phentermine pharmacy stopping phentermine tramadol tramadol florida pharmacy symptom ultram withdrawal paypal ultram how much do you pay for valium cat valium questions about viagra viagra samples vicodin prevent nausea vicodin hydrocodone prozac xanax interactions withdrawal from xanax
When Did Papias Write?
What Impact does this have on NT Studies?
by Vincent Sapone
Bishop Papias was a church leader in the first half of the second century in Hierapolis, a city of Western Asia Minor. Papias wrote five books entitled, "Interpretations of the Oracles of the Lord." Unfortunately those works are now lost and only known through external references such as by Eusebius (c. 300 A.D.) and Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), both of which are found in Eusebius' Chuch History. If Papias dates to the early second century he provides us with an important witness into an area with a lot of blanks that need to be filled in. One of Papias' preserved comments pertains to the writings of Matthew and Mark. The Matthean attribution is a source of controversy but it hardly disputable that Papias references the Gospel of Mark.
Papias wrote, "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." [Eusebius, Church History, 3.39]
This is obviously an important reference in regards to the authorship and dating of the Gospels and concerning questions of Catholicity. Formerly, the majority of specialists tended to view Papias' statement[1] as stemming from ca 130 CE. Robert. Gundry in Mark A Comment on His Apology for the Cross, writes that "a consensus seems to be developing that Papias wrote earlier by a quarter century or more, i.e. in the first decade of the second century." [2] The date of this tradition would be earlier still since Papias attributes this knowledge to the elder. I shall present my own dating of Papias literary activity in tabular form and then evaluate the arguments for a later and earlier dating which led me to this conclusion:
My Dating Assessment of Various lines of Evidence on Papias
I am looking for a span of when he wrote...
I have tried to be open in the span I allowed myself as some of these judgments are rather flexible...
The Box starts at that year (e.g. 90 = 90-99 AD).
c. 180 A.D. Calls him a hearer of the apostle John and an Ancient Man. The sense I perceive behind this is that this man is so old he even heard John (the last of the apostles to die). Thus I would limit the terminus a quo to when apostles were starting to significantly die off and not earlier. Papias could have heard John and wrote about it later. Therefore, the possible range is increased. Though one wonders if Papias was alive at the same time as Irenaeus (at all) if he could have referred to him as ancient. I don't think this would be the case and therefore, a much lower terminus ad quem is probably likely. Claims he did not know original followers of Jesus but heard those who heard them. But also Chronicon places him early (c. 100) and Eusebius claims fame during time of Polycarp and Ignatius which means his writing probably stems from this earlier period as well. There could have been immediate success or a lag and thus I added an additional ten years either way as his writing could have slowly precipitated his fame. If Philip was 25 in 30 A.D. and had a daughter she would be 100 by 130 A.D. These dates represent extremes. Rather, the earlier we go the more likely it is to have an association betwen Papias and the daughters of Philip. The writing of Papias can come from anytime in this period however. Assuming she lived to 75 and Papias associated with her when he was 25 and she was 50, this makes Papias 45 years old in 100 A.D. He could hae written at an old age as this alone tells us nothing. Thus a broad range is allowable here from very early to mid 2d century. Referenced this in his work. Must come after it was written. Referenced this in his work. Must come after it was written. Cannot be too early since many heave died off and only two are listed presently as still saying. Can't be too old either, for an apostle who was 20 in 30 A.D. is 100 in 110 A.D. This one is important because it specifically dates Papias' literary career as early. So even if Papias lived until 140 or beyond, his writing occured when Aristion and John were still speaking. Referenced this in his work. Must come after it was written. Allowed for range of dates. Referenced this in his work. Must come after it was written. Failure to be quoted against it leans to an earlier date. So does the presence of Semitisms. These lead us to a terminus ad quem of about 119 .
Hopefully the fluidity of these various pieces of data serve as mutual correction of one another and this table seem to hint precisely that it does. I place the literary activity of Papias as stemming from ca. 105 A.D. based upon all the evidence available and these approximations. Let's look at some of these issues in more detail and see how this table was made.
Arguments for a Later Dating of Papias:
[1] Matthew and Mark date late. Whether Papias referred to our Matthew is an open question as far as this article goes and will remain untouched until a later article. Neither will the contention that Mark is late. This text can be confidently dated to 68 A.D. (+/- 5 years) and even unconventionally "late" datings of Mark by revisionist scholars barely reach into the second century. There was plenty of time for Papias to learn of, read and use the Gospel of Mark--even if its dates to 90 AD.
[2] Eusebius records that Papias made use of 1 John and 1 Peter:
"17 He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth. (Ecc. His, 3:39.17).
This appears to be a reference to the pericope de adultuera which appears to have been added to the Gospel of John. It is interesting to note that the now lost Gospel according to the Hebrews appears to have contained this story as well. At any rate, Papias must then come later than 1 Peter and 1 John if this is true. Most scholars view Peter as not being written by the apostle but place it in the late first century. 1 John on the other hand might have more of an impact. The communis opinio appears to be around ca 100 c.e. but it must still be contended that a significant portion of scholarship does date 1 Peter and 1 John to a decade into the second century. So a full evaluation of the dating of Papias' literary career requires a full evaluation of 1 Peter and 1 John and if related to the dating of the epistles, possibly GJohn itself (which is commonly assigned to the 90s). This is presumably why Peter Kirby of early Christian writings (inaccurately) places the terminus a quo of this work as 110 C.E. There is no conceivable reason as to why Papias could not have written in 90 A.D., in so far as both Matthew and Mark existed at this time (if Papias is referring to our Matthew).
[3] Peter of Side (ca. 430) has Papias refer to the reign of Hadrian (ca. 117-138) . This is really the only hard data for a later dating. Unfortunately Peter's comments come a hundred years after Eusebius and Gundry does an excellent job of showing how Peter was dependent upon Eusebius but garbled his information (pp.1028).
Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus who addressed an apology to Hadrian. This is the emperor in which Philip places Papias. Quadratus' claim that some people healed by Jesus have lived to his own day sounds similar the living and abiding voice mentioned by Papias. Interstingly, when Philip quotes Papias the phraseology more closely resembles Eusebius' quotation of Quadratus than Papias.
Eusebius associates Quadratrus with Hadrian's reign and quotes him in reference to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living. Phlip associates Papias with Hadrian's reign and quotes him in reference to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living. There also appears to have been a Quadratus the apologist in addition to Quadratus the prophet. Eusebius connects Quadratus the Prophet with the Lords disciples and their immediate successors (H.E. 3.37.1). Thus it seems evident that Philip has confused Quadratus the apologist with Quadratus the prophet. He must have found Eusebius discussion of Papias bounded by references to the name Quadratus and a conflation occured.
Gundry writes, "A final cause of Philip's confusing Papias' writings with an apology by a Quadratus is Eusebius's associating this Quadratus with the daughters of Philip the evangelists (H.E. 3.37.1) just as Eusebius also associates Papias with them (H.E. 3.39.9. Poor Phlip fell into a trap." [ibid.]
There are several strong arguments for dating Papias' written activity as early in the 2d century, rather than late. Based upon the wider preponderance of evidence, there seem to be some good reasons for dating Papias to the beginning of the second century and there really are no valid arguments for a later dating (with the exception do dependency on 1 John). To summarize, Schoedel in the Anchor Bible Dictionary:
"According to Irenaeus, our earliest witness, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books" (haer. 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1). Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7). Eusebius' skepticism was no doubt prompted by his distaste - perhaps a recently acquired distaste (Grant 1974) - for Papias' chiliasm and his feeling that such a theology qualified Papias for the distinction of being "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Nevertheless Eusebius' analysis of the preface is probably correct; and his further point that Papias' chiliasm put him to the same camp as the Revelation of John is surely relevant. It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., AD 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about AD 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26)." [10]
[4] Papias lived to 164... One of the first reasons to date Papias late was due to his supposed death. He was reputed to have lived past 164 AD by the Chronicon Paschale (7th c.). Lightfoot pointed out that this was due to a copyist mistake made when copying Eusebius' Church History. Papias was mistaken for Papylas as pointed out by Lightfoot (Supernatural Religion, pp 147-149). Therefore, we do not know exacltly when Papias died. Upper and Lower limits can be established by the Arguments put forth below ofavoring an early dating.
[5] Gnosticism. Some scholars have contended that Papias is battlign against later 2d. century gnosticism (ca. 130ish). Of course, this reminds me of claims where the Gospel of Thomas is said to be a Gnostic text. More often than not, gnosticism has a tendency to be read into a work where an author wishes to see it. Rudimentary forms of gnostic beliefs go back very early (see my article Wisdom in Corinth). Lightfoot is one scholar who argued that Papias was writing in contention with Gnostics. Robert Yarbrough contended that, "Lightfoot here begs the question of the date of Papais, as anyone who tries to link him with post-130 gnostics must. Lightfoot produces no hard evidence that Papias was ever involved in refuting men such as Basilides and Marcion in the years after 130. He can adduce none because there is none. Only by assuming (1) that Papias is writing ca. 130 or later, (2) that Papias' writings show anti-gnostic Tendenz, and (#) that the post-130 gnostics were the objects of that Tendenz can Lightfoot make his case. This is not a particularly compelling argument. As Schoedel concludes, there is no clear anti-gnostic polemic in Papias." [JETS 26/2 (June 1983) 191-191, The Date of Papias: A Reassessment]
[6] The nature of Papias' sources. This is questioned from a little ambiguoity in Papias. The question pertains to how many steps lie between the original flowers and Papias, and on the idenity of John in Papias. As Robert Grant wrote, "The quotation from Papias can be understood to mean that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John." [Papias in Eusebius' Church History] This does not necessarily make it the case. Writing ca. 180 Irenaeus says that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John. Writing ca. 300 Eusebius contends that "Papias . . . in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them, for he speaks as follows:
4 But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too. For I did not assume that whatever comes from books is as helpful to me as what comes from a living and lasting voice. "
Irenaeus has this in one instance (John): Original Followers --> Papias
Eusebius has this general model: Original Followers --> Presbyters --> Follower of Presbyters --> Papias.How can we decide which view is correct? For comparative purposes, Irenaeus wrote of himself (ca. 180), "I heard it from a certain presbyter who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles and from those who had taught." (AH 4.27.1). This looks like:
Original Followers (OF)--> Disciple of OF--> Certain Presbyter --> Irenaeus.
Some scholarship today would place Papias in the same boat as Irenaeus! This doesn't seem likely if Papias is to be dated significantly earlier than Irenaeus (ca. 180) and though I wil largue for an early dating of Papias, the academic concensus lies aroun 130 A.D. What is Papias really saying though? That he had contact with and inquired of those who were converts of Jesus' original followers. Robert Gundry does a good job assessing this queston. He lists four points supporting the contention that Papias is only once removed from Jesus original followers.
The question centers on the "words of the presbyters". If those are equivalent with those of the original followers a step is removed. The other, mutually exclusive view, is that the presbyters are different and handed down their teachings faithfully. Either sense is allowable but Gundry lists four reasons against the latter of these two:
1) "the passage quoted by Eusebius from Papias contains no apparent indivation that Papias means to distinguish the elders from the disciples. The listing of the apostolic names under the designation "the Lord's disciples" certainly does not imply such a distinction, for Papias immediately identifies John "the elder" as on of "the Lord's disciples." Here he is using two designations as synonyms. Their interchange so far as John is concerned points to their being synonymous so far as Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, Matthew and other disciples, too, are concerned." [Gundry, Mark, p. 1029]
2) "taking the two designations as synonymous confirms to the natural understanding of Papias' text. For if they are not synonymous, Papias jumps backard from second-generation elders to first generation disciples without any warning only to turn around and use "elder" and "Lord's disciple" for one and the same man. This use of "elder" and "Lord's disciple" for John shows that we are not to regard the repeated [ti] as an accusative of general reference (the accusative of "last resort"), meaning "the words of the elders, i.e. what Andrew or Peter . . . had said," but as an appositive: "the words of the elders concerning what Andrew or Peter . . . had said." This use also shows that the expressions do not stand in apposition to each other because later elders repeated what earlier disciples had said; rather, what the Lord's discipls had said is identical with the words of the elders because the elders were the disciples Andrew, Peter, and the rest. [Gundry, Ibid.]
3) "though Eusebius distinguishes between John the disciple and John the elder for a tendentious reason yet to be exposed, the truth slips out in H.E. 3.29.7, where he writes that Papias "confesses that he had received the words of the apostles from those who had followed them." Here we find only one generation between apostles amd Papias. In a lapse, then, Eusebius himself implies that Papias used both terms "elders" and "Lord's disciples" to mean "apostles."" [Gundry, idibpp 1029-1030]
4) Papias emphasizes the elder's truthfulness in repeating the commandments given by the Lord. A supposedly earlier generation of disciples do not step in as obvious go-betweens to pass the commandments from Jesus to the elders. If Papias were distinguishing later elders from original disciples, we would have expected him to say outright that the elders got the Lord's commandments from the disciples." [Gundry, ibid, p. 1030] Papias also claims that he did not hear the elders. This makes far more sense if the elders are apostles. Papias is certainly not capable of being dated so late as to cut off the possibility of hearing those who heard the apostles. In fact, he is reputed to have had associations with the daughter of Philip the apostle. This and many other traditions hardly commend themselves as supporting the notion that Papias is several times removed from the apostles. Rather, it appears to go Jesus --> Followers --> Presbyters --> Papias. In this, it appears that two of the original followers are still alive and speaking. In fact, as we will see in the next section, all the arguments for an early dating also support the notion of connecting Papias to Presbyters who had close associations with the original followers of Jesus
[7] Miscellaneous. There are some other very poor consideration given for a late dating. The present tense used below (legousin) denotatively in argument 6 is supposedly to be connotatively interpreted so that Papias is conveying a past-tense idea As Yarbrough pointed out, Lightfoot relegated this argument to a footnote. Other attempts have claimed that Hadrian's expulsion of the Jews from Palestine in the 130's provide Papias' writing with a nice context. This is woven from whole cloth, however, as Yarbrough points out. "There is, however, not the slightest shred of proof to support Bacon's contention, nor is Bacon convincing in trying to explain how a decree from Rome affecting Jews in Jerusalem triggered writings by a Gentile in Phrygia."
Summary on Arguments for a Late Dating. The later dating of Papias has been prominent for so long many scholars find it inconceivable to view Papais as writing ca. 100 A.D. I view this as similar to viewing the Rylands fragment as strictly dating to 125 AD The number is tossed around so frequently it has become canonized, despite the actual uncertainties with paleographical dating based upon the script alone (of a fragment at that!)! Yet, as we have seen, there is so little justification for a later dating. So little appear to be lenient as there actually appears to be none whatsoever--ouside of the mere possibility that either 1 Peter and 1 John could be dated late. Unfortunately, it will turn out that there are extremely good indications that Papias wrote earlier than scholarship currently accepts. Therefore, any arguments for a later dating of 1 Peter or 1 John must be more secure than the arguments put forth below to be convincing. I do not think they can be and therefore, Papias will end up providing us with the terminus ad quem of these two epistles--as oppose to them providing Papias with a terminus a quo. I think it is time that this outdated view is reassessed and discarded in favor of the clearly more evidenced thesis that is presented below.
Arguments in favor of an earlier dating for Papias:
1.Gundry writes,, "Eusebius leads us to the early date by saying that Papias became famous during the time of Polycarp and Ignatius, with whom he associates Clement of Rome (H.E. 3.36.1-2; 3.39.1). Polycarp did not die till the middle of the second century; but Ignatius died ca. 107 and Clement ca 100. Eusebius's discussion of Papias's writings comes right at this point, i.e. before Trajan's persecution, which started ca. 110 and which Eusebius does not describe till Book 4 of his Ecclesiastical History whereas the fragments of Papias appear in Book 3." [3] As Yarbrough wrote, "Eusebius classes Papias with the young Polycarp, Ignatius and even Clement--that is, with those who were the immediate successors to the apostles." [ibid] Book III of Eusebius does not discuss anything later than matters of Trajan's reign (97-117). The fourth book opens up during the twelfth year of Trajan's reign (110 AD)2. Gundry writes, "Eusebius's Chronicon puts together and in order the Apostle John, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius and assigns the date 100 to this entry." [4] Yarbrough writes, "Eusebius places the aged apostle John, Papias, Polycarp and Ignatius--in that order--in the same entry . . . With this entry he concludes his treatment of the first century." [ibid]
3. Irenaeus who wrote ca. 180 C.E. states that Papias was a hearer of the apostle John and was an ancient man (Haer. 5.334; cf. Eus. H.E. 3.39.1, 13). Irenaeus provides our clearest terminus ad quem. He writes ca. 180 AD and labels Papias an ancient man and hearer of the apostle John. The mere reference to him being an ancient man alone should cause us to view first third of the first century as the absolute upper end of Papias' literary activity. It seems early second century is the more likely as a suitable terminus ad quem for Papias. Yarbrough writes, "The force of this appellation for Papias is strengthened when it is remembered that Irenaeus referred to John as seeing the Apocalypse "no very long time ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (81-96). If Domitian's reign was in some sense for Irenaeus (b[irth]. ca. 125) "almost our day," then an *archaios aner* woul be early indeed. The term, coming from Irenaeus ca. 180, certainly does not fit a man who lived into the middle of the second century."
4. The failure of Eusebius and Irenaeus to quote Papias against Gnosticism is most easily explained by having Papias say nothing about it because he wrote before it became a serious threat, i.e. before 110. [5] This view is bolstered by the fact that when Irenaus is able to cite earlier authorities and Biblical writers against his opponents, he gladly does so. Likewise, Eusebius had a penchant for extensively quoting earlier works. As Yarbrough writes, "Yet for all the vehement opposition of these two against the early gnostics, it appears that neither turns to Papias for support in his arguments." [ibid]
5. The Papian fragments exhibit a general similarity to the epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius which were written early. [6] This is of course of limited value since only little of Papias survives. Yarbrough
6. Gundry writes, "U. H. J. Kortner (Papias 225-26) agrees that Papias's polemics fit an early rather than later date and adds that it is easier to think of an early date for Papias's making inquiry of those who had heard "the elders" (Eus. H.E. 3.39.3-4), but it is hard to think of the Elder John and Aniston as still alive toward the middle of the second century. The present tense of yeyovoiv "are saying", implies that they are still alive when Papias writes, however." [7]
This is important since it allows us to date Papias' literary career by the present tense of the statement because he is quoted in his written work with this tense..
7. It is also difficult to believe that Papias wrote ca. 130 c.e. or later and also had personal acquaintance with the daughters of Philip the apostle in the middle of the first century (Eus. H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Acts 21:8-9): "That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm." Eusebius
Acts 21:8-9 lists them as unmarried daughters who prophesied. The sense is that they are remaining unmarried and are dedicated in a special manner to serve the Lord. That they prophecy also indicates they are not small children. Therefore, the daughter's of Philip, in the fifties are not children. Papias is said to be a contemporary with them. Therefore, Papias was alive in the fifties? Not necessarily as he cold have been contemporaneous with them in their older age (his younger age) and there is no indication when this story arose. This shows that Papias was alive at least well before 100 A.D. and down into the first century. Even if Philip the Evangelist is meant as opposed to Philip the Apostle, the dates would not be appreciably different.
8. Gundry, "Papias's use of "the Lord's disciples" and of "the elders" instead of "the apostles" for the guarantors of orthodoxy further favors an early date, i.e. a date before "the apostles" developed such a connotation." [8]
9. Papias' lack of great attention to Johannine writings also favors an earlier date, i.e. a date before those writings commanded such attention. This one is difficult to fully establish as we do not have the text of Papias. How do we know Papias does not give great attention to the Johannine writings? Presumably Eusebius or Irenaeus would have mentioned this thus it can be viewed as supportive evidence.
10. Finally, it has been noted that in the Papian fragment on Mark, there is a large number of semitisms which favors that the tradition of the Elder is early, and therefore, more likely to be reliable.[9]
11. There are supposedly parallels between the writings of Polycarp, Ignatius and Papias. Yarbrough mentioned these details but I have some reservations here. Many of the concerns he raised, appear to me, to be rather universal Christian concerns and can stem from any number of time periods. The most significant detail I found here is that on similar issues both Polycarp and Papias turned to the same two epistles (1 John and 1 Peter!)
Conclusion: It seems likely to me that Papias' literary activity should be placed early in the second century. Papias clearly has connections with apostolic traditions and this means he must at least be taken seriously as a reputable source. One of the most important issues is his attribution of a Gospel to Mark, who he says wrote down a record of Peter's preaching. Mark was used quickly by two separate evangelists after it composition and here is a reputable source, writing around 105 AD claiming that it was Peter's memoirs.
Vincent Sapone
[1] The comment prserved by Eusebius which claims AMark was John Mark--companion of and interpreter of Peter-- who wrote GMark.
[2]. Gundry, Mark A Comment on His Apology for the Cross, 1993, Eerdmans, p. 1027
[3] Gundy at 1027
[4] Gundry at 1027. Gundry cites R.W. Yarbrough in JETS 26 [1983] 186-9o as showing Eusebius puts these figures together and in order. R. Helm, Chronik 193-194; and J. B. Orchard (in The NT Age 393-403) are also referenced as showing "Eusebius is following a chronological order according to which all the events recorded in H.E. 3.34-39 take place during the bishopric of Evarestus at Rome (101-108 C.E.
[5] Gundry suggests consulting with Martin Hengel, Studies p. 152, n.61 on this issue.
[6] Gundry suggest Yarbrough, ibid, 188-90, for details. For those with questions on the authenticity of Ignatius' letters, Schoedel (1985) is one work that should be consulted.
[7] Gundry at 1028. The Term yeyovoiv is inexact and was approximated as best as I could on the keyboard.
[8] Gundry at 1028
[9] Gundry cites two works referencing this argument: E. Stauffer (in Neutestamentliche Aufsatze 283-93) and H. H. Schmidt (in TZ 44 [1988] 135-146).
[10] Schoedel The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140. Copied from Early Christian Writings.
[11] Gundry at pp. 1032,1033