By COGwriter
Papias claimed to know the original apostles as well as some leaders who knew the apostles.
There is not a whole lot available about Papias in the English language, and much of is available is provided on this page. (Note: There was a Papirius of Smyrna who is not the same person.) Some information that has been attributed to Papias is false in that he did not write it.
Papias seemingly was a true Christian. I believe this is so, not so much from his limited writings, but because he was a leader in the city in Asia Minor called Hierapolis. There were other apparent true Christian leaders from there including the Apostle Philip (who reportedly died there) and later Apollinaris who died c. 180.
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches:
St. Papias ... Bishop of Hierapolis (close to Laodicea and Colossae in the valley of the Lycus in Phrygia) and Apostolic Father, called by St. Irenaeus "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time". He wrote a work in five books, logion kyriakon exegesis, of which all but some fragments is lost ... Of Papias's life nothing is known. If Polycarp was born in 69 {it was earlier than that}, his "comrade" may have been born a few years earlier ... The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140 "... His knowledge of St. John's Gospel is proved not merely by his mention of aloes, but by a citation of John 14:2, which occurs in the curious prophecy of a miraculous vintage in the millennium which he attributed to Our Lord ...
Eusebius says that Papias frequently cited traditions of John ... Eusebius says Papias "published a story of a woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews". This appears to refer to the pericope adulterae (John 8). The cause of the loss of this precious work of an Apostolic Father was the chiliastic view which he taught, like St. Justin and St. Irenæus. (Chapman J. Transcribed by Marcia L. Bellafiore. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
So, the Church of God considers Papias to be both a saint and an 'Apostolic Father' as well as a companion of Polycarp. And "the chiliastic view" he taught meant he believed in the coming millennial kingdom of God.
Papias likely died between 116 - 166 A.D, or about 1900 years ago.
So, why bother to look at what he taught?
Why could that at all relevant now?
One reason to consider is that people who were fluent in koine Greek (the language of the New Testament) and who knew the apostles have reasons to better understood various teachings than many who read the New Testament today. Another reason is that he taught something literal that the Bible literally also teaches.
Regarding the importance of early Christian leaders, let's look at the following from the second decree of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546:
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, … in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. (The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent. Celebrated Under the Sovereign Pontiffs, Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV. Translated by James Waterworth. C. Dolman, 1848, pp. 19-20)
So, since the Church of Rome considers that Papias was an 'Apostolic Father,' it would seem like that church would agree with his teachings and practices, yet it does not.
Yet, by its own definition, the Church of Rome should.
Papias and John
The Catholic Encyclopedia notes this about Papias the Apostle John:
The author of the Second and Third Epistles of John designates himself in the superscription of each by the name (ho presbyteros), "the ancient", "the old". Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, also uses the same name to designate the "Presbyter John" as in addition to Aristion, his particular authority, directly after he has named the presbyters Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew (in Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxix, 4) ... St. Irenaeus also positively designates the Apostle and Evangelist John as the teacher of Papias, and neither he nor any other writer before Eusebius had any idea of a second John in Asia (Adv. haer., V, xxxiii, 4). In what Papias himself says the connection plainly shows that in this passage by the word presbyters only Apostles can be understood. If John is mentioned twice the explanation lies in the peculiar relationship in which Papias stood to this, his most eminent teacher. By inquiring of others he had learned some things indirectly from John, just as he had from the other Apostles referred to. In addition he had received information concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus directly, without the intervention of others, from the still living "Presbyter John", as he also had from Aristion. Thus the teaching of Papias casts absolutely no doubt upon what the New-Testament writings presuppose and expressly mention concerning the residence of the Evangelist John in Asia (Fonck L. Transcribed by Michael Little. St. John the Evangelist. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Thus, it appears that Papias directly knew the Apostle John. The Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation which, among other things, described a thousand year reign of Christ on the earth (Revelation 20:4).
The Orthodox Wiki--which is the Orthodox Catholic semi-equivalent of The Catholic Encyclopedia, had the following on Papias:
Papias of Hierapolis
Papias (Greek: Παπίας), Bishop of Hierapolis[1] (modern Pamukkale, Turkey[2]), A.D. 70–155, was a 2nd century bishop of the early Church, who published an "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord"[3] (Greek κυριακῶν λογίων ἐξηγήσις — Kyriakôn logiôn exêgêsis) in five volumes. This work is lost but survives in fragments quoted by Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202) and Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339).
Yes, we would have known more if Eusebius would have shared more that he had. But, since Papias held Church of God views, there were many that Eusebius did not want to show. Eusebius was the pagan Emperor Constantine's official historian and other scholars noted that he did not report about a lot related to Asia Minor, which was where the main part of the Church of God was until near the middle of the third century A.D.
The Orthodox Wiki also said:
Papias has the credit of association with Polycarp, in the friendship of St. John himself, and of “others who had seen the Lord.” He is said to have been bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, and to have died about the same time that Polycarp suffered; but even this is questioned. Eusebius speaks of Papias as a man most learned in all things, and well acquainted with the Scriptures. In another passage he describes him as of small capacity. (Papias of Hierapolis. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 09/06/24)
So, Papias was well acquainted with the Scriptures. He was considered by Eusebius, however, to be of small capacity. Why? Because Papias held to beliefs that Eusebius did not agree with. Even to this day, much of the world considers true Christians to be hateful or small minded because we insist on believing the Bible and what it teaches on matters such at the world's governments, sexual morality, etc.
The Orthodox Wiki also said:
His interpretations would have been a prime early authority in the exegesis of the sayings of Jesus, some of which are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, however the book has not survived and is known only through fragments quoted by later writers; Irenaeus of Lyons's (d. 202) Against Heresies and later by Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339) in Ecclesiastical History, (Papias of Hierapolis. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 09/06/24)
Yes, it would be great if more truth about early church history was known, but Eusebius and others even into this century have obscured it as the truth is to disturbing to many people.
The Orthodox Wiki also said:
There is a statement by Irenaeus that Papias was "a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time." (Adversus Haereses V 33.4) If Polycarp was in fact born not later than AD 69, then there may be no reason to depend on a further, but disputed tradition, that Papias shared in the martyrdom of Polycarp (ca AD 155). (Papias of Hierapolis. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 09/06/24)
While I believe that they both were born before 69 A.D., it is interesting that some believe that Polycarp and Papias were martyred at the same time. If that is so, that is further evidence that they both held the same basic theological doctrinal views.
The Orthodox Wiki also said:
Eusebius suggests that he wrote "as early as 110 and probably no later than the early 130s, with several scholars opting for the earlier end of the spectrum". (Papias of Hierapolis. Orthodox Wiki, accessed 09/06/24)
The time period he wrote looks to have been in the 2nd century A.D. The precise years are not certain.
Anyway, since John and Polycarp were quartodecimans (Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24), meaning that they observed Passover after sundown on the 14th of the first month of the biblical calendar, we can reasonably conclude the same is true of Papias. Particularly since the churches in Asia Minor had not adopted a Sunday Passover at this time (Ibid).
Yet, later being a Quartodeciman was seriously denounced by an edict of Emperor Theodosius in the late fourth century as he ordered the death penalty on those that dared to follow the Bible and the position of the so-called "early church fathers" regarding the proper date of Passover.
The Greco-Roman Catholic saint Irenaeus, who also claimed to have at least met Polycarp, wrote that Papias taught:
The blessing thus foretold belongs undoubtedly to the times of the Kingdom, when the righteous shall rise from the dead and reign, when too creation renewed and freed from bondage shall produce a wealth of food of all kinds _from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth;_ as the elders, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, relate, that they had heard from him, how the Lord used to teach concerning those times, and to say,
"The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty measures of wine.
And when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of their clusters, another shall cry, I am a better cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me. Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads, and every head shall have ten thousand grains, and every grain ten pounds of fine flour, bright and clean, and the other fruits, seeds and the grass shall produce in similar proportions, and all the animals, using these fruits which are products of the soil, shall become in their turn peaceable and harmonious, obedient to man in all subjection."
These things Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying,
"But these things are credible to them that believe. And when Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord? he relates that the Lord said, They shall see, who shall come to these (times)." (Irenaeus’ Against All Heresies, 5:33:3-4 Translated By J. B. Lightfoot & J. R. Harmer Edited By Daniel R. Jennings)
Yes. Papias is correct. The idea of a utopia being brought in by the Lord, the millennial kingdom of God, is certainly credible to those who are truly believers. But notice, also, that although Judas was a disciple of Jesus for some time, he apparently did not believe in the coming millennial kingdom of God. Judas did not heed the words of Jesus who said to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Matthew 6:33). Judas could have been the first major follower of Jesus to turn against the gospel of the Kingdom message.
Instead, Judas sold out our Savior for 30 pieces of silver (Mathew 26:15), which he later brought back (Matthew 27:3).
Judas lost focus.
True believers need to believe in the good news of the coming kingdom of God.
We have a free online booklet titled The Gospel of the Kingdom of God, available in over 1500 languages at www.ccog.org (see also Preaching the Gospel in Over 1500 Languages).
Eusebius, who also reported about Irenaues, recorded the following about Papias:
1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenæus.
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.
3. He says: But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.
4. 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 what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by 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.
5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the 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, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.
6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John's. It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John.
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things, we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book 3, Chapter XXXIX; Digireads, p. 68)
Before going further who was Aristion? That is uncertain. Here are some items speculated about him:
Eusebius is here a special pleader. He opposes the millennium. Wrongly fancying that the Apocalypse favours the Chiliasts, he assigns it to this John the Elder and tries to rob the work of its Apostolic authority, the clumsiness of expression of Papias gives occasion to Eusebius in proof of the existence of two disciples of the Lord named John. To be sure, Papias mentions two Johns — one among the Apostles, the other in a clause with Aristion. Both are called elders; and elders here (presbuteroi) are admitted by Eusebius to be Apostles, since he admits that Papias got information from those who had met the Apostles (substituting ton apostolon for ton presbuteron; see Church History III.39.7). Hence it is that Papias, in joining John with Aristion, speaks of John the Elder and not of Aristion the Elder; Aristion was not an elder or Apostle. The reason for joining the Aristion with John at all is that they were both witnesses of the present to Papias, whereas all the Apostles were witnesses of the past generation. Note that the second aorist (eipen) is used in regard to the group of witnesses of the past generation, since there is question of what they had said, whereas the present (legousin) is used in regard to the witnesses of the present generation, i.e. Aristion and John the Elder, since the question is what they are now saying. The Apostle John was alive in the time of Papias. He and he alone can be the elder of whom Papias speaks. How is it, then, that Papias mentions John twice? Hausleiter conjectures that the phrase he ti Ioannes is a gloss (Theol. Litteraturblatt, 1896). It is likelier that the repetition of the name of John is due to the clumsiness of expression of Papias. He does not mention all the Apostles, but only seven; though he undoubtedly means them all. His mention of John is quite natural in view of the relation in which he stood to that Apostle. After mention of the group that were gone, he names the two from whom he now receives indirect information of the Lord's teaching; these two are the disciple Aristion and John the Apostle. ( "Epistles of Saint John." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910)
So, essentially, the Church of Rome is properly challenging Eusebius and some of the information about John that some have latched onto--which is the nonsense claim that the Apostle John did not pen the Book of Revelation, but that John the elder did. I believe that the Apostle John penned Revelation and the Church of Rome scholars agree with me on that.
Yet that does not tell us much about Aristion. Here is a little more related to him and the Gospel According to Mark:
... consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. ... Whatever be the fact, it is not at all certain that Mark did not write the disputed verses. It may be that he did not; that they are from the pen of some other inspired writer, and were appended to the Gospel in the first century or the beginning of the second. An Armenian manuscript, written in A.D. 986, ascribes them to a presbyter named Ariston, who may be the same with the presbyter Aristion, mentioned by Papias as a contemporary of St. John in Asia. Catholics are not bound to hold that the verses were written by St. Mark. But they are canonical Scripture, (MacRory, Joseph. "Gospel of Saint Mark." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910)
If Aristion did write any of the Bible, it would appear that he knew at least some of the disciples and possibly Jesus Himself.
But let's look at the words that some think Aristion may have written:
9 Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with Him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And when they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.
12 After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it to the rest, but they did not believe them either.
14 Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."
19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen. (Mark 16:9-20)
Continuing with Eusebius, he wrote:
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book 3, Chapter XXXIX; Digireads, p. 68)
So, the above is consistent with the prophecy about not being hurt by drinking anything deadly in Mark 16:18.
Literally Accept the Word of God or Mystically?
Continuing with Eusebius, he wrote related to Papias:
10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said." Acts 1:23 11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.
12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book 3, Chapter XXXIX; Digireads, p. 69)
No Eusebius, Papias would have gotten the thousand year period after the resurrection because of the teachings of the Apostle John as well as what John was inspired to write in the Book of Revelation. Which states:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4-6)
Eusebius did not want to believe what the Bible teaches on this.
Continuing with Eusebius, he wrote related to Papias:
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views. (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book 3, Chapter XXXIX; Digireads, p. 69)
And yes, the bulk of early professors of Christ, who Eusebius refers to as '"so many of the Church Fathers" taught a literal millennial reign because that is what the New Testament clearly states.
Even The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
... a large number of Christians of the post-Apostolic era, particularly in Asia Minor, yielded so far to Jewish apocalyptic as to put a literal meaning into these descriptions of St. John's Apocalypse; the result was that millenarianism spread and gained staunch advocates not only among the heretics but among the Catholic Christians as well ... Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of St. John, appeared as an advocate of millenarianism. He claimed to have received his doctrine from contemporaries of the Apostles. ... A witness for the continued belief in millenarianism in the province of Asia is St. Melito, Bishop of Sardes in the second century (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Millennium and Millenarianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
The scriptures in the Book of Revelation clearly teach the millennium--they are NOT a Jewish source, but the word of God. Real Christians should put the literal meaning on literal scriptures.
Notice something that the Greco-Roman saint Irenaeus wrote:
But if any one, doting about questions, do imagine that what the apostles have declared about God should be allegorized, let him consider my previous statements, in which I set forth one God as the Founder and Maker of all things, and destroyed and laid bare their allegations; and he shall find them agreeable to the doctrine of the apostles, and so to maintain what they used to teach, and were persuaded of, ...
For all those who are of a perverse mind, having been set against the Mosaic legislation, judging it to be dissimilar and contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, have not applied themselves to investigate the causes of the difference of each covenant. Since, therefore, they have been deserted by the paternal love, and puffed up by Satan, being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; and [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent, than the apostles. (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book III, Chapter 12, Verses 11,12. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885)
Irenaeus is basically teaching that people should not allegorize scripture nor claim that the Apostles were so influenced by Jewish opinions that it is proper to ignore what they taught. Let it also be noted that Irenaeus also believed in the millennial reign.
Throughout history, although the Romans and Orthodox did not normally teach it, the millennium was an original belief and some small groups did. Here is something from a Roman Catholic writer, Emmett Culligan, known by commercials as "the Culligan man":
In chapter 20 of the Apocalypse it is said that ... The saints are then to reign with Christ a thousand years ...
Many early Christians took this as a literal description ... Millenarians, i.e., believers in the reign of a thousand years. This belief was common in the early Church ... It appeared from time to time in the Middle Ages, and is still advocated by some of the more obscure sects. ...
This period of the First Resurrection will end ... It is the time when the Seventh Millennium will set in, and will be the day of Sabbath in the plan of creation. ... The day when the Sabbath starts will be the coming time of peace ... It will be the time when there will be an answer to our daily prayers: 'THY KINGDOM COME -- ON EARTH." (Culligan E. The Last World War and the End of Time. The book was blessed by Pope Paul VI, 1966. TAN Books, Rockford (IL), pp. 67, 113-115).
Notice that in a book blessed by a pope that it supports the idea of the millennium kingdom of God on earth--that is what Papias taught as well--yet that belief is officially condemned by the Church of Rome. But it something that we in the CCOG still hold to (see also the free online book: The Gospel of the Kingdom of God)
Now notice, historically, what groups taught for and against the millennium:
... the millennarianism of the Jewish Christians ... for which the reputation of John (Apoc. xx. 4-6; xxi.) and his peculiar followers, afforded a warrant--this millennarianism became the general belief of the time, and met with almost no other opposition than that given by the Gnostics ... The thousand years' reign was represented as the great Sabbath which should begin vегу soon, or as others supposed, after the lapse of the six thousand years of the world's age, with the first resurrection, and should afford great joys to the righteous. Till then the souls of the departed were kept in the underworld, and the opinion that they should be taken up to heaven immediately after death, was considered a gnostic heresy (Gieseler, Johann Karl Ludwig. A Text-book of Church History. Translated by Samuel Davidson, John Winstanley Hull, Mary A. Robinson. Harper & brothers, 1857, Original from the University of Michigan, Digitized Feb 17, 2006, pp. 166-167).
Notice that it was Gnostics that taught against the millennium as part of God's plan, but it was the 'Jewish Christians,' which included the faithful in Asia Minor that did teach this (as far as heaven goes, check out the article Did Early Christians Teach They Were Going to Heaven?). The tying in of it with the seventh-day Sabbath connects it to the 6000/7000 year plan.
It should also be mentioned that, Marcion, a second century heretic who was denounced by Polycarp of Smyrna, who was against the law and did not accept the Book of Revelation as divine, was one of the first believed to propose teaching against the millennium, and apparently the 6000/7000 year plan. While the Church of Rome considers that Marcion was a heretic and Polycarp a saint, its position is closer to Marcion's than those of Polycarp's area.
Marcion basically only claimed to accept portions of Luke's gospel account and the Apostle Paul's letters as scripture.
Irenaeus wrote that both John and Polycarp of Smyrna strongly renounced the Gnostic heretics such as Valentinus, Cerinthus, and Marcion:
Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too ... Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus.
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna ... always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles ... John, the disciple of the Lord ... exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan" (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).
What was one of the bad practices of the Gnostic Valentinians, Marcionites, and Cerinthians? They relied on tradition more than scripture:
1. Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked art in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book 1, Chapter 8, Verse 1)
Polycarp himself wrote:
Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians, Chapter VII).
The "vanity of many" had popped us to turn people away from the word of God--Polycarp taught to believe that word and the original teachings--and that would have included the Book of Revelation.
But what about the Book of Revelation supposedly being mystical?
Many, especially those in the evangelical and Church of God (COG) movements, are concerned about the misuse of allegory and other often used forms of interpretation, such as indicating that literal passages are mystical.
There are also those in other groups, including the Roman Catholics who share this concern.
The Roman Catholic writer D.A. Birch warned against some who believe that parts of the Bible have no literal message, higher critics, as he wrote:
Many higher critics claim these prophetic Scriptural books are only meant to impart a moral message. Those books are treated by most “higher critics” as mysteries wrapped in an enigma which contains no prophetic messages about the end times (Birch D.A. Trial, Tribulation & Triumph. Queenship Publishing, Goleta (CA), 1996, p. 438).
Actually, a great reason that there are many differing views of doctrine is precisely on the matter of biblical interpretation.
Notice what the Apostle Paul wrote:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV).
In other words, scripture is given by God for doctrine and contains enough information that the man of God may be complete.
Irenaeus noted that:
Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures. (Eusebius. The History of the Church. Book V, Chapter XX, verses 5-8. Digireads, Stilwel (KS), p. 112)
And that is what Papias, the companion of Polycarp, seems to have done, yet Eusebius criticized him for that.
Allegory was also opposed by Nepos of Arsinoe in the third century--who looks to have been a Church of God leader. Here is what The Catholic Encyclopedia reported:
An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, taught the Chiliastic error that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, a period of corporal delights; he founded this doctrine upon the Apocalypse in a book entitled "Refutation of the Allegorizers" (Chapman, John. "Dionysius of Alexandria." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909)
Thus, a treatise against the allegorists was written when it became apparent that allegorists were gaining influence. Here is more about that:
During his stormy episcopate, Dionysius still found time and opportunity for theology, and thus turned to account the great learning he had acquired under Origen, and developed during his headship of the School of Alexandria. This School, as I have already said,was suited rather to the intellectual elite than to ordinary minds. Even among those who read, there were many who accepted neither the profundity of Origen's Gnosticism, nor the subtleties of allegorical interpretation.Their great light was a bishop named Nepos, and his book called The Refutation of the Allegorists … Its subject was the Millennium and Nepos set himself to prove that as described in the Apocalypse it was not allegorical, but was to be an actual fact. (Duchesne L. Early History of the Christian Church: From Its Foundation to the End of the Third Century, Volume 1, 4th edition. Imprimatur Josephus Ceppetelli Longmans, Green & Co., 1912, p. 349)
Korikan, chief of the Millenarians. (Ibid, pp. 349-350)
Dionysius disagreed with Nepos. After Nepos' death, Korakion pushed for literal understanding. However, Dionysius used what has been called “higher criticism” to turn Korakion away from accepting the Book of Revelation as valid, the millennium, etc. (Chapman, J. Dionysius of Alexandria. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909). Yes, 'higher criticism' was used to say that the Book of Revelation could not be inspired, and sadly, Korakion fell for it.
Later, we see that the allegorists were also opposed by Lucian of Antioch in the third century:
Lucian of Antioch ... The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation ... (Healy P.J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Dr. Williston Walker thus describes:
With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, of whom little is known of biographical detail, save that he was a presbyter, held aloof from the party in Antioch which opposed and overcame Paul of Samosata, taught there from c. 275 to 303, and died a martyr's death in 312. ... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching (as quoted in Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant, ca. 1890. Reprint: Teach Services, Brushton (NY) 1994).
So, although Eusebius criticized Papias for teaching a literal millennium, other Church of God leaders held to it and also objected to those who allegorized or mysticized away what the Bible actually teaches.
For more on this topic, check out the article: What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?
Eusebius wrote that Papias declared that Mark wrote an accurate gospel account and that Matthew also wrote some things in Hebrew (see also Was the New Testament Written in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic?). Plus, Eusebius wrote that Papias cited first John and apparently first Peter. So, Papias was familiar with at least some of the New Testament books.
Furthermore, according to Eusebius, this "Catholic saint" taught the millennium--a doctrine that is now denounced by the Vatican as associated with Antichrist (see Did The Early Church Teach Millenarianism?).
The Greco-Roman saint and "doctor" of the Roman church, Jerome, also confirms that Papias and others taught the millennium:
18:1 Papias, a hearer of John, (and) bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, wrote only five books, which he entitled An Exposition of Discourses of the Lord. Wherein, when he asserts in his preface that he is not following promiscuous statements, but has the Apostles as his authorities, he says: --
2 "I used to inquire what had been said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For books to read do not profit me so much as the living voice clearly sounding up to the present day in (the persons of) their authors."
3 From which it is clear that in his list of names itself there is one John who is reckoned among the Apostles, and another the Elder John, whom he enumerates after Aristion. We have mentioned this fact on account of the statement made above, which we have recorded on the authority of very many, that the two later epistles of John are not (the work) of the Apostle, but of the Elder. This (Papias) is said to have promulgated the Jewish tradition of a Millennium, and he is followed by Irenaeus, Apollinarius and the others, who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints. (Jerome. Illustrious Men, Chapter 18. As translated by J. B. Lightfoot & J. R. Harmer and Edited By Daniel R. Jennings)
So, yes, Papias taught the millennium as the Bible also teaches.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of the fact that it admits that many of its claimed early saints, like Papias, taught the millennium, now strongly condemns this belief. Notice:
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape 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, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. Imprimatur Potest +Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Doubleday, NY 1995, p. 194).
It should be noted that the millennial teaching appears to be the only doctrine associated with Antichrist that is condemned in the current official Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is the first new one in hundreds of years). The one that has the imprimatur of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who became known Pope Emeritus and was Pope Benedict XVI.Notice something else that Joseph Ratzinger wrote in a paper titled The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure prior to becoming pope:
"... both Chiliasm [the teaching of the Millennium] and Montanism were declared heretical and were excluded from the universal church; for they both denied this vision [the "Christ is the end of the ages" vision] and awaited still another period of more definitive salvation to follow after the age of Christ" (as cited in Birch, pp. 515-516; note the comments within [] were from the Roman Catholic writer Birch).
This is an odd statement for several reasons. It was the leaders in Asia Minor who stood for the Millennium and were the first to oppose Montanism--whom the Roman Catholics originally tolerated (please see the article Location of the Early Church)--hence the belief in one is NOT necessarily related to the other.
The other reason this condemnation is odd, is that even though Origen was opposed to the millennium, Origen also taught that there was definitive salvation after what then Cardinal Ratzinger calls "the age of Christ" (please see the article Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism). Yet Pope Benedict XVI publicly praised Origin as a "true teacher" (for documentation, see What is the Appropriate Form of Biblical Interpretation?).
It appears to me that the millennial view is being so definitely condemned now, because we are getting so close to that time when the Church of Rome is expected to compromise more and the Pope has prepared his followers to do that. It seems like the final revised Roman Church intends to warn against following any (like the actual two witnesses) who will be teaching the original millennial doctrine. Of course, there still are Greco-Roman Catholics who accept the biblical teaching on the millennium--but they are becoming more and more of a minority within their church.
Jerome also wrote the following about Mark and Papias:
8:1-2 Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon "She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son." (Jerome. De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Chapter 18. Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892)
Additionally, Papias would have observed Passover on the 14th of Nisan instead of a Sunday. Neither Papias nor other early Christian leaders in Asia Minor observed Lent nor Easter. Despite false statements on the internet and elsewhere to the contrary, Papias was not Roman Catholic.
Ante-Nicene Fathers Citations Are at Least Partially Erroneous
The following is from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, via ccel:
Introductory Note to the Fragments of Papias.
[a.d. 70-155.] It seems unjust to the holy man of whose comparatively large contributions to early Christian literature such mere relics have been preserved, to set them forth in these versions, unaccompanied by the copious annotations of Dr. Routh. If even such crumbs from his table are not by any means without a practical value, with reference to the Canon and other matters, we may well credit the testimony (though disputed) of Eusebius, that he was a learned man, and well versed in the Holy Scripture. All who name poor Papias are sure to do so with the apologetic qualification of that historian, that he was of slender capacity. Nobody who attributes to him the millenarian fancies, of which he was but a narrator, as if these were the characteristics rather than the blemishes of his works, can fail to accept this estimate of our author. But more may be said when we come to the great name of Irenaeus, who seems to make himself responsible for them.
Papias has the credit of association with Polycarp, in the friendship of St. John himself, and of "others who had seen the Lord." He is said to have been bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, and to have died about the same time that Polycarp suffered; but even this is questioned. So little do we know of one whose lost books, could they be recovered, might reverse the received judgment, and establish his claim to the disputed tribute which makes him, like Apollos, "an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures."
The following is the original Introductory Notice:-
The principal information in regard to Papias is given in the extracts made among the fragments from the works of Irenaeus and Eusebius. He was bishop of the Church in Hierapolis, a city of Phrygia, in the first half of the second century. Later writers affirm that he suffered martyrdom about a.d. 163; some saying that Rome, others that Pergamus, was the scene of his death. He was a hearer of the Apostle John, and was on terms of intimate intercourse with many who had known the Lord and His apostles. From these he gatherer! the floating traditions in regard to the sayings of our Lord, and wove them into a production divided into five books. This work does not seem to have been confined to an exposition of the sayings of Christ, but to have contained much historical information.
Eusebius speaks of Papias as a man most learned in all things, and well acquainted with the Scriptures. In another passage he describes him as of small capacity. The fragments of Papias are translated from the text given in Routh's Reliquiae Sacrae, vol. i.
Well, presuming Papias was "well acquainted with the scriptures" is what we would have expected of a true Church of God leader--though Papias preferred listening to reading.
Let me add that the Church of God in Asia Minor in the early 2nd century did have the full canon of the New Testament (see also the free online book Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete?) and hence, Papias should have had access to all of the New Testament.
Fragments
What are shown below are the so-called fragments of Papias. They are mostly references to him in other writings, with almost nothing written by him personally. At least one does not seem to actually be related to him. The fact that Eusebius said he provided all the extant works known by Papias further would seem to dismiss the relevance of several of the 'fragments' listed below (like the first sentences in fragment V below).
Here are claimed fragments from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, via ccel:
Fragments of Papias
--------
[The writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him." Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words: ]
But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,-what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things6 Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.
[The early Christians] called those who practised a godly guilelessness, children, [as is stated by Papias in the first book of the Lord's Expositions, and by Clemens Alexandrinus in his Paedagogue.]
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.
[As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: "The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every 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 metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, `I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man." [Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. And he added, saying, "Now these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor," says he, "not believing, and asking, `How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord? 'the Lord said, `They shall see who shall come to them.' These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: `And the wolf shall lie, down with the lamb, 'etc. (Isa. xi. 6 ff.)."]
As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city; and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions: " for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding. The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth. He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]
Papias thus speaks, word for word: To some of them [angels] He gave dominion over the arrangement of the world, and He commissioned them to exercise their dominion well. And he says, immediately after this: but it happened that their arrangement came to nothing.
With regard to the inspiration of the book (Revelation), we deem it superfluous to add another word; for the blessed Gregory Theologus and Cyril, and even men of still older date, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, bore entirely satisfactory testimony to it.
Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.
(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, 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 Alphaeus 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.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the word commonly translated as "priest" by some translators, really is the word presbyter, which means elder. It simply did not refer to one who wore special vestments and performed various ceremonies in the 2nd century (more information on that subject can be found in the article Were the Early Duties of Elders/Pastors Mainly Sacramental? What was there Dress?). Many of the 'fragments' above are erroneous--and are in contradiction to Eusebius' claims.
Fragment V. is one of the worst error-filled sections. Someone misunderstood something or the presbyters referred to in it did. The Bible does not teach that some will be in heaven vs. paradise vs. the city depending upon their fruits. It may be that Irenaeus, who had various problems himself, misunderstood the source of V. The fact is that Irenaeus quotes this himself elsewhere (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book V, Chapter 35, Verse 1. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight) and does not directly state it is from Papias. This helps demonstrate someone improperly attributed this to Papias.
The following, also attributed to Papias, is also false:
1 From Apollinarius of Laodicea. `Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the Acts of the Apostles show this, that _falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out._ This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, in the fourth (book) of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord as follows: --
2 "Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where a waggon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far had they sunk from the surface. His genital was larger and presented a more repugnant sight than has ever been seen; and through it there seeped from every part of the body a procession of pus and worms to his shame, even as he relieved himself."'
3 After suffering an agony of pain and punishment, he finally went, as they say it, to his own place; and because of the horrible smell the area has been deserted and no one has lived there up until now; in fact, even to the present no one can go by that place without holding his nose. This was because the discharge from his body was so great and spread so far over the ground."' (Cramer’s Catena ad Acta SS. Apost. [1838]. Translated By J. B. Lightfoot & J. R. Harmer Edited By Daniel R. Jennings)
If the above was true about Papias, it would clearly show that Papias disbelieved the Bible. And if he really did, then he could be no type of a true saint.
Getting back to the fragments, VII has some interest.
The late French Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie Danielou wrote:
Andrew of Caesrea tells us the Papius taught that God had conferred on certain angels the task of administering the Earth, and that they betrayed that trust. (Danielou, Cardinal Jean-Guenole-Marie. The Theology of Jewish Christianity. Translated by John A. Baker. The Westminister Press, 1964, p. 47).
This seems to be related to fragment VII, though Cardinal Danielou did not refer to it. Why is this of interest?
The late Church of God leader Herbert W. Armstrong taught the same basic doctrine:
In Job 38:4, 7, God is speaking specifically of the creation of this earth. He said all the angels (created "sons of God") shouted for joy at the creation of the earth. This reveals that angels were created before the creation of the earth--and probably before the material universe. The suns, planets and astral bodies are material substance. Angels are individually created spirit beings, composed solely of spirit.
It will come as a surprise to many to learn that angels inhabited this earth BEFORE the creation of man. ...
Angels inhabited this earth before the creation of man.
It is revealed in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, that God placed the archangel Lucifer, a cherub, on a throne on the earth.
He was placed there as a ruler over the entire earth. God intended him to rule the earth by administering the government of God over the earth. And the government of God was administered on earth until the rebellion of the sinning angels.
How long these angels inhabited the earth before the creation of man is not revealed. It might have been millions--or even billions--of years. More on that later. But these angels sinned. Sin is the transgression of God's law (I John 3:4). And God's law is the basis of God's government. So we know these angels, apparently a third of all the angels (Rev. 12:4), sinned--rebelled against the government of God. (Armstrong HW. Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead & Company, 1985. pp. 71-73)
While the teaching about angels has been taught in certain Churches of God for some time, it is not a teaching that the Greco-Roman churches tend to hold to.
For more on the gap doctrine, check out the article: How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Gap Theory?
Comments
Papias reportedly knew the Apostle John. He would have been a quartodeciman as those in his area were. He, like John, would have kept Passover on the 14th, which is something Roman Emperor Constanine had ruled against and something that Roman Emperor Theodosius later enforced the death penalty against.
Yet, keeping Passover on the biblical date was part of the original Christian faith.
The Apostle Jude wrote that Christians are:
3 ... to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)
That is what the faithful Christians have striven to do through the church age.
Papias believed and taught Millenarianism which is a literal thousand year reign of Christ on Earth with the saints. This is a view that was widely held in the first and second centuries, though many later "theologians," like Origen (who believed allegorical interpretation was better than literal interpretation of the Bible) discounted the beliefs that Papias and others held.
Yet, according to the Church of Rome, it is "the unanimous consent of Fathers"-- early church leaders--that should be accepted as doctrine. Since Papias was one of those, and many others during his time also agreed, the Church of Rome, according to its own criteria, should have accepted Papias' millennium on the earth views. But instead it is condemned as a doctrine of Antichrist!
But more than accepting what early church leaders believed, the fact is that the millennial teaching is clearly in the New Testament. Because of that, it should still be taught and believed today--and not allegorized away!
Early faithful leaders, such as Polycarp of Smyrna, and later leaders such as Nepos of Arsinoe and Lucian of Antioch properly insisted on believing the word of God and not allegorizing it.
Although he is considered to be a saint by Greco-Roman Catholics, Papias was one of many early leaders that held at least some important views that differ from those now held by the Roman Catholic Church.
Because of where he lived, he would have tended to support views in groups like the Continuing Church of God.
The Continuing Church of God believes in the literal acceptance of the word of God, the coming millennial kingdom of God, and other beliefs of the original Christian church that most who profess Christianity today no longer do.
For more on that, check out the following:
Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession? Did the original “catholic church” have doctrines held by the Continuing Church of God? Did Church of God leaders uses the term “catholic church” to ever describe the church they were part of? Here are links to related sermons: Original Catholic Church of God?, Original Catholic Doctrine: Creed, Liturgy, Baptism, Passover, What Type of Catholic was Polycarp of Smyrna?, Tradition, Holy Days, Salvation, Dress, & Celibacy, Early Heresies and Heretics, Doctrines: 3 Days, Abortion, Ecumenism, Meats, Tithes, Crosses, Destiny, and more, Saturday or Sunday?, The Godhead, Apostolic Laying on of Hands Succession, Church in the Wilderness Apostolic Succession List, Holy Mother Church and Heresies, and Lying Wonders and Original Beliefs. Here is a link to that book in the Spanish language: Creencias de la iglesia Católica original.
Hope of Salvation: How the Continuing Church of God Differs from Protestantism The CCOG is NOT Protestant. This free online book explains how the real Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants. Several sermons related to the free book are also available: Protestant, Baptist, and CCOG History; The First Protestant, God’s Command, Grace, & Character; The New Testament, Martin Luther, and the Canon; Eucharist, Passover, and Easter; Views of Jews, Lost Tribes, Warfare, & Baptism; Scripture vs. Tradition, Sabbath vs. Sunday; Church Services, Sunday, Heaven, and God’s Plan; Seventh Day Baptists/Adventists/Messianics: Protestant or COG?; Millennial Kingdom of God and God’s Plan of Salvation; Crosses, Trees, Tithes, and Unclean Meats; The Godhead and the Trinity; Fleeing or Rapture?; and Ecumenism, Rome, and CCOG Differences.
Where is the True Christian Church Today? This free online pdf booklet answers that question and includes 18 proofs, clues, and signs to identify the true vs. false Christian church. Plus 7 proofs, clues, and signs to help identify Laodicean churches. A related sermon is also available: Where is the True Christian Church? Here is a link to the booklet in the Spanish language: ¿Dónde está la verdadera Iglesia cristiana de hoy? Here is a link in the German language: WO IST DIE WAHRE CHRISTLICHE KIRCHE HEUTE? Here is a link in the French language: Où est la vraie Église Chrétienne aujourd’hui? Here is a link to a short animation: Which Church would Jesus Choose?
Continuing History of the Church of God This pdf booklet is a historical overview of the true Church of God and some of its main opponents from Acts 2 to the 21st century. Related sermon links include Continuing History of the Church of God: c. 31 to c. 300 A.D. and Continuing History of the Church of God: 4th-16th Centuries and Continuing History of the Church of God: 17th-20th Centuries. The booklet is available in Spanish: Continuación de la Historia de la Iglesia de Dios, German: Kontinuierliche Geschichte der Kirche Gottes, French: L Histoire Continue de l Église de Dieu and Ekegusii Omogano Bw’ekanisa Ya Nyasae Egendererete
Thiel B. Papias of Hierapolis: Collection of Writings. www.cogwriter.com (c) 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012/2013/2014/2015/2018/ 2024 0907