Pierius of Alexandria did not include all he knew from his sources. Stevens flags, in particular, Papias' account of John's martyrdom and Papias' claim that John of Patmos was also the Evangelist. Also absent is Papias' citation of Revelation 12:9. Eusebius of Caesarea should have noted some of this lore if his sources had informed him; that he did not note this lore implies that his sources did not inform him, starting with Pierius. This leads to the next question: why wouldn't Pierius inform him?
In the Johannine same-author case I submit that Pierius had so informed Eusebius. Eusebius is aware that John the Evangelist was sent to an island. The obvious island would be Patmos. Eusebius here cites Irenaeus and Clement. It is just that Eusebius, firstly, has no need of Pierius where others preceded him; secondly, he prefers Dionysius' reading which he quotes in extenso.
Although questions remain over how Pierius had informed Eusebius. I cannot rule out that Pierius agreed with Dionysius (and with me) against Papias (and against Irenaeus, Clement, Origen... probably Nepos). This would explain some of the Eusebian "lacunae".
Pierius perhaps even incorporated a similar rebuttal as Dionysius' (although Dionysius does not name Papias nor Pierius). This might be one of those anti-Apocalypse "commentaries" from which Dionysius will draw.
No comments:
Post a Comment