Theodore of Mopsuestia: New Evidence for the Proposed Papian Fragment in Hist. eccl . 3.24.5-13

Introduction

According to Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, ‘the Elder’ (usually identified with Papias’s John the Elder ¹ ) related information concerning the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16). Eusebius does not, however, relate anything from Papias concerning the Gospels of Luke and John. Attempts at explaining this silence have not been lacking. Körtner (1983: 197) and Painter (2008: 48) view Eusebius’s silence as evidence that Papias did not say anything concerning John’s gospel. Bauer infers from Papias’s silence that he regarded both gospels with suspicion (1971: 185-91). Vielhauer suggests that Papias might have passed over mention of John’s gospel on account of its use by Gnostics (1975: 457). Schoedel mentions the possibility, which he considers unlikely, that Papias wrote before the publication of Luke and John (1967: 106). Lightfoot argues that Eusebius was only relating ‘curious facts’ concerning the gospels, and that he did not mention John’s gospel because the circumstances relating to its publication were already well known (2015: 222 n. 26; cf. 1893: 32-58). According to Gregory, Eusebius himself might have only had access to Papian excerpts that did not include accounts of these gospels (2003: 34). Bauckham (2006: 417-18) deduces Papias’s knowledge of John’s gospel from the order of the names in Papias’s list of the disciples (apud Eusebius, Church History 3.39.4). ² Elsewhere he suggests that Eusebius found Papias’s accounts problematic; possibly Papias recorded nothing of significance concerning Luke’s gospel; possibly he ‘distanced Luke further from eyewitness testimony than Eusebius would have liked’ (2007: 57). With regard to John’s gospel, he suggests that Papias had identified the Evangelist with the Elder, which was objectionable to Eusebius, ³ and that Eusebius did not approve of Papias’s privileging of the chronology of John’s gospel over that of the Synoptics (2007: 57-58).

A number of scholars have argued that Papias not only recorded traditions concerning the Gospels of Luke and John, but that his material has been partially preserved in other sources, including the Muratorian Canon, ⁴ Irenaeus, ⁵ Clement of Alexandria, ⁶ Origen ⁷ and Victorinus. ⁸

Finally, Bartlet (1933: 26) and Hill (1998) have argued, with potentially significant ramifications for the discussion, that Eusebius did not pass over Papias’s account of John’s gospel in silence but summarized it without attribution. It is this proposal in particular with which the present study is concerned. The arguments presented for and against identifying this passage will be briefly reviewed, and new evidence from Theodore of Mopsuestia will be brought forward in favour of this proposal.

Eusebius’s Unattributed Papian Source

Eusebius relates an unattributed tradition that addresses the differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels. He begins by stating that although ‘the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and besides these countless others’ were not ignorant of the works of Christ, only two left written records (ὑπομνήματα), Matthew and John, and only, as ‘an account holds it’ (κατέχει λόγος), due to necessity (Hist. eccl. 3.24.5). Matthew, Eusebius continues, wrote because he was leaving to preach to other people (Hist. eccl. 3.24.6). He then provides an account of how John came to write.

(7) When Mark and Luke had already made the publication (τὴν ἔκδοσιν) of their Gospels, they say (ϕασί) that John preached the whole time without writing, but that he finally came to write for the following reason: with the three that were formerly written having been distributed (διαδεδομένων) to all, and to him, it is said that he approved them, bearing witness to their truth on the one hand, saying only on the other hand that there was missing from the writing the narrative (τὴν διήγησιν) concerning the things done (πεπραγμένων) by Christ at first and at the beginning of his preaching (κατʼ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος). (8) And this account is true (καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος).

There then follows some parenthetical material.

In fact (γοῦν), ⁹ it is possible to see that the three Gospels recorded only the things done by the Saviour which took place for one year after the confinement of John the Baptizer in prison, and that they indicated this at the beginning of their narrative. (9) In fact (γοῦν), Matthew makes clear the period after the forty-day fast and the temptation which followed, saying, ‘having heard that John had been delivered up, he withdrew from Judea into Galilee’ [Matt. 14:12]; (10) and Mark in like manner says, ‘after the delivering up of John, Jesus came into Galilee’ [Mark 1:14]; and Luke observes almost the same thing before he makes a beginning (ἄρξασθαι) of the deeds of Jesus, saying that Herod, adding to the wicked deeds which he had done, ‘shut up John in prison’ [Luke 3:20].

Eusebius resumes the account as follows.

(11) They say (ϕασί) therefore that the apostle John, exhorted (παρακληθέντα) on account of these things, delivered (παραδοῦναι) in his own Gospel [an account of] the period which was passed over in silence (παρασιωπηθέντα χρόνον) by the former evangelists and [an account of] the things done by the Saviour during it (those were the things done before the confinement of John); and that he indicated the same thing, saying thereafter (τότε), ‘this beginning of wonders did Jesus’ (ταύτην ἀρχὴν ἐποίησεν τῶν παραδόξων ὁ Ἰησοῦς) [John 2:11], and then by having made mention of the Baptizer within [his account of] the deeds of Jesus as still at that time baptizing in Aenon near Salem [John 3:23], and that he clearly shows the same thing in saying, ‘for John was not yet thrown into prison’ [John 3:24].

Eusebius then summarizes the account, providing a few additional details as he does so.

(12) John then, in the writing which is his Gospel, hands down the things done with reference to Christ when John had not yet been thrown into prison, but the other three make mention of the things done after the confinement of the Baptizer in prison. (13) For the one paying attention to these things (or ‘to them’, i.e. ‘the Gospels’), it would no longer seem that the Gospels disagree with each other, in that the one according to John encompasses the first of the deeds of Christ, while the others encompass the narrative of what was done by him at the end of the period. With respect to the genealogy of the flesh of our Saviour, therefore, John reasonably maintained silence (ἀποσιωπῆσαι), seeing that it was already written out by Matthew and Luke, and he began with the teaching of the divinity (τῆς δὲ θεολογίας), as though it were reserved for him as their better/superior from the divine Spirit (Hist. eccl. 3.24.5–13). ¹⁰

Hill draws attention to the conclusion of Lawlor that in the majority of cases in which Eusebius introduces an account with the words κατέχει λόγος, as he does here (Hist. eccl. 3.24.5), a written source is being referred to; in other cases a written source is not excluded (Hill 1998: 589-90). ¹¹ Lawlor thinks that the written source might only have been used for the account of Matthew, noting that the section that introduces the account of John’s gospel begins with ϕασί (1912: 22). As Hill notes however, Eusebius records that this λόγος related how both Matthew and John came to write out of necessity, and Eusebius goes on to record accounts dealing with both (1998: 591). Furthermore, as Hill shows, after relating the account of the writing of these gospels, Eusebius affirms in line 8 that ‘this account is true’ (καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος), employing once more the word λόγος, with ‘the λόγος here naturally referring to the preceding one’ (1998: 592) and concluding the account begun in line 5.

The source is resumed again in line 11 with ϕασί, which is used by Eusebius elsewhere in relation to written accounts (Hill 1998: 591 n. 25). Thus in Eusebius’s earlier account of the writing of Mark’s gospel, taken from Clement, he develops the narrative using ϕασί but attributes the entire account to Clement (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.1-2). According to Sellew (1992: 117), Eusebius ‘typically’ uses ϕασί to refer to oral sources; this does not seem to be the case with his use of Clement, unless Eusebius is referring back to the oral tradition of the elders from which Clement derives his account (cf. Bauckham 2006: 433-34).

Hill suggests that lines 8 to 10 represent either Eusebius’s own conclusions or those of his source (1998: 593-94). Bauckham, however, in his list of qualifications for Hill’s identification of the passage as Papian (on which see further below), probably rightly thinks that these lines represent ‘Eusebius’s own explanatory comment’ (2006: 433).

Affinities with Papias and Proposed Papian Sources

Lawlor (1912: 22 n. 2) proposes that the tradition related in this passage concerning Matthew, with its claim that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, has been drawn from Papias (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). According to Bartlet, the account of John’s gospel is, similarly, ‘almost certainly’ paraphrased from Papias (1933: 26). Hill has argued for Bartlet’s position at length, highlighting correspondences between this passage and the words of ‘the Elder’ in Papias and other proposed Papian sources. Unfortunately, his arguments cannot be fully reproduced here, but a few points will be mentioned.

First, Hill points out some correspondences between Papias on Mark and Matthew and the statements about John’s gospel found in proposed Papian sources such as Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Victorinus and the Muratorian Canon; he goes on to suggest that these sources provide possible clues for reconstructing what Papias might have said concerning John’s gospel (1998: 583-88). Thus, for example, Mark is said by Papias to have written ‘some/several things’ (ἔνια); in the Muratorian Canon, John wrote ‘individual/several things’ (singula) (l. 28), possibly reflecting a Papian tradition (Hill 1998: 586).

Secondly, Hill notes some literary parallels between Papias and the unattributed fragment, some of which will be mentioned here. Thus he notes (1998: 595) that the verb ποιεῖν is used three times in the middle voice in Papias’s short excerpt (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15) and once in the unattributed fragment (Hist. eccl. 3.24.7). Similarly (1998: 595), while Papias’s Elder describes Mark as recording ‘the things said or done by the Lord’ (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15), using the passive aorist participle πραχθέντα, the unattributed fragment uses the passive aorist or perfect participle of the same verb four times in similar contexts (in Hist. eccl. 3.24.7, 8, 11).

Thirdly, Hill points to literary affinities between the unattributed fragment and other proposed Papian sources (1998: 593). Thus he notes that Clement, in a passage with material in common with Papias, refers to Mark’s gospel as a ‘record’ (ὑπόμνημα) of Peter’s preaching (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.1); in the unattributed passage, Eusebius states that only Matthew and John have left written records (ὑπομνήματα) (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.24.5). He notes (1998: 592) that, in the unattributed fragment, Matthew and John write out of necessity; John is exhorted to write (παρακληθέντα) in the unattributed fragment just as Mark is exhorted (παρακλήσεσιν) by Peter’s hearers in Clement’s account (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.1). This points to a ‘thematic unity’, which has the purpose of ‘showing that each writer did not take it upon himself to initiate the process’ (1998: 592). Hill further observes (1998: 596) that John is also urged to write in other proposed Papian sources, including Clement (προτραπέντα), the Muratorian Canon (cohortantibus) (l. 10) and Victorinus (compulerunt) (Comm. Apoc. 11.1).

The ‘unconventional’ citation of Jn 2.11 in the unattributed fragment also points to a possible Papian origin, according to Hill (1998: 597). Rather than speaking of the miracle at Cana as the beginning of Jesus’ ‘signs’ (τῶν σημείων), as in John’s gospel, it speaks of the beginning of his ‘wonders’ (τῶν παραδόξων) (1998: 597). He suggests a connection between this and the Muratorian Canon’s description of John as a writer of ‘all the wonders of the Lord in order’ (omnium mirabilium Domini per ordinem) (ll. 33-34), noting also the relation of ‘order’ (ordinem) to the emphasis on the miracle at Cana as the ‘beginning’ of wonders (1998: 597-98).

Hill concludes that his hypothesis is ‘the ultimate proof’ that Papias did not identify the author of the Fourth Gospel with John the Elder (1998: 613), since the Elder (whose narrative Eusebius is paraphrasing from Papias, according to Hill) ‘describes John, obviously, as a person distinct from himself.’

Objections

Bauckham raises a number of qualifications and/or objections, of varying strength and relevance, against Hill’s identification (2006: 433-37). ¹² After comparing what both Papias and the unattributed fragment say about Matthew’s gospel, he notes that Papias speaks of Matthew making an orderly arrangement (συνετάξατο) of Jesus’ logia in Hebrew, whereas the fragment speaks of Matthew writing from compulsion (2006: 435). He observes: ‘Papias is concerned with the issue of order in the Gospels’, whereas the unattributed fragment ‘is explaining how it was that Matthew was obliged to write his Gospel’. He concludes: ‘The two statements cannot be combined into a single account from the same context in Papias’ (2006: 435). ¹³

But Papias’s statement consists of a single short sentence, and this seems far too brief to warrant the conclusion that these statements could not have been combined, for it cannot be assumed that Papias’s statement on Matthew represents his main point rather than a subsidiary one. Furthermore, while Papias speaks of Mark’s ‘order’, Clement, in a passage which Bauckham acknowledges was derived from Papias (2007: 65), speaks of Mark being urged upon to write (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.6-7). Elsewhere Eusebius relates the same account from Clement and adds that it was also found in Papias (Hist. eccl. 2.15.1-2). If Papias made both statements about Mark, there is no reason to assume that he could not have made them about Matthew also.

More significantly, Bauckham objects that while both Papias and the unattributed fragment are concerned with the problem of the varying ‘order’ of the gospels, their proposed solutions are different. Papias states that Mark lacked τάξις, but excuses this on the basis that he had not heard the Lord but was a follower of Peter, ‘who framed his teaching according to the needs of his hearers (or, ‘in anecdotal form’: τὰς χρείας), but not as intending to make a complete arrangement (σύνταξιν) of the words of the Lord’ (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). The unattributed fragment on the other hand denies that there is any chronological variance between the gospels by placing the beginning of John’s narrative before the Galilean ministry (2006: 435-36). This, Bauckham maintains, argues against the fragment’s reliance upon Papias (2006: 435).

Bauckham’s claim that the unattributed fragment is concerned with resolving the chronological variances between the gospels is drawn from Eusebius’s statement in lines 12 and 13, where he states that the gospels will be shown by the preceding observations not to be at variance with each other. However, as Bauckham himself notes in another of his qualifications, this statement belongs to Eusebius, not his source (2006: 433). It therefore likely represents nothing more than Eusebius’s own conclusion based on the evidence of his uncited source. The source was evidently useful for Eusebius in providing evidence for his claim that the gospels do not disagree (to which circumstance the preservation of this account is no doubt indebted), ¹⁴ but the source itself only states that John’s gospel records the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, which were omitted by the others. Papias might simply have stated, in the context of his discussion, that Mark wrote out of chronological order while John provided a fuller chronological framework, thus illustrating the superiority of John’s gospel.

The matter might be left there with no loss to the argument. However, it is useful to point out that, in making this objection, Bauckham is understanding the word τάξις in a chronological sense. In this way, he makes Eusebius’s concern over the chronological variance of the gospels correspond to Papias’s concern for correct τάξις. There is, however, some disagreement over whether Papias is using the word of chronological ¹⁵ or literary arrangement. ¹⁶ Bauckham (2006: 220) accepts that the word does not refer to ‘chronological sequence as such, but to the orderly arrangement of material in a literary composition’. He nevertheless maintains that chronological order is not excluded as a meaning, and he argues that Papias clearly used τάξις in this sense since Mark’s absence at the events which he narrates would not have prevented him from applying topical arrangement to the narrative (2006: 221).

However, Bauckham does not provide any evidence for such an exclusive meaning of the word. ¹⁷ Indeed, Stewart-Sykes (1995: 489) denies that any Greek historian used τάξις of the order of events, noting that Philostratus speaks of Apollonius’s account as accurate τοῖς δὲ χρόνοις (Vita Apollonii 1.2). Thus Hill, while accepting that τάξις can have a chronological aspect, nevertheless argues that it rather emphasizes literary arrangement, including the omission of material (2009: 291), particularly at the beginning of an account (1998: 599).

Furthermore, Mark’s absence from the events and reliance upon Peter could have prevented him from adding the kind of literary arrangement spoken of by the Greek rhetorician Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who criticizes Thucydides for his lack of order (τάξις) in omitting the beginning and ending of the narrative (cf. Abbott 1913: 82-83).

Some critics also find fault with his order (αἰτιῶνται δὲ καὶ τὴν τάξιν αὐτοῦ τινες), claiming that he has neither made a proper beginning nor brought it to a suitable close. These people say that the most important feature of a good arrangement (οἰκονοµίας) is to adopt as a starting-point something that is not preceded by anything else (ἀρχήν τε λαβεῖν, ἧς οὐκ ἂν εἴη τι πρότερον), and to bring the treatise to such a close that it will seem to be really complete and lack nothing (καὶ τέλει περιλαβεῖν τὴν πραγματείαν, ᾧ δόξει μηδὲν ἐνδεῖν), but Thucydides has not properly attended to either of these two matters (Thuc.10). ¹⁸

This understanding of τάξις, which is concerned with the appropriateness of the beginning and end of the narrative, would be applicable to Mark’s gospel, which opens abruptly by introducing the narrative at the baptism of John, with only vague references to time and place and without any explanation as to who John was. ¹⁹ Papias could have excused Mark on the basis that he only gave an account of the things he had heard from Peter, who did not intend to provide a ‘complete arrangement’ (σύνταξιν) of events and consequently did not provide an account of the things which took place before the baptism. Mark was limited by his source, and this could have been reflected in his lack of a suitable introduction. Papias need not have used τάξις in the sense of chronological order (assuming that is even a possible meaning), as Bauckham insists.

The problem of inadequate introductions in histories is also discussed by Lucian, when speaking of errors ‘of arrangement’ (διατάξεως). Some historians, he complains, write long and elevated introductions while the body of writing is short and base, which he likens to placing a colossal head on the body of a dwarf (de Cons. Hist. 23-24); ²⁰ echoing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, he states that others produce headless bodies by commencing the narrative without first providing an introduction (de Cons. Hist. 23).

Lucian also mentions τάξις earlier in his work, likewise in the context of beginnings and literary arrangement, writing that the historian must consider ‘what kind of beginning (ἀρχήν) it is to commence with, what arrangement (τάξιν) is suitable for the deeds, the proportion (μέτρον) of each part; which things must be passed over in silence (σιωπητέον) and which things should be dwelt upon; what things it is better to hurry through; and how to explain and combine these things’ (de Cons. Hist. 6). ²¹

As noted by Hill in answer to Bauckham’s objections (2009: 291), ²² Quintilian states that those works lacking ‘arrangement’ (ordo) ‘will lack cohesion’ and ‘fall into countless repetitions and omissions’; they will have no ‘fixed purpose’, and will be without either a ‘starting-point or goal’. ²³ Here, as in Lucian, the concerns include omission, transition and the suitableness of the beginning and end.

Also suggestive that Papias was referring to inadequate literary arrangement and not sequential order is that he did not criticize Matthew for a lack of τάξις, even though Matthew’s pericopes generally (though not exactly) follow Mark’s order. ²⁴ Papias considered Matthew’s gospel as having τάξις, for he writes that Matthew ‘arranged together (συνετάξατο) the logia’ ²⁵ (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). He excused Mark, however, on the basis that Peter, whom Mark followed, did not intend to make an ‘orderly account’ (σύνταξιν) of the dominical logia (τῶν κυριακῶν λογίων) (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). The difference in ordering between Mark and Matthew is not great, yet Papias criticized one and affirmed the other. In light of the attested use of τάξις by ancient literary critics, the difference may be that Matthew provided a suitable beginning to Jesus’ ministry by including an infancy narrative (Mt 1.18-25) and details about Jesus’ childhood (2.19-23).

This understanding of τάξις would harmonize both with Papias’s argument and that of the unattributed fragment, the interest of which is in the respective beginnings of the gospels (particularly the Synoptic omission of Jesus’ first miracles and divine origin). The unattributed fragment can therefore be viewed as intending to demonstrate the superior τάξις of John’s gospel (though it never uses the word τάξις as such). Papias, on the other hand, can be viewed as excusing Mark’s lack of literary τάξις in terms of its omission of the things that took place before the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Presumably Papias argued that Matthew and Luke provided τάξις by including birth narratives but that John’s inclusion of the teaching of the divinity and Jesus’ first miracles gave his gospel superior τάξις.

These conclusions are consistent with two other proposed Papian sources. Clement, discussing the Papian traditions on Mark and John, is said by Eusebius to have related them from the primitive elders who were speaking ‘concerning the arrangement (περὶ τῆς τάξεως) of the Gospels’ (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.5). This suggests that Papias did indeed discuss the τάξις of the four gospels. That this related to their beginnings is suggested by another proposed Papian source, the Muratorian Canon, which exhibits an interest in the ‘various beginnings (principia) in the separate books of the Gospels’ (ll. 16-17) and states that Luke ‘began’ (incepit) with the birth of John (l. 8).

John the Elder

However, the definition of τάξις as referring to the literary arrangement of a work, particularly with respect to its beginning and the inclusion and omission of events, undermines Hill’s claim that the unattributed fragment provides ‘the ultimate proof’ that Papias did not identify the author of the Fourth Gospel with John the Elder. Hill draws his conclusion by assuming that the fragment records the direct speech of John the Elder concerning the four gospels, which would require that he spoke of the author of John in the third person (1998: 613). He would therefore reconstruct Papias as having written something along the lines of: ‘The Elder said that John wrote for the following reason: when the Gospels were brought to him, he approved them, etc.’

However, if τάξις refers to the literary arrangement of a work, particularly with respect to its beginning and the inclusion and omission of events, as Hill accepts (1998: 599; cf. 2009: 291), it must be concluded that Papias’s Elder describes Mark in the same way as the unattributed fragment’s Evangelist describes the Synoptics, allowing the possibility that Papias is quoting the Evangelist’s evaluation of the three prior gospels when he recounts the Elder’s statements concerning Mark’s τάξις. Thus in Papias, the Elder affirms that Mark wrote accurately the things he remembered, and he excuses him for his lack of τάξις on the basis that he was not an eyewitness. According to the unattributed fragment, when the Synoptics were brought to John the Evangelist, he gave a qualified approval to them, testifying of their truth while pointing out their omissions with respect to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (i.e. their τάξις, according to the definition of the word accepted by Hill). Thus both the Elder and the Evangelist are shown giving a qualified approval either to Mark in particular or to the Synoptics in general, while criticizing their respective lack of τάξις, suggesting that the words attributed to the Elder with respect to the τάξις of Mark were taken from the account of the Evangelist’s evaluation of the Synoptics referred to in the unattributed fragment. There is no need to assume, as Hill does, that the Elder assessed all four gospels in the third person. However, if the words of the Evangelist were quoted by Papias as the words of ‘the Elder’, then Papias must have identified the Evangelist with John the Elder.

Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Unattributed Fragment

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–c. 428), in the preface to his commentary on John, provides further support both for Hill’s understanding of τάξις in Papias and the unattributed fragment and for the latter’s dependence upon Papias. After mentioning Peter’s journey to Rome, Theodore writes as follows. ²⁶

So the blessed John also dwells at Ephesus, visiting all of Asia and supplying much help to those there through his words (or ‘through his suitable words’: διά τῶν οἰκείων λόγων). In these times therefore the publication (ἔκδοσις) by the other Evangelists takes place, Matthew’s and Mark’s, even more so Luke’s, these having written their own Gospels; and it was distributed (διεδόθη) in a short time over the whole inhabited world; and it was zealously pursued by all the faithful with, as is reasonable, great disposition of mind.

But judging the blessed John to be more trustworthy than the rest in regard to his testimony of the Gospel, as one who associated with the Lord himself from the beginning and that before Matthew, and as one who enjoyed (ἀπολαύσαντα) more of his grace on account of his love, the faithful in the region of Asia brought the books to him, wishing to learn from him which was of good reputation concerning these matters. He indeed praised the writers for their truth but said that brief things had been omitted (βραχέα παραλελεῖϕθαι) by them, and especially of some miracles (θαυμάτων) needing to be recounted (λεχθῆναι), and that all the teachings were only of a little extent (τὰ διδασκαλικὰ ἅπαντα μικροῦ). Next he said it was needful for these, which discussed concerning the coming of Christ in the flesh, not to pass over the accounts concerning his divinity either (μηδὲ τοὺς περὶ θεότητος λόγους παραλιπεῖν), so that, in the passing of time, people would not become accustomed by these words to think of him only in the way in which he appeared.

On account of these things a request (παράκλησις) came from the brothers to write with speed those things which he judged on the one hand as most necessary for the purpose of teaching, and which on the other hand he perceived to have been left out by the others (ταῦτα ἃ μάλιστα ἀναγκαῖα μὲν κρίνει πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, παραλελειμμένα δὲ ὁρᾷ τοῖς λοιποῖς), which thing he then also did. For which reason, he also made examination right from the beginning (ἐξ ἀρχῆς) concerning the teachings of the divinity (περὶ τῶν τῆς θεότητος ἐϕιλοσόϕησε δογμάτων), judging it necessary for this to be the beginning (τὴν ἀρχήν) of the Gospel.

And thus turning to the incarnation (τὴν οἰκανομίαν), it was at that point that he himself also came to the baptism of John, knowing that there was not any other most true beginning (ἀληθεστάτην ἀρχήν) of the things said (λεχθέντων) or done (γεγονότων) by the Lord in the flesh than that one. But also, coming to this point, he rather made it a point of honour to speak the things left out by the others. But he took thought to add a certain proper arrangement (τάξιν) to the narrative also, and has spoken of the things as they took place on the first day, as well as the place, just as, ‘in Bethara across the Jordan’ [John 1:28]. And he has spoken of the things which took place on the second day, and then of the disciples who followed thereafter. In short, anyone investigating it will find him accurately (ἀκριβῶς) calling to mind (μνημονεύοντα) as many things as orderly progression (ἀκολουθία) requires and which he judged as necessary not to be left out. And he joins together successively (ἐϕεξῆς) the things left out by the others; of which he alone makes mention, clearly declaring with respect to the wedding that it was the beginning of signs (ἀρχὴν σημείων) [cf. John 2:11]. He makes mention of all the teachings a little, of which none of the others makes mention, and likewise of the wonders (θαυμάτων). And if perhaps he makes mention of a sign recounted by the others, he makes mention of it no doubt on account of some need (χρείαν), as with the account of the loaves, mentioned by the others. He has inserted it on account of the necessity of bringing together the teaching, in which he also touched on the words related to the mysteries [i.e. the Eucharist]. For the miracle (θαῦμα) was the occasion of these things, and it is not possible to make mention of the words without touching on the causes of the word.

The rhetorical concerns are clear. The commencement of the narrative with the divinity is in agreement with Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s observation that the starting point ought to be ‘something that is not preceded by anything else’ (Thuc.10). ²⁷ Lucian stated that the historian must consider ‘what kind of beginning (ἀρχήν τε οἵαν) it is to commence with’ (de Cons. Hist. 6). The emphasis on the necessity of a correct beginning is also seen in the mention of the baptism of John as the ‘most true beginning’ (ἀληθεστάτην ἀρχήν) of the narrative of Jesus’ teaching and ministry.

The teaching in the Synoptics is said to be of little extent, that is, not in due proportion to the place it ought to occupy (cf. μέτρον in Lucian, de Cons. Hist. 6). The issue of the Synoptic omission of things that needed to be told is also raised, with John supplying those things left out by the others. John is said to have taken thought to also add ‘arrangement to the narrative’, where his τὰξιν τινὰ ἐπιθεῖναι τῇ διηγήσει echoes Lucian’s statement that after the facts have been gathered together into notes (ὑπόμνημα), a literary body (σῶμα), the historian, ‘having added arrangement’ (ἐπιθεὶς τὴν τάξιν), is to enhance the work stylistically (de Cons. Hist. 48). ²⁸ Lastly, the repetition of material from the Synoptic accounts is justified on the basis that John only repeated the account if there was some need to supply something left out by the others (cf. Quintilian above).

The similarities between this passage and the unattributed fragment are worthy of note and may be suggestive of some literary relationship (on which see further below). ²⁹ In the unattributed fragment John spends his time preaching and does not write. Following the ‘publication’ (τὴν ἔκδοσιν) of the Synoptic Gospels, they are ‘distributed (διαδεδομένων) to all, and to him’; he is said to have praised the writers for their truth while pointing out that they passed over the miracles done by Jesus at the beginning of his ministry; John is also said to have reasonably maintained silence concerning the genealogy of Jesus and to have begun his account with the teaching of the divinity, as though this were reserved for him.

In Theodore, John is providing help to the disciples in Asia through his words. A publication (ἔκδοσις) is made of the gospels, each of which is said to have been distributed (διεδόθη) over the whole world; finally, the Asian faithful bring these gospels to John; he praises the writers for their truth but states that they left out certain miracles that needed to be related, and he adds that their teaching was lacking. Mention is made of the Fourth Gospel’s inclusion of the things left out by the others at the time of the baptism of John. Like Eusebius, Theodore cites Jn 2.11. Theodore also relates that John made examination from the beginning concerning the teachings of the divinity and judged this to be the proper beginning of the gospel.

Perhaps Theodore has drawn from Eusebius, or perhaps he has independently drawn from the same underlying source, which Bartlet and Hill identify with Papias’s lost work. In any case, Theodore provides a similar account to that found in Eusebius’s unattributed fragment, only he employs the word τάξις, which he uses in the sense of literary arrangement. Thus the Synoptics are not criticized for presenting events in the wrong chronological order but for being unbalanced in their accounts of the wonders and teachings of the Lord and for omitting things that should have been included. John, on the other hand, is said to have made efforts to include a true beginning and to provide a ‘proper arrangement’ for his narrative by speaking of the things that happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry while additionally supplying chronological and geographical details.

The Literary Relationship of the Two Passages

While it can be posited that Theodore summarized and expanded Eusebius’s account, a number of indications may suggest that both were reliant upon a common source. First, even though Theodore’s is the broader account, he fails to demonstrate any knowledge of lines 8-10 of the unattributed fragment, which Bauckham recognizes as an editorial comment by Eusebius, ³⁰ suggesting that Theodore was not reliant upon Eusebius for his own account.

Secondly, Theodore provides the identity of those who brought the gospels to John, saying that ‘a request arose from the brothers in Asia’ (παράκλησις τῶν ἀδελϕῶν ἐγένετο), whereas the unattributed fragment states only that John was ‘exhorted on account of these things’ (παρακληθέντα δὴ οὖν τούτων ἕνεκά). Possibly Eusebius omitted mention of these Asian brothers (presumably the same as Papias’s Asian elders) in this context so as not to disclose his source, electing instead to cast the narrative into the passive voice.

Thirdly, he states that John ‘associated with the Lord from the beginning and that before Matthew’, which also finds no place in Eusebius. Papias, however, might have made such a statement in order to account for Mathew’s omission of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew’s beginning was clearly superior to Mark’s, but it was inferior to John’s, who recorded those miracles done at the time of the baptism of John.

Another indication of literary independence is that Theodore’s account develops the idea of τάξις to a far greater extent than Eusebius does. It is possible that Theodore, with a keen eye on the nuances in Eusebius’s account, has expanded the narrative by emphasizing John’s superior τάξις; but Eusebius’s account does not employ the word τάξις, making it difficult to see exactly why Theodore would have woven this concern into his version of the story. Furthermore, the idea of τάξις is integral to the passage’s meaning in Theodore and cannot easily be separated from it. Indeed, it is in connection with John’s superior τάξις that Theodore provides even the geographical detail that the events of the first day took place ‘in Bethara across the Jordan’. The detail given by Eusebius that John was baptizing in Aenon might have originally been given in a context that made a similar point. Thus Theodore’s account seems to have preserved the original context of the discussion concerning the omission of these events, and this context was the τάξις of the gospels, just as Hill has inferred from Eusebius alone.

This is seen yet more clearly by a further comparison of the two passages. According to Theodore, John ‘took thought to add a certain proper arrangement to the narrative’ (τὰξιν τινὰ ἐπιθεῖναι τῇ διηγήσει) by relating what happened on the ‘first’ and ‘second’ day and where these things took place (Jn 1.19-34), and by recording the beginning of miracles in Cana (Jn 2.1-11). But in the unattributed fragment, John states ‘that there was missing from the writing [of the Synopticists] the narrative (τὴν διήγησιν) concerning the things done (πεπραγμένων) by Christ at first and at the beginning of his preaching (κατʼ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος)’. No mention is made of τάξις in Eusebius.

Thus the same (relatively infrequent) word διήγσις is used in both passages, and in both passages it is a record of the deeds of Christ done at the beginning of his ministry that needs to be added to the διήγησις. In Theodore, John added this to the narrative; in the unattributed fragment, it is missing from the narrative of the Synoptic writers. Furthermore, the failure to add to the narrative this record of the things done at the beginning of Christ’s ministry constitutes a lack of τάξις, according to Theodore.

These observations therefore not only suggest the literary relationship between the two passages, but confirm that the problem being addressed by Eusebius’s source was not the chronological variance of the gospels, but rather the literary strengths and weaknesses of the Synoptic beginnings (their τάξις), as argued by Hill.

In contrast, Eusebius’s primary concern is to show that John does not contradict the Synoptics by arguing that the unique material took place during the period before John’s imprisonment. This concern for demonstrating non-contradiction is secondary, expressed in Eusebius’s parenthetical comments, but it is not directly reflected in the source itself, so far as Eusebius’s paraphrase of it is concerned. His source points out only that John provided an account of those things passed over by the others, just as Theodore does, and this could have been originally discussed within the context of John’s τάξις.

Theodore and the Source of Eusebius’s Fragment

The view of Bartlet and Hill that the unattributed fragment’s source was Papias receives additional confirmation from the closely related passage in Theodore. First, both Theodore and Papias are interested in the τάξις of the gospels; Theodore’s account is concerned with demonstrating that its τάξις is superior to that of the other gospels; Papias, on the other hand, excuses Mark for his lack of τάξις on the basis that he was limited in his sources to Peter’s discourses.

Secondly, there are a number of literary affinities between Theodore and Papias which are independent of the unattributed fragment. Thus, despite the brevity of the extant fragment of Papias on Mark’s gospel, the words τάξις, χρεία, διδασκαλία, παραλείπω, the passive aorist of λέγω, a form of the verb ἀκολουθέω and the use of ἀκριβῶς with the verb μνημονεύω are common to Papias (apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15) and Theodore but are not found in Eusebius’s unattributed fragment. ³¹

In both Theodore and Papias, χρεία and διδασκαλία are related. In Theodore, John makes reference to the miracle of the loaves on account of some ‘need’ (χρεία) with respect to teaching (τὴν διδασκαλίαν); according to Papias, Peter ‘framed his teachings (τὰς διδασκαλίας) according to the needs (πρὸς τὰς χρείας)’. ³²

Both writers use the adverb ἀκριβῶς with a form of the subordinator ὅσος and the verb μνημονεύω. In Theodore, John is accurately calling to mind as many things as orderly progression requires (ἀκριβῶς … µνηµονεύοντα ὅσων ἥ τε ἀκολουθία κατεπείγει); according to Papias, Mark ‘wrote accurately whatever he called to mind’ (ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν).

Both writers employ the verb παραλείπω concerning the contents of the gospels. Concerning John, Theodore says: ‘[H]e joins together successively the things left out (τὰ παραλελειμμένα) by the others’; Papias says that Mark was careful not to omit anything (παραλιπεῖν) of the things he had heard.

Papias, like Theodore, also uses the passive aorist of λέγω in relation to the teachings of Jesus. Theodosius speaks of ‘the things said or brought about by the Lord in the flesh’ (τῶν ἐν σαρκὶ παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντων ἢ γεγονότων), whereas Papias speaks of Mark writing ‘the things said and done by the Lord’ (τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα).

Lastly, both use a form of the verb ἀκολουθέω. According to Theodore, John spoke of the disciples who followed (ἀκολουθήσαντας) Jesus after the second day of the narrative; Papias says that Mark ‘did not hear or follow him’ (οὔτε γὰρ ἢκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ).

All of these points of contact with Papias’s brief account of Mark’s gospel are independent of Eusebius’s passage. Theodore seems to have either expanded upon Eusebius’s account using Papian material, framing his version around the theme of τάξις, or he has independently and more closely followed a common Papian source.

Conclusion

Hill has made the case that Eusebius’s unattributed fragment derives from Papias, drawing attention to both literary parallels between the passage and Papias, and between the passage and proposed Papian sources. After making his case for the likelihood that Eusebius’s passage derives from Papias, Hill inferred that the Elder would have spoken of the Fourth Evangelist in the third person, and he concluded from this that the Elder could not have been the Evangelist in Papias’s account.

Bauckham, however, insists that an understanding of τάξις as the chronological ordering of the narratives challenges Hill’s identification of a Papian derivation for the passage, since Papias would be excusing the chronological variances between the gospels (by admitting imprecision in Mark’s gospel), whereas the unattributed fragment denies that there is any chronological variance between the gospels.

It was pointed out that, in making this objection, Bauckham must assume that both Papias and the unattributed fragment were seeking to resolve the problem of chronological variation between the gospels. The evidence itself only shows that this was Eusebius’s concern. Without this assumption, the objection collapses, for even if τάξις is understood of chronological arrangement, it could still be maintained that Papias did attribute chronological imprecision to Mark while also explaining the chronological placement of the events at the beginning of John’s gospel.

Nevertheless, there are a number of reasons for questioning Bauckham’s understanding of τάξις as chronological in Papias: first, he provides no independent attestation for it; secondly, τάξις can be understood in the attested sense of the inclusion and omission of material, including with respect to the beginning of the narrative. Furthermore, this latter sense receives support from Theodore in a passage that exhibits literary affinities with both the unattributed passage and with the Papian fragment on Mark. Theodore thus argues that the other gospels omitted things that needed to be told, and that John added τάξις to the narrative, fitting together the teachings within the context of a proper arrangement that included a superior beginning (both in terms of teaching and the relation of events) and orderly progression.

According to the argument proposed here, Papias’s purpose in providing this narrative would not have been to provide an account of origins of the Synoptics per se. Rather, he was explaining the need of John’s gospel in light of the deficiencies with respect to τάξις in the Synoptic narratives. He would have acknowledged that Matthew and Luke used τάξις but would have pointed to their inferiority in omitting the teaching of the divinity and the first works of Christ before the imprisonment of John; he would have accounted for Mark’s lack of a suitable beginning by noting that he was not an eyewitness but wrote down those things which he had heard from Peter. Presumably the reference in Theodore to John having associated with Jesus from the beginning, before Matthew, would have excused Matthew’s inferior τάξις with respect to the things done at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

While Theodore offers substantiating evidence for both Hill’s Papian identification of the unattributed fragment and for his reconstruction of Papias’s argument concerning the τάξις of John’s gospel, he does not lend support to Hill’s thesis that John the Elder spoke of the Evangelist in the third person and that he therefore was not identified as the Evangelist by Papias. Rather, the Evangelist’s criticism of the τάξις of the Synoptics echoes the Elder’s assessment of Matthew and Mark, suggesting that the words which Papias attributed to the Elder may have originally been recorded within the context of the Evangelist’s criticism, and that Papias consequently identified the Elder with the Evangelist.