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.
