Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Papias


by 3 Comments

Two months of Patristics

Church-Fathers-2I have participating in the group Read the Fathers for two months now. This has introduced or reintroduced me to the writings of the following people: Clement of Rome; Polycarp of Smyrna; the anonymous Epistle to Diognetus; Ignatius of Antioch (see notes from 12.08.2012; 12.15.2012) the anonymous Epistle of Barnabas; fragments from the writings of Polycarp (see notes from 12.22.2012); Justin Martyr (see notes from 12.29.2012; 01.05.2013; 01.12.2013); and Irenaeus of Lyons (see notes from o1.19.2013; 01.26.2013; 02.02.2013).

When I have been reading for four months I will create another summary post like this one. In the meantime, remember that I post these notes every Saturday.

About these ads


by 7 Comments

Observations from reading the fragments of Papias’ writings.

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.


by 11 Comments

Reading the Fathers (12.22.2012: Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle of Barnabas)

I am participating in the group Read the Fathers, so in order to help me maintain this discipline I will be sharing my favorite quotes and reflections every Saturday:

Quotes

Moses’ Broken Covenant:

“Moses understood [the meaning of God], and cast the two tables out of his hands; and their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed upon our heart, in the hope which flows from believing in Him.” (Epistle of Barnabas IV)

Triple Meaning of Isaiah 53 (Jesus, Israel, and the Church):

“For it is written concerning Him, partly with reference to Israel, and partly to us; and [the Scripture] saith thus: ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities: with His stripes we are healed. He was brought as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb which is dumb before its shearer.’” (Epistle of Barnabas V)

The Mission of Christ:

“The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behooved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him. But when He chose His own apostles who were to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came “not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God.” (Epistle of Barnabas V)

The Temple Stands:

“Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.” I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple. He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man,  but to Him who dwells in him, and speaks in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (Epistle of Barnabas XVI)

“Pro-Life” Ethics:

“You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born.” (Epistle of Barnabas XIX)

Reflections

- Ignatius of Antioch was identified as the author of the following epistle, now understood as spurious: Epistle to the Tarsians, Epistle to the Antiochians, Epistle to Hero, Epistle to the Philippians, First and Second Epistle to St. John, Epistle to the Virgin Mary (with a reply), and Epistle to Mary at Neapolis. Also, a letter from Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius is included in this collection. There is much binitarian and trinitarian thought in these works. The concerns seem closer to the Nicene age (or later) than the Apostolic Fathers. The spurious epistles appear to be packed with references to Scripture, more than the authentic letters. Does this indicate more of a familiarity with the developing canon of Scripture? Does it expose these letters as less situational that the authentic ones?

- The correspondance with Mary is interesting. It is short, brief, and supports the apostolic witness of John. I wonder about the purpose of its composition as relates to Ignatius?

- The Martyrdom of Ignatius depicts Ignatius of Antioch’s martyrdom as occurring soon after Trajan became emperor (98-117 CE). The second chapter puts the death after Trajan’s ninth year, which would be around 107 CE. Eusebius places his death around 108 CE. Ignatius is depicted as desiring martyrdom. He has a trial before Trajan, defends Jesus as Lord against Trajan’s mockery, and when Trajan sentences him to die in Rome he rejoices. Chapter III claims Ignatius and Polycarp to have been disciples of the Apostle John.

- The Epistle of Barnabas is old enough to be attributed to Barnabas, Paul’s contemporary and partner in mission. Whether or not it was written by this man is debated (unlikely?), but it does give a peak into early Christianity. The themes are similar to the Epistle to the Hebrews (canonical) in that the Old Covenant is depicted as having ended with the New Covenant reigning. Judaism’s rites and rituals are depicted as foreshadowing the present, but obsolete now. This epistle is far more positive toward the Old Covenant’s role than the Epistle to Diognetus and it is allegorical in it’s approach.

- The fragments that remain from Papias‘ writings from The Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord have gained a lot of attention recently. I plan on dedicating a post to Papias next week, so I won’t be sharing anything about him here.

- Technically, our reading of Justin Martyr began this week, but I am going to move my thoughts and quotes from Justin to next week’s post.

__________

12.08.2012

12.15.2012