(13 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...I have been discussing the writings of Papias, his lost five-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. Scholars of the New Testament have long ascribed huge significance to this work, in no small part because Papias claims to have ties to eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. In my view this championing of Papias is misguided. I say something about that in my new book on Jesus Before the Gospels (or whatever we end up calling it); I will probably be going into a more sustained analysis in my scholarly book that I’m working on next on memory and the historical Jesus.
The excitement over Papias as a link to our eyewitnesses is based largely on the following passage that is quoted from his writing by Eusebius in his early-fourth-century Church History. This was written about 200 years after Papias, but Eusebius had read Papias’s book and so could quote from it. In his discussion of the book Eusebius mentions the references to Papias in the writings of Irenaeus, from around 180 CE, just 40 or 60 years after Papias.
Here is what Eusebius says:
************************************************************
There are five books written by Papias in circulation, entitled “An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.” Irenaeus remembers these as the only ones Papias wrote, as he somewhere says, “And Papias as well, an ancient man — the one who heard John and was a companion of Polycarp – gives a written account of these things in the fourth of his books. For he wrote five books.” [cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33.4]
Thus Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface of his work, makes it clear that he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles. Instead, he declares that he received the matters of faith from those known to them. As he says:
“I also will not hesitate to draw up for you, along with these expositions, an orderly account of all the things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth. For unlike most people, I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth, and not those who recalled commandments from strangers, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself.
But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice.”
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs very little money, and all of it goes to charity!
Dr. Ehrman,
One of the eye-opening realities to me is how I was (unknowingly) picking and choosing which traditions from the early church to accept and which to reject. I had never noticed this before (For example, I trusted Papias with Matthew writing something but not his tradition about Judas’ death).
I was wondering if you have a list (or if you’ve covered this in articles or books) that gets into some of our earliest post-apostolic writers (Polycarp, Clement, Papias. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and so on) that shows the inconsistencies among themselves and also points out generally accepted erroneous traditions, legend stories, and apocryphal writings within these early Christians that even fundamentalists do not accept?!?!
No, no list — just various discussions in various places. Do you know my anthology After the New Testament? I include a lot of these writings there with introductions and explanation.
Dr. Ehrman,
In your book “Jesus Before the Gospels”, you say, “Eusebius chose not to include any quotations from Papias about Luke or John” (p.113).
If you’ve read it, what are your thoughts on C.E. Hill’s thesis in “What Papias Said about John (and Luke). A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” Journal of Theological Studies NS 49 (1998), 582-629?
I read it when it came out and didn’t find it at all convincing. I don’t remember it well enough to recall what I thought the fatal flaws were; I just remember I found several. I wonder if he convinced anyoe? Charles and I usually don’t agree on things (we’re on very friendly terms). But he usually makes the best case that can be made.
Some translations of Papias’ statement make it appear that he equates elders with apostles:
“If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regards 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 Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say.”
If this is the case, then Papias is saying that he spoke to the disciples’ followers and not only their followers (or fourth-hand testimony, as you put it).
What do you think?
Moreover, some Christians argue that Papias’s statement does not support Eusebius’ claim that he was speaking about two different Johns, for Papias used the words “elders” and “disciples” interchangeably. Secondly, Papias’ point is to emphasize that he inquired about what John SAID in the first section, while in the second mention of John, he emphasizes that John is still alive and talks about what he SAYS. Plus, he clearly describes the presbyter John as a disciple, so it’s the same person. Right?
If you read his statements closely you’ll see htat he was inquiring what these aposltes said not by asking their followers but by later peole who knew their followers.
Dr. Ehrman,
How mush do we know of the “bizarre parables” and the “legendary accounts”?
All we have are the quotatoins of Papias that survive. You can easily find them online.