Eusebius, Papias, Polycrates, Alexander
Eusebius of Caesarea(c260-339) wrote, among other works, a history of the church until that point, usually called the Ecclesiastical History (EH) — 316-326 AD.
See Lightfoot (1880) for detail on Eusebius’ life and work.
Eusebius as source for earlier writers
Eusebius is the only source we have for some quotes from earlier writers that give information about the origin of the Gospels.
The sources for these quotes are:
- Papias of Hierapolis (a set of books around 110 AD).
- Polycrates of Ephesus (letter 190-195 AD).
- Clement of Alexandria (book 204-210 AD).
- Origen, Commentaries (?220 - 240 AD)
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (155-160 AD)
- Apollonius of Ephesus (writing around 200 AD)
- Dionysius of Alexandria (c190 — 264)
- Appolonius of Ephesus (c 210)
Papias
EH quotes from the very early five books of Papias of Hierapolis called “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord”; call this ESL. Carlson (2025) estimates the date of ESL as 110 AD (footnote 48). Papias lived in Hierapolis, which is about 200 km from Ephesus, the city in which John’s Gospel is most likely to have been written, and about 220 km from Smyrna, the home of Polycarp and the younger Irenaeus.
Lightfoot (1889a) has a chapter on Papias, starting at page 142. He sets out the striking lack of good information we have for definite dates of Papias’ life, or ESL.
Although Eusebius quotes from ESL, it is not clear that Eusebius had access to any of Papias’ five books — he may have been quoting from a secondary source — see Stevens (2019).
Polycrates of Ephesus
EH has an extended quote from Polycrates’ letter to Pope Victor about the controversy on the correct day of the year to celebrate Easter.
Virtually all we know about Polycrates is in the letter quoted in EH; from Lightfoot (1889b), p393:
The notices in Irenaeus are further confirmed by the language of his contemporary Polycrates. Polycrates was himself bishop of Ephesus, and the letter of which fragments are preserved (Euseb. H. E. v. 24) was written by him to Victor bishop of Rome, consequently between the years A.D. 189 and a.p. 198 or 199. He there mentions his ‘hoar head’ (πολιᾶς) and speaks of himself as ‘numbering sixty-five years in the Lord’ (ἑξήκοντα πέντε ἔτη ἔχων ἐν Κυρίῳ). Even if this period dates from his birth and not from his conversion, he must have been born within about a quarter of a century after the death of the last surviving Apostle [John], who passed his later years in the Church of Ephesus where Polycrates ruled.
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria may have been born in Athens, or in Alexandria, in 140-150 AD (Méhat 1966, p54). See Wescott’s (1877) biography for more background.
EH quotes from two of Clement’s books:
- “Who is the rich man who is being saved?” and
- “Hypotyposes”, also known as (with a different transliteration from Greek) “Hypotyposeis”.
Méhat (above), dates both works after the third of Clement’s major works — the Stromata — where he (and Wikipedia) date the Stromata around 203 AD.
Origen of Alexandria
Origen, (c. 185 – c. 253)
- Commentary on the Gospel of John
- Commentary on Genesis
Apollonius of Ephesus
From Wace and Piercy (1911), p35:
Apollonius of Ephesus, so called on the doubtful authority of the writer of Praedestinatus, ed. by Sirmond, who styles him [bishop] of Ephesus, but the silence of Eusebius and all other earlier testimony makes it difficult to lay much stress on this statement.He wrote a work in five books against the Cataphrygian or Montanist heresy. Fragments of the first three books are extant in Eusebius (H. E. y. 18), … Taking for the rise of Montanism the date given in the Chronicon of Eusebius (A.D. 172), this would give about A.D. 210 for the date of this work.
Also see Apollonius’ entry in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.
EH on the source of the Gospels
There follow the relevant passages from EH on the authorship of the Gospels. Quotes and page numbers are from Eusebius of Caesarea (1927).
Key passages from HE
HE 2.15
So then, when the divine Word had thus come to sojourn among them, the power of Simon [[the Samaritan]] was quenched and destroyed simultaneously with the man himself. But so brilliant was the light of piety that shone upon the minds of Peter’s hearers, that they were not content to be satisfied with hearing him once and no more, nor with the unwritten teaching of the divine message; but besought with all kinds of entreaties Mark, whose Gospel is extant, a follower of Peter, that he would leave them in writing also a memoir of the teaching they had received by word of mouth; nor did they relax their efforts until they had prevailed upon the man; and thus they became the originators of the book of the 2 Gospel according to Mark, as it is called. Now it is said that when the apostle learnt, by revelation of the Spirit, what was done, he was pleased with the men’s zeal, and authorized the book to be read in the churches — Clement has given the story in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis; [[ See vi. 14. 6, 7]] and the bishop of Hierapolis also, Papias by name, corroborates his testimony.[[See iii. 39. 16.]] And [it is said] that Peter mentions Mark in his former epistle; which also it is said he composed at Rome itself, and indicates the fact when he calls the city, somewhat metaphoric- ally, “Babylon,” in these words: She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.[[1 Peter. v. 13.]], p48.
McGiffert’s (Eusebius of Caesarea 1890) footnote to this passage traces the early testimony to the sources of Mark.
That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter, or as a record of what he had heard from him, is the universal tradition of antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-disputed passage (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record the tradition. Justin Martyr refers to Mark’s Gospel under the name “Memoirs (ἀπομνημονεύματα) of Peter” (Dial. c. Tryph. 106; the translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. I. p. 252, which refers the αὐτοῦ to Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, N. T. Einleitung, p. 44, note 4). Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 11. 1, quoted below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5), and Origen (quoted below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over and over again by the Fathers.
HE 3.1
Such, then, was the plight of the Jews at that time [[during the Jewish revolt, described by Josephus]]. But when the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed over the whole world, Parthia was allotted to Thomas, according to tradition, while Scythia was allotted to Andrew, and Asia to John,
… with whom [[original footnote: plural (οὑς)]] also he lived, dying at Ephesus. But Peter, it seems, preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia, in Cappadocia and Asia, to those Jews who were of the Dispersion. He also at the last came to Rome, and was crucified head-down- wards; for he requested that he might suffer thus. What need to speak of Paul, who from Jerusalem even unto Illyricum has fully preached the gospel of Christ, and afterwards was martyred at Rome under Nero;
These are the express terms which Origen uses in the third tome of his Commentaries on Genesis.
HE 3.18
18/ It is recorded that at that time the apostle and evangelist John, being still alive, was condemned to dwell in the island of Patmos for his testimony to the divine word. [[Original footnote: Heg. in J. A. Cramer, Anecd. Greca, ii. 88; and C de Boor, 7.U. v. 2. 169.]]
Indeed, Ireneus, in writing about the number of the name of the Antichrist which is to be found in the Apocalypse of John, as it is called, uses these very words in the fifth book of his work Against the Heresies, with reference to John:
But if it were necessary that his name should be announced openly at this present time, it would have been stated by him who also saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close of the principate of Domitian. [[AH 5, 30]] p79
HE 3.20
…Now after Domitian had ruled for fifteen years and Nerva had succeeded him in the principate, the Senate of the Romans decreed that Domitian’s honours should be taken away, and that those unjustly banished should return to their own homes, and receive back their property as well. This is recorded by 9 those who wrote the history of the period. At that time, then, the record of our ancient men informs us that the apostle John also took up his abode once more at Ephesus after his exile on the island.
21/ But when Nerva had reigned little more than a year, he was succeeded by Trajan. … (p81)
HE 3.23-25
23/ Moreover, there was still alive in Asia and directing the churches there, he whom Jesus loved,[[John xiii. 23; xxi. 7, 20]] apostle alike and evangelist, even John, having returned from his exile on the island after the death of Domitian. And that he survived up to their day — this account is sufficiently accredited by two witnesses, who may be considered worthy of credit, as men who were ambassadors of the orthodoxy of the Church: seeing that such were Ireneus and Clement the Alexandrian. The former of these indeed writes thus in the second book of his work Against the Heresies, in these very words:
… and all the elders who have come in contact with John, the disciple of the Lord, in Asia testify that John delivered. … For he remained with them until the time of Trajan.[[AH, 2, 33. 3]]
And in the third book of the same work he states this same thing, as follows:
Yea also the church at Ephesus, founded by Paul, and where John remained with them until the time of Trajan, is a truthful witness of the tradition of the apostles. [[AH. 2, 3. 4]]
But Clement both indicated the time, and also adds a story which such as delight in hearing what is beautiful and helpful should most certainly know. It is in his treatise which he entitled Who is the rich man who is being saved? Take and read this writing of his also; it runs as follows:
… hear a tale that is no mere tale, but a true account of John the apostle, which has been handed down and preserved in memory. For when on the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus, he used to go off, when requested, to the neighbouring districts of the Gentiles also, to appoint bishops in some places, to organize whole churches in others, in others again to appoint to an order some one of those who were indicated by the Spirit. He came, then, also to a certain city at no great distance, whose very name is told by some, and having otherwise refreshed the brethren, he finally looked at the bishop who presided (for he saw a young man of powerful physique, refined appearance and ardent temperament), and said: “This youth I entrust to thee in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and Christ as witnesses.” On the bishop accepting him and making all promises, the apostle again addressed and adjured him in the same words.
Then he went back to Ephesus, while the presbyter took home his youthful charge, brought him up, kept him by his side, cherished and finally enlightened him. After that he relaxed his excessive care and guardianship, thinking that he had placed over him the perfect guard, the seal of the Lord. But the youth grasped his freedom too soon, and to his ruin fell in with certain idle and dissolute fellows of his own age, of evil habits. First they led him on by costly entertainments; then also they would perhaps take him with them as they sallied forth at night to rob; then they urged him to join them in some even greater crime. He for his part little by little adopted their habits; and like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse he left the straight path, took the bit between his teeth, and rushed down the precipice, the more violently because of his strength of character. And completely despairing of his salvation in God, he was no longer minded to commit some slight offence; but, since he had lost his soul once and for all, determined to do a big thing and suffer a like fate with the rest. So he took these same companions and got together a robber band, of which he was an active chief, the most violent, bloody and cruel of them all.
Time passed, and, some necessity having arisen, they called John back; who, when he had set in order the business that brought him thither, said: “Come now, bishop, return us the deposit, which both Christ and I have committed to thee, in the presence of the church over which thou presidest as witness.” At first the bishop was amazed, thinking that he was being falsely accused with regard to money which he had not received; and he could neither believe a charge about what he did not possess, nor disbelieve John. But when the latter said, “It is the youth that I demand, and the soul of our brother,” the old man heaved a deep sigh, and even shed some tears. “That youth,” said he,”is dead.” “How; and by what kind of death?” “He is dead to God,” he replied; “for he turned out a wicked and abandoned person, in short, a robber; and now he has left the Church to haunt the mountain with a troop of men like himself.” The apostle rent his clothes and smote his head with loud lamentation: “A fine guardian,” said he, “I left of our brother’s soul! Howbeit, provide me with a horse at once, and let me have someone to guide the way.”
He rode right from the church, just as he was; and when he came to the spot and was captured by the robbers’ sentry, he neither made to fly nor protested, but cried aloud: “To this end am I come; bring me to your leader.” The latter for a while awaited them, armed as he was. But when he recognized John as he approached, he was filled with shame and turned to flee. Forgetful of his years John followed after him with all his might, crying aloud: “Why dost thou fly from me, my child; from thy own father, from one unarmed and aged? Have pity on me, my child, fear not. Thou hast still hopes of life. I myself will give account to Christ on thy behalf. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord the death which He suffered on behalf of us. For thy sake I will give my own life in place of thine. Stand, believe; Christ has sent me.” On hearing this the robber at first stood still with downcast eyes, then he threw away his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. But when the old man drew near he embraced him, pleading his cause, as best he could, with groans; being baptized a second time in his tears, and concealing only his right hand. But the apostle gave his pledge and solemn assurance that he had found forgiveness for him from the Saviour; and praying he kneeled down and kissed that same right hand as if it were now purified by his repentance. Thus he brought him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious prayers, striving with him in continual fastings, subduing his mind with the varied siren-spell of words, he did not depart, as it is said, until he had set him over the church, thus affording a notable example of true repentance and a notable token of regeneration, a trophy of a resurrection that all might see.
24/ I have placed here this extract from Clement both for its historical interest and for the profit of such as shall read it.
But come, let us now indicate also the unquestionable writings of this apostle. And let his Gospel, recognized by the churches under heaven, be first acknowledged. That indeed it has with good reason been reckoned by the ancients in the fourth place after the other three, may be made clear in this way. Those inspired and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, had purified their lives exceedingly and adorned their souls with every virtue; but in speech they were uncultivated. They verily placed their confidence in the divine, wonder-working power truly bestowed upon them by the Saviour; they neither knew how, nor attempted, to present the teachings of the Master in persuasive and skilful words, but they used only the demonstration of the divine Spirit which was working with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ which found its fulfilment through them. Thus they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little heed to the desire for writing books. And such was their practice, inasmuch as they were aided by a greater and more than human ministry. For instance, Paul, who excelled them all in the power of composition and in fertility of thought, has committed to writing nothing but the briefest of epistles; although he had countless unutterable things to relate, since he had attained to the sights even of the third heaven, and was caught up to the divine Paradise itself, and deemed worthy to hear the unspeakable words there. And, indeed, the rest of the followers of our Saviour — the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others as well—were not without these same experiences
Yet out of them all Matthew and John alone have left us memoirs of the Lord’s discourses; and they, it is recorded, only came to write under compulsion. For Matthew first of all preached to Hebrews; and when he was about to go also to others he committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue: thus he made his writing compensate those from whom he was departing for the lack of his bodily presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, it is said that John, who all the time had used unwritten preaching, at last came also to write, for the following reason. Those three which we mentioned above having come already into the hands of all, including his own, it is said that he accepted them and attested their truth; but [expressed the opinion] that the narrative only lacked, it seems, an account of what had been done by Christ first of all and at the beginning of the preaching.
And this statement is indeed true. For instance, one can see at a glance that the three evangelists have only recorded the deeds of the Saviour for one year after the shutting up in prison of John the Baptist, and that they indicated this very fact at the beginning of their account. Thus, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation that ensued, Matthew informs us as to the chronology of his work by saying, Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew from Judea into Galilee;[[Matt. iv. 12.]] and Mark likewise says, Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee; [[Mark i. 14]], and Luke too, before he begins the acts of Jesus, makes a similar observation, declaring that Herod, in adding to the evil things he had committed, shut up John in prison.[[Luke iti. 19, 20.]]
It is said, then, that the apostle John for these reasons was called upon to give in his Gospel the period which the former evangelists had passed over in silence, and the deeds of the Saviour during that period (and these were before the shutting up of the Baptist); and that he indicated this very fact, when on one occasion he said, This beginning of his marvels did Jesus,[[John ii. 11]] and when on another he mentioned the Baptist, in the midst of an account of the acts of Jesus, as still at that time baptizing in Aenon near to Salim; and that he shows this clearly when he says, For John was not yet cast into prison.[[John iii. 23, 24]]
Therefore John in writing his Gospel gives us the things which Christ did before the Baptist was cast into prison; but the remaining three evangelists mention those done after the shutting up of the Baptist in the dungeon. And anyone who understands this can no longer imagine that the Gospels are at variance with one another, because the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, but the remaining Gospels contain the record of what He did at the close of the period; but would therefore regard it as natural that, while John passed over in silence the genealogy according to the flesh of our Saviour, inasmuch as it had been previously set down by Matthew and Luke, he should begin with the doctrine of His divinity, since the divine Spirit had reserved that for him as their superior.
This, then, must suffice as to the writing of the Gospel according to John; and we have stated above the cause which led to the writing of that according to Mark. But Luke has himself at the beginning of his treatise prefixed the cause which had led him to its composition: showing that many others had somewhat rashly taken it upon them to compose a narrative of those things of which he had been fully persuaded; and so, feeling himself bound to free us from our doubt and suspicion as to the others, he gave us in his own Gospel the certain record of those events whose truth he had firmly grasped by the aid of his intercourse and stay with Paul and his converse with the other apostles.[[Luke i. 1-4]] So much for our own account of these things. But in a more suitable place we shall endeavour to show by means of quotations from the ancients what others also have said about them.
And as to the treatises of John, the former of the epistles, as well as the Gospel, has been acknowledged as undisputed, both by the men of to-day and by the ancients also; but the remaining two are disputed. As to the Apocalypse, the opinion of the majority is still to this day divided one way or the other. But at the proper time this question also will be likewise decided by the testimony of the ancients.
25/ But now that we have reached this point, it is reasonable to sum up the writings of the New Testament already mentioned. Well then, we must set in the first place the holy quaternion of the Gospels; which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. After this we must reckon the epistles of Paul; following which we must pronounce genuine the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter. After these we must place, if it really seem right, the Apocalypse of John, the views that have been held as to which we shall set forth at the proper time. These, then, [are to be placed] among the acknowledged writings. But of those which are disputed, nevertheless familiar to the majority, there is extant the epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second epistle of Peter; and the second and third of John, so named, whether they belong to the evangelist or perhaps to some other of the same name as he. Among the spurious writings there are to be placed also the book of the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called; and, moreover, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but 5 others give it a place among the acknowledged writings.)…
The sequence above starts on page 82 of Eusebius of Caesarea (1927).
HE 3.31
Now indeed as regards Paul and Peter, we have already on a former occasion shown both the time and manner of their death, and, as well, the spot where their tabernacles were laid after they departed this life. But as for John, while we have already stated after a fashion the time [of his death],[[HE 3,23]] we must go to the epistle of Polycrates (who was bishop of the community at Ephesus) to show us the place where his tabernacle lies. In writing this epistle to Victor, bishop of the Romans, he mentions John and, together with him, Philip the apostle and his daughters, somewhat as follows :
For indeed in Asia great luminaries have fallen asleep, such as shall rise again at the last day, the day of the Lord’s appearing, when He comes with glory from heaven to seek out all His saints: to wit, Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who has fallen asleep in Hierapolis, [as have] also his two daughters who grew old in virginity, and his other daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, [there is] John too, who leant back on the Lord’s breast,[[John xiii. 25]] who was [[original footnote: or “became”]] a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher. He has fallen asleep at Ephesus. (p91)
HE 3.36
36/ But to resume. In their day in Asia a companion of the apostles, Polycarp, was in eminence: he had been entrusted with the episcopate of the church at Smyrna by the eye-witnesses and ministers of the Lord. In his day Papias was well known, also a bishop, but of the community at Hierapolis; as was also Ignatius, he whose name is still to this day on the lips of very many, who was the second in the succession from Peter at Antioch to receive the episcopate.
HE 3.39
39/ But of Papias there are five treatises extant, which also have been entitled Expositions of the Dominical Oracles. These Irenaeus also mentions as his only writings, saying somewhat as follows:
And these things Papias also, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, a man of primitive times, attests in writing in the fourth of his books. For there are five books composed by him.[[AH. v. 33]]
So, indeed, says Irenaeus. Nevertheless Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, makes it plain that he was in no sense a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but tells us, by the language he uses, that he had received the things pertaining to the faith from those who were their pupils:
But I will not hesitate also to set down for thy benefit, along with the interpretations, all that ever I carefully learnt and carefully recalled from the elders, guaranteeing its truth. For I did not take delight, as most men do, in those who have much to say, but in those who teach what is true; not in those who recall foreign commandments, but in those who recall the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and reaching us from the truth itself. And if anyone chanced to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would enquire as to the discourses of the elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and the things which Aristion and John the elder, disciples of the Lord, say. For I supposed that things out of books did not profit me so much as the utterances of a voice which liveth and abideth.
Here it is worth while noting that twice in his enumeration he mentions the name John: the former of these Johns he puts in the same list with Peter and James and Matthew and the other apostles, clearly indicating the evangelist; but the latter he places with others, in a separate clause, outside the number of the apostles, placing Aristion before him; and he clearly calls him “elder.” So that he hereby also proves their statement to be true who have said that two persons in Asia have borne the same name, and that there were two tombs at Ephesus, each of which is still to this day said to be John’s. And to these details one must needs pay attention, for it is likely that the second (if one is unwilling to admit that it was the first) saw the Revelation which is extant under the name of John. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges that he received the discourses of the apostles from those who had been their followers, but says that he was himself an actual hearer of Aristion and of John the elder. Certainly he mentions them by name frequently in his treatises and sets forth their traditions.
So much, then, for these points which, it is hoped, we have not adduced to no purpose. But it is right to add to the words of Papias which we have quoted other sayings, in which he relates some other miraculous events likewise, as having come down to him by tradition. It has been shown, indeed, by what has gone before, that Philip the apostle resided in Hierapolis with his daughters; but now it must be pointed out that Papias, their contemporary, mentions that he had a wonderful story from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that the resurrection of a dead body took place in his day; and, on the other hand, he tells of another miraculous happening, concerned with Justus who was surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no unpleasant effects.
The book of the Acts records that, after the ascension of the Saviour, the holy apostles put forward this Justus along with Matthias and prayed as to the lot [which was to be taken] to fill up the place in their number vacated by the traitor Judas. The passage runs somewhat as follows:
And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said … [[Acts i. 17, 23, 24]]
And the same writer has quoted other things also, as coming to him from unwritten tradition; for instance, certain strange parables of the Saviour and teachings of His, and some other things of a rather mythical character. And among these is his statement that there will be a certain period of a thousand years after the resurrection from the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in a material order upon this earth. I imagine that he got these ideas through a misinterpretation of the apostolic accounts, for he did not understand what they said mystically and in figurative language. For he evidently was a man of exceedingly small intelligence, as one might say judging from his discourses; nevertheless it was owing to him that so very many churchmen after him adopted a like opinion, taking their stand on the fact that he was a man of primitive times: as, for example, Irenaeus and all others who have given evident expression to like views. And, besides, Papias gives us in his work accounts of the aforesaid Aristion of the sayings of the Lord, and traditions of John the elder.
While we refer scholars to these, we shall now of necessity add to the words of his already quoted a tradition which he has set forth concerning Mark who wrote the Gospel. It is in these words:
This also the elder used to say. Mark, indeed, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, howbeit not in order, all that he recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord, nor was he a follower of His, but, at a later date (as I said), of Peter ; who used to adapt his instructions to the needs [of the moment], but not with a view to putting together the Dominical oracles in orderly fashion: so that Mark did no wrong in thus writing some things as he recalled them. For he kept a single aim in view: not to omit anything of what he heard, nor to state anything therein falsely.
Such, then, is Papias’ account of Mark. But the following is the statement concerning Matthew :
So then, Matthew compiled the oracles in the Hebrew language ; but everyone interpreted them as he was able.
And the same writer has used testimonies drawn from the former epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter; and he has set forth, as well, another story about a woman accused falsely of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel of the Hebrews contains. So much, then, for these things which of necessity we have noted, in addition to what has been already set forth. (p99)
EH 4.18
… And he [[Justin]] writes also that even as late as his day prophetical gifts were a conspicuous feature in the Church. And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying clearly that it was the apostle’s. [[Just., Dial. 81]] p126
EH 5.10
Now, it is said that he [[Pantaenus]] displayed such ardent love and zeal for the divine word that he was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations of the East, and that he journeyed even as far as the land of the Indians. For there were, yes, even still at that time, many evangelists of the word, desirous to contribute an inspired zeal, after the manner of the apostles, for the increase and building up of the divine word. Pantaenus also was one of these, and is mentioned as having gone to India; and the story goes that there he found, in the hands of some persons who had come to know Christ in that land, the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his arrival; for that Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and left behind the writing of Matthew in the actual Hebrew characters, and that it was preserved up to the said time. (p155)
EH 5.18
18/ But an ecclesiastical writer called Apollonius also undertook to refute the Phrygian heresy, as it is called, when it was then still at its height in Phrygia; …
… And he also mentions one Thraseas as a martyr at that time. And he says too, relying on tradition, that the Saviour had ordered His apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years; and he also makes use of testimonies drawn from the Apocalypse of John; and he records that a dead man had, through the divine power, been raised at Ephesus by John himself;… (p164)
EH 5.22
… In their time [[Pope Victor, Demetrius of Alexandria …]] Bacchyllus was bishop of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates of the community at Ephesus. (p168)
EH 5.24
But of those bishops in Asia who confidently affirmed that they ought to keep to the custom which they had received from days of yore, Polycrates was the leader. And he too sets forth the tradition which h ad come down to him, in the letter he penned to Victor and the church of the Romans, in the following words:
As for us, then, we keep the day without tampering with it, neither adding, nor subtracting. For indeed in Asia great luminaries have fallen asleep, such as shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s appearing, when He comes with glory from heaven to seek out all his saints: to wit, Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who has fallen asleep in Hierapolis, [as have] also his two daughters who grew old in virginity, and his other daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, [there is] John too, he who leant back on the Lord’s breast,[[John xiii. 25.]] who was [[original footnote: or “became”]] a priest, wearing the sacerdotal plate, both martyr and teacher. He has fallen asleep at Ephesus. Moreover, Polycarp too at Smyrna, both bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, both bishop and martyr, of Eumenia, who has fallen asleep at Smyrna. And why need I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who has fallen asleep at Laodicea? or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the eunuch who in all things lived in the Holy Spirit, who lies at Sardis, awaiting the visitation from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? These all observed the fourteenth day for the Pascha according to the Gospel, in no way deviating therefrom, but following the rule of faith. And moreover I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, [do] according to the tradition of my kinsmen, some of whom also I have followed closely. Seven of my kinsmen were bishops, and I am the eighth. And my kinsmen always kept the day when the people put away the leaven. Therefore I for my part, brethren, who number sixty-five years in the Lord and have conversed with the brethren from all parts of the world and traversed the entire range of holy Scripture, am not affrighted by threats. For those better than I have said, We must obey God rather than men.
Then he goes on to add as follows, with reference to the bishops present at his writing who held the same view as he did:
But I could mention the bishops present with me, whom I summoned when ye yourselves desired that I should summon them. And if I were to write their names, the number thereof would be great. But they who know my littleness approved my letter, knowing that I did not wear my grey hairs in vain, but that I have ever lived in Christ Jesus. (p168)
EH 6.14
And in [2] the Hypotyposeis, to speak briefly, he [[Clement]] has given concise explanations of all the Canonical Scriptures, not passing over even the disputed writings, I mean the Epistle of Jude and the.remaining Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse known as Peter’s. And as for the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says indeed that it is Paul’s, but that it was written for Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke, having carefully translated it, published it for the Greeks; hence, as a result of this translation, the same complexion of style is found in this Epistle and in the Acts: but that the [words] “Paul an apostle” were naturally not prefixed. For, says he,
in writing to Hebrews who had conceived a prejudice against him and were suspicious of him, he very wisely did not repel them at the beginning by putting his name.
Then lower down he adds:
But now, as the blessed elder1 used to say, since the Lord, being the apostle? of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through modesty, since he had been sent to the Gentiles, does not inscribe himself as an apostle of the Hebrews, both to give due deference to the Lord and because he wrote to the Hebrews also out of his abundance, being a preacher and apostle of the Gentiles.
And again in the same books Clement has inserted a tradition of the primitive elders with regard to the order of the Gospels, as follows. He said that those Gospels were first written which include the genealogies, but that the Gospel according to Mark came into being in this manner: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter’s knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward. But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is Clement’s account. (p188)
EH 6:25
… But in the first of his [[Origen’s]] [Commentaries] on the Gospel according to Matthew, defending the canon of the Church, he gives his testimony that he knows only four Gospels, writing somewhat as follows:
… as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter’s instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.[[1 Pet v. 13]] And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John.
And in the fifth of his Expositions on the Gospel according to John the same person says this with reference to the epistles of the apostles:
But he who was made sufficient to become a minister of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit, even Paul, who fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum, did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second also; for it is doubted. Why need I speak of him who leaned back on Jesus’ breast,[[John xiii. 25.]] John, who has left behind one Gospel, confessing that he could write so many that even the world itself could not contain them;” and he wrote also the Apocalypse, being ordered to keep silence and not to write the voices of seven thunders? [[Rev. x. 3, 4]] He has left also an epistle of a very few lines, and, it may be, a second and a third; for not all say that these are genuine. Only, the two of them together are not a hundred lines long.
Furthermore, he thus discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews, in his Homilies upon it:
That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech,[[2.Cor. xi. 6]] that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle.
Further on, he adds the following remarks:
But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belong to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old time handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts… (p197)
EH 7.25
25/ Then, in due course, lower down he [[Dionysius]] speaks thus, with reference to the Apocalypse of John :
Some indeed of those before our time rejected and altogether impugned the book, examining it chapter by chapter and declaring it to be unintelligible and illogical, and its title false. For they say that it is not John’s, no, nor yet an apocalypse (unveiling), since it is veiled by its great thick curtain of unintelligibility ; and that the author of this book was not only not one of the apostles, nor even one of the saints or those belonging to the Church, but Cerinthus, the same who created the sect called “Cerinthian” after him, since he desired to affix to his own forgery a name worthy of credit. … … After completing the whole, one might say, of his prophecy, the prophet calls those blessed who observe it, and indeed himself also. For he says: Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I John, he that saw and heard these things. I will not gainsay the fact that he was certainly named John and that this book is by one John, for I fully allow that it is the work of some holy and inspired person. But I should not readily agree that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose are the Gospel entitled According to John and the Catholic Epistle. For I form my judgment from the character of each and from the nature of the language and from what is known as the general construction of the book, that [the John therein mentioned] is not the same. For the evangelist nowhere adds his name, nor yet proclaims himself, throughout either the Gospel or the Epistle. …
… I hold that there have been many persons of the same name as John the apostle, … But I think that there was a certain other [John] among those that were in Asia, since it is said both that there were two tombs at Ephesus, and that each of the two is said to be John’s. …
… In a word, it is obvious that those who observe their character throughout will see at a glance that the Gospel and Epistle have one and the same complexion. But the Apocalypse is utterly different from, and foreign to, these writings; it has no connexion, no affinity, in any way with them; it scarcely, so to speak, has even a syllable in common with them. … (p237)
References
Footnotes
The “blessed elder” is likely to have been Clement’s teacher, Pantaenus: “It was Pantaenus (‘the blessed presbyter’) who taught Clement that Paul was the author of Hebrews (Church History vi. 14. 4) …” (Goodspeed 1942, p200).↩︎