48.
  10. ^ Gundry, Robert (2000). Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0802829104.
  11. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.3–4. Translation from Bauckham, Richard (2012). "Papias and the Gospels" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2014. Retrieved 15 February 2014. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ^ Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 Archived 2021-04-10 at the Wayback Machine.8.
  13. ^ Bauckham, Richard (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. pp. 417–437. ISBN 0802831621.
  14. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.7, 14.
  15. ^ a b Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.9.
  16. ^ E.g., see Loveday Alexander, “The Living Voice: Scepticism towards the Written Word in Early Christian and in Graeco-Roman Texts,” in Clines, David J. A. (1990). The Bible in Three Dimensions. pp. 221–247.
  17. ^ E.g., see Gamble, Harry (1995). Books and Readers in the Early Church. pp. 31–32. ISBN 9780300060249.
  18. ^ Harnack, Adolf (1893). Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Vol. 1. p. 69. See translation Archived 2013-07-06 at the Wayback Machine by Stephen C. Carlson.
  19. ^ For an extensive assessment of the fragments as reproduced in Norelli and Holmes, see Timothy B. Sailors "Bryn Mawr Classical Review: Review of The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations". Retrieved 21 May 2023.
  20. ^ MacDonald (2012), pp. 9–42.
  21. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.15. Translations from Bauckham (2006) p. 203.
  22. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.16a. Translations from Bauckham (2006, p. 203)
  23. ^ Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen (ed.). The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. pp. 97–116. ISBN 9004097376.
  24. ^ Bauckham (2006), pp. 214 & 225.
  25. ^ a b Thomas, Robert L.; Farnell, F. David (1998). "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church". In Thomas, Robert L.; Farnell, F. David (eds.). The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship. pp. 39–46. ISBN 082543811X.
  26. ^ Bauckham (2006), p. 223.
  27. ^ E.g., Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1 Archived 2014-02-13 at the Wayback Machine; Ephrem, Comm. in Diatess. Tatiani App. I, 1 Archived 2014-02-21 at the Wayback Machine; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.10 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine.3.
  28. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. pp. 158ff. & 208ff. ISBN 0385247672.
  29. ^ Turner 2008, p. 15–16.
  30. ^ Bauckham (2006), pp. 205–217.
  31. ^ a b Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.16.
  32. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine.2.
  33. ^ 1 Pet 5:13.
  34. ^ Justin Martyr, Dial. 106.3 Archived 2014-02-11 at the Wayback Machine.
  35. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis 8, apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1–2 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine, 6.14.5–7 Archived 2014-02-21 at the Wayback Machine; Clement of Alexandria, Adumbr. in Ep. can. in 1 Pet. 5:13 Archived 2014-07-29 at the Wayback Machine, apud Cassiodorus, In Epistola Petri Prima Catholica 1.3.
  36. ^ a b Hill, Charles E. (1998). "What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A 'New' Papian Fragment". Journal of Theological Studies. 49 (2): 582–629. doi:10.1093/jts/49.2.582.
  37. ^ Bauckham (2006), pp. 425–433.
  38. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.24 Archived 2013-12-15 at the Wayback Machine.5–13.
  39. ^ Hill, Charles E. (2010). "'The Orthodox Gospel': The Reception of John in the Great Church Prior to Irenaeus". In Rasimus, Tuomas (ed.). The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Vol. 132. pp. 285–294. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004176331.i-412.55. ISBN 9789047429777.
  40. ^ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.11–13.
  41. ^ Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33 Archived 2019-01-29 at the Wayback Machine.3–4.
  42. ^ Holmes2006, p. 315 (Fragment 14) Another translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine is given online by T. C. Schmidt, and another translation Archived 2015-11-16 at the Wayback Machine by Ben C. Smith.
  43. ^ Cf. 2 Baruch 29:5 Archived 2015-05-25 at the Wayback Machine: "The earth also shall yield its fruit ten-thousandfold and on each vine there shall be a thousand branches.…"
  44. ^ Norelli (2005), pp. 176–203.
  45. ^ Holmes (2006), p. 314 (Fragments 12–13) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Smith's translation Archived 2015-11-16 at the Wayback Machine.
  46. ^ "Navigart" (in French). Retrieved 4 February 2019.
  47. ^ Holmes (2006), p. 318 (Fragment 23) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine.
  48. ^ Holmes (2006), pp. 303–305.
  49. ^ Petersen, William L. (1997). "Ουδε εγω σε [κατα]κρινω: John 8:11, the Protevangelium Iacobi and the History of the Pericope Adulterae". In Petersen, William L.; Vos, Johan S.; De Jonge, Henk J. (eds.). Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Vol. 89. pp. 191–221. ISBN 9004103805.
  50. ^ Edwards, James R. (2009). The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. pp. 7–10. ISBN 978-0802862341.
  51. ^ MacDonald (2012), pp. 18–22.
  52. ^ Bacon, Benjamin W. (1905). "Papias and the Gospel According to the Hebrews". The Expositor. 11: 161–177.
  53. ^ Kelhoffer, James A. (2000). Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 2/112. pp. 20–24. ISBN 3161472438.
  54. ^ Holmes (2006), p. 316 (Fragment 18) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Smith's translation Archived 2015-11-16 at the Wayback Machine.
  55. ^ Matt 27:5.
  56. ^ Acts 1:18.
  57. ^ Holmes (2006), p. 312 (Fragments 5–6) For Philip of Side, cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Smith's translation Archived 2015-11-16 at the Wayback Machine; for George Hamartolus, cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Smith's translation Archived 2015-11-16 at the Wayback Machine.
  58. ^ Ferguson (1992). Encyclopedia of early Christianity. p. 493.
  59. ^ Bauckham (27 April 2017). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2d ed. ISBN 9780802874313.
  60. ^ 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
  61. ^ Mk 10:35–40; Mt 20:20–23.
  62. ^ MacDonald (2012), pp. 23–24.
  63. ^ Acts 1:21–26.
  64. ^ Holmes (2006), p. 312 (Fragment 5) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Smith's translation Archived 2015-11-16 at the Wayback Machine.
  65. ^ Mark 16:18.
  66. ^ Moessner, David P. (23 June 2004). Snodgrass, Klyne (ed.). "Response to Dunn". Ex Auditu. 16. Wipf and Stock Publishers: 51. ISBN 978-1-4982-3252-4. ISSN 0883-0053.
  67. ^ Orchard, Bernard; Riley, Harold (1987). The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels?. p. 172. ISBN 0865542228. "…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."
  68. ^ Davies and Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Volume 1, ICC. p. 13.
  69. ^ Black, C. Clifton (1994). Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. p. 86. ISBN 0872499731. "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."
  70. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. (2006). Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend. p. 8. ISBN 0195300130. "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."
  71. ^ Bauckham, Richard (2007). The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. p. 53. ISBN 978-0801034855. "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…."
  72. ^ Park, Yoon-Man (2009). Mark's Memory Resources and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1-3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. p. 50. ISBN 978-9004179622. "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…"
  73. ^ Casey, Maurice (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching. ISBN 978-0567104083. "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."
  74. ^ MacDonald 2012.

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Catholic Church Titles
Preceded by Bishop of Hierapolis
Before 155 		Succeeded by
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papias_of_Hierapolis&oldid=1252774877"