Loading...In my previous two posts I showed why Papias is not a reliable source when it comes to the authorship of Matthew and Mark. If you haven’t read those posts and are personally inclined to think that his testimony about Matthew and Mark are accurate, I suggest you read them (the posts) before reading this one.
In this post I want to argue that what he actually says about Matthew and Mark are not true of our Matthew and Mark, and so either he is talking about *other* Gospels that he knows about (or has heard about) called Matthew and Mark, that do not correspond to our Matthew and Mark, or he simply is wrong.
I’ll reverse the order in which his comments are given, and deal with Matthew first.
In the quotation of the fourth century historian Eusebius, we read this:
And this is what [Papias] says about Matthew:
“And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [Or: translated] them to the best of his ability.”
The problems here are obvious….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, THERE IS STILL HOPE!!!
I always hear the line that Matthew was the most “Jewish” gospel. It seems like the author constructed his gospel based on a lot of LXX material. The author of Matthew may have been a Hellenized Jew or a Gentile who was very familiar with Jewish traditions/practices. Is there any way to ascertain whether Matt was likely either a Jewish or Greek author?
What are your thoughts re this author being Jewish? (also I promise not to ask any further questions about his foreskin status at the time of writing this gospel 🙂 )
Great question — and a tough one. I may post on it in a while, since I think others would like to know as well! (Over the years, I’ve looked at all the evidence and often simply feel like I’m sitting on the fence…)
Bart, I’d love to hear you elaborate on the possibility that Papias “had a different Gospel in mind.” Is this a serious possibility in your mind? That there may have been multiple Gospel versions circulating in the 2nd Century associated with Mark and Matthew? And that Papias (no genius perhaps, but a church leader whose views should probably be regarded as representative of at least a portion of the Christian community of his day) latched onto the wrong Gospel versions? If so … isn’t all that fascinating to a text critic such as yourself?
My hunch is that he’s simply heard rumors about another Gospel — I doubt if he’s seen it — and rumors about different apostles writing them, and possibly a rumor that Matthew himself had done one. I doubt if he’s read a copy of it though (especially since it was allegedly in Hebrew).
Hi Dr. Bart.
Is Papias referring to the actual Greek canonical Gospel according to Mark in the bible today? or some other document that Mark composed with Peter’s guidance?
The statement from Papias, preserved by Eusebius, concerning Mark’s Gospel reads as follows:
“And the Presbyter [or: elder] used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them”
I doubt it, but I”m probably in the minority. He also talks about Matthew and everything he says about it does not apply to our Matthew. So he was speaking of some other book. It appears he knew that such books were around, but nothing indicates that he means the books that were later identified as Matthew and Mark.
I’ve wondered whether the Matthew mentioned by Papias was actually a Q-like document that did not survive antiquity. Later, the fact that Matthew had been mentioned as an “author” helped gain him the credit for the Greek document that bears his name. Are there reasons why an Aramaic logion credited to Matthew is unlikely, or is it just impossible to know at this point?
It *could* be — but I think we just can’t know for certain.
Hi Dr Ehrman,
If Papias’ Matthew was principally a collection of Jesus’ sayings — which does not match with “our” Matthew — is it possible Papias was referring to (what we know as) the Gospel of Thomas? Could that have been originally written in Hebrew?
It was almost certainly written originally in Greek. My sense is that he has some other Gospel in mind that is in form and structure like what Thomas was made into later.
None of our 4 gospels fit his descriptions so I think we can be pretty sure he didn’t think any of them were the ones he was told about. From the quotes we have, I get the sense that Papius didn’t actually have the texts he was told Matthew and Mark wrote, just that he knew they existed. Is there anything to suggest he actually had copies of these?
Only if you think his comments refer to our Matthew and Mark.
I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.
Fantastic! You too!
I’ve been curious about this passage for quite some time. It’s attributed to Papias, in Exposition of thePOracles of the Lord 3. It seems to be a variation on the passage you cited in your last post. It says:
Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.
This passage is a cut and paste from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm but it appears this way in several sites. So I’m wondering if it’s the same passage you cited, but translated differently, or from a totally different source. If i could find a side by side of the origional greek i would post it along with the passage, but I can’t seem to find it anywhere.
Thanks.
I’m away from home and don’t have my books with me, so I can’t check the sources. I’m not familiar with this version I’m afraid. Can you find an ancient reference anywhere?
I’ve been trying to track down the earliest source of the verse, but as far back as I’m able to go is circa 1885. The quote is from “The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to 325 A.D.” by Alexander Robert and James Donaldson. In a footnoot it seems that they are sourceing the quote to Theophylact of Bulgaria which supposedly contains the quote in it’s origional greek, but I’m unable to find a copy of it on the internet.
Are you familiar with this work by Roberts and Donaldson? Is it generally reliable?
It’s a standard work on most early Christians’ scholars bookshelves. But when it comes to a quotation like this, one has to trace the source; I need to look at Theophylact to see if he has the quotation. As you may know, he lived at the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century — so he was a thousand years after Papias.
There are two different editions from Papias. This can be found in Lake’s The Beginnings of Christianity Part 5 I think pages 22-30. There is Matthew on Judas, Acts on Judas, and then two editions commonly attributed to Papias on Judas, though one of them appears to be more connected to Apollinarius. Apollinarius seems to have copied Papias and lengthened it, that would be absolutely shocking would it not? Dr. Ehrman I have read that Eusebius would leave out Papias quotation because he did not like him because of Chiliasm. thoughts?
https://archive.org/details/thebeginningsofc05unknuoft
Yes, Eusebius callse Papias a “man of very small intelligence,” presumably because of his chiliasm.
Does this mean that Papias had not seen the gospels we know as Mark and Matthew? If he had, we are left with the situation where he imagined “what was to be got from [these] books was not so profitable” while many modern conservative Christians stake their lives on every jot and tittle.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that he had seen “our” Matthew, and probably not our Mark.
Is it possible that Papias took “gospel” to mean something other that a discrete text? That perhaps he meant it as something like “point of view”. In this case any account, whether written or oral, could represent the gospel of Matthew (or Mark) if it fit the supposed point of view or that it putatively had come from Matthew (or Mark)?
When he talks about matthew “compiling” the sayings of Jesus and Mark “writing” Peter’s preaching, it sounds like he’s talking about texts.
Do you believe (or has anyone else) that maybe what Papias thought of as Matthew’s gospel (written in Aramaic as he says) was what we know of today as the Gospel of the Nazarenes since it is believed to have been Matthew minus the first 2 chapters and written in Aramaic?
It’s been proposed. Unfortunately we don’t have the Gospel of the Nazarenes — just a few traces.
Hi Bart,
I have two questions. The first is about why you think Papias isn’t talking about our Mark. You wrote, “If Mark was intent in particular “to leave out nothing that he heard” in all of his time with Peter as Peter proclaimed the things Jesus said and did – well, that can’t be said of our Gospel of Mark. This Gospel is remarkably sparse. You can read the whole thing aloud in two hours. Mark spent all those years with Peter and all he heard about Jesus was two-hours worth of material?”
But Papias’ account says that Mark only wrote down some matters as he remembered them. Marks gospel does seem to be only some of what Peter may have told Mark.
The second is about the reliability of Papias and Eusibius. Is there any doubt that Papias even wrote what he did about Matthew and Mark? As far as I know there are no surviving works of Papias. It would also seem that Eusibius isn’t even working with the original of what Papias wrote but probably a copy or a copy of a copy. We also don’t have any originals of Eusibius but copies at least 100 years later (I think). Why should we trust that Eusibius had a reliable copy of Papias? And why should we think that we actually have what Eusibius wrote? Is there any plausibility that a scribe didn’t corrupt any of these texts?
-Zak
I think Papias says that Mark made sure not to leave out anything he had heard. But no, no one seems to think that the text of Eusebius has been tampered with at this point.
Would you say that the Papias material is, at least, reliable evidence that early traditions existed about a Mark and Matthew who compiled some kind of writings about Jesus? Even if so, I don’t see much reason to assume those are the same people as the tax collector and the John Mark / Mark mentioned by Paul.
Yes, I do indeed think they show that.
Hi Bart,
Is there a full scale article on the subject of Papias testimony regarding the authorship of Matthew and Mark that you could recommend? Or a book…
And one question: Michael J. Kruger in his book “The question of canon” makes a lot from the fact that Papias was a friend with Polycarp who was the student of John (I think he quotes Eusebius on this point). Does that mean that Papias was in a better position to find out informations about gospels, Jesus etc? What do you think about that?
Thank’s! Kind regards from Croatia.
Marko.
Yeah, I don’t buy that Papias-Polycarp-John connection. (For one thing: if Polycarp was so familiar with John, why does he frequently quote the Synoptic Gospels but not the Gospel of John?) Anyway, my former student Stephen Carlson is writing the definitive book on Papias, and hopefully it will be out soon (not yet advertised, but nearly finished I think)
I’ve asked dr. Carlson and he gave me a full scale answer. His conclusion is that we have to evaluate Irenaeus’s statement in light of his stress on his own apostolic pedigree as he combats his theological opponents. It’s based on the fact that we can’t corroborate the connection between Polycarp and Papias in their writings. Regarding the “John connection” Carlson points out that in Papias fragments we are dealing with two John’s that are “the desciples of the Lord” and we can’t relate these Johns with any confidence to the various writings under the name of John.
I would just point out that evangelical scholars are a bit sceptical when it comes to (for example) Justin’s claim about “Simon Magus – various gnostic teacher” connection or with any other “heretical” teacher from 2nd century -> important person from the 1st century connection. It’s interested how they loose that scepticism in dealing with Irenaeus Papias-Polycarp-John connection.
Yes, just as they’re skeptical of all other apostolic connections, for example that Valentinus was the disciple of Theudas who was the disciple of Paul.
“Papias is not reliable evidence concerning who wrote the Gospels. He never mentions Luke or John. Or rather, perhaps it’s better to say that whatever he *said* about Luke and John was not quoted by Eusebius. One might wonder why that would be. Were his comments so outlandish that not even Eusebius could buy them? It’s hard for me to think of any other reason.”
Maybe because Eusebius was biased against Papias, selectively quoting him with the aim to discredit?
Much of what we do know about Papias comes from a person living nearly 200 years after Papias and who detested him for his chiliasm.
Did the early church see Papias as a heretic, such that they impugned him and destroyed his work/writings? If they had his grave, perhaps they would have had another CadaverSynod… regarding outlandish, it’s hard to best the early church.
A man who lived within 100-years of the critical events and who compiled 5-lost volumes about Jesus is probably a better witness than the biased and much later Eusebias? We dont know what Mark or other gospels looked like in Papias’ time given subsequent alterations, which i think Origen acknowledged ascriticism by Celsus?
We don’t really know how others saw him; Eusebius didn’t appreciate him, but not because he was a “heretic” in the sense that Simon Magus or Marcion was; he just had some odd views and, in Eusebius’s opinion, was just pretty dumb (“a man of very little intelligence.”)
Someone made this comment in a discussion on Papias based on Paulogia latest video:
“He claims that the Matthew that Papias had was a sayings document based on the common english translation of the word logia. He doesn’t even know that Papias did have our Gospel of Mark which he also calls logia even though it is not a sayings document. Papias’ own five volume work is called “Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord” which uses the same word logia and he obviously is not restricted to just Jesus’ sayings!”
Any thoughts on this Bart?
I’m not sure who the “he” is that this person is referring to. But “logia” definitely refers to sayings — it is not a word used of “deeds” for example. And it’s not at all clear that the Mark Papias was referring to is the Gospel we have. We would know only if he described it correctly in ways that could be verified or quoted it so we could see. He doesn’t. We have multiple writings ascribed to, say, Matthew, John, and Peter. It would not make sense to pick one such book, say the Apocryphon of John, and claim that since Church Father X in the year 120 mentions a writing about Jesus called “John” that he is referring to the Apocryphon of John. So why claim something like that about Papias’s Mark?
2
“Papias’s use of the term logia here, as well as in his comment about Matthew and in the title of his own work (Exposition of the Logia of the Lord), has been much discussed. But the context in these statements about Mark strongly suggests that it means not “sayings of the Lord” or “prophetic oracles of the Lord” or “prophetic oracles about the Lord” but something like “short reports of what the Lord said and did.” This is because “the logia of the Lord” must be parallel to the earlier phrase “the things either said or done by the Lord.” The content of what Peter did not put in order must be the same as what he recalled from memory and Mark wrote down. – Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitness 2nd Edition”
All you need to do is see what the word Logia means. A good Greek lexicon will tell you. When its meaning is inconvenient for your argument, you simply claim it means something else.
3
“There has been considerable debate as to whether in referring to “sayings” (logia) Papias meant that Matthew wrote a full Gospel (as later writers understood, thinking of canonical Matt, e.g., EH 5.8.2–3). Logoi would have been the usual word for “sayings” in the sense of “words,” and so logia might mean whatever constituted the “revelations” of Jesus (see Acts 7:38 for the logia or revelations delivered by Moses). Moreover, since Papias reported that Mark was a follower of Peter who did not make an orderly account of the Lord’s logia and it is widely agreed that Papias was referring to the Gospel of Mark, plausibly he would have been referring to a gospel when he says that Matthew arranged in order the logia in Hebrew/Aramaic. – Raymond Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament.”
I don’t agree with all of that, but if you have to choose between Brown and Bauckham, there is no contest. There was no more careful, knowledgable, sensible interpreter of texts in modern times than Raymond Brown. (Even when I disagree, it’s never because he seems to be makin’ stuff up or because he hasn’t thought of nearly all the optoins and considered them carefully)
4 . . . and finally:
“The title of Papias’ work (logíōn kyriakṓn exergēseis) is obviously not meant to refer only to sayings. Similarly, when Papias speaks about the composition of Mark, tá kyriaká lógia is obviously equivalent to “what the Lord said and did.” The same applies to tá lógia in connection with Matthew. This plainly includes dominical sayings, but a more comprehensive meaning is also possible. The passage offers no support, then, for the argument that Papias is a witness in favor of a special book of sayings (Q). – Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. IV”
Presumably you accept these 3 as scholars, any thoughts on the points they raise?
Yeah, that “obvoiusly” drives me nuts. He thinks it’s obvoius because he thinks he’s referring to our Mark, which would in deed make it obvious. But it also makes it a circular argument, sinc ethe question (which he probably hadn’t thought of) is whether it’s referring to *our* Mark. Which makes little sense since “logia” does not refer to what a person *does*. (The article by the way was not written by Kittel, but by another scholar whose article was included in the dictionary Kittel edited)
*NUDGE*
Many thanks for responding, Bart.
Hope you and Sarah have a good Christmas.
Thanks! We’ll be in Merry Ole for the duration.