Ecclesiastical History 2.45.83-101 PG 145 But concerning the cause of the writing of the Gospel According to Mark we have pointed out a little above in chapter 15 of the present work; how Peter ended the outrage of that abominable Simon [Magus] who played the man [possible sexual reference]. And at evening the light of faith was implanted [in them] and so great a longing of his words in the souls of the listeners that he did not want the words to remain as [unwritten]. And he entreated Mark who at this time followed the apostle, to leave a written record of the unwritten sayings for him. Accordingly after the apostle was glad at the good eagerness of their faith, he dictated to Mark the Gospel and from this he ordained the writing to be read in the churches. .Clement records this reason [why] the Gospel According to Mark [was written] in the eighth [book] of his Hypotyposeis. And likewise Papias Bishop of Hierapolis, as was clearly described a little ways above in the 15th chapter of the present treatise.
Ecclesiastical History 2.46.18-37 PG 145 But indeed of the three [epistles] of John, except the first, the following two [epistles] are disputed as far as many [are concerned]. And opinion has it that there was another elder John, who lived with John in Ephesus as Papias the Heirapolitan says, recording that there are two tombs in Ephesus of the same name, John. And he says one is called "Elder" and [one is called] the Disciple [ὁμιλητὴν] himself. For cataloging the Elders of the apostles he also makes mention of these two, asserting in this way, "If one who followed the Elders should come, I inquired about the words of the Elders, what Andrew or Peter said, or Phillip or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord [said]. And what Aristion and the Elder John [said]. For I did not think I ought [to receive] so much from books but from a living voice.” Indeed the second and third epistle [of John] and also the Apocalypse some imagine that they belong to this Elder who lived in Ephesus
Ecclesiastical History 3.2.40-55 PG 145 And until the times of Trajan these [successors of the Apostles] continued the priesthood, while the beloved disciple still was present in [this] life. After this time also Polycarp of Smyrna became famous who received the Episcopate from John. And the man Papias of Heirapolis, who was also particularly skillful in scripture, sacredly presided over his city. After them Quadratus became eminent in the prophetic gift, being distinguished together with the daughters of Philip. And there were many more than they who manifested the apostolic gifts, who obtained the succession after the apostles. [This] history, as far as it is possible for me, hands down one after another similar things concerning Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias. For now it sets forth as much as [possible] the earliest demonstration of apostolic teaching.
Ecclesiastical History 3.18.1-8 PG 145 The Martyrdom of the Holy Clement of Rome and Concerning his Writings About this time Clement became eminent in Rome and Ignatius also conversed in Antioch. Papias was also writing in Heirapolis. Pancratius, as well, as Polycarp of Smyrna were also preminent. They were disciples of Peter, but Polycarp of the bosom friend.
Ecclesiastical History 3.20.1-89 PG 145 Concerning Papias of Heirapolis and the marvelous things recorded concerning him This Papias of Heirapolis became eminent in apostolic life, he left many writings for the church, but only five are extent, which he entitled "Interpretation of the Lordly Sayings" which also Irenaeus makes mention relating thusly, " These things also Papias, hearer of John, friend of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies in writing in the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him." But Papias, in the preface of his book on the apostles, does not say he himself was an eyewitness, but he says that he received the matters of faith from those who knew them [the apostles] well, through which phrasing he explains [in the following way] "For I shall not hesitate,” he says, “to record for you whatever I carefully learned from the Elders and carefully remembered, along with my interpretations, confirming the truth on their behalf. For I do not rejoice over those who speak many things, as many do, but in the those who teach the truth. Neither those who teach strange commandments but those who teach what was given by the Lord in faith, even what comes from the truth itself. But if ever one who followed the Elders should come, I asked about the words of the Elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Thomas or Philip or what Simon or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord or what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of Lord, say. For I did not believe that the matters of books would aid me as much as the things from a living and abiding voice."
It is necessary to indicate that he lists this same name, John, twice in writing, the former which he reckons with the apostles, possibly he means him to be the beloved disciple, but the latter he places next to Aristion and names him as an Elder Some, who are not ignorant, considered the author of the two epistles of John, which come after the first, and of the Apocalypse to be of the same name. For this Elder was living in Ephesus, opinion has it that there are still preserved two graves there which both say the same name of John.
Now since Papias has been spoken of, he records some other marvels in his books, as they came to him from those who were before him, bear with me, and let us traverse them for a little while.
For indeed in Hierapolis the word distinguished Phillip and his daughters as prophets, he was one of the twelve, not one of the seven deacons, as Luke records in Acts. But he says he also conversed with his daughters from whom he says he learned of a resurrection from the dead which occurred in that time.
Concerning Barsabbas who was also called Justus, whom Acts make mention, he says that he, having drunk a poison potion, was aided by that grace of the lord and was triumphant over it.. And he records many other parables and teachings from unwritten tradition of the Savior and some others that are even more mythical. And he says that after a thousand years there will be a resurrection from the dead in the bodily kingdom of Christ which shall be instituted upon this earth, which I suppose he having misunderstood the promises which were spoken mystically, understood them carnally. As such it is clearly possible to draw inferences of his opinion from his words. Later, regarding the antiquity of the man, many derived a similar notion. Just as Irenaeus did and any other who shared similar opinions.
But he says he has other traditions which were mentioned above, from Aristion and the Elder John, to which we refer those who are fond of learning.
I shall necessarily point of what he says concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. He speaks in this way, " And the Elder John said this, 'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, whatever he remembered he wrote accurately, but he did not indeed right the things said or done by Christ in order, for he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, he followed Peter, and he met the need of teaching, but he did not put the Dominical sayings in order, so that he did not err in any one thing which he wrote, just as he remembered. For the one thing he cared for was not to omit anything which he heard or to lie in some way. But Matthew put in order the oracles in the Hebrew language. And each interpreted them as he was able."
But he also proclaims testimonies from the first epistle of John and likewise that of Peter. And he puts forth another story concerning the woman who was charged with many sins before the lord. And the other writings of Papias have this style.
Ecclesiastical History 4.5.72-73 PG 145 Indeed concerning Papias, Quadratus, Aristides and Castor we have spoken of previously, but now we have to discuss the other writings of Justin.
[AD ????] Anonymous Catena on John
[ Note from Dr. TC Schmidt : My translation. Holmes only says that this catena comes from Balthasar Cordier Catena Patrum Graecorum in Sanctum Joannem Antwerp, 1630. Currently [Aug/09] Google books has only a blank file. The manuscript that Cordier found the catena may possibly be Miniscule 56 but this is mostly guess by me.]
For the last of these, John, who was called the son of thunder, when he was exceedingly old, as both Irenaeus and Eusebius handed down to us, as well as succession of other believers who were historians, at that time when the terrible heresies were sprouting, dictated the gospel to his respectable disciple Papias the Heirapolitan for the completion of those who preached the word before him to the gentiles throughout all the world.
False Fragment: The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the 10th Fragment
The Ante-Nicene Fathers contains 10 fragments of Papias, available at the following sources: [tertullian.org](https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-43.htm#P3497_597426), [earlychristianwritings.com](https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html), [newadvent.org](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm), [ccel.org](https://ccel.org/ccel/ignatius_antioch/fragments_of_papias/anf01.vii.ii.i.html)
The 10th fragment given in the above lists reads thus:
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
This fragment included in that list is of extreme importance - if legitimate, it gives the only historical support to the "Cousin" theory articulated by Jerome around AD 400 to support the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Alas, the often truncated footnote for this fragment says the following:
This fragment was found by Grabe in a ms. of the Bodleian Library, with the inscription on the margin, “Papia.” Westcott states that it forms part of a dictionary written by “a mediæval Papias. [He seems to have added the words, “Maria is called Illuminatrix, or Star of the Sea,” etc, a middle-age device.] The dictionary exists in ms. both at Oxford and Cambridge.”
J.B. Lightfoot wrote the following regarding this fragment in the late 1800s:
The testimony of Papias is frequently quoted at the head of the patristic authorities, as favouring the view of Jerome. The passage in question is an extract, to which the name of this very ancient writer is prefixed, in a Bodleian MS, no. 2397, of the date 1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe’s Spicil. II p. 34, Routh’s Rel. Sacr. I, p. 16, and runs as follows: ‘Maria mater Domini: Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostolic et Symonis et Thadei et cujusdam Joseph: Maria Salome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evangelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii errant materterae Domini; Jacobus quoque et Joannes alterius materterae Domini fuerunt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gentilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit enim lumen mundi; sermone autem Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit Dominum.’ Grabe’s description ‘ad marginem expresse adscriptum lego Papia’ is incorrect; the name is not in the margin but over the passage as a title to it. The authenticity of this fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and by Dean Alford on Matthew 13:55. Two writers also in Smith’s Biblical Dictionary (s.vv. ‘Brother’ and ‘James’), respectively impugning and maintaining the Hieronymian view, refer to it without suspicion. It is strange that able and intelligent critics should not have seen through a fabrication which is so manifestly spurious. Not to mention the difficulties in which we are involved by some of the statements, the following reasons seem conclusive: (1) The last sentence ‘Maria dicitur etc.’ is evidently very late, and is, as Dr. Mill says, ‘justly rejected by Grabe.’ Grabe says, ‘addidit is qui descripsit ex suo’; but the passage is continuous in the MS, and there is neither more nor less authority for assigning this to Papias than the remainder of the extract. (2) The statement about ‘Maria uxor Alphei’ is taken from Jerome (adv. Helvid.) almost word for word, as Dr. Mill has seen; and it is purely arbitrary to reject this as spurious and accept the rest as genuine. (3) The writings of Papias were in Jerome’s hands, and eager as he was to claim the support of authority, he could not have failed to refer to testimony which was so important and which so entirely confirms his view in the most minute points. Nor is it conceivable that a passage like this, coming from so early a writer, should not have impressed itself very strongly on the ecclesiastical tradition of the early centuries, whereas in fact we discover no traces of it.
For these reasons the extract seemed to be manifestly spurious; but I might have saved myself the trouble of examining the Bodleian MS and writing these remarks, if I had known at the time, that the passage was written by a mediaeval namesake of the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias the author of the ‘Elementarium,’ who lived in the 11th century. This seems to have been a standard work in its day, and was printed four times in the 15th century under the name of the Lexicon or Vocabulist. I have not had access to a printed copy, but there is a MS of the work (marked Kk. 4.1) in the Cambridge University Library, the knowledge of which I owe to Mr. Bradshaw, the librarian. The variations from the Bodleian extract are unimportant. It is strange that though Grabe actually mentions the later Papias the author of the Dictionary, and Routh copies his note, neither the one nor the other got on the right track. I made the discovery while the first edition of this work was passing through the press [1865].