Another primary source for recovery of the original text of the New Testament is the enormous number of quotations from the early Christian writers (apologetic works, epistles, commentaries, sermons, and the like). “Apostolic Fathers” is the descriptive term used for churchmen who wrote about Christianity in the late first and early second centuries. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. From near the middle of the second century to its end, churchmen became prominent who are now called “Apologists.”. They wrote in defense of Christianity against hostile philosophies prevalent in the Roman world of that time, as well as apostate forms of Christianity that were beginning to develop. Among the best known were Marcion, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian was an Apologist who wrote in Latin. Then, we have the “Church Fathers,” prominent theologians and Christian philosophers who lived between the second and fifth centuries. We have writings from Hippolytus of Rome, Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Athanasius of Alexandria, Ephrem the Syrian, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan, and many others.
It is commonly said that these quotations are so extensive that the entire New Testament could be reconstructed without the use of the manuscripts. While this is basically true, the statement is not meant to suggest that a critical text based on these early patristic quotations would be reflective of the original to the extent of what we have today by way of the Greek manuscripts. It is meant to convey the enormous amount of quotations that are available to textual scholarship.
Patristic quotations require more analysis than the manuscripts, bearing in mind several questions. Was the quotation a direct quote from a Greek manuscript? Alternatively, was it a paraphrase, even an allusion to the Greek text? On the other hand, was it a quote, paraphrase, or an allusion from a version, i.e., a secondary source? At the time, the writer may have had several different sources lying before him, so these possibilities must be considered. Patristic quotations are also to be investigated under the same principles and rules that are applied to the primary sources. Regardless of how difficult the task, however, patristic quotations play an important role in determining an original reading and in weighing the importance of the primary texts. On this, the Alands write,
Establishing the New Testament text of the Church Fathers has a strategic importance for textual history and criticism. It shows us how the text appeared at particular times and in particular places: this is the information we can find nowhere else. With a Greek manuscript, there is no way of knowing the age of the exemplar it was copied from, nor when we know the provenance of a manuscript (as we do in exceptional instances) is there any way of knowing the provenance of its exemplar, which is even more important. Only the papyri from the early period before A.D. 300 may be relied on for such information, but these are relevant only to developments in Egypt when it was hardly a leading province of the Church. For an appreciation of the development of the text in the major church centers of the period they are useless. Many important tasks challenge us here. With more adequate information about the Church Fathers’ text of the New Testament, we would have firmer guidelines for a history of the text.
Just as we do not have the autographs of the New Testament authors themselves, we do not have the autographs of the early Christian writers either. Therefore, we must broach the same question: has the coping of the early Christian writer, who quoted the New Testament author, been altered in any way? For that reason, here too, we must establish through the manuscripts whether the copyist has altered his work either intentionally or unintentionally. Therefore, these manuscripts also must undergo the rigors of textual criticism, to determine as much as possible the original wording of the early Christian’s quotation of the New Testament author.
After we have established the above, believing that we do have the original words of the early Christian writer, we must ask, did the writer intend to quote the New Testament author verbatim or was he simply paraphrasing? Thus, we would need to have the original words of the New Testament author. In addition, we would need a list of all New Testament variants. We would have to have a good knowledge of the early Christian’s tendencies, as well as the context in which he wrote. For example, if the quote is quite lengthy, it is more likely that the early Christian writer was copying from his text verbatim. However, even if we discover that the writer was merely paraphrasing or loosely quoting the NT author, it is still beneficial on many levels. Maybe a reference to a word, phrase, sentence, or verse has little or no manuscript support from the early papyri. Maybe the quote is verbatim enough to establish that later copyists took liberties with the New Testament author’s writing by adding or deleting something.
Clement of Rome: (d. 100 C.E.) Bishop or overseer of Rome, one of the earliest sources of writings on Christianity. Of his epistle, Michael W. Holmes writes, “1 Clement is one of the earliest—if not the earliest—extant Christian documents outside the New Testament. Written in Rome around the time that John was composing the Book of Revelation on the island of Patmos, it reveals something of both the circumstances and the attitudes of the Roman Christians, circumstances, and attitudes that differ dramatically from those of their Christian sisters and brothers in Asia Minor to whom Revelation was addressed.” Few details are known about Clement’s life, and most information comes from tradition.
There is a second letter of Clement, actually a sermon, that was once attributed to Clement of Rome but no longer. First Clement is a letter written to the Corinthian congregation, the same one to whom Paul wrote two letters in 55 C.E., some forty years earlier. Paul, in his first letter, had dealt with factions in the congregation, a serious case of immorality, and the congregation was seeking answers to questions like religiously divided households, conduct at meetings, the eating of meat from the marketplace, etc. In his second letter, Paul had to address the so-called “super-apostles,” i.e. “false apostles, deceitful workers.” He needed to deal with the young congregation’s spiritual wellbeing, as well as his authority being undermined.
In fact, First Corinthians is alluded to and quoted some six times in First Clement, which is dated about 95 C.E. Having First Corinthians in mind, Clement of Rome urged the recipients of this letter to “take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle.” (I Clem. 47.1) Clement went on to say of the Corinthian congregation,
(2) What did he first write to you in the beginning of the gospel? (3) Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions. (4) Yet that splitting into factions brought less sin upon you, for you were partisans of highly reputed apostles and of a man approved by them. (5) In contrast, now think about those who have perverted you and diminished the respect due your renowned love for [the brotherhood]. (6) It is disgraceful, dear friends, yes, utterly disgraceful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the well-established and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two persons, is rebelling against its presbyters. (7) And this report has reached not only us, but also those who differ from us, with the result that you heap blasphemies upon the name of the Lord because of your stupidity, and create danger for yourselves as well.
Clement was trying once again to reconcile the Corinthians, to renew their faith. On this Holmes comments, “The same kind of factiousness that Paul had earlier encountered in Corinth apparently flared up once again in that congregation near the end of the first century. Though (due to restrictions imposed by the genre) details regarding the exact cause or motivation are not clear, it appears that some of the younger men in the congregation had provoked a revolt (this is the Roman point of view; the younger men no doubt defended their action in more positive terms) and succeeded in deposing the established leadership of the church (3.3; 44.6; 47.6). When news of this reached Rome (47.7), the leaders of the congregation there were sufficiently distressed by this breach of proper conduct and order and the damage it inflicted upon the good name of the Corinthian congregation (1.1; cf. 39.1), that they wrote this long letter and even dispatched mediators (63.3; 65.1) in an effort to restore peace and order to the Corinthian congregation.”
As an overseer in the congregation at Rome, Clement was the first Apostolic Father of the Church. It is clear that he worked hard for the faith and demonstrated an intense appreciation for the Scriptures.
Ignatius of Antioch: (c. 35 – 108 C.E.) He was a student of the Apostle John and the third bishop [overseer] of Antioch. Ignatius wrote seven letters as he was taken to Rome with a detachment of ten soldiers, where he was to be martyred by being fed to wild animals. Holmes writes, “At a fork in the road at some point along the way through Asia Minor, probably Laodicea, the decision was made to take the northern route through Philadelphia to Smyrna, thus bypassing the churches that lay along the southern route (Tralles, Magnesia, and Ephesus). It is probable that when the northern road was chosen, messengers were sent to these churches informing them of Ignatius’s itinerary, and they evidently dispatched delegations to meet him in Smyrna. Ignatius responded to this show of support by sending a letter to each of the three churches, and he also sent one ahead to the church in Rome, alerting them to his impending arrival there. The guards and their prisoners next stopped at Troas, where Ignatius received the news that “peace” had been restored to the church at Antioch (Phld. 10.1; Smyrn 11.2; Pol. 7.1), about which he apparently had been quite worried, and sent letters back to the two churches he had visited, Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to his friend Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. But before he could write any more letters the group hurried on to Neapolis and then Philippi, where he was warmly received by the church (Pol. Phil. 1.1; 9.1). There he disappears from view. Presumably, he was taken on to Rome and thrown to the lions in the Coliseum. While it is not absolutely certain that he died a martyr’s death, there is no reason to think otherwise.”
Seven Authentic Letters:
- The Letter to the Ephesians,
- The Letter to the Magnesians,
- The Letter to the Trallians,
- The Letter to the Romans,
- The Letter to the Philadelphians,
- The Letter to the Smyrnaeans,
- The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
Kirsopp Lake notes, “The immediate purpose of each of the letters, except that to the Romans, is to thank the recipients for the kindness which they had shown to Ignatius. The ‘Romans’ has the object of preventing the Christians at Rome from making any efforts to save Ignatius from the beasts in the arena, and so robbing him of the crown of martyrdom. But besides this immediate purpose, the writer is influenced by three other motives, all or some of which can be traced in each letter.
(1) Ignatius is exceedingly anxious in each community to strengthen respect for the bishop and presbyters. He ascribes the fullest kind of divine authority to their organization, and recognizes as valid no church, institution, or worship without their sanction.
(2) He protests against the form of heresy called docetism (δοκεῖυ), which regarded the sufferings, and in some cases the life, of Jesus as merely an appearance. He also protests against any tendency to Judaistic practices, but it is disputed whether he means that this was an evil found in docetic circles, or that it was a danger threatening the church from other directions.
(3) He is also anxious to secure the future of his own church in Antioch by persuading other communities to send helpers.”
In regard to Ignatius’ use of the New Testament, Holmes adds, “Ignatius may have known a wide range of early Christian literature, but his use of only a few [books] can be demonstrated with any certainty. He probably worked with the Gospel of Matthew (e.g., Smyrn 1.1.); there is no evidence of Mark and only minimal (and not conclusive) evidence of Luke (Smyrn 3.2). Use of John (cf. Rom. 7.3; Phld. 7.1) is unlikely. He has read 1 Corinthians, and probably Ephesians. There are numerous echoes of other Pauline documents (his collection may have included 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians), but it is difficult to determine whether they reflect the use of traditional elements or literary dependence. The parallel between 1 John and Eph. 14.2 is notable, as are parallels between Ignatius and 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas, but again these are insufficient to demonstrate knowledge of written documents.” In a footnote, Holmes goes on to say, “The limits of this assessment of documents whose use can be demonstrated must be respected (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). That the use of a particular document cannot be demonstrated does not mean that Ignatius did not know it; it only means that knowledge of it cannot be demonstrated on the basis of a limited number of documents written under very stressful conditions (i.e., traveling as a prisoner).” (p. 175)
Ignatius styled his letters after Paul, Peter, and John, and would quote or paraphrase their books. He quoted the Gospel according to Matthew, e.g. “The tree is known by its fruit” (Matt. 12:33; Eph. 14:2); “The one who accepts this, let him accept it.” (Matt. 19:12; Smyr. 6:1); “Be as shrewd as snakes” in all circumstances, yet always “innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16; Poly. 2:2). He quoted many other New Testament authors as well.
Polycarp of Smyrna: Polycarp was born to Christian parents about 69 C.E. in Asia Minor, in Smyrna. As he grew into manhood, he was known for his kindness, self-discipline, compassionate treatment of others, and thorough study of God’s Word. Soon enough he became an elder in the Christian congregation at Smyrna. Polycarp was very fortunate to live in a time when he was able to learn from the apostles themselves. In fact, the apostle John was one of his teachers. Irenaeus says the following about Polycarp:
Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles and conversant with many who had seen the Lord, but was appointed by apostles to serve in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna. I myself saw him in my early years, for he lived a long time and was very old indeed when he laid down his life by a glorious and most splendid martyrdom. At all times he taught the things which he had learnt from the apostles, which the Church transmits, which alone are true.
Polycarp quoted abundantly from the Scriptures. In his letter to the Philippians, he referred to Matthew, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and 1 Peter, to mention a few. This establishes the use of the Scriptures by an early apologist to defend the truth as he understood it.
We can attribute this spiritual maturity among the Christians in Smyrna to the hard work of the elders, like Polycarp. Throughout the time of Polycarp’s serving as an overseer in the congregation, these leaders lived through one difficult religious struggle after another. There was the pressure from the Roman government and non-Christian Jews, as well as conflicting creeds and cults. The community that they had to enter in order to spread the gospel was pagan, and the atmosphere was one of godlessness. The martyrdom of Polycarp took place on February 23, 155 C.E., and extremist Jews apparently helped with the gathering of firewood. They did this even though the execution took place on a special Sabbath day.
After withdrawing from the city, Polycarp is hunted by a police captain named Herod and betrayed by young slaves who belong to his own house (6:2). He is arrested late in the evening in an “upper room” by police armed as if advancing against a robber (7:1; cf. Mt. 26:55). He refuses to flee, but like Jesus in Gethsemane says “the will of God be done.” After a long prayer (7:3) he is taken back to the city riding on an ass on a “great Sabbath day” (8:1).
In the arena, Polycarp was standing before the governor and an enormous crowd looking for blood. The governor continued to push him to profess worshipful honor to Caesar:
But as he continued to insist, saying, “Swear by the Genius of Caesar,” he answered: “If you vainly suppose that I will swear by the Genius of Caesar, as you request, and pretend not to know who I am, listen carefully: I am a Christian. Now if you want to learn the doctrine of Christianity, name a day and give me a hearing.” (2) The proconsul said, “Persuade the people.” But Polycarp said, “You I might have considered worthy of a reply, for we have been taught to pay proper respect to rulers and authorities appointed by God, as long as it does us no harm; but as for these, I do not think they are worthy, that I should have to defend myself before them.”
Just moments later Polycarp was burned to death because he would not deny Christ.
Hermas, the Shepherd of Hermas, wrote in the first part of the second century. He was the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome (c. 140 – 154 C.E.), according to the Muratorian Fragment, the oldest existing canon or authoritative list of books of the Christian Greek Scriptures (c. 170 C.E.). Holmes is correct when he writes, “The Hermas, who wrote the Shepherd is certainly not Paul (a suggestion made on the basis of Acts 14:12) or the Hermas mentioned in Romans 16:14 (Origen’s suggestion).” In his work the Shepherd, or Pastor, we have a Christian literary work, considered valuable by many Christians as well as canonical Scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. The manuscript Codex Sinaiticus includes after the book of Revelation the epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
The work comprises five visions, twelve mandates, and ten parables. It depends on allegory and pays special attention to the Christian congregation, calling on the faithful to repent of their sins that have harmed it. Unfortunately, the Shepherd of Hermas is of no real help in establishing the original text of the New Testament.
Papias of Hierapolis: Papias (70 – 163 C.E.) was a bishop of the early Church. Eusebius of Caesarea calls him “Bishop of Hierapolis,” a city in the region of Asia, which is 6.2 miles (10 km) north of Laodicea and near Colossae (Col. 4:12-13), in the northern edge of the Lycus Valley of Asia Minor; it should not be confused with the Hierapolis of Syria. Christianity came to Hierapolis through the “efforts” of Epaphras. Papias wrote a five-volume work entitled, An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.
Papias describes his way of gathering information:
I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, everything I carefully learned then from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For unlike most people I did not enjoy those who have a great deal to say, but those who teach the truth. Nor did I enjoy those who recall someone else’s commandments, but those who remember the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. And if by chance someone who had been a follower of the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders–what Andrew and Peter said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice.
Papias would have been about 28 years old when John penned First, Second and Third John in 98 C.E. from Ephesus. We know that Papias was a friend and associate of Polycarp (69 – 155 C.E.), who was one year younger than he. As we learned from the above, Polycarp was a student of the apostle John. When we consider the years in which Papias lived, whom he likely studied under, his associates, his positions as an overseer in the congregation of Hierapolis, his way of taking in knowledge, it is likely that he was very knowledgeable about the Christianity of his era.
According to Irenaeus (130 – 202 C.E.), Papias was an exceptionally learned man, who was held in high esteem and respected as a reliable source for the apostolic teachings. Eusebius (260/265–339/340 C.E.), an early church historian, on the other hand, offers us contradictory information regarding Papias. “Eusebius (‘Hist. Eccl.,’ iii. 36) says, ‘While Polycarp was in Asia, and was Bishop of Smyrna, Papias was well known as Bishop of the Church in Hierapolis, a man well skilled in all manner of learning, and well acquainted with ‘the Scriptures.’ In 3.39 Eusebius again speaks of him as σφόδρα σμικρὸς ὣν τὸν νοῦν, as being intellectually small or weak. These apparently contradictory passages are not difficult to reconcile.” The reason Eusebius took issue with Papias was apparently because Papias believed in a literal millennium, a thousand-year reign of Christ upon the earth. However, this was actually the prevalent view of Christians in the second century, while Eusebius was a determined anti-millenarian.
Papias was writing at a time when Gnosticism was widespread. Gnosticism was an early apostate Christian movement teaching that salvation comes by learning esoteric spiritual truths that free humanity from the material world, intertwining philosophy, speculation, and pagan mysticism. It would seem that Papias’ writings of Jesus’ sayings were an attempt to slow the rampant growth of Gnosticism. Afterward came Irenaeus, an apologist specifically fighting the Gnostics’ false and exaggerated spirituality. The Gnostic literature may have sparked Papias’ sarcastic reference to “those who have so very much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign commandments, but in those (who record) such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself.” It appears that Papias’ objective was to shine the light of truth on the false teachings. – 1 Timothy 6:4; Philippians 4:5.
About 150 C.E., Papias says of Mark’s Gospel, “‘Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered.’ Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 185, stated: “Now after their decease [Peter and Paul] Mark, the disciple, and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached.” (Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” 370) Further confirming this Gospel’s accuracy, Papias continues, “So then Mark made no mistake when he wrote down thus some things as he remembered them; for he concentrated on this alone—not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them.” Papias also states that Matthew initially penned his Gospel in Hebrew. Papias says, “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” It is likely that Papias referred to the Gospels of Luke and John, as well as to other writings of the Christian Greek New Testament books. If true, he would undoubtedly be one of the earliest witnesses establishing their authority, authenticity, and divine inspiration. Sadly, though, only scant fragments of the writings of Papias have survived. Papias probably suffered martyrdom at Pergamum in 161 or 165 C.E.
Richard Heard observes, “Papias is primarily of interest to us as the last link in a chain of oral tradition going back to the Apostles, and for the information—difficult as it sometimes is to interpret—which he preserved about Peter and Mark, Matthew, Philip, and the Elder John. We are profoundly thankful for his curiosity and for his belief ‘that things out of the books did not profit me so much as the utterances of a voice which liveth and abideth’, even if some of the oral traditions which he wrote down appear to us legendary, e.g. the report attributed to John, the disciple of the Lord, of the Lord’s teaching on the material delights of Paradise, and the account which Papias gives of the death of Judas.”
Agnostic Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman has quite a different opinion about Papias: “There’s an even bigger problem with taking Papias at his word when he indicates that Mark’s Gospel is based on an eyewitness report of Peter: virtually everything else that Papias says is widely, and rightly, discounted by scholars as pious imagination rather than historical fact.” An apologetic Bible scholar, Timothy Paul Jones, offers the following response:
In fairness to Ehrman’s position, some early Christian theologians did engage in pious-as well as, in the descriptions of the heretical Carpocratians in the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius of Salamis, quite impious–imaginings.
Still, Ehrman’s own declaration at this point is, I think, a bit of an overstatement. The fragments of Papias’s writings include stories about a man named Justus Barsabas who was poisoned but didn’t die and about a dead man who was raised to life. Papias also described traditions, allegedly from John the author of Revelation, about a future epoch of earthly bliss and material blessings following the return of Jesus to earth (“the millennium”). Such ideas may strike some persons as odd, but they do not differ significantly from notions that were already present in the New Testament.
Papias did record at least one tradition that could qualify as ‘pious imagination.’ Recounting the death of Judas Iscariot, Papias recorded a story in which the betrayer–apparently having survived the suicide attempt described in Matthew 27:5–swelled until his eyes could not be seen and his genitals oozed putrid pus. In the end, Judas died on his own land in such a way that the entire property stank; this account seems to expand on the tradition found in Acts 1:18. Although scholars in previous generations were hesitant to ascribe this story to Papias, it appears–based on the report recorded in the writings of Apollinarius of Laodicea–that Papias may actually have preserved this tale about Judas. Responding to the tale of Judas’s death, Ehrman comments that ‘Papias was obviously given to flights of fancy.’
So what effect do these stories have on the tradition that Papias preserved regarding the Gospels According to Matthew and Mark? Very little, really.
The importance of Papias’s testimony is that it verifies that the type of authorial traditions cited by Irenaeus of Lyons–traditions that connected the four New Testament Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John–existed long before the mid to late second century. Through what remains of Papias’s writings, it is clear that these traditions were at least as ancient as the late first or early second century.
Papias faithfully recorded stories that he heard, and it is possible that some of these stories were exaggerated. But the fact that Papias may have recorded some exaggerated stories does not negate the crucial fact that he recorded oral traditions about the Gospels that were in circulation fewer than twenty years after the last of the four New Testament Gospels were written. This fact is already suggested by the consistency with which the various manuscripts connect the four Gospels to the same authors; the testimony of Papias simply confirms this suggestion. (Jones 2007, 148-7)
Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM
CHURCH ISSUES, GROWTH, AND HISTORY
 (Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism 1995, 46) (Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) 2005, 124) (Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History Methods & Results 2006, 237)
 Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, pp. 172–73.
 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 33.
 Clement draws upon the Septuagint), words of Jesus, the early Christian writings, as well as traditions as sources of authority.
 Ibid., 109
 Second edition, as it seems the third edition has gone over into the politically correct gender neutral translation philosophy.
 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 109.
 Ibid., 33-34
 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 167.
 Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Pope Clement I et al., vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (London; New York: Heinemann; Macmillan, 1912–1913), 166–167.
 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 174-175.
 Irenaeus was born between 120 C.E. and 140 C.E. in or near the city of Smyrna, and died about 200 C.E. He served as an elder in Gaul. He was an early apologist; his principal writing was The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called,” which was commonly referred to as “Against Heresies.”
 Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.3.4; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.14.3–8. This translation from the edition cited above.
 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1988; 2002), 211.
 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 315, 317.
 Ibid., 446
 Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007), 735.
 H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., St. John, vol. 1, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), xxxii.
 Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 696.
 Joseph Barber Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan and Co., 1891), 528.
 “The Fragments of Papias,” p. 265.
 Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1989), 84.
 R. A. Cole, “Mark, Gospel Of,” ed. D. R. W. Wood et al., New Bible Dictionary(Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 727–728.
 Papias, “Fragments of Papias,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 155.
 Richard Heard (1954). (B) Papias’ Quotations from the New Testament. New Testament Studies, 1, pp 130-134. doi:10.1017/S0028688500003647.
 Bart D. Ehrman, Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 95.