Papias on the authorship of the Gospels

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I've always found Papias interesting. A generation removed from the Apostles, he sought out the words of the Apostles' disciples, preferring their "living words" to those written in books. He was a bishop who lived during the first and second centuries, and the sole work he authored has been lost to time. Fortunately, passages of his writings have been preserved as quotations in other writers.

In the early fourth century, Eusebius, the first significant church historian, discusses Papias' writing. Here is what he had to say in his History:


And in his own writing, Papias also hands down other accounts of the aforementioned Aristion of the words of the Lord and the traditions of the presbyter John, to which we refer those truly interested. Of necessity, we will now add to his reports set forth above a tradition about Mark who wrote the gospel, which he set forth as follows:

And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.

Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could. He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth.

[Haven]

Hi! Welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing your thoughts .

I don't think much stock can be placed in what Papias claimed. As you may know, there are people living today who claim to have seen Elvis alive after his death, and there are a lot of urban legends surrounding him (a mere 38 years after his passing, and despite the availability of the Internet, libraries, detailed records, etc.). Papias was about as far removed in time from the apostles as we are from Elvis, and he didn't have the fact-checking advantages of Google, peer-reviewed journals, government records offices, or public libraries. It would have been much easier for legends to get started in Papias' time than it is in ours, and it's still pretty easy for them to start today. Because of these things, it really isn't reasonable to take Papias' claims on the authorship of the gospels seriously, especially since he clearly had an agenda (to connect the gospels with authoritative Christian figures).

[Man_With_A_Plan]

Hi! Welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing your thoughts .

I don't think much stock can be placed in what Papias claimed. As you may know, there are people living today who claim to have seen Elvis alive after his death, and there are a lot of urban legends surrounding him (a mere 38 years after his passing, and despite the availability of the Internet, libraries, detailed records, etc.). Papias was about as far removed in time from the apostles as we are from Elvis, and he didn't have the fact-checking advantages of Google, peer-reviewed journals, government records offices, or public libraries. It would have been much easier for legends to get started in Papias' time than it is in ours, and it's still pretty easy for them to start today. Because of these things, it really isn't reasonable to take Papias' claims on the authorship of the gospels seriously, especially since he clearly had an agenda (to connect the gospels with authoritative Christian figures).

I can see your point. Papias' claims about Mark having been written in Rome and the author of Matthew having used Mark as source material are in agreement with modern scholars, though. I think if Papias got two points correct, it helps give him at least a little credibility. (These claims are according to maybe Irenaeus or elsewhere by Eusebius. I can't remember.)