(S) What can we determine regarding the nature and purpose of the work of Papias? — He contrasts his sources with ' those who have so very much to say ' (rois to TroXXd Xiyomiv), with ' those who relate commandments foreign to the mind of the Lord ' (tois rds dWoTplas evroXas livij/j.ovivoiKni') and with ' the contents of the books ' (to. (k twv fSip\lai>). ' The books' which he mentions have been interpreted as meaning some form of ' the Gospels ' (Jlilicher, Introd., Eng. tr. p. 487), and also as 'writings of Aristion and the Elder John ' (Drummond and Bacon). In regard to the former interpretation, it seems out of the question that Papias should oppose ' the living and abiding voice ' to the sources of his Logia. On the other hand, it is hardly likely that Papias would minimize the value of the oral evidence of Aristion and the Presbyter John by disparaging their written work. The simplest explan.-ition is that given by Lightfoot (followed by Srhwarz. / '.'"/■ den Tod der Sbhne Zebedmi, p. 11), th.it the rxi'getical commentaries on the Gospels written by Gnostics like Basilides are meant. It is to these also that he refers when he speaks of ' foreign commandments ' and of ' those who have so very much to say.' Papias himself seems to have been a commentator on the ' Oracles of the Lord,' and seeks to support his own ex- planations (f fTjyiJffeis) by direct oral tradition from those who were in touch with the first Christian cimimunity.
{<■) ]Vlii!i /".,///'.» docs the Presbyter Johnhold in l',il, ills' rii'ir It is noticeable that while the past li'iisp 'siii.l (eiTTfc) is used of the first group of Ajiostles, as though they were dead at the time of writing, the present tense 'say' {Xiyovaiv) is used of Aristion and the Presbyter John. The entirely unconvincing explanation of Lightfoot, that the
John, gospel of
JOHN, gospel of
tense should probably be regaiiled as an historic present, introduced ' for the sake of variety,' must be rejected. On the other hand, the present tense seems rather meagre evidence on which to rear the liypothesis that books written by these two men were before Papias (so Drummond, Character and Authorship, p. 200), especially as he distinctly tells us that it is oral eWdence of w-hich he is in search. There is eWdence in the writing of Papias that some literary productions of these men were extant, but the intention of Papias in his Preface seems to be to convey the impression that they were alive at the time he -ivrote. Papias had begun, at a much earlier time ('in time past'), to coflect information from the elders, and had gone on doing so up to the time of writin". He means that Aii^tion and .Inhn are still available for any- one wlio \vi~h.- to rheck the authority of the ex-
Thc f(iii'.;iiiim establishes the reality of the second John. It is no longer possible to regard the exist- ence of the Presbyter 'as due to a confusion of Eusebius,' or to accuse Papias of ' slovenliness of composition,' which would lead us to suppose that two Johns are mentioned, while all the time he is only referring to the same man a second time. The question Ls debated by modern critics whether this Presbyter John has any connexion with the author- ship of the Gospel. It is necessary only to indicate the grounds on which the suggestion is based. Eusebius, in the passage from which we have quoted {HE iii. 39), suggests that he is the author of Revelation. He controverts the statement of Irenteus that Papias means to be looked upon as a hearer of the Apostle John, and gathers from the use of the present tense (\iy vaiv) that he is really a hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. We ha^■e seen that in the time of Papias these two men were still alive, but the evidence as to his relationship witli thiMu ratli.T Mi,--'-st.- that he had ii..t himself met thiMii. rapia- -rrni- ti. liava had li. collect inforiuation ali'ial \\\\.o ihcy ■ say.' and I-aisebius himselt' |iur-~ fiiw iiil hi- -tarciiiiait aliniu an oral relatinii-lii|i ui.'irU- a~ a ~uu-r-ii"iL ll .Iocs not foIloNV that lai-rl.iu-. m allril.uiiirj i la. a uthorship of Rcv..|ati.,n 1.. ill.. riv-l.vi.T. .■^..n I. nits at the idea that he isaU.. the auth..r ..t t h.- ( a.spel. He may have regarded it as an advantage to assign another authorship to the book, that the Apostle John might not be held responsible for the millen- arian ideas of Papias. Papias accords the Presbyter no special place of honour in his list, and indeed places him last, after Aristion. If Papias had recorded anything of importance about him, no doubt Eusebius would have noted it, in order to support his view of the authorship of Revelation. See also artt. Ari.stion and Papias.
(ii.) We have next to inquire irhcther tliere is any evidence In the writing of Papias that he used the Fourth Gospel, (a) A passage occius in the wTitings of Irenieus which contains a quotation of Jn 14= ' Our Lord has said, that in the alx>de of my Father are many mansions.' The passage is intro- duced, like many others in Irenieus, as a quotation from the words of 'the Elders.' Is Irentpus here quoting from tlu; sayings of ' the Elders ' as re- ported by Papias ? By the way in which the Johannine quotation is prefaced, it is fair to sup- pose that ' the Elders ' are here referring to a written record, and not reproducing merely oral tradition, and that some well-known and accepted source for the words of our Lord is meant.