Papias
Wrote c100-125AD
Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord
 Including newly discovered Fragments

Papias is commonly classed as an Apostolic Father, meaning that he knew the Apostles themselves, or at least lived in the generation following their deaths.    He wrote five books and in them recounted unknown teachings of Jesus, miraculous stories about the Apostles, discussed the authorship of some of the Gospels, and also quoted from other parts of the New Testament.  Unfortunately his writings have been lost except for the fragments given below.

In the print world, Michael Holmes has published a popular and good quality English translation of Papias in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, however it has a few mistakes and omits some fragments, all of which I have attempted to correct on this page.  While assembling these fragments,  I have used the translations of Lightfoot  and the Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Father Series. These are good English translations and are in the public domain.  I have only changed punctuation or a word here and there, in order to make the translation better fit our modern vernacular.  For other Greek and Latin fragments I have translated them myself. For Agapius I asked a kind friend of mine, Tamim, to translate the small fragment from Arabic into English. I also made use of Roger Pearse’s collaborative translation of Jerome’s Chronicon. Roger also helped track down some obscure references. Finally, Robert Bedrosian has graciously volunteered to translate the two fragments of Vardan Arewelts'i from Armenian as well as the one Armenian fragment from Andrew of Caeserea.  I am deeply thankful for all of their kind help.

Index of Fragments in Chronological order:
Irenaeus of Lyons wrote c180AD
Eusebius of Caesarea c260-340AD
Apollinarius c310-390AD
Jerome c342-420AD
Philip of Side wrote 434-439AD
Prosper of Aquitania wrote 455AD
John of Scythopolis wrote 537-543AD
Andrew of Caesarea wrote  c614AD
Anastasius of Sinai?  wrote 7th century
George Syncellus wrote c800AD
George Hamartolus?  wrote c866-880AD
Photius of Constantinople c810-893
John of Dara 9th century
Cod. Vaticanus Alex. 14 9th century
Agapius of Menbij  wrote c941AD
Vardan Arewelts’i  c1200-1271AD
Nicephorus  c9th century/c1320AD
Anonymous Catena on John

-APPENDIX of False Fragments-
Chronicon Paschale 630AD
Papias the Lexicographer 11th century

I indicate which translation I have used in the side column with an abbreviation or a short note on what translation I used. The name of the author is given in red and is placed before their quotation(s) which are laid in beige boxes for clarity.  I have attempted to document and check my sources in the side column, all while providing links to as many references as possible.  All other notes I give are merely to help the reader identify sources and, on occasion, provide a context for the quotation.

Some references I have not been able to fully check and have indicated in the side column.

I have also included fragments which Holmes does not give from Jerome, George Syncellus, and two false fragments which I added as an Appendix from the Chronicon Paschale and Papias the Lexicographer.  I have also reatributed fragments from Maximus the Confessor to John of Scythopolis, and discussed and questioned the authorship of a few others. Most of the material here is in the public domain, but some is copyrighted, I ask that you credit those who worked hard producing these translations.  -Tom C. Schmidt August 2009

Please contact me if any of the information given here is incorrect.

-Addition-
Originally I intended this webpage to function as an easily accessible and exaustive academic reference to all fragments and new discoveries concerning Papias. As I look over it now, I realize that the fragments are becoming so numerous, the notes so verbose, and the languages so plentiful, that it is becoming difficult to navigate and properly maintain. I also realize that the whole organizational structure is getting to be a bit muddled and contains inconsistencies (spelling, citations, translation methods, etc).  Fixing all this is a rather large task which I do not have time for, so I ask the reader to simply use this webpage as a guide to more research and to check all sources.

-Update-I added a new fragment from Jerome's Commentary on the Apocalypse, added a comment to Irenaeus' fragment and another to one of Eusebius' fragments,  updated the Selected Bibliography, did some basic editing, and eliminated the To Do List because I have done all I can in the short term. ~August 2009.

-Update-After some very helpful tips from William Murphy I have added some extensive notes to the fragment by Irenaeus and to one by Eusebius.  I have also added a link to Stephen Carlson's translation of Harnack's research into the existence of Papias' work  in the Middle Ages ~September 2009.

-Update-

• I added 11 new fragments.  One from  Prosper of Aquitania, eight from Nicephoras Callistus Xanthopoulos, and finally Holmes' new 3rd edition (2007) has two from John of Dara which I also, gratefully, have added.
• I added hypothetical fragments that are proposed by Charles Hill and Richard Baukham. 
• I updated the bibliography, edited the introduction, and made some general edits throughout the page.
• I recieved an updated edition of Michael Holmes' "The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations" 2007 and also  Norelli's Enrico. "Papia di Hierapolis: Esposizione degli oracoli del signore. I frammenti. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e note."  Both volumes are useful, however I do not know Italian so Norelli's book is slow going.
• This update also adds information about various ancient translations of fragments from Eusebius, Jerome, and Andrew of Caesarea.  Some of these ancient translations alter the wording of the original in potentially significant ways. 
  
• I  added a note to Vardan Arewelts’i calling into question the accuracy of his statement about Papias which I learned from Norelli.
• Finally I added a note to the introduction, stating that this page should be viewed as a starting off point for research about Papias and not as a quotable academic source.  

~January 2011

-Update-

• I replaced the three Syriac fragments with my own translations. To are from John of Dara and another from the Syriac version of the Church History of Eusebius

~October 2011 

  [GREEK resumes] 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. 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

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.  

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. 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.

The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Savior, 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..."

The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Savior, and some other more mythical things. 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.

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 Irenaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

"This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related  by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.  
-Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1-16 [checked NPNCF]

NPNCF translation.  After this passage book 3 of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History ends and book 4 begins in the 12th year of Trajen, 110AD.

The Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic translations should also be consulted (though I don't know if the Coptic may  covers our passage at hand. ) I give the Syriac version (differences are underlined, omissions are bracketed) in a second column, which I have translated from Syriac. this article claims that the Armenian translation has similarities with the Syriac. Rufinus' Latin translation of Euesebius should also be consulted as well as Bede's use of Rufinus in his "Exposition on Mark: Letter to Acca.   The reference for the Armenian version is "Ewsebiosi Kesaracwoy Patmutiwn Ekelecwoy : yeleal yasorwoyn i hay i 5. daru parzabaneal nor targmanuteamb i yoyn bnagren i jern / h. Abraham v. Carean i Mxitareanc I Venetik : I Vans Surb Lazaru, 1877"

Eusebius also quotes Dionysius of Alexandria c.260AD  (Ecclesiastical History 7.25  [checked]) as theorizing that Revelation and the Gospel of John were written by two different Johns based on styalistic grounds and that there are, supposedly, two monuments to John in Ephesus. Additionaly Eusebius quotes Polycrates of Ephesus c.195AD as claiming that John, who reclined on the chest of the Lord, wore priestly garb and was buried in Ephesus Ecclesiastical History 3.31 [checked]  The ambigious priesthood of John is, to my knowledge,  only repeated in the Mingana manuscript below.

The Apostolic Constitutions also claim that there were two Johns: "Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John."-Apostolic Constitutions 7.46

A. Mingana in “The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library XIV (1930): 333ff. [checked] reports that an 18th century Syriac manuscript, apparantly copied from  an 8th century manuscript, contains a treatise attributed to Eusebius of Caeserea which gives interesting details about a second John:

“John the Evangelist was also from Bethsaida. He was of the tribe of Zebulun. He preached in Asia at first, and afterwards was banished by Tiberius Caesar to the isle of Patmos. Then he went to Ephesus and built up the church in it. Then three disciples went thither with him, and there he died and was buried. [These three were] Ignatius, who was afterwards bishop in Antioch and was thrown to the beasts at Rome; Polycarp, who was afterwards bishop in Smyrna and was crowned in the fire; John, to whom he committed the priesthood and the episcopal see after him. He then [the Evangelist, having lived a long time, died and was buried in Ephesus, in which he had been bishop. He was buried by his disciple John, who was bishop in Ephesus [after him]; and their two graves are in Ephesus―one concealed, namely the Evangelist’s; the other being that of John his disciple, who wrote the Revelations, for he said that he heard all that he wrote from the mouth of the Evangelist.”  -F. F. Bruce, “Some Notes on the Fourth Gospel,” The Evangelical Quarterly 16 (1944): 103 [checked, Mingana did not translate the Syriac in his article but Bruce did.]  

The previous two quoations may be completely based off of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, they are however given to aid the reader in attempting to track down Papian allusions.  I am grateful for the kind William A. Murphy who  gave me exact references for the Mingana and Bruce articles.

Victorinus of Pettau c.260AD  alludes to Papias’ statement on Mark  in his Commentary on the Apocalypse  4.4: “Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote a record of those things which he generally taught, but not in order, and begins with the word of prophecy announced by Isaiah.”  Translation by Kevin Edgecomb. [checked]

This is notable because Victorinus wrote earlier than  Eusebius and  is thus an independent witness to this account of the composition of the Gospel according to Mark.

 LTF translation, the last paragraph is  my translation via Cramer vol 3 p.12 [checked]. This entire quotation is also given  by Theophylact Exposition on the Acts of the Apostles PG125 p522 [checked] and the first paragraph is not  attributed to Apollinarius.  Oecumenius does the same but omits the last sentence Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles  PG118 p57. [checked].  A similar but not identical catena ascribes only the first sentence of the second paragraph to Papias and the rest of the three paragraphs to, seemingly,  Apollinarius Cramer vol 1 p.231 [checked]. A scholia on Acts 1.18 compiled in S. Lvcae Actvs apostolorvm graece et latine Riga 1782 p. 304 by Matthai [checked] gives a shortened variation of the first and second paragraph and attributes it to Apollinarius, and also has a different passage associated with Eusebius, but neither mention Papias.  Another catena is quite similar to the passage at hand but omits the last sentence,  it is  given in Anecdota Graeca volume 2 p464  [checked] This one page is annoyingly omitted by the Google scan so I scanned it myself.  Kirsopp Lake The Beginning of Christianity p24 [checked] says that Bar-Salibi quotes Papias in a fragment in the American Journal of Theology vol 4.3 1900 p501 [checked]. Zigabenus alludes to the passage at hand in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles PG129 p.1280 and Matthai p294-295. [checked].  Holmes seems to use the Greek reconstruction given by  Hilgenfeld Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 1875 p.263 [checked] and Preuschen Antilegomena 1905 p.97-99 [checked]

Read this blog post for a more in depth discussion.

And Papias has thus word for word: "some of them, that is, the divine Angels of old, [130] he gave (authority) to rule over the earth and commanded (them) to rule well." And then says the following: "And it happened that their arrangement came to nothing."

[Rev. 12:9] And the great dragon was thrown (down), the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, he was thrown to the earth, and his angels were thrown (down).  

These two columns represent the two different manuscript traditions.  The first represents the original Greek (see above) and the second column represents the Armenian which was generously translated by Robert Bedrosian.  See  Folker Siegert Unbeachtete Papiaszitate bei armenischen Schriftstellern. New Testament Studies, Volume 27, Issue 05, October 1981 [checked, but did not  read German discussion]

Both columns continue immediately after the quotation from Revelation 12:9 and are commenting on that verse.  As you can see the Armenian quotes Papias but the Greek does not, there are other significant differences as well. The Greek portions are translated by Constantinou, Eugénia in her 2008 thesis "Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation." found here.  Revelation 12:9 is part of the text. Footnote 666 p.134-135 (422-423 of PDF) in Constantinou's translation of the Greek indicates that the quotation of Justin is only found in Irenaeus (Haer. 5.26.2) and Eusebius of Caesarea (E.H. 4.18.9).  The Armenian translation indicates that the quote from Justin is found in Irenaeus whereas the Greek pretends to quote directly from Justin.

Therefore, at this Apollonarius the heretic, with his companions, abandoned the glorious illumination of the living words and became blind to the faith like the Jews. He dared to speak, like the Pharisees, that after the resurrection of the dead, we shall live again for a thousand years in Jerusalem with the Messiah, with bodily pleasures, and childish sacrifices, and earthly libations before him [the Messiah?]. After these things are fulfilled, at that time we shall be taken up into heaven. And he was not shamed by the voice of Paul who said, "The kingdom of God is not of eating or drinking. But of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." [Romans 14:17]. Also in like manner Irenaeus bishop of Lyon in Gaul wandered in these matters, which are in the book of Papias as Eusebius narrates.
~John of Dara On the Resurrection of Bodies 2.13

 Concerning the holy Gospel According to Mark and how the polity of the monks was first founded by  him in Egypt and Alexandria.

Peter implanted such a radiance of piety in the hearers that it was not sufficient to have a hearing only nor did he want the word of God to remain unwritten.  And Peter allowed Mark, who at this time followed the apostle, to preserve part of the memory of the unwritten teaching for them in writing.  And at first he [Peter] did not allow this [lit. deliver], until he was prevailed upon to think the man [Mark] worthy.  After the apostle perceived that the Spirit of God instructed him, he delighted in the eagerness of the men and from this ordained the writing to be read in the churches.  Clement records this reason [why] the Gospel According to Mark [was written] in the eighth [book] of his Hypotyposeis.  And Papias bishop of Hierapolis, agreeing with him, also details [the same].  

And on account of this Peter spoke the Gospel According to Mark.  But Peter mentions Mark in his first epistle which opinion has that he wrote when he lived in Rome, in which figuratively he also calls Rome "Babylon", saying thusly "She who is chosen with you in Babylon greets you, as does also my son Mark.  And Luke in the Acts calls him John.  But they say that Mark, having first put in order Egypt and Alexandria, preached the gospel which he composed to the assembled church and there founded the monastic polity of Christians.  At first so great a multitude of both men and women, they say, flowed together at the entrance [of the church], that having marked out the entire polity [as it relates] to their philosophy and way of life through asceticism, their diet and conduct, he placed upon them the celebrated philosophies of Philo, whom opinion has that he even entered into the company of Peter while he preached the divine word at Rome
-Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1-36  PG 145

 Concerning Papias of Heirapolis and the marvelous things recorded concerning him
This Papias of Heirapolis became eminent in apostolic life, he left many writings for the church, but only five are extent, which he entitled "Interpretation of the Lordly Sayings" which also Irenaeus makes mention relating thusly, " These things also Papias, hearer of John, friend of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies in writing in the fourth of his books.  For there are five books composed by him." But Papias, in the preface of his book on the apostles, does not say he himself was an eyewitness, but he says that he received the matters of faith from those who knew them [the apostles] well, through which phrasing he explains [in the following way] "For I shall not hesitate,” he says, “to record for you whatever I carefully learned from the Elders and carefully remembered, along with my interpretations, confirming the truth on their behalf.  For I do not rejoice over those who speak many things, as many do, but in the those who teach the truth.  Neither those who teach strange commandments but those who teach what was given by the Lord in faith, even what comes from the truth itself.  But if ever one who followed the Elders should come, I asked about the words of the Elders, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Thomas or Philip or what Simon or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord or what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of Lord, say.  For I did not believe that the matters of books would aid me as much as the things from a living and abiding voice."

It is necessary to indicate that he lists this same name, John, twice in writing, the former which he reckons with the apostles, possibly he means him to be the beloved disciple, but the latter he places next to Aristion and names him as an Elder  Some, who are not ignorant, considered the author of the two epistles of John, which come after the first, and of the Apocalypse to be of the same name.  For this Elder was living in Ephesus, opinion has it that there are still preserved two graves there which both say the same name of John.

Now since Papias has been spoken of, he records some other marvels in his books, as they came to him from those who were before him, bear with me, and let us traverse them for a little while.

For indeed in Hierapolis the word distinguished Phillip and his daughters as prophets, he was one of the twelve, not one of the seven deacons, as Luke records in Acts.  But he says he also conversed with his daughters from whom he says he learned of a resurrection from the dead which occurred in that time.

Concerning Barsabbas who was also called Justus, whom Acts make mention, he says that he, having drunk a poison potion, was aided by that grace of the lord and was triumphant over it..  And he records many other parables and teachings from unwritten tradition of the Savior and some others that are even more mythical.  And he says that after a thousand years there will be a resurrection from the dead in the bodily kingdom of Christ which shall be instituted upon this earth, which I suppose he having misunderstood the promises which were spoken mystically, understood them carnally.  As such it is clearly possible to draw inferences of his opinion from his words.  Later, regarding the antiquity of the man, many derived a similar notion.  Just as Irenaeus did and any other who shared similar opinions.

But he says he has other traditions which were mentioned above, from Aristion and the Elder John, to which we refer those who are fond of learning.

I shall necessarily point of what he says concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  He speaks in this way, " And the Elder John said this, 'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, whatever he remembered he wrote accurately, but he did not indeed right the things said or done by Christ in order, for he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, he followed Peter, and he met the need of teaching, but he did not put the Dominical sayings in order, so that he did not err in any one thing which he wrote, just as he remembered.  For the one thing he cared for was not to omit anything which he heard or to lie in some way.  But Matthew put in order the oracles in the Hebrew language.  And each interpreted them as he was able."

But he also proclaims testimonies from the first epistle of John and likewise that of Peter.  And he puts forth another story concerning the woman who was charged with many sins before the lord.  And the other writings of Papias have this style.
-Ecclesiastical History  3.20.1-89  PG 145

The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind. And hence, although different points are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit, which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written." For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order.
-Muratorian Canon Fragment

ANCF translation.  Bauckham  argues that this portion of the Muratorian Canon is based on Papias because of similarities with Eusebius' quotations of Papias in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.1-16, namely (1) the concern about the order of the Gospels [p.54-55], (2) the use of 1 John [p.55], (3) the idea that the Gospels harmonize with each other [p.55], (4) John is referred to as a disciple not an apostle [p.56], (5) Andrew is prominent in the tradition [p.57].  See the article for a fuller discussion and points relating to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

Bauckham, Richard. "Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel," JThS N.S. 44 (1993) 24-69. See Norelli (2005) for a response to these claims.

5. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.

8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

9. For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.”

10. Mark likewise says: “Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.” And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, “adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.”

11. They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: “For John was not yet cast into prison.”

12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit.
-Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.24.5-13

 NPNCF translation. Hill argues that this portion of Eusebius' work is based on Papias because (1) Eusebius prefaces this passage with  "tradition has it" which typically indicates a written source in other parts of Eusebius' work, (2) the account of Matthew mirrors Papias' account given earlier, (3) this passage also demonstrates a concern for the order of the Gospels which is similar to Papias' previous quote.   See the article for a fuller discussion and points relating to similarities with Irenaeus,  Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Victorinus.

 Hill, Charles. "What Papias Said About John (and Luke). A "New" Fragment," JThS N.S. 49 (1998) 582-629.  See Norelli (2005) for a response to these claims.

Selected Bibliography:
Holmes, Michael, W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations.  2002 (new edition 2007)
(NPNCF) Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Father Series Found here
(ANCF) Ante-Nicene Church Father Series Found here
(LTF) J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer The Apostolic Fathers 1888. Found here
J.B. Lightfoot Essays On The Work Entitled Supernatural Religion. 1889. Found here
(PG) J. Migne Patrologia Graeca Series
(CSHB) Corpus Scriptorum Historium Byzantinae Series
(GCS) Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller Series
(MGH) Monumenta Germaniae Historica here
(SC) Sources Chrétiennes Series
(CSEL) Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Series
(DECL) Dopp and Geerlings Dictionary of Early Christian Literature 2000.
Johannes Quasten Patrology 4 volumes.
Di Berardino Patrology: The Eastern Fathers from  Chalcedon to John of Damascus. 2006

See Ben Smith’s website for a good discussion textexcavation.com

See Stephen Carlson’s blog for a good discussion on the existence of Papias’ work in the Middle Ages.

Norelli, Enrico. "Papia di Hierapolis: Esposizione degli oracoli del signore. I frammenti. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e note."  P. 594 (Letture cristiane del primo millennio, 36.) Milan: Paoline, 2005 88-315-2752-5.

Hill, Charles. "What Papias Said About John (and Luke). A "New" Fragment," JThS N.S. 49 (1998) 582-629.

Bauckham, Richard. "Papias and Polycrates on the Origin of the Fourth Gospel," JThS N.S. 44 (1993) 24-69