Loading...In my previous post I gave a short introduction to Papias, one of the Apostolic Fathers, and the one — oddly enough (since we don’t have any of his writings, just some quotations of them) — that has garnered the most attention among New Testament scholars over the past some decades. Especially those interested in the question of who wrote our Gospels.
More than anything, biblical scholars have latched onto Papias because it is widely thought that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Dang it Jesus! You should have stuck around for a few years after your resurrection and made sure all the rules and regulations for Christianity got written down and approved by you. YOU should have been the first Pope.
The absence of any ref to Luke or John in the extant quotations of Papias has always intrigued me, especially since Eusebius seems to be digging around for any scrap of information about the origins of the gospels. So why doesn’t Papias seem to know Luke or John or mention those books? Or did he know them but described them in a way that Eusebius didn’t like or want to quote? But OTOH, Eusebius doesn’t like Papias’ millennarian views, but still cited them. It’s also intriguing that Eusebius says that Papias had quotations of 1 John. Seems odd that Papias would be familiar with 1 John but not the Gospel of John. Also, it’s intriguing that in the quote about the living voice, he mentions Andrew, Philip, and Thomas which are prominent in John, but not so much the Synoptics.
Yeah, I know. I DO think it’s too quick to say that Papias didn’t like John and Luke or said negative things about them. Who knows what he thought!
But I don’t think knowing 1 John means he knew John does it? (It is a common claim, I guess) They weren’t circulating in the same manuscripts at that point…
True, not in the same MSS, but the letters seem dependent on and later after GJohn, regardless if we think same author or different authors (like Hugo). They all use the same Johannine “insider” lingo (love one another, light/darkness, joy, truth, new commandment, the world, etc), which is distinct from Paul or Synoptics. It just seems odd to me for someone like Papias to know 1 John but not GJohn since GJohn would most likely be earlier and certainly larger and more impactful.
Papias’ mention of Philip and Thomas intrigues me because in Mark and Matthew, there is no reason to think of them as any more significant than Bartholomew or Thaddaeus. But in GJohn, there are speaking roles for Thomas, Philip, and Andrew. So the apostles whom Papias names are really intriguing, the ones who would be more prominent in Mark, Matthew, and John, yet Eusebius only cites Papias regarding Mark and Matthew.
So I lean towards Papias knows GJohn. But why didn’t Eusebius cite Papias for GJohn? Did Papias never mention GJohn? Or did Eusebius have some other reason not to cite Papias on GJohn? Or was it simply an incidental oversight for Eusebius not to mention this?
I completely agree the letters are dependent on the Gospel. I’m saying that they since they circulated separately, an early Christian who knew one did not necessarily know the other. I’m neutral on whether Papias knew John; I don’t think there’s any evidence one way or the other (Mike Holmes has a nice response to Charles Hill, as you probably know).
It’s unfair to argue Papias’ silence about Luke/John means unfamiliarity and anyone suggesting otherwise should be dismissed as “inventive conservative scholars.” In David E. Aune’s The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (a work you described as “superb introduction to the genres of the New Testament writings in relation to other literature of the Greco-Roman world”) Aune writes, “The striking similarities between Papias’ historical preface(s) and Luke 1:1–4 suggest that he imitated Luke” (p. 121).
It’s also unclear that Papias’ “elders” are a group distinct from apostles. Papias asked those who’d been “companions” of the elders about their words, then immediately clarifies who those elders were: Andrew/Peter/Philip/Thomas/John etc.. The most straightforward reading is “elders” are the disciples of Jesus. The chain is: Jesus→disciples/apostles (“elders”)→companions→Papias.
There’s also a shift in verb tense. Papias refers to most the disciples’ teachings in past- what Andrew/Peter *said, what Philip/Thomas/et.al *said. When he mentions Aristion/John (whom he explicitly calls “disciples of the Lord” rather than a later church figure) he switches to present- what they *say. Our earliest witness, Irenaeus, identifies Papias as “hearer of John,” suggesting Papias relied on companions for earlier disciples because they’d died, while John may’ve been a living/“abiding” source.
I’m neutral on whether Papias knew Luke and John, since there’s no good evidence either way.
I’m not sure I see it as clear in this excerpt whether Papias’ elders were the apostles themselves or followers of the apostles. What makes you certain that he’s referring to followers of the apostles when he says elders? I’m not sure it makes a huge difference, since it would just tell us whether his information was third-hand or fourth-hand, but I’m curious how one could be sure about this point.
It’s because that’s what he says.
Don’t mean to be extra argumentative, but he doesn’t, at least in this excerpt. It doesn’t seem clear at all who the elders are from this quotation. They could be the apostles. They could be other people of the apostolic generation but not the Twelve themselves. They could be followers of the apostles. I’m just not understanding where you see any clarity in this.
read the fragments of Papias and you’ll see that he explains who the elders are. He differentiates them from the apostles.
Why do we no longer have Papias’ writings? They seem important enough to preserve.
Yup, a real shame. No one knows. The common theory is that htey were unpopular both becaues they supported the idea of a literal millenium to come and becaues as a rule they were unsophisticated; Eusebius suggests both things (calling him “a man of very little intelligence”)