^{page 46 note 1} Article on ‘Papias’ in Diet, of Christ and the Gospels.

^{page 46 note 2} Kleist, J. A., ‘Papias’ in Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 51 note 1} Reading and omitting αὐτòς which I suggest was wrongly inserted here in early days by a careless copyist whose eye was caught by two lines farther on. The full passage in Eusebius is: …

^{page 53 note 1} Or perhaps alternatively ‘you may know the truth about the stories which you have heard from informers’.

^{page 57 note 1} George the Sinner (ninth century) substantially repeats this tradition of Papias about the deaths of James and John first recorded for us by Philip of Side in the fifth century. Philip's reliability is doubted by many scholars, who suspect that he misunderstood his authorities. (It is thought that he may have confused the sons of Zebedee with James the Just and John the Baptist his cousin.) But these critics appear to have missed the firm reason for believing that the statement about the deaths of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, appeared in Papias' second book. Eusebius had used Papias with discrimination, pointing out that he had made some obvious mistakes (which he did not list). On the other hand Philip's epitome—all that remains of his History—seems mainly concerned with statements by Papias which he himself found untrustworthy and in need of correction.

If we examine the passage in detail, Philip seems to blame Papias for misleading people by drawing their attention to another John—not the son of Zebedee—‘whom he [Papias] called the Elder. As a result,’ wrote Philip, ‘some believe that (this) John is the author of the two short epistles which circulate under the name of John, their reason being that the men of the primitive age accept the First Epistle only.’ (But I do not share their views, Philip implies.) ‘Some have also wrongly believed’ (he goes on) ‘that the Apocalypse is this man's work. Papias too in error about the Millennium and so in consequence is Irenaeus. Papias says in the second book that John the Theologos and his brother James were slain by the Jews.’

Surely this last statement implies from its context that Philip believed he was drawing attention to another error by Papias? If we read it this way, we may be sure that the remark was in the copy of Papias which Philip used.

For some scholars have argued that Philip was drawing on Eusebius and not on Papias himself. But this theory is not very convincing because Philip quotes names in stories from Papias which Eusebius did not give.

It therefore seems probable that Philip here preserved a genuine tradition by Papias about the death of John, the brother of James, even though he believed that Papias was ‘here too in error’.

^{page 62 note 1} The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 251.