Papias on Mark and Matthew
Papias was an early Christian bishop from Hierapolis, in the Phrygian
part of the Roman province of Asia. Papias was a common Phrygian
name.[i]
According to Irenaeus and Eusebius, Papias wrote his Exposition of
the Logia of the Lord in five books. While these five books have
not survived, we have fragments preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius and
others, with citations here taken from Eusebius.[ii]
This work contained the recollections of the Christian elders Papias
had known or from whom he had heard at second hand. From the fragments of this
work that have survived we can deduce that his life overlapped with
two direct disciples of Jesus, John the Elder and Ariston. It is
possible that he heard these men speak when he was a young man, but
if he did not actually hear them himself, he heard reports of what
they had said. This places him only one step away from eyewitness
testimony to Jesus’ life.
We can also deduce that his work included a number of speculations
about the second coming of Jesus, some of which were attributed to
John the Elder. This put him out of favour with the great Christian
historian and antiquarian, Eusebius, who had a less literal view of
Jesus’ promises of the second coming than Papias. Eusebius
expressed a less than favourable view of Papias’ critical
judgement, but this can be put down to the fact that Eusebius did not
want to promulgate the millennial speculations of Papias. The
consequence of this is that he only cited limited excerpts from
Papias’ work, and so what we have is perhaps even more
precious, given its provenance.
From the fragments Eusebius cited, we discover that Papias learnt
from John the Elder what the latter knew about Mark and Matthew’s
works. In regard to Mark’s work, Papias said that it was based
on Peter’s preaching:
The
Elder also said this, “Mark, being the interpreter of Peter,
whatsoever he remembered he wrote accurately, but not however in the
order that these things were spoken or done by our Lord. For he
neither heard the Lord, nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said,
he was with Peter, who did not make a complete [or ordered] account
of the Lord’s logia, but constructed his teachings
according to chreiai [concise self-contained teachings]. So
Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single matters as he
remembered them, for he gave special attention to one thing, of not
passing by anything he heard, and not falsifying anything in these
matters.”[iii]
Papias does not provide any additional identifying information about
this Mark, even though Mark (Marcus) was a very frequently used Roman
praenomen (forename). The failure to provide qualifying information
indicates that Papias was referring to a well-known author who had
produced a well-known work, and this points to the Mark of the New
Testament, who played a central role in the early Church.
Significantly, the Mark of the New Testament was invited on the first
missionary journey with Barnabas and Paul. Even this information can
be joined together with the Elder’s testimony to suggest that
Mark had acquired a good knowledge of the stories about Jesus by the
time of this missionary journey. This would have given him a specific
role in this missionary enterprise, providing the reason for his
inclusion in the mission beyond his personal connection with
Barnabas.[iv]
Papias also spoke about another account, this time an account of
Jesus’ teachings written by Matthew, whom we are entitled to
identify with the Matthew who was one of Jesus’ twelve
disciples. Unfortunately, Eusebius’ citation of Papias on this
subject is less fulsome than his citation in regard to the Gospel of
Mark, but it follows on from it. The context indicates that Eusebius
was continuing to cite Papias’ report of what John the Elder
had said. Here Eusebius noted that this work was written in a Hebrew
dialect.
Concerning
Mark, these things were related by the father [John the Elder].
Concerning Matthew these other things were said, “Therefore,
Matthew set in order the logia (“divine oracles”)
in a Hebrew dialect, and each interpreted them, as he was able.”[v]
Matthew’s “Hebrew dialect” was what we now call a
regional dialect of Aramaic, being the language used by Jesus,
Matthew and the other disciples, as well as being the language used
by the Jews in Judea, Galilee and the surrounding regions.[vi]
Also, in the context of Papias' comments where Matthew’s Aramaic work was being compared
with Mark’s work (which was known to be in Greek), it is likely
that “interpreted” carries the meaning that Matthew’s
work was translated into Greek.
Papias was not referring here to the Gospel of Matthew. We know this
because he was referring to a work in Aramaic, and the Gospel of
Matthew can be clearly identified as having been composed in Greek.
Therefore, while we have no reason to doubt that Matthew wrote logia
in Aramaic, we have to rule out the possibility that he also wrote
the Greek Gospel of Matthew. It is more likely that someone else
wrote the Greek Gospel of Matthew, and that this writer based his
work on these logia written by Matthew. Indeed, a quick analysis
reveals that the Gospel of Matthew actually consists of two main
sources: the Gospel of Mark and another source. We can be confident that this
other source was Matthew’s logia, as identified by Papias, since it is
in these parts of the Gospel of Matthew that we find an account of Jesus’
life written from a particularly Jewish point of view. This is exactly what we would expect from a source written
by Matthew, a literate Jew, writing in Aramaic, for a Jewish
audience.
i
J. B. Lightfood, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to
Philemon (London, 1875), pp.48.
ii
The Apostolic Fathers (ed. and trans. Michael W. Holmes;
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), pp.722-767.
iii
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15. Papias
distinguished between the two men named John: one of these is in a
list taken from the twelve disciples (including John), and the other
one he called John the elder, who along with Aristion, was also a
disciple of Jesus (3.39.4). Although Papias called all these men
both disciples and elders, his special marker for the second John
was John the Elder. So when he refers here to “the Elder”
he was specifically referring to John the Elder, since this was his
distinguishing title.
iv
Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp.210-214, argued
that Peter was actively involved in the writing of the Gospel of
Mark. However, this seems unlikely since Papias’ explained
that its “lack of order” could be explained that it was
not written by an eyewitness; if Peter were so closely involved it
would have nullified Papias’ explanation.
v
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15-16.
vi
Cf. John C. Poirier, “The Linguistic Situation in Jewish
Palestine in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Greco-Roman
Christianity and Judaism, Vol. 4 (2007), pp.55-134.
Mr. Lowell;
ReplyDeleteHello, I hope this finds you well. I found your assertion that the apostle Matthew could not have written the canonical Gospel of Matthew quite interesting. On what historical basis do you make such a claim? The patristic evidence concerning the canonical Gospel of Matthew is unanimous that Matthew not only wrote his first Gospel in Aramaic, but that he also the authored the Gospel bearing his name. That Matthew could not have written the first canonical Gospel is only a modern conjecture, and not a proven fact. Your assertion that “we have to rule out the possibility that he also wrote the Greek Gospel of Matthew” is a poorly defended position since (and I am only guessing with respect to your own position) it can only be based upon the assumption that Matthew would never borrow from Mark or any other source to write his own Greek Gospel. However, this reflects a modern sensitivity that ancient writers would not “plagiarize” from other trusted authors, which is clearly not the case as evidenced from the OT historical writings, as well as in the case of Luke’s Gospel, and with the shared material of 2 Peter and the epistle of Jude. The same is quite obvious with respect to ancient secular historians as well. Matthew, knowing that the Gospel of Mark was based upon Peter’s reminisces and/or preaching would have no qualms with borrowing this early apostolic kerygma to compose another Gospel for the Greek speaking Jewish believers in the Diaspora where he had relocated. Or maybe one might argue that Matthew would not have been competent enough in the Greek language to write a Greek Gospel. This again is merely a conjecture since we don’t know the extent of Matthew’s education. Since the historical witness points to him as also being the author of the canonical Gospel of Matthew the evidence argues that he was extremely proficient in more than one language. Additionally, that he was a tax collector before becoming an apostle, it is very likely that he was fluent in both Greek and Aramaic, and may have been fluent in Latin as well. But even if he was not originally fluent in Greek, there is no argument that demands that he could not have become more educated in the Greek language later in life. I didn’t earn my Ph.D. until I was in my late 40s, and my program required that I not only become proficient in Koine Greek, but also in 2 other research languages. Consequently, any assertion that Matthew could not have written a Greek Gospel, or that he would not have employed Mark’s material as a template for his own Gospel while adding on his own eyewitness testimonials and theological emphasis is only a poorly defended conjecture at best. Simply asserting an argument is a far cry from proving it.
Sincerely,
Monte Shanks
Thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI probably overstated the evidence to say "we have to rule out the possibility that he also wrote the Greek Gospel of Matthew." On reflection I would now prefer to say, "it is quite unlikely that Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel of Matthew."
For me, the evidence is very strong that Matthew wrote an Aramaic "Logia", and that someone else added the Mark components to it. It doesn't look to me like Matthew started with Mark's Gospel and then added his own bits, but rather the process seems to be the other way around.
Matthew's Logia first, Mark's Gospel second, the canonical Matthew third.
I take your point about this proposition being "poorly defended". Indeed, the above discussion is merely an assertion of the proposition I am putting. The defence is yet to come. In preparing a fuller case, I will take your comments into account, for which I thank you.
Kind regards
Graham
Mr. Lowell, et. al,
ReplyDeleteAssuming that Mark wrote the first gospel seems to run contrary testimony of the apostolic fathers, and particularly of Papias, but also of those who placed Matthew first among the Gospels. It is based, from my research, on the idea that Mark being the shortest and having the least narrative matrix is likely the first. But Marcan priority ignores the part the source, which we now call Q and which Luke calls the te didache in Acts 2:42 and the things things which were from the first handed down to us from those who were eyewitnesses in Luke 1:2, played in the Gospels.
It is reasonable to assume there was a source and perhaps many editions of that source that preserved the logia of Jesus. It was no doubt in oral form early, but very likely in written form later. Those logia seem to be preserved in all three of the synoptics - and that is the reason for the similarity of the pericopae in those Gospels.
It is significant that these logia bear the marks of coming from a Hebrew original and are rather literal translations in which the Hebraisms of the originals are preserved.
So if we accept that there was a source which, was the earliest teachings of the Apostles, Marcan priority is not necessary. Matthew may well have been first, even as Papias indicates. Each writer chose from the source those pieces that fit his rhetorical purpose. Some of the logia were used by all three synoptic writers. Some were used by one or two of the writers, but not by all three. In addition, the general chronology of the source was followed.
That still leaves the question of Matthew's Greek Gospel. Most scholars reject the idea that Matthew was translated into Greek by a later writer. And I do as well. A translator would not have preserved the Hebrew idioms in the logia while at the same time smoothing out the narrative matrix provided by Matthew. But if Matthew made the translation or if Matthew simply rewrote the Gospel in Greek for Greek readers, the Gospel of Matthew could easily still have been the earliest.
So, could Matthew have written in both Hebrew and Greek? I think we can assume that it was certainly possible. Matthew was a tax collector in Galilee where each of these languages and others were in use. It is probable that Matthew spoke and wrote Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic.
Matthew also was very likely a Levite since he is called Levi in Mark and Luke. As a Levite, Matthew was likely to have had an education. Certainly he had a knowledge of the OT scriptures that was greater than any of the other gospel writers exhibit. He also uses the rabbinic method of referring to the OT passages he quotes - the remez. His education was certainly adequate to the task of writing in both good Greek and Hebrew.
However, there is one more clue to an original Hebrew gospel in the Gospel of Matthew. It is in the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew records the family line of Jesus in very Hebrew-like language. He uses the word "begotten" (egennesen)while Luke uses the typical Greek construction using de.
For those reasons I lean strongly toward Matthean authorship and Matthean priority. And toward Matthew being as close to an eyewitness account as we could expect since the source used was the teachings of the Apostles of whom Matthew was one.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTwo of the biggest assumptions that many Christians make regarding the truth claims of Christianity is that, one, eyewitnesses wrote the four gospels. The problem is, however, that the majority of scholars today do not believe this is true. The second big assumption many Christians make is that it would have been impossible for whoever wrote these four books to have invented details in their books, especially in regards to the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection appearances, due to the fact that eyewitnesses to these events would have still been alive when the gospels were written and distributed.
ReplyDeleteBut consider this, dear Reader: Most scholars date the writing of the first gospel, Mark, as circa 70 AD. Who of the eyewitnesses to the death of Jesus and the alleged events after his death were still alive in 70 AD? That is four decades after Jesus' death. During that time period, tens of thousands of people living in Palestine were killed in the Jewish-Roman wars of the mid and late 60's, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem.
How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus in circa 30 AD was still alive when the first gospel was written and distributed in circa 70 AD? How do we know that any eyewitness to the death of Jesus ever had the opportunity to read the Gospel of Mark and proof read it for accuracy?
I challenge Christians to list the name of even ONE eyewitness to the death of Jesus who was still alive in 70 AD along with the evidence to support your claim.
If you can't list any names, dear Christian, how can you be sure that details such as the Empty Tomb, the detailed resurrection appearances, and the Ascension ever really occurred? How can you be sure that these details were not simply theological hyperbole...or...the exaggerations and embellishments of superstitious, first century, mostly uneducated people, who had retold these stories thousands of times, between thousands of people, from one language to another, from one country to another, over a period of many decades?
You're making a couple of unwarranted assumptions yourself. One is that modern scholars are accurate or can be trusted. In fact, ever since the advent of "Higher Criticism" (a misnomer if ever there was one) most modern scholars have been liberals and have therefore been eager to discredit the Bible by any means necessary. Your second assumption is that modern scholars have access to better information. Now that is SOMETIMES the case. But the ancient writers had access to sources that have since been lost. In addition, the earliest writers were at most two generations removed from the people who actually wrote the New Testament. Irenaeus, for example, was taught by Polycarp, and Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John.
DeleteI would suggest that you pay closer attention to the Gospel of Luke. In the opening statement, he says that several people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry gave him accounts that they had written of that time period.
As it turns out, virtually all of the honest scholars will admit that we have better historical evidence for Jesus than many of the other well-known people of antiquity. I would encourage you to study the evidence with an open mind.
In author of The Gospel of John says that he is "The Beloved Disciple" of Christ who is writing that Gospel. He mentions that Bethesda, The Sheep's Gate in Jerusalem (which was destroyed in 70 AD), was still standing at the time that he was writing his Gospel (John 5:1-3). No other Gospel claims to be written by a "Beloved Disciple" in its text.
DeleteYou make an interesting point about the present tense of the phrase "The pool is in Jerusalem near the sheep gate." You are right that since it is an editorial comment it possibly reflects the situation at the time of writing, not at the time of the healing event.
DeleteI will take that into account in my forthcoming "Matthew and the Origins of the Gospels."
Thanks.
One can count on the fingers of one hand the number of NT scholars who believe that the Gospel of John was written prior to 70 CE.
DeleteAssumptions, presuppositions, scholarly speculations, are all sophistry, where people who want you to think they are in the know, but really know nothing. Father, I thank you for denying the wise and giving the gospel truth to babes!
DeleteNewsflash: The majority of New Testament scholars no longer believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. It's not just my opinion, my Christian friends, it is the consensus of scholars.
ReplyDeletehttps://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/
Neither science, nor scholarly research is done by consensus. If it were, there would be no extension of knowledge in ANY field.
DeleteIf you have some real arguments, let me know.
I did not claim that "research" was conducted based consensus. It is independent research that is tested and critiqued by peers that leads to a consensus of opinion among scholars.
DeleteThat is what has happened in the case of the authorship of the Gospels. Independent research has led the overwhelming majority of NT scholars to conclude (reach a consensus) that neither eyewitnesses nor the associates of eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels.
Gary, you copy and paste the same posts over at the historical Jesus blog. Most of your arguments are arguments from authority, which the last time I checked, is a logical fallacy.
DeleteIn author of The Gospel of John says that he is "The Beloved Disciple" of Christ who is writing that Gospel. He mentions that Bethesda, The Sheep's Gate in Jerusalem (which was destroyed in 70 AD), was still standing at the time that he was writing his Gospel (John 5:1-3). No other Gospel claims to be written by a "Beloved Disciple" in its text.
DeleteHi. If a writer of a book states that something exists at the time of the writing of his book which subsequently has been destroyed, does that prove that the claims in the story are all true? Does it prove that the writer was writing when you believe he did? Is it possible that an author can write a story as if it were occurring in the present time when the author is writing?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteagree truth abide man turn god into human region, it sir not working , spirit led is not found in many words but life in which faith remodels our thinking completely ... love abides for us all one to another if we are truthful
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with conservative Christians claiming that a majority of conservative Protestant Christian scholars believe that eyewitnesses authored the Gospels, but when they state, "The majority of scholars believe that eyewitnesses authored the Gospels" this is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst. The majority of ALL New Testament scholars absolutely do NOT believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. Even conservative scholar Richard Bauckham admits this in his book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses". He believes that this majority opinion is wrong, but he does not try to hide the fact that this majority scholarly opinion exists.
ReplyDeleteLet's keep the conversation honest, Christians. As respected scholar NT Wright has stated in a Youtube video: "I don't know who the authors of the Gospels were, and neither does anyone else!"
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/why-do-conservative-christian-scholars-and-apologists-repeatedly-lie-about-biblical-scholarship/
Gary, on what grounds do you assert that they couldn't have been eyewitness accounts? If these accounts are being written mid to late 1st century, shouldn't you at least be open to the possibility that they really were eyewitness accounts?
ReplyDeleteI do not assert that they "couldn't" be eyewitness accounts. I assert that the majority scholarly opinion is that they are not eyewitness accounts.
ReplyDeleteThis type of message always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content, so happy to find good place to many here in the post, the writing is just great, thanks for the post. arv
ReplyDeleteThe overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars, including the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic scholars who very much believe in the supernatural, miracles, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, do not believe that eyewitnesses or even associates of eyewitnesses wrote ANY of the Gospels.
ReplyDeleteIf so called catholic scholars understood the Bible they would have run for their lives out of the catholic church long ago
DeleteSo if a scholar disagrees with you, then they do not understand the bible?
DeleteWhere did I make such an assertion?
DeleteThank you to everyone who has contributed to the discussion of my little post.
DeletePlease bear in mind that it was the Father's choice to allow dissenting opinions in the Church. This is something that Jesus anticipated, saying that the weeds in the Church were only to be rooted up at the end. The test for being kept in and for being thrown out at the time of the final judgment is faithfulness to the teaching of Jesus. We can all do this in our own way while engaging in non-divisive discussions of the issues at hand.
There are many faithful in all branches of the Church, even in those branches others declare to be heretics.
We should be careful not to assume that doctrinal correctness or the attitude to the Bible will determine whether we make the grade. As Paul, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling." Or as he also says, "Love one another." Or as Peter says, keep working on your faith and practice in order to make certain your calling and election into God's family.
Graham,
DeleteWhat will happen to those of us who do not believe that Jesus was the Creator?
I suggest to read, "The Fourfold Gospel" by Francis Watson.
ReplyDeleteEvidence points to the Gospel of Matthew being orginally written in Hebrew.
ReplyDeletehttps://hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20More%20Evidence.php
Not according to the overwhelming majority of NT scholars.
DeleteGary, this is a consistent theme in your posts. With some I agree, others I do not. However, as I have said earlier, there is no advance in knowledge if the consensus becomes our base position. Instead, everything can be challenged.
ReplyDeleteIt is an observable fact that it sometime happens that when almost everyone agrees against a few, the position of the few eventually can be accepted as the new consensus.
In science, claims which challenge the current expert consensus are rigorously and mercilessly dissected, evaluated, and retested. Scientists love to prove each other wrong. But that is a good thing. Unlike religion, there are no sacred cows in science. Once a new claim has withstood the intense inspection and analysis, it becomes the new expert consensus. Einstein's theories replaced some of Newton's long held theories. Scientists accept new data when it holds up to scrutiny.
DeleteThe same should be true in religion but sadly it is not. How would Christians react if a new scientific tool helped us find the remains of Jesus? Would Christian theologians accept overwhelming new evidence disproving the resurrection? I doubt it. Science has proven it will abandon prior consensus positions based on new evidence.
Trusting expert consensus has proven to be the most reliable measure of truth ever known to humanity. Trust the expert consensus until new evidence appears AND HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY REVIWED AND VERIFIED.