PAPIAS
458
PAPIAS
KvptaKuv ;?i)7))<r<5, of which all but some fragments is
lost. We loarn somothinp; of the contents from the
preface, part of which has been preserved by Euscbtus
(III, xxix): "I will not hesitate to add also for you to
my interpretations what I formerly learned with care
from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in mem-
ory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take
pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but
in those who teach what is true, nor in those who re-
late foreign precepts, but in tho.se who relate the pre-
cepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and
came down from the Truth itself. And also if any
follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would
inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what An-
drew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what
Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any
other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which
Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the
Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not
get so much advantage from matter in books as from
the voice which yet lives and remains." From this
we learn that Papias's book consisted mainly of "in-
terpretations" — it was a kind of commentary on the
"Logia of the Lord". The word logia, meaning
"oracles", is frequently at the present day taken to
refer to sayings, as opposed to narratives of Our Lord's
actions (so Zahn and many others). But Lightfoot
showed long ago (Essays on Supernatural Religion,
171-7) that this view is untenable. Philo used the
word for any part of the inspired writings of the Old
Testament, whether speech or narrative. St. Paul,
Irena;us, Clement, Origen, even Photius, have no
other usage. St. Irena!us speaks of corrupting the
oracles of the Lord just as Dionysius of Corinth speaks
of corrupting the Scriptures of the Lord. A67ia
KvpiaKo. in Papias, in Irena^us, in Photius, means "the
divine oracles" of the Old or New Testament or
both. Besides these "interpretations", Papias added
oral traditions of two kinds: some he had himself
heard from the Presbyters, vapa tuv irp^iTfivTipuiv,
others he had at second hand from disciples of the
Presbyters who happened to visit him at Hierapolis.
The Presbyters related what the "disciples of the
Lord" — Peter, Andrew etc. — used to say in old da.ys.
Other informants of Papias's visitors were still living,
"Aristion and John the Presbyter, the disciples of the
Lord", as is shown by the present tense, \iyovaiv.
We naturally assume that Papias counted them
also among the direct informants whom he had
mentioned before, for as they lived at Ephesus and
Smyrna, not far off, he would surely know them per-
sonally. However, many eminent critics — Zahn and
Lightfoot, and among Catholics, Funk, Bardenhewer,
Michiels, Gutjahr, Batiffol, Lepin — identify the Pres-
byters with Andrew, Peter etc., thus making them
Apostles, for they understand "what Andrew and
Peter and the rest said" as epexegetic of "the words
of the Presbyters". This is impossible, for Papias
had just spoken of what he learned directly from the
Presbj'ters, &aa irOTi irapa Twi' wpfa^vripuv KaKCis
ifiaBov, yet it is admitted that he could not have known
many apostles. Again, he seems to distinguish the
sayings of the disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John,
from those of the Presbyters, as though the latter were
not disciples of the Lord. Lastly, Irenaeus and Euse-
bius, who had the work of Papias before them, under-
stand the Presbyters to be not Apostles, but disciples
of disciples of the Lord, or even disciples of disciples
of Apostles. 1'he same meaning is given to the word
by Clement of Alexandria. We are therefore obliged
to make "what Andrew and Peter and the rest said"
not co-ordinate with but subordinate to "the sayings
of the Presbyters", thus: "I would inquire for the
Bayings of the Presbyters, what (they related that)
Aridrew and Peter and the rest said, and for the
things Aristion and John were saying". Eusebius
has caused a further difficulty by pointing out that
two Johns are mentioned, one being distinguished by
the ejiithet presbyter from the other who is ol)viou8ly
the Apostle. The historian adds that Dionysius of
Alexandria said he heard there were two tombs of
John at Ephesus. This view has been adopted by
practically all liberal critics and by .><uch cdnserva-
tives as Lightfoot and Westcott. Biit Zahn and most
Catholic writers agree that Dionysius was mistaken
about the tomb, and that Eusebius's interpretation of
Pai)ias's words is incorrect. For he says that Papias
frequently cited John the Presbyter; yet it is certain
that Irena^us, who had a great veneration for the work
of Papias, took him to mean John the Apostle; and
Irena>us had personal knowledge of Asiatic tradition
and could not have been ignorant of the existence of
John the presbyter, if there ever was such a person in
Asia. Again, Irena'us tells us that the Ajjostle lived
at Ephesus until the time of Trajan, that he wrote
the Apocalypse in the last days of Domitian. Ire-
na'us had heard Polycarp relate his reminiscences of the
Apostle. Justin, who was at Ephesus about 130-5,
asserts that the Apostle was the author of the Apoca-
lypse (and therefore the head of the Asiatic Churches).
But if the Apostle lived at Ephesus at so late a date,
(and it cannot be doubted with any show of reason),
he would naturally be the most important of Papias's
witnesses. Yet if Eusebius is right, it would seem
that John the Presbyter was his chief informant, and
that he had no sayings of the Apostle to relate. Again,
"the Presbyter" who wrote I and II John has the
name of John in all MSS., and is identified with the
Apostle by Irenasus and Clement, and is certainly
(by internal evidence) the writer of the fourth Gospel,
which is attributed to the Apostle by Irenaeus and all
tradition. Again, Polycrates of Ephesus, in recount-
ing the men who were the glories of Asia, has no men-
tion of John the presbyter, but of "John, who lay uijon
the Lord's breast", undoubtedly meaning the Apostle.
The second John at Ephesus is an unlucky conjecture
of Eusebius.
A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". It is not possible that Papias should really have said this, otherwise Eusebius must have quoted it and Irena?us could not have been ignorant of it. There is certainly some error in the quotation. Either something has been omitted, or St. John Baptist was meant. That St. John is mentioned twice in the list of Papias's author- ities is explained by the distinction between his earlier sayings which the Presbyters could repeat and the last utterances of his old age which were reported by visi- tors from Ephesus. 'The most important fragment of Papias is that in which he gives an account of St. Mark from the words of the Presbyter, obviously St. John. It is a defence of St. Mark, attesting the per- fect accuracy with which he wrote down the teachings of St. Peter, but admitting that he did not give a cor- rect order. It is interesting to note that (as Dr. Abbott has shown) the fourth Gospel inserts or refers to every incident given in St. Mark which St. Luke has passed over. The prologue of St. Luke is manifestly cited in the fragment, so that Papias and the Presbyter knew that Gospel, which was presumably preferred to that of Mark in the Pauline Church of Ephesus; hence the need of the rehabilitation of Mark by " the Presbyter", who speaks with authority as one who knew the facts of the life of Christ as well as Peter himself. The fa- mous statement of Papias that St. Matthew wrote his togia (that is, his canonical work) in Hebrew, and each interpreted (translated) it as he was able, seems to imply that when Papias wrote an accepted version was current — our present St. Matthew. His knowledge of St. John's Gospel is proved not merely by his mention of aloes, but by a citation of John xi v, 2, which occurs in the curious prophecy of a miraculous vintage in the millenium which he attributed to Our Lord (Irenteus,
