Did Papias exist?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The Anti-Marcionite prologue of GJohn

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4

This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet still in the body, as the Heiropolitan, Papias by name, dear disciple of John, transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated.

These things Papias too, who was a earwitness of John and companion of Polycarp, and an ancient man, wrote and testified in the fourth of his books. For there are five books written by him. And he adds, saying: But these things are believable by the believers. And, he says, Judas the traitor did not believe and asked: How therefore will such generations be brought to completion by the Lord? The Lord said: Those who come into those [times] will see.

Meanwhile back to the five books of Papias. As already noted, Irenaeus does not give the title of Papias' work, but the Anti-Marcionite prologue of GJohn reported that Papias transmitted (retulit) it in his EXOTERIC (Latin: exotericis). Since it is commonly assumed that the title of Papias' work is "Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles" (λογιων κυριακων εξηγησεως), as Eusebius and others claimed, scholars have wondered about the term "EXOTERIC".

Monte A. Shanks (Papias and the New Testament) wrote in a footnote

Exotericis.jpg (137.31 KiB) Viewed 11078 times

William Fleming wrote in „Vocabulary of Philosophy“

ACROAMATIC (from ἀκροάομαι, to hear).

Designed for the hearing of the initiated, applied to the lessons which were Esoteric (ἐσωτερικός) in contrast with the Exoteric, those given to general audiences (ἐξωτερικός). Plutarch (in Alexand.) and Aulus Gellius (l. XX. c. 4) maintained that the acroamatic works had natural philosophy and logic for their subjects, whereas the exoteric treated of rhetoric, ethics, and politics. Strabo (l. 13, p. 608), Cicero (Ad Atticum, 13, 19), and Ammonius Herm. (Ad Categor. Aristot.), maintain that they were distinguished, not by difference of subject, but of form; the acroamatic being discourses, the exoteric dialogues. Simplicius (Ad Categor. in Proem.) thus characterises the acroamatic in contradistinction to the exoteric works: "distinguished by pregnant brevity, closeness of thought, and quickness of transitions," from his more expanded, more perspicuous, and more popular productions.

Buhle has a Commentatio de Libris Arist., Exot. et Acroam., in his edition of the works of Aristotle, 5 vols. 8vo, Deux Ponts, 1791, p. 142. "In Aristotle's works the word exoteric does not occur (yet cf. Analyt. Post., I. 10, p. 76, bk. 27, ὁ ἔσω λόγος as ὁ ἐν τῇ φυχῇ, in opposition to ἕξω λόγος); but exoteric is employed in the sense of 'outwardly directed, addressed to the respondent (πρὸς ἕτερον)' " (Ueberweg's Hist, I. 143).

As an example, Plutarch, Adversus Colotem, 14, wrote

Now as to the ideas,—for which he quarrels with Plato, —Aristotle, by moving this matter at every turn, and alleging all manner of doubts concerning them, in his Ethics, in his Physics, and in his Exoterical Dialogues (ἐξωτερικῶν διαλόγων) seems to some rather obstinately than philosophically to have disputed against these doctrines, as having proposed to himself the debasing and undervaluing of Plato's philosophy ...

I find it very striking that there are no real interpretations, especially no interpretations of sayings of Jesus or revelations of the Lord, to be found in any of the fragments of Papias, but in the quote from Irenaeus there is indeed such an exoteric dialogue between Judas and the Lord.

In addition, the natural reading of the Anti-Marcionite prologue imho is clear that EXOTERIC should at least a word from the title of the work. Of course, if you firmly believe that the title has to be different, namely "Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles", then you look for far-fetched explanations.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In addition, the Chronicon of George Hamatolos made it clear that the martyrdom was carried out by Jews in Ephesus, after “having composed the gospel according to himself”.

Notice that the bit about John being released to his house in Ephesus is written in George the Sinner's own words; once he cites Papias, all he says is that Papias, "in the second volume of the lordly oracles," claims "that he was done away with by Jews." And George may well simply be relying on Philip Sidetes for this datum. The sifting is actually pretty painless in this case, since George never even claims that Papias said anything about a martyrdom late in life in Ephesus. Rather, he claims support from Papias for his own statement to that effect. (Eusebius himself does this a fair bit: claim something big, then cite something small but compatible as support, while not mentioning that the small thing can be true while the big thing is false.)

I willingly admit it. That was also my impression while reading. But, of course, it does not mean that your view is correct, only that the view of the Chronicon of George Hamatolos has no real basis.

But Philip of Side himself claimed that Papias was an earwitness of John the theologian, who had a brother James.

Sure, as expected, since everybody "knew" that Papias was an earwitness of John the Theologian/Revelator/Evangelist/Apostle.

For sure. Because … among other things … there was “John’s” tomb in Ephesus

The trick is to separate out what Papias himself may have actually written from what later patristic authors interpreted out of him.

No argument is allowed based on the existence of Papias.

Papias almost certainly wrote about the origin of GJohn. But Eusebius, who quoted Papias on the origin of GMatthew and GMark, deliberately concealed Papias’ explanations on the origin of GJohn.

This is basically my former position, and it resembles Bauckham's. I now think that the arrow points in the other direction: not that Papias wrote about the gospel of John and Eusebius suppressed that bit, but rather that Papias' close association with John the Elder, transformed by the tradition into John the Evangelist, Apostle, and Revelator, inspired his association with the gospel of John.

Mmmhh. I haven't gotten around to reading it carefully, but it seems that a very early Syriac translation of Eusebius' Church History, which possibly represents the original reading, offers a significantly different text that also questions the close relationship to John the Elder.

[davidmartin]

This might be of interest
all references to Papias found anywhere in the universe:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140319142 ... php/papias

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

... back to the five books of Papias

What’s the reason Irenaeus mentions Papias? Bauckham, „Intertextual Relationships of Papias’ Gospel Traditions“, argues as follows:

Then, having quoted this saying of Jesus at some length, Irenaeus says that Papias also bore witness in writing to these things. Some scholars have argued that Irenaeus is here identifying Papias as the source from which he had taken the tradition of the elders. But several considerations rule this out. In the first place, Irenaeus says quite clearly that Papias is an additional witness (καὶ Παπίας: “Papias also”) to the saying he has just quoted from the elders. This procedure of citing a second authority for the same saying is intelligible because Irenaeus hardly ever quotes words of Jesus that were not to be found in the four gospels. When he does so in this instance, it is important to him to make it clear that he has good grounds for thinking this a reliable tradition. Secondly, although Papias did report traditions of the elders, in this instance Irenaeus seems to mean that he reported the words of John the disciple of the Lord.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.3-4

The blessing thus predicted pertains, without [fear of] contradiction, to the times of the kingdom, when the just, rising from the dead, will reign, when even the creation, renewed and liberated, will produce a multitude of foods of all kinds from the dew of heaven and the fertility of the earth, just as the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord would teach about those times and would say: The days will come in which 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 pressed, will give twenty-five measures of wine. And, when one of those saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will clamor: I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me! Similarly a grain of wheat also will generate ten thousand heads, and each head will have ten thousand grains, and each grain five double pounds of clear and clean flour. And the remaining fruits and seeds and herbiage will follow through in congruence with these, and all the animals using these foods which are taken from the earth will in turn become peaceful and consenting, subject to men with every subjection. These things Papias too, who was a earwitness of John and companion of Polycarp, and an ancient man, wrote and testified in the fourth of his books. For there are five books written by him. And he adds, saying: But these things are believable by the believers. And, he says, Judas the traitor did not believe and asked: How therefore will such generations be brought to completion by the Lord? The Lord said: Those who come into those [times] will see.

Notable facts:

• According to Irenaeus, the Lord's prophecy about the new earth is contained in Book 4 of Papias’ work.

• The new earth on which the Kingdom of God will be established appears utterly wonderful. The description boldly decorated the miraculousness.

• According to Irenaeus, the word of the Lord is passed down through the chain from the Lord – to John – to the Elders and also through the second chain from the Lord – to John – to Papias. Papias is thus equated with the Elders.

Bauckham made this diagram that shows the chain of tradition according to Irenaeus.
.

Irenaeus_JohnPapias.jpg (62.28 KiB) Viewed 11005 times

[perseusomega9]

lol Judas the traitor, that tells us it's fabricated right there

[Secret Alias]

This might be useful for KK. Something caught my eye which pertains to another thread on Eusebius's use of Papias:

Clement passes along this story in the sixth book of the Outlines, and the one who is called Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis,
(ὁ Ἱεραπολίτης ἐπίσκοπος ὀνόματι Παπίας) corroborates his account

Eusebius's use of the term implies that what is of dubious value:

While Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain impostor called Theudas (citing Josephus Θευδᾶς ὀνόματι) ( 2.11.2)
these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles (ὀνόματι τῶν ἀποστόλων), including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. (3.25.7)
and mentions their bishop Palmas by name (citing an old written sourceὀνόματι Πάλμαν) (4.23.6)
When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter (ὀνόματι Πέτρου εὐαγγέλιον) (6.12.4)
They seized first an old man named Metras (Μητρᾶν ὀνόματι) (citing a martyrdom account 6.41.3)
But the other, whose name was Cronion (Κρονίων ὀνόματι) (citing a martyrdom account 6.41.15)

Eusebius has no idea who Papias is. I am not sure how he knows about Papias (it could be through a second hand source). But he knows nothing about Papias other than what we know.

[perseusomega9]

or maybe the early tradition was a traitor, but later tradition wanted 12 unified apostles (against Paul?)-these are entirely rhetorical don't bother responding, i'm just trying to flip paradigms in my head

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Eusebius has no idea who Papias is. I am not sure how he knows about Papias (it could be through a second hand source). But he knows nothing about Papias other than what we know.

I assume that as well.

"Did Eusebius read Papias?"...

...is the title of an article by Luke J. Stevens in The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 70, Issue 1, April 2019, Pages 163–183.

The article can be read here. Stevens made some really good points.

I didn't think it would be so difficult to deal with Papias. I'm having several nervous breakdowns at once.

And you guys don't just deal with Papias, but with Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Tertullian and many others.

[perseusomega9]

just further proof why we shouldn't rely on Eusebius' dating schemes

[perseusomega9]

hence any dating scheme of Papias based argued on silence