Saint Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60 – c. 140)

A bishop of Phrygia on the threshold of the apostolic age

Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia in the valley of the river Lycus, very close to Laodicea and Colossae — those communities which Saint Paul names in his Epistle to the Colossians^[5]. It is a region deeply marked by the first Christian preaching in Asia Minor. Eusebius, who presents him among the "illustrious" men of that time, expressly designates him as bishop of Hierapolis^[6].

His life almost entirely escapes us in detail. His birth is placed around 60-70 and his death around 130-140, which makes him a younger contemporary of the last Apostles and an elder of Polycarp and Irenaeus. The date of composition of his work is itself discussed: the Catholic Encyclopedia places it "in his old age, say between 115 and 140"^[7]. On the scale of Christian generations, Papias thus occupies a pivotal position: he is still close enough to the origins to question those who had known the disciples of the Lord, and already late enough to comment on them in writing.

"A hearer of John, a companion of Polycarp"

It is Saint Irenaeus of Lyon who offers us the most famous presentation of Papias. In the last book of his great treatise Against Heresies, he calls him by a formula that has become classic:

"These things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, in the fourth of his books — for there were five books compiled by him." — Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies V, 33, 4^[8]

Three traits stand out from this sentence. Papias is first an "ancient man" (archaios anêr): for Irenaeus, writing around 180, he already belongs to a venerable past. He is then a "companion of Polycarp", the bishop of Smyrna himself a direct disciple of the apostle John — see Saint Polycarp of Smyrna. He is finally a "hearer of John": according to Irenaeus, Papias personally heard the apostle John.

Saint Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, takes up the same tradition: in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, he presents Papias as "a disciple of John, bishop of Hierapolis", author of five volumes entitled Exposition of the Words of the Lord^[9]. The Roman Martyrology, on February 22, likewise describes him as the one who, "having heard John the presbyter and having been a companion of Polycarp, set forth the words of the Lord"^[10].

But here creeps in a difficulty which we shall meet again further on: which John is meant? The apostle, son of Zebedee, or another disciple of the Lord named John "the presbyter"? Irenaeus decides for the apostle; Eusebius, an attentive reader of the prologue of Papias, doubts it. The Roman Martyrology, as we see, prudently speaks of "John the presbyter". This question of the two Johns is one of the most discussed enigmas of New Testament criticism.

A work almost entirely lost

The single book of Papias bore, in Greek, the title Logiôn kyriakôn exêgêsis — "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord", or "Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord"^[11][12]. The Greek word logia does not mean only "sayings": it evokes oracles, utterances clothed with divine authority, like Scripture. The project of Papias was thus to gather and interpret the tradition received on the acts and teachings of Christ.

This work in five books disappeared, probably in the Middle Ages. We know of it only what others quoted from it: some twenty fragments, the most important of which are preserved by Irenaeus (Against Heresies V, 33) and by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Ecclesiastical History (book III, chapter 39), the true "gateway" to all we know of Papias^[13][14]. Other scraps surface in Jerome, in Apollinaris of Laodicea, in Philip of Side and in late exegetical chains. It is little — but this little lastingly shaped Christian memory.

This scattering in sparse quotations poses a problem of method: reconstructing a vanished work from witnesses with very different interests. Irenaeus, around 180, quotes Papias to support his own millenarian hope and to hand down the formula "hearer of John, companion of Polycarp". Eusebius, around 320-325, quotes him on the contrary to discredit that same hope, while borrowing from him the substance of what he reports on the origin of Mark and Matthew, on the daughters of Philip and on the two Johns. Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, limits himself to a bibliographical summary in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, without any developed quotation. The following table recapitulates, source by source, what each of these four ancient channels effectively hands down to us from the lost work of Papias.

The prologue: the preference for the "living voice"

The most precious fragment is the prologue quoted by Eusebius. In it Papias explains his method: he did not content himself with compiling books, he questioned those who had approached the disciples of the Lord.

"I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, whatsoever things I have at any time learnt carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, for I was sure of their truth. […] If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord; and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice." — Papias of Hierapolis, prologue of the Exposition, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 3-4^[15]

This sentence is one of the oldest Christian testimonies to the value of oral tradition. For Papias, the "living and abiding voice" (zôsês phônês kai menousês) — transmission from mouth to ear, along the chain of witnesses — is worth more than a dead text on a scroll. This preference has sometimes been set against the authority of Scripture; that is a misunderstanding. Papias does not devalue books: he lives at a moment when the Gospels already exist, but when the memory of the direct witnesses is not yet extinct. He does what any serious historian would do: he seeks the source closest to the event.

This intuition meets a profoundly Catholic theme: faith is handed down not only through texts, but through a living Tradition, carried by men, guaranteed by apostolic succession. Papias is one of its first conscious witnesses.

The method of Papias: gathering the received tradition

The approach of Papias is, in its own way, historical and critical. He distinguishes two levels of informants. On one side, what the great, now departed disciples had said (in the past): Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew. On the other, what two still-living witnesses of his own time say (in the present), Aristion and "the presbyter John"^[16]. Papias therefore does not claim to have received everything directly from the Apostles: he above all questioned the intermediate generation, those who had followed the presbyters.

This precision is essential for assessing his authority. Papias is not an eyewitness of Christ; he is a careful collector of second- and third-hand tradition, writing at a moment when that tradition could still be checked against survivors. This explains both the value of his testimony on the origin of the Gospels and the fragility of certain marvellous anecdotes which he gathered without always filtering them.

Aristion and the presbyter John: the enigma of the two Johns

Reading this prologue attentively, Eusebius notices that the name of John occurs in it twice. The first time in the list of the Apostles (with Peter, James, Matthew), the second, "after an interval", among other disciples, beside Aristion. Eusebius draws a conclusion from this:

"The first he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the other apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles." — Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 5-6^[17]

There would thus have been, at Ephesus and in Asia, two Johns: the apostle, son of Zebedee, and a distinct disciple called "John the presbyter" (or "the Elder"). Eusebius has an interest in this distinction: it allows him to attribute the Apocalypse not to the apostle but to the presbyter, whose millenarianism embarrasses him less. The question is still not settled among scholars. The principal positions:

Whatever solution is adopted, the essential remains: Papias stands only one or two generations away from the Apostles, in the Johannine hearth of Asia Minor from which Polycarp too would come.

If Papias is so much quoted, it is above all for two notices which are the oldest known testimonies on the writing of the Gospels. They nourished all subsequent reflection on the "synoptic problem".

The testimony on the Gospel of Mark, interpreter of Peter

On Mark, Papias reports a saying received from the "presbyter":

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the discourses of the Lord." — Papias, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 15^[18]

This short paragraph affirms several strong things. Mark did not know Christ directly: he is the secretary and interpreter of Peter, whose preaching he sets down in writing. His faithfulness is entire — "whatsoever he remembered" — but his order is not chronological: he transcribes the teaching of Peter as the latter adapted it to the needs of his hearers. See Saint Mark the Evangelist.

The testimony on the Gospel of Matthew, the logia in Hebrew

On Matthew, the notice is even briefer — and more debated:

"So then Matthew wrote the oracles [the logia] in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." — Papias, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 16^[19]

This sentence is the origin of the tradition of a "Hebrew Matthew" or Aramaic one: the apostle is said to have first composed a collection of the words of the Lord in the language of the Jews of Palestine, afterwards translated into Greek. Scholars discuss the exact sense of logia (a collection of sayings? the whole Gospel?) and of hebraïdi dialektô (Hebrew, Aramaic, or simply "Semitic style"?). But the fact retained is decisive: very early, the Church attaches the first Gospel to the apostle Matthew and to a primitive Jewish-Christian milieu.

Why this double testimony is decisive for apologetics

The importance of Papias for the defence of the faith comes down to one word: antiquity. No later than around 130, thus at a distance of only two or three generations from the facts, a bishop of Asia already affirms:

• that the Gospel of Mark derives from the preaching of Peter, an eyewitness;
• that the Gospel of Matthew goes back to the apostle Matthew himself.

This testimony predates by about two centuries the complete manuscripts we possess, and it converges with what Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian will independently say. For anyone seeking to establish that the Gospels are not anonymous and late compositions but texts attached from the origin to the Apostles and their interpreters, Papias is the first link in the chain. That is why every serious dossier on the reliability of the Gospels begins with him.

Papias did not only hand down precious data: he also gathered marvellous tales which show both the vitality of primitive Christian memory and the lack of critical sense for which Eusebius would reproach him.

The daughters of Philip

Hierapolis sheltered a living apostolic memory: the daughters of Philip — the apostle, or the evangelist, one of the Seven, tradition hesitates — had settled there and were buried there. Papias, their contemporary, gathered extraordinary traditions from their lips.

"Papias, their contemporary, relates that he had heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip: … that a dead man was raised to life in his day." — after Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 9^[20]

The fact that these women, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as prophetesses, directly handed down to Papias memories of the apostolic age concretely illustrates what he called the "living voice".

Justus Barsabbas and the poison

From the same milieu, Papias holds the story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas — that candidate who, in the Acts (1:23), had been put forward with Matthias to replace Judas:

"He relates another marvel respecting Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: he drank a deadly poison and, through the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm." — after Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 9^[21]

The tale illustrates the promise of Mark 16:18 ("if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them") and nourishes the image of a primitive Church accompanied by signs.

The woman accused of many sins

Papias lastly hands down an anecdote whose posterity has been considerable:

"He also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." — after Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 17^[22]

Many scholars have connected this tale with the famous episode of the adulterous woman (John 7:53 – 8:11), a passage whose textual history is complex. If the connection is correct, Papias would be one of the oldest witnesses to this Gospel tradition. The article does not decide a point which remains debated; it only notes that, from the early second century, this tale circulated in the memory of the Church.

The death of Judas: an extraordinary fragment

An exegetical chain further attributes to Papias a striking fragment on the death of Judas, describing his body swollen in a monstrous fashion^[23]. This text, preserved under the name of Apollinaris of Laodicea, shows the taste of Papias for concrete and sometimes coarse traditions — and it fed the difficult harmonization of the accounts of the end of Judas between Matthew 27 and Acts 1.

The prophecy of the vine with ten thousand branches

The most astonishing fragment left to us by Papias concerns the millennial reign of Christ. Irenaeus quotes it as a saying which "the elders who saw John" reported from the Lord:

"The days will come in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty measures of wine." — sayings reported by Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 33, 3, and borne witness to in writing by Papias (V, 33, 4)^[24]

This description of a supernatural fertility illustrates a very material hope: after the resurrection, Christ would reign a thousand years upon this earth, in a paradisal abundance. This is chiliasm (from chilioi, "thousand") or millenarianism.

The severe judgment of Eusebius

Eusebius, who firmly rejects millenarianism, seizes the occasion to belittle Papias:

"For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses." — Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History III, 39, 13^[25]

For Eusebius, Papias misunderstood apostolic sayings spoken "in a mystical and figurative manner", taking them literally; worse, by his authority as an "ancient man", he is said to have drawn into this error men as considerable as Irenaeus^[26]. The verdict is harsh, and it lastingly coloured the reputation of Papias: this stinging formula is often remembered before the priceless witness to the Gospels.

How to read the millenarianism of Papias today

Here one must carefully distinguish, as Catholic rigour requires. Material millenarianism — the expectation of an earthly and carnal reign of Christ for a thousand years before the end — has not been retained by the Church. The Catechism expressly sets it aside:

"The Antichrist's deception already begins to unfold in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment: the Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism." — Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 676^[27]

But this doctrinal clarification does not disqualify Papias as a witness or as a saint. First because his millenarianism belongs to an era when doctrine was not yet fixed: great minds such as Irenaeus, Justin or Tertullian shared neighbouring hopes, in all good faith, in a primitive Christianity where the contours of eschatology remained open. Then because error on one point does not erase the value of a testimony on another: Papias is mistaken about the form of the Kingdom, but he faithfully hands down what he received on the origin of the Gospels. Eusebius himself, even as he mocks him, does not cast doubt on the latter information. One may therefore hold at once that material millenarianism is erroneous and that Papias remains a saint and a precious witness — without illuminism, but without contempt either. For the detail of the question, see Millenarianism.

A martyrdom at Pergamum? An uncertain tradition

The circumstances of the death of Papias remain uncertain. A late tradition, recorded in the Chronicon Paschale (Paschal Chronicle), affirms that he suffered martyrdom at Pergamum, around 161-165, at about the time of his friend Polycarp^[28]. But no ancient source confirms this account, and the silence of Eusebius — who would not have failed to report such a martyrdom — counsels prudence. Most historians deem it improbable that Papias lived into the 160s; a death at Hierapolis around 130-140 is more readily retained. The tradition of a martyrdom thus remains possible but unestablished, which honesty obliges us to acknowledge.

The feast of February 22

The Church honours Saint Papias on February 22. The Roman Martyrology commemorates him as the bishop of Hierapolis who, "having heard John the presbyter and having been a companion of Polycarp, set forth the words of the Lord"^[29]. The Orthodox calendars likewise honour him on a February 22 — in the Julian calendar: the Russian calendar inscribes him on February 22, old style^[30]. This liturgical persistence, across the centuries, says enough that the memory of the Church retained the witness far more than the mockery of Eusebius over his "limited understanding".

Papias in the memory of the Church

The destiny of Papias is singular: a man whose work has almost entirely vanished, whose eschatological doctrine was set aside, and who nonetheless remains unavoidable. He is quoted in every critical introduction to the Gospels; he is discussed in every debate on the author of the fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse; he is venerated in the calendar of saints. It is because Papias embodies, better than anyone, a unique moment: the one when oral tradition and written tradition still touch, when a bishop of Phrygia could write "I learnt from the presbyters" knowing that his readers would understand of what closeness he spoke.

At the end of this journey, the figure of Papias becomes clearer. He is neither a great theologian like Irenaeus, nor a dazzling martyr like Polycarp or the confessors of the early Church. He is something more discreet and no less necessary: a guardian of memory. At the hour when the last witnesses were disappearing, he took up the pen to fix what he had heard, persuaded that nothing touching the Lord should be lost.

From him, the Church retains three lessons. First the value of living tradition: faith is received, it is handed down from person to person, and not from a mere isolated text. Then humble faithfulness: Papias does not invent, he gathers; he is mistaken about the Kingdom, but he does not falsify what he received. Finally the patience of God towards his imperfect witnesses: a man whom Eusebius judged "of small understanding" is today quoted in every university in the world as the first to have told us how the Gospels were born. Providence gladly makes use of the small.

• Saint Polycarp of Smyrna — the companion of Papias, a direct disciple of the apostle John.
• Saint Irenaeus of Lyon — the theologian who quotes Papias and for a time shares his millenarianism.
• Saint Mark the Evangelist — the interpreter of Peter whose Gospel Papias attests.
• The Reliability of the Gospels — the overall dossier which the testimony of Papias opens.
• The Synoptic Gospels — Matthew, Mark and Luke and the question of their sources.
• Millenarianism — the doctrine of the thousand-year reign, set aside by the Church, which Papias helped to spread.