Last week’s schedule for the group “Read the Fathers” includes the fragments of Papias’ writings that have survived in the writings of Eusebius. Papias has been discussed quite a bit in recent years, primarily due to the work of Richard Bauckham. I share these observations as a novice who is not all that familiar with Papias. Let me know your thoughts.
– Eusebius makes the statement (Hist. eccl. 3.39.1-7 ) that according to Irenaeus Papias was a “hearer” (ἀκουστής) of John, but not a hearer of a public speaker (ἀκροατὴν) or an eyewitness (αὐτόπτην) as related to the apostles. Does this disqualify “John” from being the Apostle John (Eusebius argues “yes” below)? Or is there a different between ἀκουστής and ἀκροατὴν that I need to consider? I’m not sure how Papias might have “heard” the Apostle John other than hearing him give a public discourse though.
– There are “five treatises” of Papias in circulation at the time of Eusebius titled An Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles (λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως). Is this a study of the Gospels in circulation, or other logia?
– Papias advocates an oral tradition that assists in explaining the sayings of Jesus. He received his interpretations from the “elders” (πρεσβυτέρων). These elders are distinct from personalities such as Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, “or any other of the disciples of the Lord” (ἢ τις ἕτερος τῶν τοῦ κυρίου μαθητῶν). Aristion is mentioned (we’ll see him again below) and “the elder John” (ὁ πρεσβύτερος Ἰωάννης). This seems to present us with a John who is a disciple of Jesus (an apostle) and another John who is an elder. Eusebius himself will makes a distinction between the first John and the second John. The first John is included with Peter, James, and Matthew, a.k.a. apostles. The later John is included with the list “outside the apostles” (ἕτέροις παρὰ τὸν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀριθμὸν κατάτασσει). Aristion and John are described as disciples as well, but there is difference between Aristion and John and the others.
– Papias is not as confident in what he read in “books” (βιβλίων) as he is in the “living and lasting voice” (τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης). The “living and lasting” seems to refer to witness that remain, rather than reports in books. Maybe Papias has copies of the early written Gospels, but he wants to talk with people who were witnesses of Jesus or who know and who have spoken to those who were witnesses of Jesus.
– In Hist. eccl. 3.39.14-17 Papias hands down tradition from Aristion (Ἀριστίωνος, who?) who received the traditions from the “Elder John” (πρεσβύτερου Ἰωάννου). Who is this elder?
– Mark is said to have been Peter’s “interpreter” (ἑρμηνευτὴς). Does this mean Peter needed someone to translate from his Aramaic/Hebrew (?) to Greek? Is this in speech and writing, or writing alone? Does this tell us anything about 1 and 2 Peter, both attributed to the Apostle, but very problematic in that the two epistles are quite different.
– Mark’s interpreting of Peter was “not in order” (οὐ…τάξει). Mark never heard Jesus, nor was he a follower of Jesus, but he took notes on Peter’s teaching. Mark aimed to avoid omitting or falsifying what he heard.
– Matthew’s report was compiled in “a Hebrew manner of speech” (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ). I know there is some debate over whether this means Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew (or Aramaic) or if he ordered and presented it in a Hebraic way (e.g., the teaching discourses, the form of the genealogy, etc).
– Matthew is said to have used the first epistle from John (ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρότερας ἐπιστολῆς) and a similar one from Peter (καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως). I have never sat down to compare 1 John or 1 Peter with the Gospel of Matthew, but this seems like a strange claim.
– The pericope adulterae seems to be referenced when it is written that Matthew (?) used “another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord”. This would be John 7, no? This story is said to be found in “the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Ἐβραίους εὐαγγέλιον).
– In Hist. eccl. 2.15.2 Eusebius references Papias in stating that Mark is mentioned by Peter (1 Peter 5:17) in an epistle written by Peter in Rome. I know Eusebius had some questions regarding the authenticity of 2 Peter.
– In Jerome’s Illustrious Lives 18 mentions the five volumes of Papias’ work, as well as his statement about hearing the “living” words rather than the books. Jerome’s commentary seems to be familiar with Eusebius. He adds some thoughts about 2 and 3 John being written by the elder rather than the apostle. There is mention of the elder John holding to a view of the millenium, which Jerome calls a “Jewish tradition”.
– The 5th century Hist. eccl. of Philip of Side summarizes this discussion, mentioning that 2 and 3 John are often attributed to the elder, and that some think he wrote the Apocalypse (but are “mislead”). Then he says Papias and Irenaeus were wrong about the millenium. He mentioned Papias saying that John and James were killed by the Jews. There are some other reports included here as well.
– Papias is mentioned in other documents that can be read here.
the archives near Emmaus 
“I have never sat down to compare 1 John or 1 Peter with the Gospel of Matthew, but this seems like a strange claim.”
I hadn’t heard this, but wouldn’t mind hearing the source of the claim.
Eusebius is the source (Hist. eccl. 3.39.14-17), quoting Papias it seems. He writes concerning Matthew:
“Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could.
“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.”
I think another possibility is that after “Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could” that the voice is Eusebius’ once again, speaking of Papias. In other words, I can’t tell if this is still a quote of Papias about Matthew or commentary by Eusebius about Papias.
The Aramaic v. Greek issue is very important in my mind. The Church of the East (not the EO) has always claimed that their Aramaic copies of the NT were the originals and that the Greek was translated from them. The west hasn’t taken that very seriously through the years (though in the last 100 years there’s been a lot written on it), but consider this: When Josephus wrote “The Wars of the Jews” he did so in Aramaic and then hired a Greek expert to help him translate it into Greek. He’d attempted to learn Greek in order to do so himself, but considered the attempt a failure. But wait! I thought Greek was the lingua franca of the region, so that even an ignorant fisherman such as Peter could write in it! We have a presumption of Greek language dominance that I’m suspicious is not the case. If some, most, or all of the NT were originally written in Aramaic then this could throw an interesting wrench into the efforts of Greek experts to squeeze the language of the Greek NT text for grammatical nuance in developing their doctrines.
In addition, it is very seldom appreciated that you can’t perfectly precisely get from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek without losing something (they have different verb systems, vocabulary, etc.). Even if only the conversational elements of the NT were originally in Aramaic (which most people would stipulate), I don’t see people taking this into account when they are squeezing the Greek NT to interpret things such as the Sermon on the Mount. If the Greek can’t record the nuances of the language actually used in the sermon (Aramaic), why are we sweating blood in pressing the Greek NT texts for doctrine? And, if the grammatical minutiae is that important then how do we keep this from becoming a dictation theory of inspiration?
Also, the study of the spread of chiliasm in the early church is very interesting. It doesn’t appear in the first cluster of ANF writings, but I think it has been clearly shown that it comes in through Jewish influence (Judaisers?). But, people who write popularly on eschatology almost never touch this dynamic.
Doug
I know there are scholars like Bruce Chilton who have done studies on what the Aramaic “behind the text” might have been, but I think the main concern (like Q for instance) is that as long as we don’t have a copy of something it is hard to discuss its hypothetical existence. You are correct that there are good reasons to postulate that some documents (e.g., the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle of Peter) were written/dictated in Aramaic only to be translated into Greek, e.g. Josephus, but until we have something in our hands all we can do it theorize about these original documents.
As to deriving doctrine from the Greek texts (e.g., Matthew’s “Blessed are the poor in spirit” to Luke’s “Blessed are the poor”) there is a the theological conundrum of “when” a document is inspired. Some speak of the “original autographs”, especially those in inerrancy affirming circles. This becomes problematic when one examines the possible evolution of documents like the Gospels, even without an Aramaic original. Even the Greek versions are said to have, for example, Mark; Q; M Material; L Material; Mark + M Material = Matthew; Matthew + L Material = Luke. If there were some Aramaic texts behind say Matthew that might complicate matters further.
Even if there were not Aramaic (or Hebrew) texts behind the Greek writings, still Aramaic and Hebrew influences should be considered unless you want to take the position that Jesus spoke and taught primarily in Greek. Take for example Mt 5:17-19. I’ve read somewhere that in Rabbinic Hebrew “abolishing the Law” and “fulfilling the Law” mean respectively to misinterpret and interpret correctly the Law, and “I have not come” is equivalent to “I do not intend.” These meanings seem to fit well in this context of Jesus explicating the law.
Of the more Greek texts, the thought behind the text appears still to be ‘not-so-Greek’. I’d argue (weakly) non-Hellenized Hebrew or Aramaic thought is behind it all conceding that this is debatable. (I’m not talking Hellenized post-Maccabean Hebrew thought either, though that might account for some of the apparently less Hebrew texts).
So I agree. We should always aim for authorial intent when we read the bible, and by that I mean ‘God’. Yet we still see God through the mind and words of a Hebrew/Israelite prophet so the Hebrew and Aramaic influences should always frame our exegesis. I don’t believe this is unobtainable either, given an unwavering faith in prayer, and the Holy Spirit’s ability to quicken our wits and reason, despite its apparent difficulty.