¹ This article has appeared in Danish in the publication in honor of Hugo Odeberg (Svensk exegetik årsbok xII–xIII, 1957–1958, pp. 172–190). Appendix A has, however, been added here, as I was only later able to consider Lawlor's hypothesis.

² Schwartz, ' edition, GCS, vol. 9, 1–3 (1903–1909Google Scholar); The Church History of Eusebius, by A. C. McGiffert (1890), (Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, vol. I).

³ Papias has been mentioned earlier II, 15, 2; III, 36, 2.

⁴ Cf. preface 1. 15: τῇ πίστει.

⁵ The diagonal strokes mark the lines in the text of Eusebius in Schwartz' edition, viz. ll. 10–22.

⁶ The division of the names into groups by the repetition of τί is of no significance. See the earlier discussion in Carl L. Leimbach, Das Papiasfragment (1875), pp. 104 ff.

⁷ This Aristion is otherwise unknown. Conybeare reported (The Expositor, 4th ser., vol. 8 (1893), pp. 241–254) that in an Armenian manuscript of the gospels in Edschmiatzin he had found a break before the longer conclusion to Mark, and a heading to this which ran: By the Presbyter Ariston (facsimile in H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1902) opposite p. CIV). Conybeare assumed that the passage is a tradition from Aristion deriving from Papias' work, and he has ibid., 5th ser., vol. 2 (1895), pp. 401–421, defended his theory against Resch and Zahn. Incidentally it is believed that Aristion is intended in Const, ap. VII, 46 (MPG I, 1053, 4 and 5) (Ἀρίστων) as the name of the first and the third bishop of Smyrna.

⁸ Eusebius leaves it as an open question, however, both here and in III, 25, 2 and 4.

⁹ Possibly by Aristion and John the presbyter, but this is not explicitly stated.

¹⁰ As Chapman has rightly noticed (reported by Rendel Harris in Testimonies II (1920), pp. 119–120), Eusebius exploits Papias' modest estimate of his own abilities for polemical purposes. It was the convention for the author of an early Christian treatise to declare in the preface that he was no writer, could not compose a book, etc. See Irenaeus, Adv. hær. I, præfat.; Clem. Alex., Strom. I, ch. 1; cf. Eusebius, H. E. III, 24, 5, where it is related of the Evangelists Matthew and John that it is with reluctance that they have begun to write (cf. Canon Muratorianus, ll. 9–16), and VI, 13, 9, where Clement has been compelled by his friends to hand down to posterity a written account of the traditions he heard from the old presbyters. Thus through Eusebius' malicious argument we may assume that we know a part of the preface otherwise lost.

¹¹ H. E. III, 39, 1, Eusebius quotes Irenæus' description of Papias as an ἀρχαῖοςἀνήρ, and here in 39, 13 he speaks of his ἀρχαιότης, which Eusebius does not deny. And in fact Eusebius places Papias in the 3rd book of his History, where he begins with the apostles' journeys throughout the earth after the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem, and continues with events during the reign of Domitian and Trajan (concluded IV, 2), including 1 Clem., the persecution under Domitian, and the apostle John, the order of the gospels, the death of John and Philip, Ignatius and his letters, and Papias' writings. This chronology shows that Eusebius did not doubt that Papias belonged to the earliest Christian period. Cf. Bartlet, Papias's “Exposition”: its Date and Contents, Amicitiæ Corolla (1933), pp. 15–44, see pp. 20–23, and Gutwenger, Papias. Eine chronologische Studie, Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol. 69 (1947), pp. 385–416, see pp. 403–405.

¹² Conybeare also found in the above-mentioned Armenian gospel manuscript a version of the pericope (John 7, 53–8, 11) about a woman who “was taken in sins”; Jesus writes in the sand, and those present see “their many sins on the stones.” Conybeare believes this to be the version known to Papias and the Gospel according to the Hebrews (The Expositor, 5th ser., vol. 2 (1895), pp. 405–409). Cf. Bacon, ibid., 6th ser., No. LXIII (1905), pp. 161–177.

¹³ Cf. Lightfoot, , “Supernatural Religion.” V. Papias of Hierapolis, in The Contemporary Review 26 (1875), pp. 377–403Google Scholar and 828–856, see p. 389; Zahn in Forsch. z. Gesch. d. nt. Kanons 6 (1900), p. 131; Bartlet, op. cit., p. 31.

¹⁴ Cf. Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 388.

¹⁵ See especially vol. I, chs. 12–15, and vol. II, ch. 11. Rendel Harris cites in support F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission (1906), pp. 124–128.

¹⁶ Thus for example T. W. Manson, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, Bull. of the John Rylands Library 29 (1945–46), pp. 392–428. This contains a survey of the meaning of λόγια from Lx to Tatian (pp. 411–428). A similar survey is given by Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 399–403, and Doeve in Studia Paulina (1953), pp 111–123.

¹⁷ ThWB IV, 144–145, cf. Zahn, Gesch. d. nt. Kanons I (1888), pp. 857–861. Lightfoot mentions this agreement in usage p. 402, but with reservations as regards the argument.

¹⁸ His name suggests that he is a native of Hierapolis. It is used for the Hierapolitan Zeus (Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 385–386), and is common in the neighborhood (Lightfoot, and Hatch, W. H. P., Über den Namen Papias, ZNW 12 (1911), p. 83)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ This oral tradition may be illustrated by Irenseus' letter to Florinus (quoted by Eusebius, H. E. V, 20, 6), in which he mentions “those speeches Polycarp made to the people, how he described his intercourse with John, and with the others, who had seen the Lord, and how he remembered (ἀπεμνημόνευεν) their words and what he had heard from them about the Lord, both of his mighty deeds and his teaching. As one who had received this from eye-witnesses to ‘the Word of Life,’ Polycarp recounted all in accordance with the Scriptures.” Here we have a picture of Papias, if like Polycarp he had chosen to be an oral bearer of tradition; but the passage quoted also throws light on a disciple of the presbyters who, like Papias, embarks on writing.

²⁰ Cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem II, §§ 10–14 (ed. Niese, 2nd ed. (1955), vol. V, 55, 10–56, 5).

²¹ In connection with these words, Kleist points out (Ancient Christian Writers 6 (1948), p. 204, note 7) that the Greeks preferred the spoken, living word to written words, and quotes Plato, Phaedr. 275 D-E. But this text, to which Clem. Alex, refers Strom. I, 9, 1–2 (ed. Stählin, II, 7, 15–27) and I, 14, 4 (II, 11, 6–9), is far above Papias' level.

²² Paulus (1845), p. 221.

²³ Already Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 391. Against his theory it must be objected that Eusebius, H. E. IV, 7, places the rise of the gnostic heresies in the reign of Hadrian, and names among their opponents—in addition to Agrippa Castor in 7,6—Hegesippus and Justin in Ch. 8. If Papias opposed heretical exegetic works, as assumed by Lightfoot, there is at all events no mention of the fact in that passage in Eusebius where we would expect to find it.

²⁴ One is tempted to delete “disciples of the Lord” after the last two names, as several have done, see e.g. Mommsen, T., Papianisches ZNW 3 (1902), 156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but lectio difficilior is to be preferred.

²⁵ Reservations may be made in the case of James, who could be the Lord's brother, and of Philip, who could be the evangelist, but both are uncertain. But if, as assumed below, Papias distinguishes clearly between John the apostle and John the presbyter, it is best to take both James and Philip (cf. Eusebius, H. E. III, 39, 9) to be apostles.

²⁶ Rengstorf's article μαθητής ThWB IV, 417–464 maintains that a traditional principle is lacking in Jesus' disciples. This thesis has recently been contested by H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings (1957).

²⁷ Ignatius, Magn. 9,1; 10,1; Pol. 2,1; in Clem. Alex., e.g., Paid. 1,30,1 (I,108,7).

²⁸ In the Gospel of St. John the word apostle is not used of the closest disciples of Jesus, and Papias seems to follow the same usage when he applies the expression “the Lord's disciples” to seven apostles. It is presumably the same Asia Minor usage we encounter in Irenæus (references from whom are first given with book, chapter, page and line according to Stieren, then with volume, page and line according to Harvey), when he mentions the apostle John as the Lord's disciple, Adv. hær. II,22,5 (ed. Stieren I,1853 p.359,18; ed. Harvey, 1857, I,331,8); III, 1, 1 (423,18; II,6,3); III,3,4 (435,9; II,13,10); III, 11,1 (462,13; II, 40,6, and 463, 9; II,40,20 f.). Clement of Alexandria and the gnostic texts vary between disciple and apostle, with a majority of the former in the gnostic texts. The same alternation is to be found in the scanty material in the Epistula apostolorum.

²⁹ Ephes. 1,2; Trail. 5,2; Rom. 4,2; 5,3; Pol. 7,1.

³⁰ II,20,4–5 alternates between disciple and apostle, see 351,30; I,323,22; 352,5; I,323,26–27, and 18; I,324,2–3.

³¹ This has been the initial assumption of many, who have not attempted to justify it. But John Chapman, John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel (1911), has investigated the usage in Irenæeus and Eusebius and holds that “presbyter” has “a technical meaning — primitive subapostolic witnesses who were not Apostles nor disciples of the Lord but usually disciples of Apostles” (p. 19, note 1).

³² Presbyters (seniores) are quoted in the singular or the plural: in Adv. Hær. I,15,6 (192,14; I,155,14; 194,3; I,156,7) the unknown presbyter has carried on a controversy against the heretics; cf. IV, Præf. 2 (558,12; II,144,12–13), where presbyters are not expressly mentioned (ante nos … et quidem multo nobis meliores [a description elsewhere applied to the presbyters]). The superior nobis mentioned in III.17,4 (516,25; II,95,2) could be the writer referred to in I, Præf. 1,2 (6,1; I,3,6). Cf. also the anonymous quidam or qui: IV,4,2 (568,13; II,153,4), and IV,41,2 (709,7 f.; II,304,21). Ex veteris quidam is uncertain, because veteres often meant the men under the Old Covenant (thus IV,2 7,i (648,3; 11,239,2); IV,27,2 (651,23; 11,242,5); cf. antiqui IV,31,1 (661,25; II,251,17), and cf. Clem. Alex., Strom. III,72,1 (ed. Stählin II,228,23); οἱ πρεσβύτεροι). The long passage IV,27–32, where a presbyter is often quoted, namely IV,27,1 (648,1; II,238,27; 650,27; II,241,8); 27,2 (651,23; II,242,5); 28,1 (654,24; II,244,26), where presbyters are discussed; 30,1 (658,15; II,248,5); 31,1 (661,25; II,251,17); 32,1 (664,5; II, 254,8–9), seems to be aimed at the gnostic heresies and to derive from a writer who is described as a presbyter, while the subject seems to continue into ch. 33. — Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 841, points out that a statement that the presbyters say etc. refers to something written, while “audivi a quodam presbytero,” IV,27,1 f. (648,1; II,238,27); “sicut et presbyter dicebat,” IV,30,1 (658,15; II,248,5); “Talia quaedam enarrans de antiquis presbyter, reficiebat nos et dicebat,” IV, 31,1 (661,25; II,251,17); “senior apostolorum discipulus disputabat,” IV,32,1 (664,5; 11,254,8–9) refer to the conversations of the Elders. This correct observation leads, to such difficulties, however (e.g., 648,1; II,238,27, cf. 650,27; II,241,8, and 651,23; II,242,5), that the question cannot be discussed here.

³³ A large group of early church writers and bearers of tradition known as presbyters includes a certain number of disciples of the apostles: Epideixis, ch. 3; Adv. hær. IV,32,1 (664,5; II,254,8–9); V,5,1 (728,5 f.; II,331,5); 36,2 (819,10; II,428,26); cf. V,36,1 (818,7; 11,427,12 f.), including disciples of John, the Lord's disciple: II,22,5 (359,16 f.; 17331,7–8); cf. V,30,1 (799,17; 11,406,10) where presbyters are not mentioned; V,33,3 (809,16; 11,417,17–18). Immediately after the last passage Papias is quoted, as cited by Eusebius, H. E. III,39,1.

³⁴ It is in Protreptikos § 113,1 (I,79,25) that Clement writes of philosophy that, as the men of old (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι) say, it is good counsel for a long time, since it pursues an eternal love (ἔρως) of wisdom. But as in § 112, Clement contrasts this with the teachings of the Word, which make it unnecessary to pursue the teachings of mankind, and to give heed to Athens and the rest of Hellas and Ionia also. Thus the quotation does not derive from Clement's Christian teachers (as Stählin believes when he refers to Harnack, Überlieferung, pp. 292 f.), but from men of an earlier age, such as Aristotle or Poseidonios, who have exhorted men to philosophize. This cannot be proved, owing to the fragmentary state of the extant Protreptikos literature, but the idea cannot have been alien to a treatise of this type. In Alkinoos' summary of Plato's philosophy (Platon ed. C. F. Hermann (Teubner), vol. 6, 1873, pp. 152–189), we find at the beginning of ch. I (p. 152,2), ϕιλοσοϕία ἐστν ρεξιςσοϕίας.

³⁵ Cf. W. Telfer, J. of Theol. Stud. 28, 1927, pp. 169–170. The words τò πνεũμαέκεῖνο τò κεχαριτωμένον, Strom. I,14,1 (II,10,18) presumably also refer to Pantainos.

³⁶ Cf. fr.8 = Eusebius, H.E. VI,14,5–7 (III,197,17 ff.) and fr.25 = H.E. VI, 13,9 (III,216,5). Cf. Eusebius, H.E. II,9,2 (τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ) and fr.48 (III,224,14): οἱ περὶ Πάνταινον.

³⁷ Cf. Eusebius' remarks V,11,2; VI,13,2. “The blessed presbyter,” ibid., 14,4, is not necessarily Pantainos, just as “the tradition of the old presbyters,” ibid., 14,5, does not necessarily come from the Catechetical School in Alexandria (see my “Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandria” (1933), pp. 173 ff.).

³⁸ Cf. Lightfoot, op. cit., pp. 379–380.

³⁹ For Origen's use of the word see Zahn, Forsch.z.Gesch.d.nt.Kanons 6 (1900), p. 58, note 2.

⁴⁰ As Lightfoot correctly observes, op. cit., p. 379, “The term with him is a synonym for the Fathers of the Church in the first generation.”

⁴¹ In “Papias and the Four Gospels,” Scottish Journal of Theology 9 (1956), pp. 46–62, Annand assumes on p. 46 that Papias is enumerating three things in his preface: 1) what he learned from the presbyters; 2) what the disciples of the presbyters related, and 3) what Aristion and John the presbyter say. Thus ἅ τε Ἀριστ.κτλ. depends on συγκατατάξαι in l.11, and καί ὅσα κτλ. in l.10 is taken up by εἰδέ που κτλ. in l.16, and later by ἅ τε Ἀρ. in l.19. In addition Annand believes that Eusebius has understood the opening lines of the preface to concern “sayings derived from the elders.” Lambot, “Les Presbytres de ‘L'Exegesis’ de Papias,” Revue Bénédictine 43 (1931), pp. 116–123, see p. 117, holds Eusebius to have interpreted Papias as meaning that not only the presbyters mentioned, but Aristion and John the presbyter also, hand on what the apostles said, ἅ then introduces an explicative relative clause in apposition to the interrogative clause immediately preceding it. And τε–καί thus stands for “both Aristion and John the presbyter.” It is better to assume with E. Mayser, Grammatik d. griech. Papyri aus d. Ptolemäerzeit II,1 (1926), pp. 78–79 and II,3,1934, pp. 52–53, that the direct interrogative pronoun and the relative pronoun can be substituted for each other, so that ἅ is here used in an indirect interrogative clause, parallel with the preceding sentence. In that case τε connects the ἅ-clause with the preceding sentence (cf. Kühner-Gerth II (1904), § 519,2 (p. 242)).

⁴² See Appendix A.

⁴³ On this point scholars, who otherwise differ, agree. It is maintained both by those who believe the apostle to be mentioned twice, and by those who hold that “John the presbyter,” as distinct from the apostle, is that John who wrote the Gospel and the Epistles and lived to a ripe old age.

⁴⁴ Contrary to Chapman, who uses this particular example, but wrongly (p. 39).

⁴⁵ Perella, G. M., II testo di San Papia circa “Giovanni l'anziano,” Divus Thomas (Piacenza), 43 (1940), pp. 47–56Google Scholar; cf. J. Vernon Bartlet, op. cit. (1933), E. Gutwenger, op. cit. (1947) and R. Annand, op. cit. (1956) (even earlier). Of other recent literature (see e.g., Altaner, Patrologie³, p. 84), which I regret I have not had the opportunity to read, I should like to mention in particular Donovan in Irish Ecclesiastical Record (1928), pp. 337–350 and 1931, pp. 124–137 and 483–500.