Part of what's valuable about a book like this is that it gathers into one place such a large amount of information that previously was scattered among so many sources (across multiple centuries and languages). I'd expect even the scholars who have studied Papias the most to come away from the book with some significant knowledge they didn't have previously.
Carlson cites many sources, including some that are rarely discussed, and there's a lengthy bibliography. Unfortunately, there are dozens of typographical errors in the book, especially missing or duplicated words. But I don't recall any instance in which those errors prevented the reader's understanding of a significant point.
After an introduction that's a little over 100 pages long, most of the book consists of several dozen passages related to Papias from sources up to the middle of the second millennium. The passages are organized into a few categories: fragments of Papias' own words, testimonies about Papias from other sources, potential citations of Papias, potential uses of his material, and passages wrongly associated with him.
One useful aspect of Carlson's book is how much it helps you understand that last category. He discusses how common the name Papias and similar names were and how the church father sometimes was confused with other individuals of the same or a similar name. You'll come away from the book with a good understanding of where some of the mistakes about Papian material over the centuries have come from and how to avoid repeating those mistakes in the future.
The book is more about what Papias said and what others said about him than about how we should interpret what he said. For example, though Carlson seems to favor the view that Papias referred to two disciples of Jesus named John (n. 90 on 20, 34), he doesn't provide much of an explanation for why he holds that view. He said, in an interview with Michael Bird, that he may write another book on how he thinks Papias should be interpreted. I disagree with Carlson's apparent belief that Papias referred to two Johns. (The earliest sources' references to figures named John are better explained if there was only one such disciple of Jesus than if there were two who were distinguished in such a subtle way. It's unlikely that such a large number and variety of sources would have been so inefficient in distinguishing two figures in a context in which making that distinction was so important. In the third century, when Dionysius of Alexandria advocated the view that there were two Johns, he didn't seem to have any historical testimony to cite in support of that view, but instead relied on more speculative argumentation. Etc.) I hope Carlson will write another book (or article) that goes into more depth on issues like whether Papias refers to one or two Johns.
Another topic I hope he'll address is the significance of how Papias' list of Jesus' disciples ends (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:4). The list mostly follows the order of the naming of the disciples in the fourth gospel (Papias probably was going by memory rather than having the gospel open in front of him), but replaces the "sons of Zebedee" of John 21:2 with the individual names James and John, then adds Matthew. Why does he add Matthew and nobody else? The best explanation seems to be that he was thinking of gospel authorship. Most likely, the naming of John brought Matthew to mind. And we know which John is being referred to, the son of Zebedee. So, Papias' list of disciples seems to provide some support for the traditional authorship attributions of both the first and the fourth gospels. Richard Bauckham has suggested that Papias added Matthew to his list to get the number of disciples to seven, since ancient sources often considered seven a significant number (Jesus And The Eyewitnesses [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2017], 20). But we have better evidence for Papias' interest in the gospels and gospel authorship than we have for his possessing the sort of interest in the number seven that Bauckham appeals to, and the passage under consideration is getting most of its list of disciples from a gospel and names the only other disciple to whom a gospel was widely attributed (John) just before mentioning Matthew. So, the interpretation I'm proposing here seems more likely. But whatever view Carlson holds regarding Papias' list of disciples, I hope he'll say more about that and other interpretive issues in the future.
One context in which he does address such issues in his book is in a discussion of how we should interpret the title of Papias' work (Exposition Of Dominical Oracles), which has implications for the nature of the document. Carlson argues that it's "a messianic exegesis of Old Testament promises and prophecies, with additional material from oral traditions" (39). He arrives at that conclusion largely by examining how the language in the title of Papias' work is used elsewhere in Eusebius. Since Eusebius mentions the title without giving any indication that a further explanation is needed, there's a good chance that Eusebius thought the contents of Papias' document were consistent with how Eusebius would normally interpret such a title. I haven't studied the issues surrounding the title of Papias' work much, but Carlson's reasoning seems to be good for the most part. I disagree with his claim that Papias is unlikely to have thought that any Christian documents were on par with the Old Testament (39), but Carlson's argument still has a lot of merit even if you disagree with him on that point.
He tells us that we can be "reasonably confident" that four of the authors who comment on Papias read his work themselves: Irenaeus, Eusebius, Apollinaris, and Andrew of Caesarea (100). And it does seem that a large percentage of later sources were repeating what they read in the four authors just mentioned. But I'm not as skeptical as Carlson seems to be about the likelihood that some of the comments on Papias are independent of those four authors and likely reflect what Papias wrote (e.g., Victorinus of Pettau). I mostly agree with Carlson's assessments, but I'm somewhat less pessimistic on balance.
He thinks that only a small portion of what Apollinaris writes about the death of Judas comes from Papias. Here's what Carlson thinks Papias wrote on the subject: "Judas walked around as a great example of ungodliness in this world, as his flesh got so bloated that he could not pass through a place where a wagon passes through easily." (125) You can read Carlson's book for his argument justifying his conclusion. He makes some points that seem significant to me, but I haven't studied the subject much. If he's right, one thing I wonder about is the possibility that Papias was speaking hyperbolically, much like Jesus' comment about having a log in your eye (Matthew 7:3). If most of what Apollinaris says about the death of Judas didn't come from Papias, and what did come from him can so easily be interpreted as hyperbole akin to Matthew 7:3, then one of the biggest objections critics cite against Papias would be removed.
I disagree with some of Carlson's conclusions, I was hoping he would say more about interpretive issues, and the price of the book and the typographical errors were disappointing. But it's a great book and worth the money to me. I'm grateful for the large amount of work he put into it.
Add Prime
to get Fast, Free delivery
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
