Conservative Christian scholars often claim that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were recognized as “Scripture” already by the early second century, and for evidence they appeal to the words spoken of that mysterious church father “Papias” (writing in 120 CE? 140 CE?). But when Papias mentioned Matthew and Mark, was he speaking about the books that we now know about? And if so did he see them as Scripture?
Here is the final guest post by Stephen Carlson on Papias, based on research he has been doing for years for a book on this and related questions. As you’ll see, he reaches very different, and intriguing conclusions.
–
Stephen Carlson is the author of The Gospel Hoax and The Text of Galatians and Its History.
******************************************************************************
The Logia of Mark and Matthew
In our last post, we considered Irenaeus’s extensive quotation of Papias for a millennial fertility tradition from the “elders” to the effect that Jesus promised that, in the resurrection, the renewed earth will be so fertile that each grape vine will produce an astronomical amount of wine, and each wheat stalk will produce a similar amount of the finest flour. Before that we also looked at Papias’s preface and noted that he said there were two kinds of material in his work, interpretations of dominical oracles and various traditions supplementing them. When this distinction is applied to the fertility tradition that Irenaeus quotes, it appears that the Jesus saying transmitted by Irenaeus is not so much an oracle and that needed an interpretation, but rather a supplementary tradition via someone named John in support of a messianic interpretation of an Old Testament promise given by Isaac to Jacob in Gen 27. This analysis supports the view that Papias’s dominical oracles are Old Testament promises and prophecies about Jesus Christ. In this post we will now look at how this interpretation fits with what Papias said about the writings of Mark and Matthew.
We have to keep in mind that the reason why we have anything at all about what Papias said about Mark and Matthew is that it served the interest of …
The rest of this post is for those who belong to the blog. Don’t you have a longing for belonging? Then why not join? You get five posts a week, going back over seven years; and all membership fees go directly to charity.
Sorry to be off topic here but I have a general question for Bart. I know this may sound like a farce but since psilocybin mushrooms predates recorded history and had long been consumed in spiritual and divinatory ceremonies what are the possibilities of influence within the New Testament? Certainly, at least to me, the John of Revelation appears to match a psychedelic experience as well as Paul on Damascus Road. This is not limited to early Christianity as we have Hebrew accounts of a talking donkey, flaming bush, and such. Thanks.
Yes, it’s been a topic of discussion, every since John Allegro wrote his book The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. I don’t know if psilocybin mushrooms grew in ancient Palestine — though I rather doubt it (maybe someone can tell us?); but in any event, there is zero evidence that Jesus had access to them.
This would suggest they are not native to the Near East:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin#/media/File:Pschoactive_Psilocybe_distribution.png
Thank you, Dr. Carlson for an especially informative post.
Bart, perhaps an addition to your to do list. I’d appreciate a blog post on “Did Paul Write Hebrews in the New Testament?” Thanks very much!
Good idea!
If we ignore Markan priority and just look at the text of Matthew, what makes us sure it was composed originally in Greek?
Is it not possible that there could be a translator that doesn’t make the typical mistakes of other translators? Perhaps someone was native in both languages and an educated translator
Markan priority is a pretty big thing to ignore! At any rate, the Greek of Matthew does not read like translation Greek (unlike a lot of the Greek in the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek); there are some word play that works in Greek but not Hebrew or Aramaic; and some of the Old Testament quotations follow the Septuagint.
Thank you for your response. I misread you on my first reading. I now see that you say there was a Hebrew Matthew and a Greek Matthew.
I’ve seen many theologically motivated websites argue for Matthean priority and they always quote Papias. It has caused me cognitive dissonance seeing the similarities between our Matthew and Mark and what Papias was claiming
Would it be inaccurate to sat that at Papias’ time, Jesus was more the Messiah than God? The Son of God but not God as would later develop into trinitarianism? I’m always fascinated with how Jesus became so elevated and the apparent need of Him to become so.
I’ll keep the focus on Papias. We don’t really have enough to answer your question. My sense is that Papias is most interested in Jesus as the Messiah who will return in power and establish his kingdom upon the earth.
First of all, thank you VERY much for some really interesting posts sharing the fruit of your still unpublished research!
One point that I still don’t quite get is why you still make associations between Papias and our current gospel of Matthew, for example, here:
“And this is largely confirmed by what we see in the gospels attributed to Mark and Matthew. … Our gospel of Matthew on the other hand adds to Mark several fulfillment citations from another source. The fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy is a redactional interest of the author of our Matthew.
… Although the evidence is scant, I argue that it points to a messianic exegesis of Old Testament promises and prophecies, with additional material from oral traditions. … it also gives a hint about what he thought was inadequate about the writings of … Matthew. … Matthew compiled [messianic promises and prophecies] in Hebrew, apparently unaware about our Gospel of Matthew. Neither work would be helpful in his project of expounding the dominical oracles.”
Are you thinking perhaps that Papias might have seen what he knew of as Matthew’s Hebrew collection of dominical oracles as somehow related to what eventually became what he and we now know as the Greek gospel of Matthew? If not, why make any references at all to the current gospel of Matthew? Perhaps Schleiermacher’s ghost haunts us still. …
My view is that Papias may have heard of some composition by Matthew, but not as a gospel. And Papias probably never read it because it was in Hebrew. If there was such as composition by Matthew, it could explain why his name got attached to a revision of Mark with Old Testament testimonia.
Stephen Carlson: “My view is that Papias may have heard of some composition by Matthew, but not as a gospel. And Papias probably never read it because it was in Hebrew. If there was such as composition by Matthew, it could explain why his name got attached to a revision of Mark with Old Testament testimonia.”
Very interesting. So the author of our Greek Matthew would have added messianic testamonia to the gospel of Mark as well as additional sayings of Jesus, ie, logia in both the Burkittian and the Schleiermacherian senses of the term. But none of these additional logia added to our Greek Matthew would have any known relationship to what Papias knew of the logia ‘Matthew’ had reportedly composed in Hebrew.
Two more questions, if I may:
1. Would you like to speculate that perhaps some of messianic testamonia attributed to Matthew in Papias’ time overlapped with some of the OT fulfillment citations added to Mark’s gospel in the creation of the gospel that also came to be attributed to Matthew?
2. Where do you stand currently with respect to Farrer, Goodacre et al vs the two-document theory, ie, Matthew’s and Luke’s independent use of Mark and Q?
I think you’ve got what I’m saying. As for your questions:
1. There is no real affirmative evidence for it, but it’s not implausible either. (Sorry can’t be more helpful).
2. I’m with Goodacre.
Stephen Carlson: “2. I’m with Goodacre.”
Aha!
Does you preference for the Farrerarian/Goodacrean solution to the synoptic problem influence your preference for a Burkittian vs Schleiermachian interpretation of Papias? Or have you looked at the Papian question completely independently of the synoptic problem?
“I’m with Goodacre.”
Have you seen the Venn Diagrams on Goodacre’s and Nongbri’s blogs?
@Robert: Although nothing can be “completely” independent, the main basis for my conclusion is a lexical study of what the term logia actually meant, especially among those who have read Papias, in connection with what has actually survived of Papias. Besides, major Q proponents, including James M. Robinson of the Critical Edition of Q, have largely abandoned Schleiermacher’s reading of the passage.
@Pattycake1974: Yes, really cool.
Stephen Carlson: “@Robert: Although nothing can be “completely” independent, the main basis for my conclusion is a lexical study of what the term logia actually meant, especially among those who have read Papias, in connection with what has actually survived of Papias. Besides, major Q proponents, including James M. Robinson of the Critical Edition of Q, have largely abandoned Schleiermacher’s reading of the passage.”
We’ve already agreed that Grayson and Robinson do not read logia in Papias correctly, considering it to encompass words and deeds, as in Mark’s account. And, besides, Schleiermacher’s reading of Papias does not include a sayings source used independently by Matthew and Luke, so it really should not matter whether or not Q-proponents claim to be the legitimate heirs to Schleiermacher. I am NOT arguing that our solution to the synoptic problem should dictate how we read Papias. Quite the contrary. But my reading of Papias/Eusebius does however make good use of the connective particle that depicts Matthew’s composition, whatever it consisted of, as secondary and supplementary to Mark’s account:
“These things are related by Papias [as originally said by Papias] concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he said [Papias himself, not the elder] as follows:
“So then (οὖν) Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο), and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
My primary point is that Papias/Eusebius may be read, perhaps should best be read, as most likely supporting Markan priority. Those who use the ‘Hebrew dialect’ to necessarily support Matthean priority are not paying attention to the order and sense of the extant text of Papias/Eusebius.
One can read “every one interpreted them as he was able” within the two-source theory or as Luke interpreting Matthew.
Agreed? Or do you require more explanation?
Oops. Correction to what I posted earlier (as if anyone cares):
“These things are related (ιστορηται) by Papias [relating what was originally said by the elder] concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he says [perhaps Papias himself, not necessarily the elder] as follows:
“So then (οὖν) Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο), and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
Many people want to isolate the two traditions about Mark and Matthew as if they are unrelated, allowing the elder to be seen as a witness to Matthean priority, assuming that by writing in Hebrew he must have been writing first. But Eusebius mentions the elder’s comments about Mark’s written account first and Matthew’s logia, whatever they were, in whatever language they were written, are seen by the elder or Papias or Eusebius as providing what was lacking in Peter’s preaching and thereby also lacking in Mark’s text.
Thus Papias does NOT support Matthean priority and may even best be read as presuming Markan priority and understanding Matthew as responsible for what was added to Mark’s narrative.
Didnt eusebius have access to papias’s work? Isnt it unlikely misunderstood papias use of logia?
It’s not a major misunderstanding. I don’t think that Eusebius would have even noticed that Papias had a more narrow understanding of scripture than Eusebius.
Bart, are you familiar with _The Quest for Mark’s Sources_ by Thomas P Nelligan? I’m reading it now. Very interesting. (My apologies if you’ve commented on this before and I missed it.)
Nope, I”m afraid not. It’s amazing what I don’t know….
These posts have been awesome, some of my favorites on the blog (Sorry Bart! lol) I’ve long been interested in the works of Papias. Thanks for sharing your expertise, Dr. Carlson!
There are, of course, those who have speculated that what Matthew compiled in the Hebrew language was nothing other than what we call Q. Notably, this view is advocated by William Barclay in the introduction to his commentary on Matthew. This prompts me to ask: do you have any thoughts about Barclay’s legacy? Although his motive was evangelical, and some of his facts are wonky, he is in some sense your predecessor in that he endeavoured to make insights from Biblical scholarship available to the average person. I imagine he was never popular in the Bible Belt, but he certainly made a mark elsewhere (including on me).
Yeah, I’m afraid it doesn’t work that Matthew did Q; for one thing, Q was almost certainly written in Greek. Barclay did a world of good making scholarship simple to non-scholars, especially pastors but also lay folk. He was not known for his own scholarship and lots of his views today are considered dated; but he made a huge impact in his day.
“And this is largely confirmed by what we see in the gospels attributed to Mark and Matthew. Our gospel of Mark has hardly any Old Testament quotations, except for the one at Mark 1:2-3 in the narrator’s voice plus those put on the lips of Jesus.”
Dr. Ehrman or Dr. Carlson am I understanding this clearly that, unlike Matthew, Papias is most likely referring to our gospel of Mark? I appreciate the clarity if I’m misunderstanding!
My view is that he was *not* referring to ourMatthew wheh he spoke of Matthew and so there is no real reason to think that he is referring to our Mark when he refers to Mark.
Hello everyone,
I know I am “coming late to the party” so to speak but since this thread was fairly recent, I wanted to ask some questions regarding Papias. I first became aware of Papias in my Evangelical years because his name was mentioned in Lee Strobel’s book *The Case for Christ*. It was in an interview with Craig Blomberg. I am confused, though: it seems that we don’t the actual works of Papias but he is quoted by Irenaeus and Eusebius. Blomberg quotes from Eusebius. That makes me wonder: is Papias quoted independently by Irenaeus and Eusebius or is Eusebius quoting from them both? I know that Irenaeus wrote a book *Against Heresies*. Does this work exist? If so, do we have it in full or just in fragments? If it doesn’t exist, is our only information about it from Eusebius?
Thank you,
Matthew
We do not have Papias’s books, but we do have quotations of it. Yes, Irenaeus and Eusebius are two authors who quote him. We have Irenaeus’s “AGainst Heresies” (five volumes, easily accessible in English) and Eusebius’s Church History (ten volumes, but also available — in one volume) in English. They appear to be quoting Papias accurately, even if not necessarily in context.
Bart,
Thanks for responding. From what I have read, there is considerable debate over whether the information given by Papias is reliable. A good number of scholars are skeptical of what he writes. Have you written anything about the reliability of Papias-here (on this blog) or elsewhere?
Matthew
Yup, a bunch of times. You might check out Jesus Before the GOspels, or just look up Papias on the blog.
Hello, Bart! “Dominical” is a word used to refer to what is the “Lord’s”, right? I was wondering because, in spanish, “Domingo” means Sunday, so I thought Papias’ book title meant The Expositions of the Sundays Oracles. Just to make sure, does it mean Sundays Oracles or the Lord’s Oracles?
Yup.
Hello, Bart (or Stephen)! I understand how the Old Testament Messianic Passages relate to the Dominical Oracles, but what do they have to do with the deeds of Jesus that Mark wrote about? Does Stephen think Mark’s writings were composed of both Old Testament Messianic Passages and Jesus’ deeds?
I think his idea is that Papias’s book was about OT predictions of the events that were to transpire later in Jesus’ life
Hello again, Bart! It’s interesting to note that Irenaeus agrees with Papias on the authorship of Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels. But it’s even more interesting to note what Irenaeus adds to what Papias said before him: that Mark wrote his gospel after Peter’s death, and the time on which Matthew purportedly wrote his gospel. Of course, those additions could’ve been product of oral transmission. And I think it is pretty clear why Irenaeus would’ve thought Mark wrote his gospel after Peter’s “departure”: he read 1 & 2 Peter, and made assumptions based on them. But, why would it have been significant for Irenaeus (or any member of the Roman church with whom he spoke) to match the time of Peter’s preaching at Rome with the time of Matthew’s gospel writing? I quote the passage from Against Heresies, just to make sure you get what I’m talking about: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.”
I’d say that’s how legendary accretions typically happened. But isn’t this saying Matthew wrote earlier than Mark?
So, you’re saying, it would’ve been important for Irenaeus to believe Matthew had written his gospel before Mark wrote his, because Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus’ life and Mark wasn’t? If that’s the case, it makes sense. Did Irenaeus ever notice the similarities between the gospels? And why didn’t he place the writing of Matthew’s gospel even earlier? Do you have any idea? I mean, Irenaeus could’ve said Matthew wrote his gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Antioch, for example.
Yes, he saw the similarities. In the early church it was widely thought that Matthew was first; later it came to be thoght that Mark was a kind of condensed version of Matthew. I’m not sure what Irenaeus’s reason for dating it wsa….
Thanks, Bart! Now I’m just curious about why you think it was important for Ireaneus (and the Asian and Roman churches) to believe/say Matthew wrote earlier than Mark. I’ve thought about some options (as opposed to the “heretics”): virgin birth (Matthew and Luke), YHWH was the only God (also in Mark), YHWH was Jesus’ father (also in Mark), Jesus’ second coming (also in Mark)…
I think it’s because he was thought to be a direct eyewitness, as one of the disciples. So the first and last Gospels (and by far the most often quoted by early Christians) were by those who accompanied Jesus.
Thanks, again. Actually, what you’re saying, made me think about John 20, when the beloved disciple outruns Peter and makes it first to the tomb. Do you think people in antiquity really cared that much about who was the first to do whatever other people admired? If so, what could be the reason for that? It’s just really weird, you know…
I think the author cared. He wanted to emphasize that the founder of his own community was superior to Peter himself. That kind of competition between apostles was common among churches in antiquity. It’s why the Roman church ended up being ablt to claim Peter and Paul for themselves, as the top dogs in Christendom.
So you’re saying that logia could possibly refer to more than “sayings”? If so, this undermines a key argument that many scholars use to argue that Papias was referring to a different Matthew.
No, Logia refers to sayings. Some scholars have argued that it refers to narratives as well as saying precisely so they can claim it was an older form of matthew. But it’s simply not what hte word *means*.