Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis wrote the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord in five books.
He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180). Eusebius adds that Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis around the time of Ignatius of Antioch.[5] In this office Papias was presumably succeeded by Abercius of Hierapolis. ... The work of Papias is dated by most modern scholars to about 95–120.[7][8] Later dates were once argued from two references that now appear to be mistaken. [An] unreliable source in which Papias is said to refer to the reign of Hadrian (117–138) seems to have resulted from confusion between Papias and Quadratus.[10]
[10] Gundry, Robert (2000). Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
Gundry writes in his book "Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross" about Papias' date of writing:
The only hard evidence favoring a late date consists in a statement by Philip of Side, who makes Papias refer to the reign of Hadrian (117-138...). But we have good reasons to distrust Philip's statement. ... Comparison of Philip's statement with Eusebius' favors that Philip depended on Eusebius but garbled the information he got. Eusebius mentions a Christian writer named Quadratus, who addressed an apology to Hadrian, the very emperor during whose reign Philip puts Papias's writings. ...when Philip quotes Papias, the phraseology sounds more like Eusebius' quotations of Quadratus than of Papias; in other words, it looks as though Philip transferred what Quadratus wrote over to Papias. Thus, just as Eusebius associates Quadratus with Hadrian's reign and quotes Quadratus as referring to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living, so Philip associates Papias with Hadrian's reign and writes that Papias referred to people raised from the dead by Jesus and still living. Furthermore, there appears to have been another Quadratus, who was a prophet, not an apologist. Eusebius discusses him in association with Jesus' original disciples and their immediate successors. Philip probably confuses Quadratus the apologist with Quadratus the prophet. It was easy for him to do so, because he found Eusebius' similar discussion of Papias bounded by references to the name Quadratus.
Papias writes in his preface as if he made inquiries of the disciples and other church "elders" of his time as if he and they were still alive when he asked about their teachings:
"And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice."
I interpret this sentence to mean that Papias asked what Jesus' disciple John (and others) had "said" and what this same disciple John, who had become a Church "elder", was currently saying. I think that Eusebius, like some others since, misinterpreted this passage to mean that there were two Johns, the latter being "John the elder".
Papias cites John as preferring Matthew's order over Mark if the two orders differ:
"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." "Therefore Matthew put the logia in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could."
When Papias says Hebrew language, I think he means the Hebrew-influenced Aramaic of the time, like that in which the Talmud and, IIRC, Targumns are written.
Which explanation do you think is correct about Papias' assertion that Matthew wrote Jesus' sayings in the "Hebrews' language"?:
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.[24][27] One theory is that Matthew himself produced firstly a Semitic work and secondly a recension of that work in Greek. Another is that others translated Matthew into Greek rather freely. Another is that Papias simply means "Ἑβραίδι διαλέκτῳ" as a Hebrew style of Greek. Another 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. Yet another is that Papias was simply mistaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
Even in its current form, Matthew's gospel has alot of Aramaic wordings and style. So maybe its sayings were translated by someone (like Matthew himself) into Greek and made by someone (eg. Matthew) into a gospel with the help of Mark's gospel. That is my guess.
Another question is whether Papias meant that Mark wrote down what Mark recalled Peter saying or what Peter recalled Jesus saying. The question is important because it relates to the time when Mark wrote his gospel - was he directly recording Peter's words or did he years later try to write his gospel based on different memories of Peter's teaching? Papias wrote:
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,[anecdotes] 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.
I think that the sentence actually means that Mark wrote down what Peter recalled from memory, not that Mark later on wrote down what he remembered Peter saying.
Just focusing on the first sentence shows this:
"Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as
he[Peter] recalled from memory... of the things either said or done by the Lord."
Since he was writing this as Peter's interpreter, it suggests that Mark did this directly as Peter was preaching.
In Book IV of his Exposition, Papias recounted a saying of the Lord from the disciple of John, whereby
The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me." In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man. ... Now these things are credible to believers.
Papias added:
when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, 'How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord.' the Lord declared, 'They who shall come to these [times] shall see.'
Irenaeus related this story to the times of the "appointed kingdom", cited Papias and commented:
When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: "The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid..." And again he says, in recapitulation, "Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, ..." [Isaiah 40:6, etc.] I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous. But although this is [true] now with regard to some men coming from various nations to the harmony of the faith, nevertheless in the resurrection of the just [the words shall also apply] to those animals mentioned. For God is rich in all things. And it is right that when the creation is restored, all the animals should obey and be in subjection to man, and revert to the food originally given by God (for they had been originally subjected in obedience to Adam), that is, the productions of the earth. But some other occasion, and not the present, is [to be sought] for showing that the lion shall [then] feed on straw. And this indicates the large size and rich quality of the fruits. For if that animal, the lion, feeds upon straw [at that period], of what a quality must the wheat itself be whose straw shall serve as suitable food for lions?
Eusebius on the other hand, appeared to complain that Papias did not take such descriptions of the coming kingdom metaphorically, ascribed Papias' interpretation to Papias being of limited understanding, and complained that Papias misled Irenaeus about this:
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. 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 Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.
Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Chpt. 39:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
Whose interpretation do you think is correct regarding this statement?
Do you think that Jesus meant that there would literally be vines with thousands of twigs and each twig with thousands of clusters, etc.? At first, I took the saying at first as a metaphorical description of the "fruits" or successful products of the works of the righteous.
Another useful fact from Papias is his testimony to the 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".[29] Agapius of Hierapolis (10th century) offers a fuller summary of what Papias said here, calling the woman an adulteress.[44] 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 remarkable fact is that the story is known in some form to such an ancient witness as Papias.
... 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 somehow connected with Papias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of ... hreia_22-0
I think that Papias misunderstood the account of Judas' death in Acts. Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, whereas Acts says that Judas, "drooping head-forward" burst open. Translaters often put the passage in Acts as saying "falling headlong", but after reviewing Strong's Concordance and dictionary, I think that it means "drooping head-forward", referring to how his body drooped when he died and then burst from decay. Apollinaris of Laodicea supported Papias' account and then cited it:
Judas did not die by hanging[52] 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."[53] 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of ... hreia_22-0
My guess is that Papias heard the account of Judas' death long enough after the event and from a source far enough removed that the narrator did not know or understand what actually happened.
I think that Papias' account and explanation are mostly conceivable, but the description of Judas' bodily, bloated form while living sound implausible.
What do you think of Papias' alleged claim that the apostle John was killed by the Jews, in contradiction to what is today a common belief that John died naturally? How could one square this with the idea that Papias of Hieropolis knew John and should have known how John really died?
To help answer this question, consider: Did Matthew 20 imply that the apostles John and James, the sons of Zebedee, would be martyred when it says:
Matthew 20:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mark 10 gives basically the same account.
Philip of Side wrote (c. 430 AD): "Papias in the second book says that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews."(
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phili ... _ftnref116)
Wikipedia notes:
Two late sources (Philip of Side and George Hamartolus) cite the second book of Papias as recording that John and his brother James were killed by the Jews.[54] However, modern scholars doubt the reliability of the two sources regarding Papias.[55][56] According to the two sources, Papias presented this as fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus on the martyrdom of these two brothers.[57][58] This is consistent with a tradition attested in several ancient martyrologies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of ... te_note-57
The
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by Everett Ferguson, says that Eusebius' reading of Papias' preface as saying that there were two Christian teachers named John (the apostle, and the elder)
implies an early death of the apostle, a view supported by Philip of Side (ca. 430) and George Hamartolos (ninth century). Both appeal to the second book of Papias in a way that suggests George might be dependent on Philip. The early fifth-century martyrology drawn up in Edessa of and the early sixth-century Calendar Carthage both assert that John met an early death asa martyr. These works are too late to be reliable and may be dependent on Mark 10:39, although it can be argued that, had the sons of Zebedee not both been dead, this text[ie. the gospel story] would not have been recorded. This tradition might have been supressed in the interest of the position supported by Irenaeus.
I doubt that Philip of Sides wrote late to be reliable attestations of Papias (if that is what the Encyclopedia meant), since there is evidence that Papias' book was in at least a few monasteries centuries later in the medieval period.
Here is where Philip wrote that Papias mentioned Hadrian:
He also relates other marvellous stories, in particular the one about Menahem's mother, who was raised from the dead.[117] Concerning those who were raised from the dead by Christ, [he relates] that they lived until Hadrian.
Based on the fact that Philip seems to have read Papias (since he mentions John being killed in Papias' second book), it looks like Philip's claim is more legitimate that Papias made a reference to resurrected people living until Hadrian's time.
The 5th century Syriac martyrology from Edessa (copied in 411) has these commemorations: "according to the Greeks: the first martyr, at Jerusalem, Stephen, apostle, chief of the martyers. John and James, apostles, at Jerusalem. in the city of Rome, Paul the apostle and Simon Peter, chief of the apostles of our Lord."
Note that the martyrology seems to date John's death as happening before that of James son of Zebedee, Peter, and Paul.
Contrast this with Irenaeus' statement about how late John lived:
even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.
Trajan reigned in 98-117 AD. John 21 ends with the suggestion that the disciple John in the gospels lived to a quite late date too. The way that the passage in John 21 goes about the saying going "abroad" suggests that the saying about John's long life was around still at the time when Jesus' followers had spread abroad:
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?