Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/508

 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 .>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,