Did Eusebius Fabricate Papias?

 

by Vincent Sapone

 

Introduction:

It has to be admitted that our evidence of Papias is slim since we do not have any of his works. In addition to this lack of material, our earliest reference to him (Irenaeus) is also only found preserved in the works of a later author (Eusebius). The writings of Eusebius provide the earliest textual evidence for a historicl figure and author named Papias. If Eusebius is not regarded as fabricating Papias, Irenaeus would have referenced him c. 180 as an ancient man, a companion of Polycarp and hearer of the apostle John. But Eusebius was a highly biased author, concerned with apostolicity, catholicity and establishing the canon. Can his comments on Papias be taken at face value? Did he put words into Irenaeus' mouth and invent Papias to create artificial catholic links to apostolic succession?

 

If Eusebius Fabricated Papias here is what had to happen//has to be the case:

 

1) Everything post Eusebius on Papias is based upon Eusebius (e.g. Jerome) directly or indirectly.

This is not difficult to believe as many or most all authors afterwards who mention Papias knew of Eusebius' church history or gleaned their information indirectly from here. However, I don't think Eusebius has this detail found in Philip of Side:

"Papias in the second volume says that John the theologue and James his brother were killed by Jews." Thus, Philip, in his Church History thought it fitting to invent this detail if there were no actual works of Bishop Papias. If Eusebius invented all comments about this, and Philip mentioned it, then it must be argued that Philip's information was contingent upon Eusebius and just made up his own glib line as well. Epitome (Codex Baroccianus 142) of Philip of Side, Ecclesiastical History (5th cen.): In spite of all their biases, we would do well to avoid the Genetic Fallacy when discussing Christian historians. Philip may provide us with a second (third if we accept Irenaeus) to the writings of Papias and like Eusebius, he mentions something specifically found in the text.

2) Eusebius invented a passage from Irenaeus:

"Irenaeus also mentions these as his only writing, using the following words: And these things Papias, who has been a hearer of John and a colleague of Polycarp, an early man, corroborates in writing in the fourth of his books. For there were five books that he composed."

So basically Eusebius fabricated a passage from Irenaeus to preface his own Papias agenda. He has Irenaeus mention Papias, his antiquity and his works.We have to ask ourselves, what position was Eusebius in to simply invent a Bishop such as Papias out of thin air, what weight would it serve to his readers and was he able to get away with, at this time, the act of putting words into the mouth of Irenaeus? There is also the question of "would" Eusebius do this? The latter question, will be granted as possible by some on the basis of an abused story about Eusebius the liar floating around on the internet.

3) Eusebius invented a passage from Irenaeus only to disagree with it.

After quoting Irenaeus who says Papias was a hearer of the apostle John Eusebius goes on to dismiss this link. "Yet Papias himself, according to the preface of his volumes, 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." We have to ask ourselves why Eusebius fabricates a statement only to correct it. Why not simply have Irenaeus, an earlier source claim what you yourself are arguing? For those of us who know Eusebius had an axe to grind with Papias' end time views (see below) it is obvious why he disagrees with Irenaeus. But if he is inventing Papias to serve his own agenda we immediately wonder why he is disconnecting him from the apostles, whom he spuriously suggests Irenaeus believed?

4) Eusebius invents passages from Papias.

He quote Papias as follows: "But I will not hesitate to supplement at any time for you too the interpretations with whatever I learned thoroughly and remembered thoroughly from the presbyters, since I am confident in the truth on their account. For unlike many I was not delighted with those who say many things but with those who teach the truth, or with those who remember not the commandments of others but those given by the Lord to the faith and derived from truth itself."

Not only does Eusebius invent Papias and the proposition that he wrote Five Oracles of the Lord with his statement from Irenaeus, but now he is inventing passages from the text itself. And this passage is aimed at showing how Papias was NOT connected to the original disciples. This speaks volumes against those who would argue that Eusebius created Papias.

Eusebius would also have to be credited with creating a few other details of Papias' nonexistent works and I refer those truly interested to consult his writings and check the details for themselves.

5) Eusebius creates Papias' Critique of Books

"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." This comment from Papias has been abused to show all sorts of things about oral tradition in the second century. As has been demonstrated elsewhere on this site, Papias wrote much earlier than most scholars suspect. Thus pushing orality well off into the second century based off of Papias' comment is incorrect. It may be true but Papias can no longer serve as support for this.

But in Eusebius' day, the gospels were authoritative. If Eusebius is creating Papias to establish apostolic succession and the gospels, not only does he disconnect Papias from the apostles, he has him claim he sought after the living and abiding voice of those who heard the apostles, rather than focusing on the words of the apostles themselves (and Peter's interpreter and Luke, companion of Paul).

I know that in Papias' day it may have constituted a topos in certain contexts. As Gamble writes, "A similar statement is made by the learned physician Galen, a near contemporary of Papias, in De compositione medicamentorum, 6: "There may well be truth in the saying current among most craftspeople that learning out of a book is not the same thing as nor comparable to learning from the living voice. Galen's commnt shows that the idea of the "living voice" was proverbial and current, at least in the social context of the craftspeople." (BRECp.31)"

Papias' disdain for literature should not then be overestimated. He knew of 1 Peter, 1 John, Mark, maybe Matthew, Revelation and even wrote his own Five Books where he interpreted the Lord. Yet it does seem odd that if Eusebius is using Papias to evidence the Canonical Gospels he has him mention such a statement. Why not claim something to the effect of "For I profited much from the books of the apostles and the training of those who knew them"? Either Eusebius' activity here was extremely subtle or he was simply quoting the extant text of an actual figure from antiquity.

At the least there is discontinuity between the notion of Papias being a Eusebian forgery to authenticate the Gospels and his comment about books.

6) Eusebius introduced a figure he created as if he would be known.

Eusebius, 2.15.2 "And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias ."

No prior mention of Papias is known from this work and none follows it all the way until the end of the third book. If Papias was not a known historical figure, why then did Eusebius introduce him in such a haphazard fashion with this reference? Are we to believe he created Papias and his readers were all saying, "Who?" as they read this only to learn of this individual at the end of Book III?

7) Eusebius suggested that his readers peruse nonexistent works.

Eusebius " Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning."

Not only must Eusebius had created all this material wholecloth, he even had the audacity to refer his readers to consult Papias' works themselves if they were fond of learning! All the other arguments for Eusebian forgery hinted at suggest he was a master forger, subtle in his arguments, but here we see this cannot be the case. We are forced to believe that Eusebius made up a Bishop and five books that he wrote and then told his readers to consult them!

8) Eusebius shows contempt for Papias' works and Insults him:

"The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things."

Here Eusebius claims he had strange parable and mystical teachings. He then goes on to say, "To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures."

Here he would be inventing a quote from Papias and arguing against it as an inaccurate interpretation. Eusebius goes on, "For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses . . ., ". Eusebius invents Papias, his books and his views only to call him of limited understanding, as is obvious from his discourses! Eusebius then relays, "but it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views."

Now does this view, that Papias was influential, bode better with Papias being spurious or historical based upon the way Eusebius introduced him in his work in Book II? (see point 6 above)

 

Conclusion

 

Was Eusubius the creator extraordinaire who haphazardly introduced Papias with no preceding or following information. The omniscient forger who referenced his works and suggested his audience consult them themselves even when he knew they wouldn't. The master architect who invented a quote from Irenaeus and all sorts of Papian material? The trend setter and allurist who caused Philip of Side to also spuriously attribute a different quote to the second book of Papias? The criminal-mastermind who plausibly hid all evidence and motive for his creation--whom he deemed of small intellect?

Or do the speculations of a few overly-skeptical exegetes possess far more creativity than Eusebius can be credited with? I am inclined to side with the latter judgment.