Papias of Hierapolis

From Wikipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Infobox saint

Papias (Template:Langx) or Papias of Hierapolis was a Greek Apostolic Father, Bishop of Hierapolis (modern Pamukkale, Turkey), and author who lived c. AD 60 – c. 130.[1][2] He is mainly known for gathering oral stories about Jesus and his disciples, which he compiled in a now-lost five-volume work titled Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (Template:Langx).[3] Brief excerpts of this work appear in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180) and Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 320). They are considered an important early source on Christian oral tradition and especially on the origins of the canonical Gospels.

Life

[edit]

Although Papias's precise dates are unknown, he is traditionally born around 60–70 AD.[4][1] He lived in Hierapolis, Phrygia, in Asia Minor, and flourished in the early 2nd century.[5][4][6] The name Papias was common in the region, suggesting that he may have been a native of the area.[7]

Much of what is known about Papias comes from later testimony and from inferences drawn from his own writings. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, describes him as "an ancient man", "a hearer of John [of Ephesus]", and "a companion of Polycarp".[8] Eusebius places Papias in the same period as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp,[9] and portrays him as a learned collector of early Christian tradition but a poor interpreter, especially in his millennialism.[10]

Death

[edit]

The claim that Papias died around 164 CE is based on a late and probably erroneous tradition, commonly explained as a confusion with the martyr Papylus/Papylas.[11] Dale B. Martin places his death around 130.[1]

Fragments of Papias' work

[edit]

Dating

[edit]

Papias's lost five-volume work titled Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord is usually dated from 130–140 AD based on uncertain scholarly inferences and claims sourced from Philip Sidetes.[12] Within Papias scholarship, the consensus dates his work to around 110 AD.[13][14] With many scholars giving a range of 100–120, though a date of 125 or 130 remains commonly cited.[15][16][17][18] William Davies and Dale Allison allows for the possibility that it was written in 100 AD or prior,[12] and Anna M. Sitz favours an earlier date between 90–120.[19]

Eusebius refers to Papias only in his third book, and seems to date him before the opening of his fourth book in 109.[12] Papias himself knows several New Testament books, whose dates are themselves controversial, and was stated to be 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),[20] Agapius of Hierapolis dates one of his histories to the 12th year of Trajan's rule (AD 110). For all these reasons, Papias is thought to have written around the turn of the 2nd century.

Reconstruction of the five books

[edit]

There are indications that the work of Papias was still extant in the late Middle Ages,[21] but the full text is now lost. Extracts, however, appear in a number of other writings, some of which cite a book number.[22] MacDonald proposes the following tentative reconstruction of the five books, following a presumed Matthaean order.[23]

  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

Sources and methods

[edit]

In the preface of his book, he describes his way of gathering information:[24]

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. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself. 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 Aristion 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.

According to this passage, Papias questioned travelers passing through Hierapolis, especially surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders, who had personally known the Twelve Apostles. One of these disciples was Aristion, probably bishop of nearby Smyrna,[25] and another was John the Elder, usually identified (despite Eusebius' protest) with John the Evangelist,[26] who lived in nearby Ephesus and from whom Papias heard directly;[27] Papias frequently cited both.[28] Papias was also said to have learned other traditions from the daughters of Philip, who had settled in Hierapolis.[29]

There is debate over Papias' final statement in the quotation above about the "living and abiding voice." One view, common in 20th-century scholarship, holds that written sources in Papias' time were valued less than oral ones.[30] The other argues that "living voice" was a topos, a set phrase for personal teaching and training, so that Papias was preferring direct instruction to learning from books alone.[31]

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[32] and then another concerning Matthew,[33] as well as the First Epistle of John and the First Epistle of Peter.[34]

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]

Immediately thereafter, Eusebius states that Papias "employed testimonies from the first epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise";[35] the exact meaning of this statement is ambiguous.

How to interpret these quotations from Papias has long been a matter of controversy; some scholars have doubted the Elder's supposition of Peter's involvement in Mark's composition, but his attribution of the Gospel to John Mark is largely accepted.[36]

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.[37] But the parallelism implies a meaning of things said or done, which suits the canonical Gospels well.[38][39]

The apparent claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew—which in Greek could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic[40]—is echoed by many other ancient authorities.[41] 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.[39][42] One theory is that Matthew himself produced firstly a Semitic work and secondly a recension of that work in Greek; Josephus also claimed to write a translation of an Aramaic version of The Jewish War, though both the extant Gospel of Matthew and the War are not translations.[43][44] Another is that others translated Matthew into Greek rather freely. Another is that Papias simply means "Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ" as a Hebrew style of Greek.[45] Another possibility forwarded by Maurice Casey 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.[46] [47] Others argue Papias faithfully recorded what was related to him, but misunderstood the subjects of narrations with which he was unfamiliar.[48][page needed]

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.[49] Eusebius, as already mentioned, says that Papias also cited 1 Peter,[50][51] where Peter speaks of "my son Mark",[52] as corroboration. Within the 2nd century, this relation of Peter to Mark's Gospel is alluded to by Justin[53] and expanded on by Clement of Alexandria.[54]

We do not know what else Papias said about these or the other Gospels—he certainly treated John[55]—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.[56] Hill argues that Eusebius' earlier account of the origins of the four Gospels[57] is also drawn from Papias.[55][58]

Modern scholars have debated Papias' reliability.[59][60] 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.[61] 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.[62]

Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect",[63] but knew that Irenaeus believed Papias to be a reliable witness to original apostolic traditions.[64] Bart Ehrman concurs with Eusebius, writing, "It is that we cannot really trust him on much of anything."[65] On the other hand, Dale C. Allison notes that in Jewish antiquity less intelligent tanna were actually deemed more reliable given the bright tend to modify what they are given; Papias's alleged lack of intelligence would not have been a disqualification.[66]

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.[66]

Eschatology

[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. According to fragments, Papias was acquainted with the Revelation of John and held it in high esteem.[67]

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:[68][69]

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.[70][71]

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.[72]

Pericope Adulterae

[edit]
Error creating thumbnail:
Henri Lerambert [fr],[73] 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".[50] Agapius of Hierapolis (10th century) offers a fuller summary of what Papias said here, calling the woman an adulteress.[74] 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 known 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.[75] A wide range of versions have come down to us, in fact.[76] Since the passage in John is virtually unknown to the Greek patristic tradition;[77] 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.[78]

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 connected with Papias due to Papias' reference to an "Aristion" as a source for the Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord.[79][80]

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:[81]

Judas did not die by hanging[82] 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."[83] 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.[84] However, some modern scholars doubt the reliability of the two sources regarding Papias,[85][86] while others argue that Papias did speak of John's martyrdom.[87] According to the two sources, Papias presented this as fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus on the martyrdom of these two brothers.[88][89]

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.[90] The summary in Eusebius tells us that he "drank a deadly poison and suffered no harm,"[91] 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."[92] 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."[93]

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. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 From Stories to Canon oyc.yale.eduArchived 5 July 2016 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ↑ Papia Hierapolitanus, Fragmenta Archived 12 August 2021 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Kok, M. J. (2017). Did Papias of Hierapolis Use the Gospel according to the Hebrews as a Source? Journal of Early Christian Studies, 25(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2017.0001
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Hill, C. E. (2006). Papias of Hierapolis. The Expository Times, 117(8), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014524606065065
  5. ↑ "Papias | Biography, Apostolic Father, Writing, & Facts | Britannica". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on 10 February 2026. Retrieved 23 May 2026.
  6. ↑ Ehrman, Bart (3 March 2026). "Papias in a Nutshell. An Important Figure Among the Apostolic Fathers". The Bart Ehrman Blog. Retrieved 24 May 2026.
  7. ↑ Huttner, Ulrich (2013). Early Christianity in the Lycus Valley. BRILL. p. 216. ISBN 978-9004264281.
  8. ↑ Papias. (1885). Fragments of Papias (A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), Ante-Nicene Fathers (Vol. 1). Christian Literature Publishing Co. Revised and edited for New Advent by K. Knight.
  9. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.36 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine.2.
  10. ↑ "Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library". www.ccel.org. Retrieved 24 May 2026.
  11. ↑ Norelli (2005), p. 48.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Davies and Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Volume 1, ICC. p. 128.
  13. ↑ Carlson, Stephen (2025). "The Imposition of Authorship: Michel Foucault's Author-Function and Papias of Hierapolis on the Gospel of Mark". Harvard Theological Review. 118 (2): 242–63. The consensus of Papias scholarship has settled on dating him around 110 CE
  14. ↑ Kok, Michael (2017). The Beloved Apostle? The Transformation of the Apostle John into John the Fourth Evangelist. Cascade Books. ISBN 978-1532610219.: "An impressive consensus has arisen among specialists that Papias published the five volumes of his magnum opus around 110 CE."
  15. ↑ Norelli (2005), pp. 38–54.
  16. ↑ 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.
  17. ↑ Keener, Craig (2019). Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels. Eerdmans. p. 526. ISBN 978-0802876751.
  18. ↑ Méndez, Hugo (2026). The Epistles of John: Origins, Authorship, Purpose. Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1009689540.
  19. ↑ Sitz, A. M. (2023). Pagan Inscriptions, Christian Viewers: The Afterlives of Temples and Their Texts in the Late Antique Eastern Mediterranean. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  20. ↑ 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.
  21. ↑ Harnack, Adolf (1893). Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 1. p. 69. See Template:Usurped by Stephen C. Carlson.
  22. ↑ 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.
  23. ↑ MacDonald (2012), pp. 9–42.
  24. ↑ "Philip Schaff: NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library". www.ccel.org. Retrieved 24 May 2026.
  25. ↑ Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 Archived 2021-04-10 at the Wayback Machine.8.
  26. ↑ Bauckham, Richard (2006). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. pp. 417–437. ISBN 0802831621.
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Irenaeus2
  28. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.7, 14.
  29. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.9.
  30. ↑ 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.
  31. ↑ E.g., see Gamble, Harry (1995). Books and Readers in the Early Church. Yale University Press. pp. 31–32. ISBN 9780300060249.
  32. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.15. Translations from Bauckham (2006) p. 203.
  33. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.16a. Translations from Bauckham (2006, p. 203)
  34. ↑ Méndez, Hugo (2026). The Epistles of John: Origins, Authorship, Purpose. Cambridge University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1009689540.
  35. ↑ Eusebius, Church Histories § 3.39.16: κέχρηται δ' ὁ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως
  36. ↑ Kok, Michael (2023). Tax Collector to Gospel Writer: Patristic Traditions About the Evangelist Matthew. Fortress Press. p. 61. ISBN 978-1506481081.
  37. ↑ Lührmann, Dieter (1995). "Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia?". In Piper, Ronald Allen (ed.). The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. BRILL. pp. 97–116. ISBN 9004097376.
  38. ↑ Bauckham (2006), pp. 214 & 225.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 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. Kregel Publications. pp. 39–46. ISBN 082543811X.
  40. ↑ Bauckham (2006), p. 223.
  41. ↑ E.g., Irenaeus, Template:Usurped; Ephrem, Template:Usurped; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.10 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine.3.
  42. ↑ Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday. pp. 158ff. & 208ff. ISBN 0385247672.
  43. ↑ Evans, Craig (2012). Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). Cambridge University Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0521011068.
  44. ↑ Buth, Randall; Pierce, Chad (2014). "Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does ἑβραιστί Ever Mean 'Aramaic'?". In Buth, Randall; Notley, R. Steven (eds.). The Language Environment of First Century Judaea: Jerusalem Studies in the Synoptic Gospels. Jewish and Christian perspectives series no. 26. 2. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. p. 89. ISBN 9789004263406.
  45. ↑ Culpepper, Alan (2022). Matthew: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0664230616.
  46. ↑ Turner 2008, p. 15–16.
  47. ↑ 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."
  48. ↑ MacDonald 2012.
  49. ↑ Bauckham (2006), pp. 205–217.
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.16.
  51. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine.2.
  52. ↑ 1 Pet 5:13.
  53. ↑ Justin Martyr, Template:Usurped.
  54. ↑ Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposeis 8, apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.15.1–2 Archived 2014-10-09 at the Wayback Machine, Template:Usurped; 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.
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 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.
  56. ↑ Bauckham (2006), pp. 425–433.
  57. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.24 Archived 2013-12-15 at the Wayback Machine.5–13.
  58. ↑ 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. 132. pp. 285–294. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004176331.i-412.55. ISBN 9789047429777.
  59. ↑ Black, C. Clifton (1994). Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Univ of South Carolina Press. 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."
  60. ↑ 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."
  61. ↑ 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…."
  62. ↑ 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. BRILL. 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…"
  63. ↑ Moessner, David P. (23 June 2004). Snodgrass, Klyne (ed.). "Response to Dunn". Ex Auditu. Wipf and Stock Publishers. 16: 51. ISBN 978-1-4982-3252-4. ISSN 0883-0053.
  64. ↑ 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."
  65. ↑ Ehrman, Jesus before the Gospels (New York: HarperCollins 2016), p. 116 ISBN 978-0-06-228520-1
  66. ↑ 66.0 66.1 Davies and Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Volume 1, ICC. p. 13.
  67. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.11–13.
  68. ↑ Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33 Archived 2019-01-29 at the Wayback Machine.3–4.
  69. ↑ Holmes2006, p. 315 (Fragment 14) Another translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine is given online by T. C. Schmidt, and another Template:Usurped by Ben C. Smith.
  70. ↑ 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.…"
  71. ↑ Norelli (2005), pp. 176–203.
  72. ↑ Holmes (2006), p. 314 (Fragments 12–13) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Template:Usurped.
  73. ↑ "Navigart" (in French). Retrieved 4 February 2019.
  74. ↑ Holmes (2006), p. 318 (Fragment 23) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine.
  75. ↑ Holmes (2006), pp. 303–305.
  76. ↑ 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. 89. pp. 191–221. ISBN 9004103805.
  77. ↑ Edwards, James R. (2009). The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition. Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 7–10. ISBN 978-0802862341.
  78. ↑ MacDonald (2012), pp. 18–22.
  79. ↑ Bacon, Benjamin W. (1905). "Papias and the Gospel According to the Hebrews". The Expositor. 11: 161–177.
  80. ↑ 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. 2/112. pp. 20–24. ISBN 3161472438.
  81. ↑ Holmes (2006), p. 316 (Fragment 18) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Template:Usurped.
  82. ↑ Matt 27:5.
  83. ↑ Acts 1:18.
  84. ↑ Holmes (2006), p. 312 (Fragments 5–6) For Philip of Side, cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Template:Usurped; for George Hamartolus, cf. Schmidt's translation, Template:Usurped .
  85. ↑ Ferguson (1992). Encyclopedia of early Christianity. p. 493.
  86. ↑ Bauckham (27 April 2017). Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2d ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802874313.
  87. ↑ 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
  88. ↑ Mk 10:35–40; Mt 20:20–23Template:Bibleverse with invalid book.
  89. ↑ MacDonald (2012), pp. 23–24.
  90. ↑ Acts 1:21–26.
  91. ↑ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39 Archived 2017-10-14 at the Wayback Machine.9.
  92. ↑ Holmes (2006), p. 312 (Fragment 5) Cf. Schmidt's translation Archived 2014-09-10 at the Wayback Machine, Template:Usurped.
  93. ↑ Mark 16:18.

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Template:S-rel
Preceded by Bishop of Hierapolis
Before 155 		Succeeded by

Template:Catholic saints Template:Catholic saints - Church Fathers

Retrieved from "https://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Papias_of_Hierapolis&oldid=87421"