Life and teaching of Papias.
If we may judge by his name, Papias was a native of Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis[160], of which he afterwards became bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early manhood before the close of the first century. He is said to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independently of any chronological difficulty which it involves[161]. Otherwise |Account of Eusebius.|he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding the Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Irenæus[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and character.
Much has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however, which has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence.
A modern hypothesis respecting Christianity in Asia Minor stated and discussed.
It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St. John is supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and important representative[165].
The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat along the whole line.
The position of St. John
Of St. John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has been shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not only not opposed to St. Paul’s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no support; and, when from St. John we turn to Papias, the case is not different. |and of Papias.|The advocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early disciples; but St. Paul is not named among them. He also gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St. John and the first Epistle of St. Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St. Paul’s writings. Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canonical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is equally silent about St. Paul.
On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two cases are essentially different, and must be considered apart.
1. The traditions collected by Papias.
(1) The range of personal testimony which Papias would be able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St. Paul would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St. Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St. John, which, beginning where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a century. To St. John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representative of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenæus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St. John and his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with the work and teaching of St. Paul. But indeed, even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St. Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,’ and he sought to supplement and interpret these by traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St. Paul could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes.
2. His references to the Canonical writings.
(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention of St. Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with quotations from or references to the Canonical writings the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St. Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St. Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not |No weight to be attached to the silence of Eusebius.| even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have quoted St. Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St. Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘employs some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter[168].’ Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenæus also. Irenæus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St. Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp and Irenæus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some curious fact relating to St. Paul, it would not have occurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St. Paul were universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his silence in the case of Papias[170].
The views of Papias inferred from his associates.
But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St. Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenæus ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenæus[171].