Luke and Papias

 Papias Reconsidered: A Luke-Informed Perspective on the Early Christian Tradition

Dr. Edward M. Kirby

September 20, 2024

 

Abstract

            Papias' fragmented and enigmatic comments on the early Christian gospels have long puzzled scholars, yielding divergent interpretations and a general sense of frustration. The opacity of Papias' writing style, marked by awkward grammar and obscure references, has only exacerbated the challenge. However, this essay proposes a novel solution: reading Papias through the lens of Luke's preface. By aligning Papias' statements with Luke's programmatic introduction, we uncover a coherent and illuminating framework for understanding Papias' intentions. This Luke-informed reading not only clarifies Papias' cryptic language but also yields a cascade of implications for our understanding of gospel authorship, the early Christian literary landscape, and the very nature of apostolic testimony.

 

Literature Review

Background Information: Life of Papias

Papias, a prominent figure in early Christianity, served as the bishop of Hierapolis, a city in the Lycus valley in the Roman province of Asia. He lived during a time of great significance, bridging the gap between the apostolic era and the second century. Papias's most notable achievement is his comprehensive work, "Expositions of the Logia of the Lord," which spanned five books. Unfortunately, this masterpiece has not survived to the present day.

Papias's connection to the early Christian community was remarkably close. He was part of the third Christian generation, which meant he had direct contact with the first Christian generation, the apostles. Eusebius, a historian, understood that Papias had personally heard the teachings of Aristion and John the Elder, further solidifying his link to the apostolic era. Additionally, Papias was personally acquainted with the daughters of Philip the Evangelist, a detail that highlights his proximity to the early Christian leaders.

Papias's work, "Expositions of the Logia of the Lord," was completed near the beginning of the second century. While the exact date is unknown, it is clear that Papias was an influential figure in the early Christian community. His writing aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the teachings of Jesus, drawing from the oral traditions and written sources available to him.

Despite the loss of his magnum opus, Papias's legacy endures through the fragments and quotes preserved by Eusebius and other early Christian writers. His life and work serve as a testament to the rich tapestry of early Christianity, weaving together the threads of apostolic teaching, oral tradition, and written records. As a bishop and writer, Papias played a significant role in shaping the understanding of Jesus' teachings, ensuring their transmission to future generations.

Papias's life and work offer a fascinating glimpse into the early Christian era. His connection to the apostolic generation, his comprehensive writing, and his personal relationships with prominent early Christian leaders all contribute to his enduring legacy. Though his work has not survived in its entirety, the fragments that remain provide valuable insights into the development of early Christian thought and practice.

 

 

The Papias Fragment

The following is an excerpt of the Papias Fragment from Eusebius' work "Ecclesiastical History" (Book 3, Chapter 39):

καὶ τοῦθ’ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγεν· Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος, ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὐπὸ τοῦ κυρίου η λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. οὔτε γὰρ ἤκουσεν τοῦ κυρίου οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Πέτρῳ· ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων, ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. ἐνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν, τοῦ μηδὲν ὧν ἤκουσεν παραλιπεῖν ἢ ψεύσασθαί τι ἐν αὐτοῖς.  ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἱστόρηται τῷ Παπίᾳ περὶ τοῦ Μάρκου· περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ματθαῖου ταῦτ’ εἴρηται· Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσεν δ’ αὐτὰ ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.

The following translation of the Papias fragment comes from Ehrman, B. M. (2003). The Apostolic Fathers: Volume 2. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press:

And this is what the elder used to say, ‘when Mark was the interpreter [or translator] of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds – but not in order.  For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings.  And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them.  For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he had heard or to include any falsehood among them…  And this is what he says about Matthew:  And Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.

Dating of Papias’s Fragment

The dating of Papias's fragment is a topic of ongoing scholarly debate, with some arguing for a date around 100 CE or even earlier (Bauckham, 2006). However, for the purpose of this article, the exact date of the fragment is less important than the fact that Papias is referring to an earlier period in his life, during which he collected oral reports of Jesus' words and deeds. According to Bauckham (2006), this period can be dated to around 80 CE, a time when the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were likely being written (Bauckham, 2006). This makes Papias's passage particularly significant, as it provides valuable evidence of how Gospel traditions were understood to be related to the eyewitnesses during the very time when three of our canonical Gospels were being written. As Bauckham (2006) notes, "This makes this particular passage from Papias very precious evidence..." (Bauckham, 2006).

The Papias Problem: Difficulties in Understanding

Introduction

            Interpreting Papias' fragments has proven to be a challenging task for scholars due to the ambiguities inherent in his writing style. The lack of context and the concise nature of his statements often lead to multiple interpretations, making it difficult to discern his intended meaning. Furthermore, Papias' comments on gospel authorship have been particularly puzzling, as they do not seem to align with the canonical Gospels that have been passed down to us. This has led some scholars to question whether Papias' statements even refer to the same texts that we possess today. As a result, understanding Papias' perspectives on gospel authorship and his views on the early Christian era requires careful analysis and consideration of the historical context in which he wrote.

 

Ambiguity in the Papias Fragment

Papias's fragment is notoriously difficult to understand due to its unclear word choice, sentence structure, and missing context. Additionally, the sentence structure is often convoluted, making it hard to discern the relationships between ideas. Furthermore, the fragment is a brief excerpt from a larger work, and the lack of context provides little guidance on Papias's intended meaning. As a result, scholars have offered varying interpretations of the text, reflecting the challenges of deciphering Papias's enigmatic writing style. The fragment's obscurity has sparked ongoing debates among scholars, underscoring the need for careful analysis and consideration of the historical and linguistic context in which it was written.

The following examples highlight the difficulties scholars have with understanding the Papias fragment:

The term ἑρμηνευτὴς from the phrase Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος can be interpreted in two ways:

1.      Mark as a translator: "Μάρκος" (Markos) is the subject, and "ἑρμηνευτὴς" (hermeneutes) could mean "translator". So, the sentence might be saying: "Mark became the translator of Peter.”  In this interpretation, Mark is simply converting Peter's teachings from Aramaic to Greek (or another language), without adding any personal interpretation.

2.      Mark as an interpreter/expounder: "Ἑρμηνευτὴς" (hermeneutes) can also mean "interpreter" in the sense of expounding or explaining someone's teachings. In this case, the sentence could mean: "Mark became the interpreter/expounder of Peter's teachings." Here, Mark is not just translating Peter's teachings but also providing his own understanding and explanation of them, potentially adding his own insights or elaborating on Peter's ideas.

The ambiguity lies in the fact that "ἑρμηνευτὴς" can be understood in both senses, and the context does not provide clear guidance on which interpretation is more accurate.

            Next, the phrase ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας  can be interpreted the following ways:

1.      Peter adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers). (JB Lightfoot’s translation)

Peter used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand. (Bart Ehrman’s translation)

2.      Peter was teaching in accord with the anecdotes. (Robert Gundry’s translation)

Peter used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai (Richard Bauckham’s translation)

The difficulty in translating this lies with defining of the word "χρείας" (chreias).  The meaning of chreias is unclear, making it challenging to understand what Peter did. Those who prefer to translate it as "Peter adapting his teachings for the needs of his hearers" argue that the phrase "πρὸς τὰς χρείας" (pros tas chreias) suggests a focus on the needs or purposes of the audience. "Χρείας" (chreias) can mean "needs" or "purposes", supporting the idea that Peter tailored his teachings to meet the needs of his hearers.

On the other hand, others prefer to translate it as "Peter used to give his teachings in the form of anecdotes” argue that "Χρείας" (chreias) can also mean "anecdotes" or "sayings", supporting the idea that Peter used this literary form to teach.  This translation aligns with the writing style of ancient Greek students learning rhetoric, who would often practice writing “χρείας” as a way to develop their skills.

Next, the phrase ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν uses the expression, ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν" (hos apemnemoneusen), which relates to memory, but is difficult to understand its specific meaning.  The verb "ἀπεμνημόσευσεν" (apemnemoneusen) is rare and its meaning is unclear, making it hard to understand how the memory is to be understood.  It is also unclear who is doing the remembering - Peter or Mark. In fact, ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν" (hos apemnemoneusen) can be translated to "as he remembered" or "as it was remembered", which further obscures the subject. Mark is explicitly mentioned in the sentence as "Μάρκος" (Markos), but Peter is not explicitly mentioned, although he is implied as the one who might be remembering. The ambiguity arises because the sentence can be interpreted in two ways:

- Mark wrote some things as Peter remembered them (Peter is the one remembering).

- Mark wrote some things as he (Mark) remembered them (Mark is the one remembering).

Lastly, the meaning of "Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ" (Hebraidi dialektou) in the phrase Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο is unclear.  Below are four possible ways this expression might be understood:

1. Hebrew language: Ἑβραΐδι (Hebraidi) is the Greek adjective for "Hebrew", and διαλέκτῳ (dialektou) means "language" or "dialect". So, the phrase could simply mean "in the Hebrew language".

2. Hebrew sayings: Διαλέκτῳ (dialektou) can also mean "sayings" or "phrases". In this case, the phrase would refer to "Hebrew sayings" or "Hebrew phrases", possibly indicating that Matthew's writing included quotes or allusions to Hebrew scriptures or oral traditions.

3. Argument or discourse: Διαλέκτῳ (dialektou) can also mean "argument" or "discourse". This interpretation would suggest that Matthew's writing presented a theological argument or discourse in a Hebrew context.

4. Aramaic language: Ἑβραΐδι (Hebraidi) might actually refer to the Aramaic language, which was widely spoken in Palestine during Jesus' time. Aramaic was closely related to Hebrew and was often used in Jewish scriptures and liturgy.

Papias and the Cannonical Gospels

The Papias fragment is a tantalizing yet troublesome source when it comes to establishing gospel authorship of the books of the Bible. If the fragment provided by Papias indeed refers to the authors of the canonical gospels, then he holds the distinction of being the earliest source to do so. Moreover, Papias' unique significance lies in his direct connection to the disciples of Jesus, having had personal encounters with them. This makes him a firsthand witness to the lives and teachings of those who knew Jesus intimately, thereby granting his testimony unparalleled authenticity and historical value.

While Papias appears to attribute written records of Jesus' sayings and deeds to Matthew and Mark, scholars are sharply divided on whether these references actually correspond to the canonical Gospels of Matthew and Mark that we possess today. Some argue that Papias is indeed referring to our current Gospels, while others propose that he may be referencing earlier, now-lost texts or even oral traditions. This uncertainty creates a significant hurdle in utilizing the Papias fragment as conclusive evidence for gospel authorship. Furthermore, Papias' cryptic language and the fragmentary nature of the text itself only add to the enigma.

            The following critiques by Barth Ehrman illustrate the reasons many scholars are reluctant to use Papias to support traditional gospel authorship (each quote can be found at https://ehrmanblog.org/tag/papias/):

On Papias’s reference to Mark, Ehrman notes that “he claims that one of Mark’s two primary goals was to tell everything that he had heard from Peter about Jesus.  There is simply no way that can be true.  The Gospel of Mark takes about two hours to read out loud.  Are we to imagine that Peter had spent all those months (years?) with Jesus, that Mark listened to him preach about Jesus day and night, and that all he had heard was two hours’ worth of information?” Ehrman also points out that there is little evidence that the Gospel of Mark is a Greek transcript of Peter’s preaching in Aramaic. 

            On Papias’s reference to Matthew, Ehrman argues that “unlike with Mark — with Matthew we don’t learn what the source of Papias’s information is, or if he even has a source.  Is it third-hand?  Fourth-hand?  Fifth-hand?”  Furthermore, Ehrman points out that “it is worth noting that the two pieces of solid information that Papias gives us about Matthew are in fact not true of “our” Matthew.  Our Matthew is not simply a collection of Jesus’ sayings, and it was certainly written in Greek, not Hebrew.”

Papias's influence on the development of the New Testament canon and authorship cannot be overstated. His writings, particularly his statements on the authorship of the Gospels, have had a profound impact on the way we understand the origins of Christianity. However, it is crucial to recognize that Papias's statements have been misinterpreted over time, leading to the attribution of the Gospels to the wrong authors. As Bauckham (2006) notes, "Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark, are probably dependent on Papias and do not provide independent testimony to a tradition more widespread than Papias's own writing." This means that many of the early Christian writers who attributed the Gospels to Mark and Matthew may have been relying on Papias's statements, rather than independent traditions or evidence.

Unfortunately, this misinterpretation of Papias's statements has been perpetuated throughout history, resulting in the current attribution of the Gospels to the wrong authors. Our current Bible authorship reflects this misinterpretation.  It is essential to re-examine Papias's statements and correct this misinterpretation to gain a more accurate understanding of the origins of Christianity and the authorship of the Gospels. By doing so, the original intentions of Papias and the early Christian community can be uncovered thus providing a deeper appreciation for the development of the New Testament canon.

Cracking the Code: Finding a Parallel Perspective

Introduction

The grammar and syntax of Papias' writing style make it challenging to decipher his intended meaning, leading to ambiguity and uncertainty. Moreover, the apparent content of Papias' fragments presents several difficulties when attempting to associate them with the canonical Gospels. However, it is crucial to recognize that these problems might be resolved with additional context. Having an interpretive key that provides a clearer understanding of Papias' language, historical setting, and literary intentions could be

immensely helpful in:

- Clarifying the relationships between Papias' references to Matthew and Mark and the canonical Gospels

- Resolving the ambiguities in Papias' grammar and syntax

- Providing insight into Papias' sources and literary methods

- Illuminating the historical context in which Papias wrote

- Facilitating a more accurate understanding of Papias' role in early Christian literature

- Enabling a more confident assessment of Papias' value as a witness to the development of the Gospels.

Understanding Papias' motive for writing his fragment is a crucial first step in identifying a potential interpretive key. Despite the ambiguities in his language, Papias' purpose for writing about Mark is clear: he aims to defend Mark against criticisms of disorderliness, lack of clarity, deviating from an eyewitness account, and untruthfulness. This apologetic intent is evident in Papias' careful phrasing and selective presentation of information. By recognizing Papias' defensive stance, scholars can better comprehend his rhetorical strategies and the emphasis he places on specific aspects of Mark's work. This, in turn, can guide the search for an interpretive key that unlocks the nuances of Papias' language and reveals the context in which he wrote.

Upon examining potential sources that Papias might be defending against, the preface of Luke's Gospel stands out as a striking parallel. At first glance, Luke's prologue appears to address the same criticisms that Papias is defending Mark against: orderliness, clarity, comprehensiveness, connection to an eyewitness, and truthfulness. This intriguing coincidence raises a compelling question: Could Luke's preface serve as an interpretive key for understanding Papias' fragment? Might Luke's subtle criticisms shed light on Papias' more subtle defense of Mark, potentially unlocking a deeper understanding of Papias' motivations and context?             A close reading of Luke's Preface and Papias' defense of Mark

Luke’s Preface (1:1-4) in the original Greek

1.    ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων

2.    καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου

3.    ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς σοι γράψαι κράτιστε Θεόφιλε

4.    ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν

NASB Translation of Luke’s Preface

1.      Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,

2.      just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,

3.       it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus;

4.      so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Comparing Luke's Critique and Papias' Defense

Ehrman (1997) notes that Luke's gospel is written in a much better style of Greek than anything found in Mark or Matthew, and that Luke's book is presented as a serious piece of historical writing (Ehrman, 1997). Luke's preface highlights his meticulous approach, indicating that he is correcting or supplementing previous accounts.

      The first thing Luke states about his own work is that it is an investigation of accounts that were handed down by eyewitnesses who were servants of the “logos” from the beginning (1:3). The word Luke uses to describe the process he underwent is Παρηκολουθηκότι (parēkolouthēkoti), which means to investigate or follow closely (from the root word parakolouthéō).  Papias, in his defense of Mark, also notes that Mark received his account from Peter who was an eyewitness and follower of the Lord from the beginning.  Notably, Papias employs the same term (parakolouthéō) to describe Mark's process of gathering information from Peter, emphasizing the continuity of tradition. Mark is said to have 'followed' (παρηκολούθησεν, parēkolouthēsen) Peter, indicating a close association and discipleship. This is underscored by Papias' statement: 'For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him. But later, as I said, [he had followed] Peter.' The use of παρακολουθέω (parakolouthéō) in both contexts highlights the significance of Mark's connection to Peter and the defense of the reliability of his account against potential criticisms.

      Luke emphasizes the thoroughness of his investigation by employing the adjective ἀκριβῶς (akribōs), meaning 'carefully' or 'accurately'. He states that he has "investigated everything carefully/accurately from the beginning" (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς καθεξῆς). This emphasis on accuracy is echoed by Papias, who uses the same word to describe Mark's approach to providing his account. Papias notes that Mark "wrote down accurately" (ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν) whatever he remembered, highlighting the reliability of his narrative. By using ἀκριβῶς in both contexts, Luke and Papias underscore their commitment to precision and truthfulness in their accounts.

      It should be noted here as well the totality of the task that Luke undertook. Luke 1:3 states that he “investigated everything (πᾶσιν, pasin) carefully.”   By using πᾶσιν, Luke is highlighting his meticulous and thorough methodology in compiling his gospel account. The inclusion of πᾶσιν emphasizes Luke's comprehensive approach to gathering information.  Papias also wants to defend Mark’s comprehensive approach.  He mentions that Mark wrote down “everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds.”  Papias goes on to argue that Mark’s very purpose was to “to leave out nothing that he had heard.”

            Luke's declaration in 1:4, "that you may know the exact truth" (ἀσφάλειαν, asphaleian), underscores his commitment to providing a reliable and accurate account. By emphasizing his dedication to the "exact truth", Luke sets the tone for his entire narrative, stressing the paramount importance of accuracy, reliability, and trustworthiness in understanding the story of Jesus Christ. Similarly, Papias seeks to defend the credibility of Mark's account. Along with the purpose Mark had in including everything that he heard, Mark aims not to “include any falsehood.”  By emphasizing the accuracy and comprehensiveness of Mark’s account, Papias defends Mark’s concern for truthfulness and his desire to provide a trustworthy narrative.

            Finally, Luke states that his goal is to present an orderly sequence (καθεξῆς, kathexēs) of events. In contrast, Papias acknowledges that Mark's account is not characterized by orderliness. However, this is not a criticism, as Mark's writing reflects Peter's teachings, and Peter did not focus on “arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings.”  Papias contends that Mark, therefore, “did nothing wrong.” Here Papias defends the fact that Mark's approach is not deemed inappropriate or faulty by his lack of order.

Conclusion

Luke's gospel and Papias' fragment share a contemporaneous relationship, with Luke's gospel potentially serving as the interpretive lens through which Papias should be read. Luke's preface critiques his predecessors, acknowledging that earlier accounts exist but positioning his own as superior. He emphasizes his investigation of eyewitnesses from the beginning, careful and accurate writing, comprehensiveness, truthfulness, and orderliness.

Papias defends Mark's account, which predates Luke's, by systematically addressing each of Luke's criticisms. He argues that Mark investigated an eyewitness (Peter), was careful, comprehensive, truthful, and while perhaps he is less orderly, this does not discredit his account. The fact that Papias responds to every accusation Luke makes, often using identical wording, suggests a direct engagement with Luke's preface. Additionally, Papias' silence on other aspects of Mark's account implies a focused response to Luke's criticisms.

Given this evidence, it is highly probable that Papias is responding to Luke's preface, using it as a framework to defend Mark's account. This interpretation highlights the significance of reading Papias through the lens of Luke's gospel, recognizing the potential for a nuanced and contextually informed understanding of their relationship. By acknowledging the contemporaneous nature of these texts and the direct engagement between them, we can better appreciate the theological, historical and literary dynamics at play in early Christian literature.

 

Luke's Preface and Papias’ Comments on Matthew: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction

            Having established the fact that Luke’s preface is the proper interpretive key for understanding Papias’ defense of Mark’s account, this next section will investigate what, if anything, can be said about the relationship between Papias’ comments on Matthew and Luke’s preface. 

            To determine a potential relationship between Luke's preface and Papias' comments on Matthew, it is crucial to determine the context of both their writings. Without understanding the historical, literary, and theological context of Luke's preface, we risk misinterpreting his intentions and purposes. Similarly, Papias' comments on Matthew must be situated within his own historical and literary framework to accurately grasp his meanings and motivations. Only by contextualizing both accounts can we accurately assess whether Papias is responding to Luke's preface, and if so, how their perspectives intersect or diverge.

Identifying the context of Luke's Preface

            In the previous section it was noted that Luke is providing an account of the things that have been “accomplished among us,” that many others have already done so, and that his account will be superb.  It should also be mentioned that those who came before Luke “compiled” (ἀνατάξασθαι, anataxasthai) their account the same way Luke did: from those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται, ap’ arches autoptai).  Luke gives these eyewitnesses who handed down the information the distinguished title of “appointed servants of the logou” (ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου, hypēretai genomenoi tou logou).  While there are numerous translations that can be made for the word “logou” (word, sayings, oracles, speeches, statements), and any one of them could fit the purpose of this section, for simplicity’s sake the translation “sayings” will be utilized.  Lastly, Luke states that his account is written for/to (σοι, soi) a recipient named Theophilus. 

In summary, both Luke and his predecessors compiled accounts from eyewitnesses called the “appointed servants of the sayings.” These eyewitnesses were there from the beginning and handed down their reports to both Luke and Luke’s predecessors to provide an account of the things that had been accomplished.  Luke is aware of the accounts of his predecessors and writes his account in a superior way for Theophilus so that Theophilus “may know the exact truth about the things he has been taught” (Luke 1:4).  This implies that Theophilus may also be aware of the accounts written by Luke’s predecessors and Luke is concerned that their accounts may be lacking.   

Much could be said about the honorary title of “most excellent” (κράτιστε, kratiste) given to Theophilus, and that is a topic that will be discussed later.  For now, it will be sufficient to say that Theophilus appears to be an actual person, the recipient of Luke’s account, that Luke wrote his account for him, Luke wrote his account to him out of a concern that his understanding of what he had been taught is wanting, and that, given the honorary title, Theophilus is someone of high-ranking status. 

The relationship between Luke and Theophilus seems best understood as one of literary patronage. This means that Theophilus was a high-ranking individual who sponsored Luke's writing project, providing support for the composition of the gospel account. As Luke's literary patron, Theophilus was likely a wealthy and influential person who enabled Luke to devote time and resources to writing. In return, Luke would have acknowledged Theophilus' support by addressing the work to him and expressing concern for his understanding of the events recounted. This patronage relationship was common in ancient writing practices, where authors would dedicate their works to their patrons as a sign of gratitude and respect. By understanding Theophilus as Luke's literary patron, we gain insight into the social and cultural dynamics that shaped the composition of the gospel account.

Theophilus' knowledge of Luke's predecessor's accounts suggests that he may have had a more extensive role in sponsoring multiple writers, beyond just Luke. It is possible that Theophilus was a patron to multiple authors, providing support and resources for their writing projects. Furthermore, given that the eyewitnesses who were present from the beginning likely spoke Aramaic, Theophilus may have been responsible for establishing the conditions for these eyewitnesses to share their testimony with various writers who could translate their recollections to Greek given that Greek was the common language of that time. This would have involved bringing together Aramaic-speaking eyewitnesses with writers like Luke, who could compile their accounts based on the eyewitnesses' sayings. In this scenario, Theophilus would have played a crucial role in facilitating the transmission of eyewitness testimony, enabling the creation of multiple accounts that could be used to spread the teachings of Jesus.

Identifying the context of Papias’ statements on Matthew

            The first thing Papias mentions about Matthew is that he “composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue.” The word “composed” here is from “συνετάξατο, suntaxato” and it suggests “collecting” or “gathering together” in the context of writings.  The term is often used in the context of collecting and arranging writings, such as letters, speeches, or texts.  For example, it would be appropriate to use the word suntaxto in the following scenario: Συνετάξατο τὰς ἐπιστολάς (Suntaxato tas epistolas): "He collected the letters" or Συνετάξατο τοὺς λόγους (Suntaxato tous logous): "He gathered together the speeches."  In the context of Papias' statement, συνετάξατο could imply that Matthew collected and arranged the “sayings” (λόγια, logia) that had been handed down by others, rather than composing them himself. Papias notes that these sayings were “in the Hebrew language” (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, Hebraidi dialektō).”  It has already been mentioned the various ways this expression may be understood.  For the purposes of this section, given the language that was spoken among Hebrews at this time, this term will be understood as the Aramaic language. Papias then goes on to state that “each person interpreted them as best he could.”  Here, again, Papias seems to be defending the way in which the Aramaic sayings were interpreted by indicating that the interpreters did it to the best of their ability (ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς, hos hen dunatos). In summary, the context of Papias’ comments regarding Matthew implies that Matthew was responsible for compiling together the sayings that were in Aramaic and others interpreted them to the best of their ability. 

Comparing Papias’ comments on Matthew with Luke’s Preface

Both Luke and Papias describe a process of compiling sayings “logia” that would have been given in Aramaic. In Luke's preface, Theophilus is the patron who sponsored Luke's writing project, and Luke amassed his account from Aramaic speaking eyewitnesses who were "appointed servants of the sayings" (ὑπηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου) under the conditions provided by Theophilus. Similarly, in Papias' comments on Matthew, Matthew is described as gathering together the "sayings" (λόγια) that were in the Aramaic language. Both accounts emphasize the role of interpretation, with Luke noting that many others had already drawn up accounts based on the sayings of the Aramaic speaking eyewitnesses, and Papias stating that each person interpreted the Aramaic sayings "to the best of their ability" (ὡς ἧν δυνατὸς).

The parallel between Theophilus and Matthew is striking, as both seem to be responsible for gathering together accounts from Aramaic-speaking eyewitnesses whose testimony would need to be translated to Greek and then used to create an accurate explanation of the things that were accomplished among them. Furthermore, the fact that Luke seems to be raising concerns about his predecessor’s accounts, and Papias is defending against negative accusations lobbed at the interpreters, suggest that Papias is responding to Luke's criticisms by highlighting the careful interpretation of the Aramaic sayings that the interpreters performed in creating their account “to the best of their ability.” Overall, the parallel content and structure of Luke and Papias' comments suggest similar process of gathering together content from Aramaic speaking eyewitnesses, a shared concern with the transmission of eyewitness testimony, and the importance of accurate interpretation.

The similarities between Papias' fragment and Luke's preface are too striking to be coincidental. Papias defends Mark, who happens to predate Luke, against the same specific claims Luke accuses his predecessors of in regard to their carefulness, truthfulness, comprehensiveness, orderliness, and following an eyewitness. Both Luke and Papias mention someone who could be credited with gathering together sayings from Aramaic speakers (Theophilus and Matthew), which were then used by interpreters (Luke, Luke’s predecessors, and "each person"). Papias defends these interpreters from Luke's implicit criticisms by indicating that they interpreted to the best of their ability.

The historical context and similar word choice also suggest that Papias is writing a direct response to Luke’s preface. Furthermore, the scope of Papias' fragment covers the entire range of Luke's preface, from the compilation of accounts to the role of interpretation. This comprehensive response suggests that Papias is directly addressing Luke's claims and defending Mark's account against Luke's criticisms.

While the similarities between the two accounts are too striking to be coincidental, a notable difference emerges: Luke can be read as attributing the responsibility for the compilation of the sayings to a patron named Theophilus, whereas Papias identifies Matthew as the compiler. Despite the difference in names, the parallel structure and content of Papias and Luke suggest a possible link between these figures, which warrants further examination. This disparity prompts an investigation into the potential connection between Theophilus and Matthew, which will be explored in the subsequent section.

Unveiling the Identity of Matthew: A Proposal

Introduction

It has already been noted that Papias’ reference to Matthew is unlikely to be referring to the canonical Book of Matthew. Again, Ehrman argues that our Matthew is not simply a collection of Jesus’ sayings, and it was certainly written in Greek, not Hebrew.  Furthermore, it was argued in the previous section that Papias’ Matthew’s role was compiling sayings from people who spoke Aramaic and that he may not be the direct author of a text.

If the Gospel of Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus, it is puzzling that it shows such a high degree of literary dependence on the Gospel of Mark. As Ehrman (1997) notes, "Why then would he take almost all of his stories, sometimes word for word, from someone else?" (Ehrman, 1997). This is a striking observation, as one would expect a disciple of Jesus to have his own unique eyewitness accounts and not rely so heavily on another author's work. It is likely that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, would have had his own distinct perspective and experiences to share, rather than reproducing so much of Mark's material. The extensive borrowing from Mark suggests that the author of Matthew may not have been a direct disciple of Jesus after all.                                                                                                                                   

 

A case for Mattias ben Theophilus as the subject of Luke and Papias

Given Papias's reference to the compiler of the accounts to "Matthew," the strong connection between Luke’s preface and Papias’ fragment, and the fact that Luke places the responsibility of the compilation of the accounts to “Most Excellent Theophilus,” suggests that Papias may have believed the Theophilus, mentioned in Luke 1:3, was actually the Jewish high priest Mattathias ben Theophilus. Luke's use of the term "most excellent" (Greek: κράτιστε, kratiste) to address Theophilus (Luke 1:3) suggests that Theophilus was a person of high social standing and respect. In the Greek language, this term was typically used to address people of high rank, such as governors or rulers (e.g., Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25) making it conceivable that Theophilus was a high priest. The context of Luke's gospel is consistent with the proposal that Theophilus was a Jewish leader or a  member of the priestly class. For example, both Luke’s gospel and his Act’s of the Apostles start and end at the temple in Jerusalem.   

Mattathias ben Theophilus, who served as the high priest in Jerusalem from 65-67 CE, is a good candidate for several reasons: 1. Time period: Mattathias ben Theophilus lived during the 1st century CE, which fits with the timeframe of Luke's gospel. 2. Social standing: As the high priest, Mattathias ben Theophilus would have held a position of high respect and authority, consistent with Luke's use of the term "most excellent". 3. Relationship between Luke and Josephus, the son of Mattathias Ben Theophilus: Mason (2019) argues the structure, aim, and vocabulary of Luke/Acts closely align with Josephus’s writings suggesting a connection between the two.  Goldberg (2002) even highlights the similarities between Luke’s account of the “Road to Emmaus” with Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum” (https://josephusblog.org).  These similarities can easily be accounted for if Luke was connected with Josephus’s family.

 

Conclusion

While scholars throughout history have offered compelling suggestions for the identifications of both Luke’s Theophilus and Papias’ Matthew, Mattathias ben Theophilus is a strong contender based on his social standing, familial connection, timeframe, and ability to explain the similarities between both Luke and Papias. This proposal also resolves the problem of attributing the Gospel of Matthew to the disciple of Jesus, which is unlikely due to the extensive borrowing from Mark. Instead, by identifying Mattias ben Theophilus as the compiler of the accounts, we can understand why Papias would use the name "Matthew" and Luke would use the name "Theophilus". This proposal not only explains the connections between Papias and Luke, but also the connections between Josephus and Luke, including the similarities in structure, aim, and vocabulary. Furthermore, it provides a reasonable explanation for Luke's use of the term "most excellent". Additionally, Mattias ben Theophilus’s role as the Jewish high priest and his familial connection to Josephus align with the timeframe and social standing required. This proposal offers a unifying explanation for the connections and similarities between Papias, Luke, and Josephus, providing a robust and expansive account that illuminates their relationships.

Moreover, this proposal is not ad hoc or contrived. On the contrary, it provides a rigorously historical and contextually informed analysis that identifies Mattias ben Theophilus as the linchpin connecting Papias and Luke. This identification offers a rich and nuanced understanding of the textual connections and similarities, firmly anchored in their historical and cultural setting. Additionally, it highlights the significance of the Jewish priestly class and the Temple in Jerusalem as the backdrop for the composition of Luke's gospel and the collection of Aramaic sayings. Overall, proposing Mattias ben Theophilus as the subject of both Papias and Luke offers a robust and comprehensive explanation that illuminates the complex relationships between these figures and their texts, providing a compelling solution to the puzzles presented by the data.

Implications for the Canonical Gospels

Introduction  

            The remarkable similarities between Luke's preface and Papias' fragment present a compelling case that Papias is directly responding to Luke's preface. This discovery has already yielded a significant breakthrough in understanding the identity of Papias' Matthew and Luke's Theophilus and has created an opening for a new candidate to emerge as the potential author of the Gospel of Matthew.  This next section will delve deeper into the implications of Papias' response to Luke, exploring further insights into Papias' fragment and the canonical gospels. By examining the connections between these texts, we can uncover new perspectives on the relationships between these early Christian writings and gain a deeper understanding of their historical context.

Broad implications for the canonical gospels

            As mentioned earlier, when faced with the prospect that Papias’ fragment is referring to the Gospel of Matthew, Ehrman argues that “our Matthew is not simply a collection of Jesus’ sayings, and it was certainly written in Greek, not Hebrew.”  As previously argued, Papias' reference is not to the Gospel of Matthew, but rather to Matthias ben Theophilus. Furthermore, the revised understanding of Papias' fragment does not suggest that any of the canonical gospels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Instead, it proposes a milder claim: that Matthias ben Theophilus collected the sayings or statements (logia) of Aramaic-speaking eyewitnesses, which were then used by the gospel writers in their Greek accounts of the events that "were accomplished among us" (Luke 1:1). This aligns with Luke's statement that he and his predecessors drew from content "handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2). Moreover, given that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, it is reasonable to assume that any account of his teachings would have required translation from Aramaic to Greek.

Implications for the Gospel of Mark

            While Papias acknowledges that the interpreters of the eyewitnesses' sayings did their best to convey the message, he also defends Mark against accusations of falsification and omission. However, Papias notes that Mark's account differs from Luke's in that it lacks a clear sequential order. Is Papias and Luke’s evaluation that Mark's gospel is disorganized a valid assessment? Bauckham (2003) disagrees, arguing that Mark's gospel exhibits a deliberate structure. Bauckham (2003) points out that the narratives are carefully arranged, with each episode building on the previous one, and that Mark uses time and place to create a coherent narrative arc. Additionally, Bauckham (2003) notes that the events in Mark's gospel unfold in a logical and chronologically sound order, suggesting that Mark's gospel is more orderly than initially thought.

            What is more complexing is the fact that Luke's Gospel follows the overall narrative structure of Mark's Gospel. While it is true that Luke makes significant additions such as adding a detailed birth narrative (Luke 1-2), an expansion on the Galilean ministry section (Luke 3-9), and inclusion of unique stories and teachings (e.g., the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan), Luke's modifications and additions only enhance the narrative and provide a distinct perspective on Jesus' life and teachings, while still maintaining the overall structure and core events found in Mark's Gospel. Both Gospels share a similar outline, with some variations and additions in Luke. Here is a brief overview of their narrative structures:

Mark's Gospel:

 

1. Introduction (Mark 1:1-13)

2. Galilean Ministry (Mark 1:14-8:26)

3. Journey to Jerusalem (Mark 8:27-10:52)

4. Passion Week (Mark 11-15)

5. Resurrection (Mark 16)

 

Luke's Gospel:

 

1. Introduction (Luke 1-2)

2. Galilean Ministry (Luke 3-9)

3. Journey to Jerusalem (Luke 9-19)

4. Passion Week (Luke 20-23)

5. Resurrection (Luke 24)

 

            A closer analysis of both gospels has revealed a significant degree of continuity between Luke and Mark, with Luke drawing heavily from Mark's structure and content. This raises an intriguing question: if Luke's preface and Papias' fragment both suggest that Mark's gospel is disorganized, why would Luke rely so heavily on Mark's structure? Despite purportedly criticizing Mark's disorderliness, Luke's extensive use of Mark's framework suggests a more nuanced relationship between the two gospels. This paradox invites further exploration.

            Understanding Papias' critique of Mark's account requires an analysis of his specific reasons for deeming Mark's narrative disorderly.  Papias accounts for Mark’s disorderliness by noting that Mark followed Peter who “πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας” which, as already mentioned, can be translated either as “adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers” or “used to give his teachings in the form of chreiai.”  Bauckham (2003) notes that the translation of πρὸς τὰς χρείας as “according to needs” has now been largely abandoned in favor of the view that Papias uses chreia here as a technical rhetorical term to describe the form in which Peter delivered his teachings about Jesus.  According to Aelius Theon, a chreia is a concise and pointed account of something said or done, attributed to some particular person” (Theon, A. (circa 100 CE). Progymnasmata (3.2-3). (R. C. Jebb, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published circa 100 CE). Chreia was a rhetorical form defined and described in the ancient handbooks of rhetoric that were guides to elementary education. 

            Although Bauckham (2003) and other scholars have largely rejected the translation "according to needs" in favor of interpreting Papias' use of chreia in this context, Bauckham (2003) acknowledges difficulties in understanding Mark's gospel as containing chreia.  While it is possible to classify chreiai as brief narratives containing only actions, it is mostly associated with a rhetorical device used by ancient Greek writers to convey a concise and memorable saying or action attributed to a particular person.  Here are several examples: "When asked how he had become so wealthy, Aristides replied, 'By not doing what I ought not to do.'" (Source: Plutarch, Life of Aristides).  "Diogenes, upon being asked why he was carrying a lantern in the daytime, replied, 'I am looking for an honest man.'" (Source: Diogenes Laërtius, Life of Diogenes). "When someone asked Socrates how he had become so wise, he replied, 'By knowing that I know nothing.'" (Source: Plato, Apology). These examples illustrate how ancient Greek writers used chreia to convey a pithy saying, witty remark, or memorable action attributed to a notable figure. The aim was to make the message more engaging, memorable, and impactful on the audience. 

            If the fact that Mark’s use of chreia is the reason for why both Papias and Luke considered Mark to be disorderly, it should be noted that the gospel of Mark is strikingly absent of such aphoristic sayings.  While there is a measure of flexibility in its definition, the short stories in the canonical gospel of Mark seem to be too long to be considered chreia and would be better understood as another Greek rhetorical category: ἀπεμνημόσευσεν (memoir or recollection).  In fact, while much more will be said about this term later, ἀπεμνημόσευσεν is the exact term that Papias uses when he says, “he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from ἀπεμνημόσευσεν.”

            In conclusion, despite Luke and Papias' claims that Mark's gospel is disorderly, a closer examination reveals that Mark's structure is actually quite coherent. Furthermore, Luke's gospel closely follows Mark's structure, suggesting that Mark's organization was not as haphazard as  both Luke and Papias suggested. Additionally, Mark's gospel does not appear to employ chreia, which Papias cited as the reason for Mark’s account's disorderliness. These observations cast doubt on the notion that Luke and Papias were referring to the canonical Gospel of Mark. It is likely that they were referencing a different text or version of Mark's gospel, which has implications for our understanding of the early Christian textual tradition and the development of the New Testament canon.

Implications for the Gospel of Matthew

            Previous arguments have created a vacancy, so to speak, in the search for the true author of the Gospel of Matthew. Meanwhile, accusations leveled against Mark's gospel by Luke and Papias have been found to mismatch the canonical Mark, prompting a reevaluation of their criticisms. This study will now pivot to investigate whether the accusations made by Luke and Papias might actually apply to the Gospel of Matthew instead. In doing so, the possibility will remain open that Mark could actually be the author of the Gospel of Matthew.

            Given the significant structural and organizational differences between Luke and Matthew's Gospels, it is more plausible that Luke's criticism of disorderliness would be directed at Matthew's Gospel rather than Mark's. While Luke and Matthew share many of the same events and teachings, their arrangement and presentation differ substantially. Matthew's Gospel, in particular, features several distinctive sections, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Missionary Discourse (Matthew 10), which are absent in Luke. These unique sections, combined with Matthew's distinct ordering of shared material, create a narrative flow that deviates from Luke's own presentation. It is reasonable to infer that Luke, who appears to prioritize a more logical and coherent structure, might view Matthew's arrangement as "disorderly" in comparison. Therefore, it is more likely that Luke's criticism of disorderliness would be aimed at Matthew's Gospel, which exhibits a distinctly different structural approach.

            It also seems more probable that Papias is referring to Matthew’s gospel given that it contains many anecdotal statements that could be properly described as chreia.  The following statements by Jesus, which are not found in Mark’s gospel, would constitute as chreia: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3).  "You are the salt of the earth... You are the light of the world" (Matthew 5:13-14).  "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44).  "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth... but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (Matthew 6:19-20).  "Do not worry about your life... Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them" (Matthew 6:25-26).  "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7-8).  "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12).  These chreia are concise, memorable sayings or teachings attributed to Jesus, which convey important moral and ethical principles. They are meant to be memorable and impactful, making them easy to repeat and share with others.

A notable difference between Luke and Matthew is the order in which they present the same chreia. Matthew consolidates many of these teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), whereas Luke disperses them throughout his narrative in a separate context.  Luke's rearrangement of the chreiai suggests that he sought to create a more coherent and logical structure for these sayings, perhaps to emphasize their significance or thematic connections. Furthermore, Luke's deliberate reorganization of the material suggests that he did not simply copy from Matthew but rather engaged with the content critically, seeking to present a distinct narrative that highlighted the teachings of Jesus in a more systematic way.

            The Gospel of Matthew's heavy reliance on Mark's Gospel suggests that it was not written by a disciple of Jesus, but rather by a later Christian writer.  Papias notes that Mark was not a follower of Jesus, but that he later followed Peter.  Additionally, Matthew's ordering of content differs significantly from Luke's, which implies that Luke may have seen Matthew's arrangement as "disorderly". Papias' criticism of Mark's account being disorderly due to the placement of chreia (short sayings or teachings) is intriguing, as Luke and Matthew differ precisely in the placement of these chreia. While Mark's Gospel lacks chreia, Matthew's Gospel includes them, but isolates them to the Sermon on the Mount, unlike Luke's reorganization of the material in a more thematic presentation. Considering these factors, it is highly plausible that the Gospel of Matthew, not Mark, is the Gospel that Papias was criticizing for disorderliness. Moreover, the absence of chreia in Mark's Gospel and their presence in Matthew's Gospel, combined with Luke's implicit criticism of Matthew's arrangement, suggest that the Gospel of Matthew might be a better candidate for Markan authorship.

Peter’s Memoir

            It has been demonstrated that Papias' comments on Mark, when considered in light of Luke's preface, provide a compelling explanation for the characteristics of the Gospel of Matthew. This suggests that Mark, rather than Matthew, may be the author of the Gospel of Matthew. But if Mark is the author of Matthew, who then is the author of the Gospel of Mark? This question opens up new avenues of inquiry, as the traditional attribution of the Gospel of Mark to John Mark, a companion of Peter, is reconsidered. In this next section, alternative candidates for the authorship of the Gospel of Mark will be explored, examining the historical context, literary style, and theological themes that may point to a different author. By investigating the possibilities, new insights into the early Christian community and the development of the New Testament canon may be discovered.      

            In Papias' fragment, Bauckham (2006) translates the sentence ὥστε οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Μάρκος οὕτως ἔνια γράψας ὡς ἀπεμνημόσευσεν as “Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he [Peter?] related them from memory.  As previously mentioned, this sentence presents a challenging translation due to the ambiguity of the subject and the rarity of the verb ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. However, a closer examination of the context, language, and historical background supports the following translation: “Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items as related to Peter's Memoir.”

            Firstly, the use of ὥστε (consequently) implies a logical connection to the previous sentence, where Papias mentions Peter's teachings and Mark's writing. This connection suggests that Mark's actions are being justified or explained in relation to Peter's recollections.

            Secondly, the verb ἀπεμνημόσευσεν is rare. However, its meaning can be inferred from another work from antiquities, Xenophon's Ἀπομνημονεύματα (Memorabilia), where the verb ἀπομνημονεύω (apomnemoneuō) is used to describe Xenophon’s recollections of Socrates. Similarly, in Papias' fragment, ἀπεμνημόσευσεν might indicate a connection to Peter's Memoir or recollections.

            The nature of Memorabilia is a written text that contains the author's recollections and memories of someone he knew, in this case, Socrates. The title Memorabilia itself implies a collection of memories or recollections. In the context of Papias' fragment, if we translate ἀπεμνημόσευσεν as "Peter's Memoir/Memorabilia", it will imply that Peter wrote a written text about Jesus which Mark drew from. This would suggest that Peter's Memoir was a written source that Mark used to compose his Gospel. However, it's important to note that the term "memoir" might be a bit misleading, as it implies a modern-style biography or autobiography. In the ancient context, Memorabilia was a more fluid genre that could include a range of writings, such as dialogues, anecdotes, and reminiscences. If we apply this understanding to Papias' fragment, "Peter's Memoir" would likely refer to a written text that contains Peter's recollections and memories of Jesus, rather than a comprehensive biography. Mark's use of this text would then suggest that he drew from Peter's written recollections to compose his Gospel.

            Thirdly, Papias could have used ἐμνημόνευσεν (emnemoneusen), a more common verb for "remember," but chose ἀπεμνημόσευσεν instead. In fact, Papias uses the term “ἐμνημόνευσεν” in the opening section when he stated, “as many things as he recalled from memory.”  His later pivot to the use of ἀπομνημονεύω when stating “he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory” implies a deliberate choice and may suggest that Papias wanted to convey a specific nuance, such as Mark drawing from Peter's Memoir rather than his own memories. Thus, the translation "consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory" doesn't fully capture the implications of ἀπεμνημόσευσεν. By using "related from memory," Bauckham implies Peter's informal calling to mind of past events, whereas ἀπεμνημόσευσεν might indicate a connection to Peter's formal written memoir.

            Lastly, the context of early Christian literature and the importance of apostolic testimony support the translation proposed. Papias is keen to establish the credibility of Mark's Gospel by linking it to Peter's eyewitness account. By translating ἀπεμνημόσευσεν as "as related to Peter's memoir," we see Papias emphasizing Mark's reliance on Peter's authoritative recollections, rather than his own memory.

            In conclusion, the translation "consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items as related to Peter's memoir" is supported by the context, language, and historical background of Papias' fragment. This translation highlights Mark's connection to Peter's authoritative recollections, underscoring the importance of apostolic testimony in early Christian literature.

            Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist writing in the 2nd century, references "Peter's memoir" (Greek: Петруῦ μεμνημένου, Petrou memnēmenou) in his Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 106). This mention suggests that Justin Martyr was familiar with a written work attributed to Peter, which he referred to as a "memoir".

            While some scholars argue that Justin Martyr may have used the term "memoir" loosely or metaphorically, the context of his writing implies a written text. Justin Martyr is arguing for the reliability of Christian teachings, and he appeals to Peter's memoir as a source of authority. This suggests that he is referencing a concrete, written work that supports his claims.

            Furthermore, Justin Martyr's use of the term "memoir" (μεμνημένου, memnēmenou) is significant. This Greek word typically refers to a written record or a memoir, rather than an oral tradition or a general memory. This specific terminology implies that Justin Martyr is referencing a written text that Peter authored.

 

            Additionally, the fact that Justin Martyr mentions Peter's memoir alongside other written sources, such as the "Acts of the Apostles" (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 103), reinforces the idea that he is referring to a written text.

            While it cannot be proven with certainty that Peter wrote a memoir, Justin Martyr's use of the term "Peter's memoir" suggests that a written work attributed to Peter was in circulation during the 2nd century. This supports the possibility that Peter may have written a memoir or a collection of recollections about Jesus, which Mark drew from when composing his Gospel.

            There is an etymological connection between the words μεμνημένου (memnēmenou) used by Justin Martyr and ἀπεμνημόσευσεν (apemnēmoseusen) used by Papias. Both words come from the same Greek root "μνη-" (mne-), which means "memory" or "remembrance". This root is also related to the Greek word "μνήμη" (mnēmē), meaning "memory" or "remembrance". Both Justin's "memoir" and Xenophon's Memorabilia share a common genre and concept.  Justin’s use of the term "memoir" (μεμνημένου) and Papias’ use of the term “Ἀπομνημονεύματα” (Memorabilia) may both be drawing on the same literary tradition as Xenophon's Memorabilia, which was well-known in the ancient world. This would suggest that Justin and Papias were referencing a written work that collects Peter's teachings and experiences, presented as a recollection or memory of Peter's time with Jesus. In this sense, the relationship between Justin, Papias, and Memorabilia is one of literary influence and genre, with both works sharing a common goal of preserving and transmitting the teachings and legacy of a significant figure.

            Papias's statement that Mark "made it his one concern not to omit anything he heard or to falsify anything" can be understood as a reference to Mark's use of Peter's written work as a source. If Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark, and Mark wrote the Gospel of Matthew, it would make sense that Mark would be concerned with accurately recording the content that he included from Peter’s Memoir.  This makes sense of why almost the entirety of the Gospel of Mark is found within the Gospel of Matthew.

            Furthermore, Papias's statement that "Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory" can be seen as a reference to the combination of both the content in the Gospel of Matthew that is found in Gospel of Mark and the “individual items” that he included in the Gospel of Matthew that is unique to the Gospel of Matthew.  Papias, here, can be thought of as answering the question “how did Mark acquire the individual items that he wrote down that are unique to his account?”  And the answer would be that he acquired those items the same way (οὕτως, houtōs) he as he did the items he acquired from Peter’s Memoir: from investigating (παρηκολούθησεν, parēkolouthēsen) Peter. In the case of the individual items (ἔνια, enia), he investigated Peter’s teaching, primarily in the form of chreia. The rest of Mark’s content came directly from Peter’s Memoir.  This suggests that Mark was drawing on Peter’s oral teachings, in addition to Peter's written work, to provide additional information or context. In this understanding, Papias acknowledges that Mark's use of multiple sources, including Peter's written work and his memories of Peter’s teachings, was not problematic.

Luke's statement that the accounts were handed down by eyewitnesses and servants of the word (Luke 1:2) can be seen as a reference to the Gospel of Mark, which will now be referred to as Peter’s Memoir. The fact that Peter’s Memoir contains many Aramaic and Hebrew words and formulae (Hengel, 1983, as cited in Bauckham, 2006) and has many sections that were probably translated from Aramaic (Casey, 1998, as cited in Bauckham, 2006) has lead Casey (1998, as cited in Bauckham, 2006) to support the idea that it was written in a Hebrew style. Therefore, Papias's statement about the logia being put in an ordered arrangement from the Hebrew language is likely referring to Peter’s Memoir which was then used as a basis for the other gospel accounts.

Additional support for Petrine authorship

According to Bauckham (2006), the Greek noun hermeneutes is related to the verb hermeneuo, which Papias uses in Mark’s relationship with Peter: “Mark, in his capacity as Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory” and later in his statement on Matthew: “each interpreted them”. Both words can refer to interpretation in the sense of either (1) translation from one language to another, or (2) explanation and exposition.  However, the second understanding seems to make sense of both cases in which Papias uses the term and makes sense of the argument that has been laid out that Mark and the other gospel writers were working from Peter's existing memoir, rather than simply translating Peter's oral account.

            While it may seem unlikely that Peter, a Galilean fisherman, wrote the Gospel of Mark, several factors suggest it is possible. The canonical Gospel of Mark's use of Hebrew and Aramaic references and its lower quality Greek could indicate that the author was a bilingual person, familiar with both Jewish and Hellenistic cultures. Additionally, the Book of Acts describes Peter as "unschooled" (Acts 4:13), which apparently refers to his limited Greek education or proficiency. This could explain the simpler Greek style in the Gospel of Mark. Furthermore, Peter's close relationship with Jesus and his role as a leader in the early Christian community make it plausible that he could have been the source of the Gospel's content, even if he had assistance in writing it down.

            Papias' acknowledgment that Peter taught in the form of chreia suggests that he had at least an elementary understanding of rhetoric. Chreia were a common literary device in ancient Greek and Roman writing, used to convey moral teachings or aphorisms. By recognizing and referencing Peter's use of chreia, Papias demonstrates Peter’s basic familiarity with rhetorical conventions. This implies that Peter may not have been completely illiterate, as some have suggested, but rather had at minimum a lower level of education and literary sophistication. While it is still possible that Peter was not a highly educated individual, his understanding of chreia and other literary devices suggests that he had some level of training in rhetoric or literary analysis.

            Papias's early dating, likely writing around 100-130 CE, puts him in a unique position to know the author of the Gospel of Mark. His proximity to the apostolic era and his connections with early Christian leaders, including Polycarp and John the Elder, make him a valuable source of information. As someone who lived in the same century as the Gospel's composition, Papias would have had access to first-hand information about the authorship of the Gospel of Mark. His attribution to a Gospel of Peter’s Memoirs, therefore, carries significant weight and should be carefully considered in any discussion of its authorship.

Dating the Gospels

            If Peter is indeed the author of the Gospel of Mark, and Mattathias ben Theophilus is the recipient of Luke's Gospel, the implications for dating the Gospels are significant. The connection to Mattathias ben Theophilus would date Luke's Gospel to the same period, likely during the high priesthood of Mattathias ben Theophilus (64-69 CE).  Given Luke’s dependence on Peter’s work, it would push the date back for the first Gospel much earlier.  The proximity of these dates to the events described in the Gospels would support the historical reliability of the accounts.

The Synoptic Problem

            If this new perspective on Papias is correct, the implications for the synoptic problem would be significant. Firstly, the reliance of The Gospel of Matthew (Mark’s account) on Mark (Peter’s Memoir) and Luke's awareness of both would suggest a direct literary relationship between the Gospels, eliminating the need for a hypothetical Q source. This would validate the Farrer Hypothesis, which proposes that Luke used Matthew as a source.

            The strong evidence for the Farrer Hypothesis, as noted in the double tradition between Matthew and Luke, provides additional weight to this argument. The double tradition between Matthew and Luke against Mark demonstrates that Luke knew Matthew, and the identical wording and shared material cannot be explained by coincidence or reliance on a common source. As Goodacre (2002) notes, "The extent of the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark is too great to be explained by mere coincidence" (Goodacre, 2002, p. 63).  This suggests that Luke adapted Matthew's material to create his own narrative, which is evident in the double tradition.

            Furthermore, this perspective on Papias would also suggest that the Gospel of Mark (Peter’s Memoir) is the earliest written record of Jesus' life and teachings, with Matthew (Mark’s account) and Luke building upon and interpreting Peter’s account. This would support the idea that the Gospels are a progression of theological and literary development, rather than independent accounts.

            In conclusion, the new perspective on Papias would significantly impact the synoptic problem, validating the Farrer Hypothesis and eliminating the need for a Q source. The direct literary relationship between the Gospels would provide a clearer understanding of the development of the Christian narrative and the theological themes present in each Gospel.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that reading Papias through the lens of Luke's preface offers a transformative understanding of early Christian literary production. Papias' early attestation and familiarity with eyewitnesses make him a uniquely valuable source, and his comments on gospel authorship are all the more significant given his status as one of the earliest sources available. The strong case made here to read Papias through Luke's preface has far-reaching implications: Luke's recipient is revealed to be Matthais ben Theophilos, Mark is identified as the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and Peter is recognized as the author of the Gospel of Mark. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions about the development of the canon and invite the Christian and historical community to reconsider the narrative of early Christian literary history. As we reexamine the evidence, we may uncover a more nuanced understanding of the apostolic era, the role of eyewitness testimony, and the complex dynamics of textual production in the early Christian period. Ultimately, this study demonstrates that Papias, once a puzzling and enigmatic figure, can become a rich source of insight when read through the clarifying lens of Luke's preface.

 

References

Bauckham, R. (2006). Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony.   Eerdmans.

Casey, M. (1998). Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel. Cambridge University Press.

Ehrman, B. D. (1997). The New Testament: A historical introduction to the early Christian            writings. Oxford University Press.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 39

Goodacre, M. (2002). The case against Q: Studies in Markan priority and the synoptic problem.   Trinity Press International.

Hengel, M. (1983). Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the earliest history of Christianity. Fortress Press.

Mason, S. (2019). Josephus and the New Testament (2nd ed.). Baker Academic.