Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John

in Vigiliae Christianae
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

The question of whether or not Papias recorded anything about John’s Gospel has garnered a lot of attention in the scholarly realms of New Testament and Patristics alike. Most notably, Charles E. Hill has recently argued that a portion of Eusebius’ testimony (HE 3.24.5-13) on the origins of the Gospel of John derives from the record of Papias. Aspects of Hill’s proposal are largely convincing, particularly the links he draws between Eusebius’ testimony and other writers who knew the Papian tradition. However, Hill has overestimated the influence of Papias on Eusebius’ account and missed a crucial, albeit subtle, correction by Eusebius against his hero, Origen. This article suggests that the argument for Gospel compatibility found in 3.24.8b-13 is Eusebius’ own direct response to the criticisms raised by Origen that the divergent chronology of the Gospel of John demonstrates its historical unreliability.

Papias, Origen, and Eusebius: The Criticisms and Defense of the Gospel of John

in Vigiliae Christianae

Sections

References

  • 1)

    C.E. Hill“What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,” Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1998) 582-629. Hill’s argument develops the earlier notice of V. Bartlet “Papias’ ‘Exposition’: Its Date and Contents” in H.G. Wood (ed.) Amicitiae Corolla. A Volume of Essays Presented to James Rendel Harris D. Litt. On the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (London 1933) 15-44.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5)

    See Hill“What Papias Said” 588-592.

  • 7)

    See Hill“What Papias Said” 592-596. Hill lists the following examples: (i) authorial humility (ii) distillation of apostolic preaching (iii) Apostolic “memoirs” (ὑποµνήµατα) (iv) order of events in the Gospels (τάξις) and (v) canonical ratification.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10)

    BauckhamJesus and the Eyewitnesses433.

  • 11)

    E.g. EusebiusHE 3.24.8b-10 12-13.

  • 12)

    BauckhamJesus and the Eyewitnesses433.

  • 20)

    S. Laeuchli“The Polarity of the Gospels in the Exegesis of Origen,” Church History 21 (1952) 215.

  • 21)

    Hill“What Papias Said” 596-606.

  • 26)

    Bauckham“Papias and Polycrates” 55.

  • 29)

    BauckhamJesus and the Eyewitnesses433; cf. Bartlet “Papias’ ‘Exposition’” 27 n. 1.

  • 30)

    Hill“What Papias Said” 593-4 599 and “Orthodox Gospel” 288.

  • 31)

    BauckhamJesus and the Eyewitnesses433.

  • 37)

    BauckhamJesus and the Eyewitnesses434-5.

  • 38)

    See Hill“What Papias Said” 592 596.

  • 41)

    BauckhamJesus and the Eyewitnesses436.

  • 42)

    Id. 435. See also Bartlet“Papias’ ‘Exposition’” 27; Hengel The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels trans. J. Bowden. (London 2000) 45; 238 n. 192; cf. H. von Campenhausen Formation of the Christian Bible trans. J.A. Baker (London 1972) 130-134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45)

    E. Schwartz‘Über den Tod der Söhne Zebedaei. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesevangeliums,’ Abhandlungen d. Göttinger Gesellschaft der Wiss. N. F. VII 5 (1904) 3-53 cited from E. Schwartz Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin 1963) V 48-123. The pagination cited maintains that of his original article.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47)

    Schwartz“Über den Tod” 44-45. See also J.D. Smith Jr. “Gaius and the Controversy over the Johannine Literature.” (Ph.D. diss. Yale University 1979) 190-196.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48)

    ET in Harris“Presbyter Gaius” 48. Harris also notes (47-48) that two Latin translations by Dudley Loftus of bar Salibi’s Commentary on John (MSS. Bodleian Fell 6 and 7) read: “Gaius haereticus reprehendat Johannem . . . ” However see Allen Brent Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century: Communities in Tension before the Emergence of a Monarch-Bishop. Vigiliae Christianae Supplement 31 (Leiden 1995) 145. Brent notes that there is “clear evidence” that the inclusion of the name “Gaius” in Loftus’ translation was based on the scribal correction of a nameless heretic in MS. Add. 7184. Indeed the only early Syriac MS that contains Gaius’ name in the original text found in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris: Cod. Paris. syr. 67 fol. 270 ro col. 2; translated into English by Smith “Gaius” 591. Yet this MS may very well be based on the edited MS that includes Gaius’ name as well.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49)

    Harris“Presbyter Gaius” 49.

  • 50)

    Also noted by HillJohannine Corpus192-194.

  • 53)

    Robinson“Authorship” 481.

  • 55)

    BrentHippolytus134.

  • 57)

    E. Schwartz“Johannes und Kerinthos,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kïrche 15 (1914) 210-219.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58)

    BrentHippolytus140-144.

  • 64)

    English translation in WilliamsPanarion47.

  • 66)

    HillJohannine Corpus190.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 95 94 4
Full Text Views 142 142 3
PDF Downloads 12 12 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0