Papias and the Gospels: Did Papias Know Mark, Matthew and Luke's Gospels? | Dr. Mike Kirby

[@TheManicMan-p6l]

This was a super interesting discussion, Jacob. Thanks for hosting it. You should host a discussion between this guy and Dale Allison, who, if I remember correctly, thinks highly of Papias. It would be interesting to hear them discuss it!

[@notanemoprog]

Jacob should have gone easy on the Qs & should have let this guy proceed with his careful and accurate comprehensive investigative account in an orderly fashion instead.

[@vikingdemonpr]

I love how excited he is about his findings. I can totally relate. Even more when he is not a scholar and still is brave enought to tackle these complicated topics.

[@notanemoprog]

Agreed 100%

[@The_Gypsy_Prince-y3v]

Yes but the writers are really Mark and Luke? They where contemporary of Peter. They would have been dead around the time that the gospels where written.

[@joseliano325]

I am not an expert, but I have had the theory for a while: That when Papias describes the gospel of “Mark” as a collection of stories on Jesus, and “Mathew” as a collection of teachings, that sounds to me like a description of a kind of “proto-Mark”, and of “Q”. At some point someone combines both sources and this becomes part of a new, canonical Mathew. Because this new gospel contains the original Q (Mathew) material, the name of Mathew becomes associated with it. An older narrative that contains only the original Mark passages becomes the “new and improved” canonical Mark. When Luke makes his “newest and even more improved” version of the story, he combines parts of new-Mark and new-Mathew (which already contains the Q (original Mathew) material, and this becomes our canonical Luke. This explains why and how we get the current versions of Mark, and later “Mathew”, and Luke (both of these containing “Q”) My theory.

[@notanemoprog]

Wouldn't those 2 things be kinda the same stuff like what Mark Bilby deduces from data as earliest texts/sources?

[@heavenswindsong]

Interesting concept…

[@richardfellows4734]

If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting that Matthew, the tax collector, was behind Q and that GMatthew used Q and was therefore named "Matthew." A problem with this is that GMatthew puts a lot of Q material before the calling of Matthew. Surely they would not suppose that the tax collector had witnessed the sermon on the mount, would they?

[@heavenswindsong]

@@joseliano325 Sounds like playing a game of twister where you stand on your head and twist, your legs and arms around yourself to get to the next available circle!

[@digitaurus]

Not sure what changes between proto-Mark and canonical Mark in your scheme? I have seen the idea floated before that the same community that first produced Q, which Luke used as a source, then subsequently produced Matthew after they had got hold of a copy of Mark. This would be an explanation for why Q never survived - it was replaced by Matthew in the community that first wrote it.

[@SamKidder-yd2qo]

Great program as always.

[@Kytheus_Errant_2106]

Oh wow. Yea I think you're correct. Papias is definitely responding to Luke's preface. Good job man.

[@DominikPlaylists]

only the problem is that this is all so very anachronistic. Papias's grandfather was likely born after Matthew ben Theophilus died.

[@christianmichael8609]

@@DominikPlaylists Why is that a problem? We do not know what challenge might have prompted Papias to respond to the Lukan preface. Might have been Marcion’s preference for gLuke and his rejection of the memoir of Peter (~ gMark) and similar rejection of gMatthew, written by an interpreter of that former ‘Memoir’ that prompted him to respond like this. We just don’t know, do we?

[@richardfellows4734]

This kind of out of the box thinking and enthusiasm is exactly what is needed. I agree with you, Mike, that Papias's Mark compiled Matthew. There is no need, however, to link Papias's Matthew with Theophilus. Rather, have you considered the possibility that Matthew, the tax collector, wrote the gospel that we call Mark (or was its source)?

[@kirbinator5000]

That’s a fascinating proposal!

[@robinstevenson6690]

I like the guest's creative contribution re. parallels between Papias and Luke on the history of the gospel materials. I doubt that a Jewish High Priest or any high official named "Mattathius Theophilus" would have had anything to do with the "Theophilus" that Luke mentions. However, would like to see if the Luke/Papias parallels might yield further insights. I love the insightful suggestion about canonical Matthew having been written in Greek, and could be an assemblage of Hebrew/Aramaic documents or fragments, translated into Greek. However, Papias used the term "composed" by Matthew in the language of the Hebrews, and so I believe that the figure "Matthew" may have not only assembled, but also written parts of what eventually became our canonical Matthew. This type of analysis hasn't convinced me that Luke "knew" (canonical) Matthew - - not at all. However, it suggests that the author of Luke may well have "known" certain parts of Matthew (especially the Q material and overlaps with the common Matthew/Mark). The idea that Luke "knew" our canonical Greek Matthew seems not to be well justified - - for one thing, because Luke does not seem familiar with the unique (Matthean or "M") sections of Matthew that don't appear in either Mark or Q.

[@richardfellows4734]

Which parts of canonical Matthew do you think that Luke would have used if he had read them?

[@JeremyJohanson]

Here's a clue to what actually happened. Hadrian outlawed everything jewish including the Hebrew language and ordered all Hebrew documents destroyed because of the Jewish wars. Look at the first church controversy, the quartodeciman controversy between Anicetus and Polycarp. Rome wants to change the date of Passover because the practice is illegal but they didn't want to say that because it would be admitted in writing that Christianity was Jewish and could be illegal.

[@terrybaker1147]

Having listened to the whole thing, I'm on board, with minor caveats.

[@terrybaker1147]

I think his thesis solves the Synoptic Problem for me. It's just that we have examples of readings from Hebrew Matthew, whoever wrote it, that make no sense in Greek, but are perfectly logical in Hebrew. My hypothesis for many years, as to disagreement between the Synoptics, is that not everyone who was consulted as a witness was reliable, just as at the Trial of Jesus.

[@swimtrainee8950]

Perhaps the "disordered" claim upon the Gospel of Mark is to explain and justify the different sequence of events presented in the Gospel of John (which Papias is associated with).

[@annestephens9631]

Q was James's Boss (latterly played so marvellously by Judi Dench in the movies.) M is the Starfleet classification for Earth-type planets (adopted from the Vulcan Database.) Tea is a drink with jam and bread (citation needed.)

[@benjaminclegg7109]

It never occurred to me up to this interview how central Papias is by virtue of having talked to two people that were Disciples and others that knew the Apostles in person, PLUS knowing at least early versions of some if not all of the gospels, thus being able to cross reference personal eyewitness accounts with early gospel accounts. The fact that this cross-referencing was possible and clearly happened is fascinating. Do I see this correctly that if this hypothesis is true it has strong implications on the hypothesis of Marcion's gospel in priority? It seems to suggest that Luke was written fairly early, around the time of Papias or slightly earlier WITH the preface addressing Theophilus. Since that address is missing in Marcion's gospel this would rule out Marcion's version being nearer the original version of Luke. At the same time, as cross-referencing accounts with disciples was still possible at this time, wouldn't it also rule out that the original Luke gospel at the time of Papias had a birth narrative? It seems like such a narrative would have raised eye brows with some of the witnesses that Papias had access to.

[@davidaaronhill5680]

MacDonald's book Two Shipwrecked Gospels covers similar Papias/Luke overlaps

[@Mr._Warlight]

Already been through all the rabbit holes of this. There is a lost Gospel according to the Hebrews in Greek that includes a standard narrative and separate list of sayings mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and it's quoted by several church fathers. The sayings list of that, 'Matthew's oracles of the Lord', and the narrative portion is of course the earliest Gospel according to Mark. This is confirmed by the fact that Eusebius says that Papias recants a story from this very gospel that he then quotes, which is the only preserved gospel that Papias is said to have used. Mystery solved my friends.

[@swimtrainee8950]

Hi! Thanks for the info! Can you share what is your source for the Gospel of the Hebrews composition of a story and a separate list of sayings? That's really interesting, as it sounds like a natural development.

[@Mr._Warlight]

@swimtrainee8950 It's a personal theory. I have yet to find it hypothesized otherwise. The only source I use to support this idea is from 3.39.17 of the church history by Eusebius wherein he mentions a story told by Papias found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It seems it's only logical that Papias primarily had access to that gospel when mentioning the earliest gospel by Mark if it's the only one he quoted, and the list of sayings of course matches his description of Matthew's oracles of the Lord. It makes sense if they were originally in Aramaic and later combined when they were translated to Greek by the time of those church fathers who quoted from it, but that's all I can give you besides personal findings. I would however suggest searching for fringe articles, there's always someone hypothesizing about this stuff.

[@swimtrainee8950]

@@Mr._Warlight Okay, thank you

[@David-j8v5p]

The writer of Mark never is shown having written what the writer's of Matthew and Luke wrote about the conversation during the temptation of Jesus

[@craigfairweather3401]

I agree that Dr Kirby has excellently shown the defence by Papias of what Papias knows his esteemed Mark has written is a reaction to Luke’s criticism. HOWEVER these Papias defences work better as defences of our ‘John’, which has always been criticised as ‘too different ‘in ordering, content and length of discourse compared to the Synoptics gospels. Especially as ‘the Disciple whom Jesus Loved’ does not appear until the Last Supper. It seems more likely that Papias is defending our ‘John’ which he defends as the work of ‘John Mark’. This may be the same esteemed authority figure , alive in Papias’ youth whom he calls ‘John the Elder’ (not the apostle). The book of Acts likewise calls John Mark both Mark and just John.

[@richardfellows4734]

I too toyed with the idea that the Mark mentioned by the Elder (and quoted by Papias) was John Mark and that the wrote the gospel of John. Others have considered this too. See Pierson Parker "John and John Mark" JBL (1960), and Dean Furlong, The Identity of John the Evangelist. The difficulty is that the Elder says that this Mark was not an eyewitness and left nothing out, whereas the gospel of John claims to be by an eyewitness and that much had to be left out. Also, Bauckham's chapter, "John for readers of Mark," makes a good case that John's gospel is structured around the chronology of the gospel that we call Mark. Papias's Mark is a much better fit for the author of the gospel that we call Matthew.

[@craigfairweather3401]

@ The author of ‘John’, if ‘the Disciple who Jesus loved’, does not appear in the Gospel until the Last Supper. This may count as not being ‘ a hearer ‘ of the vast miajority of Jesus ministry, and being reliant on the remembrances of Peter who is present at every event in ‘John’ from Ch1 to Ch11. The author certainly makes much of being a companion of Peter from that point on. On ‘leaving nothing out’, could not this be a reference to the so called ‘complementary’ nature of ‘John’ material and seeming deliberate correction of some impressions gained from ‘Mark’?

[@richardfellows4734]

@@craigfairweather3401 I think that there is a strong case that the beloved disciple is mentioned first in John 1:37.

[@craigfairweather3401]

@ Recent work suggests it is a literary puzzle by the author and the other disciple is Philip, whom Jesus goes straight to the next day.

[@craigfairweather3401]

@ A justifiable explanation is that the author has created a literary puzzle, that he means for us to unravel with scattered clues. If it is Philip this would be logical from the evidence: Philip comes from Bethsaida like Andrew (and Peter) and is mentioned in the text within a few words of Andrew three times: 1:44, 6:7-8 and 12:22. Note that it is a request in 12:22 to 'see Jesus' (the Baptist looked at Jesus and then said “Look!..”) and that Philip and Andrew BOTH GO to Jesus and BOTH tell about the request to meet Jesus (‘both’ is implied in the meaning of the Greek here). This is like where the two disciples of John went together , requested to see where he stayed, and Jesus agreed, that they could ‘come and see’. Note also that Philip tells Nathanael 'WE have FOUND the one' just like Andrew saying to Peter 'WE have FOUND'. Philip may be speaking of himself and one other finding Jesus. Philip says in 14:6 'SHOW us the Father' and Jesus’ reply to Philip is about 'being among them a long time' reminiscent of the 'tabernacling/tenting' of the glory ‘among us’ alluded to in Ch1 and 'SEEING' Jesus and coming to 'know' him. As Jesus said to the two 'Come and see', or 'be coming' (a process of getting closer) and 'be perceiving' (a process of growing awareness). Also, Philip and Andrew are linked at 6:7-8 both talking about the insufficiency of bread to feed the 5,000 near Bethsaida (this represents salvation coming to Jews, who have Moses and the prophets. They had gotten closer, but they still had more perceiving to do! This identification with Philip would explain 'at a human level' why Jesus would seek Philip after Jesus decided to go to Galilee; as Jesus already knew Philip's origin there (a Bethsaida home to rest at, and familiarity with the way to journey back there? and knew Philip’s likely sufficient enthusiasm for literally following Jesus and accompanying him straight away. Philip is mentioned straight after Andrew in Mark 3:18. The 12 disciples may have been organised in pairs (2 by 2) with Andrew's pairing with his brother Peter leading to Philip's pairing with Nathaniel/Bartholomew (Aramaic: Bar Talmai, i.e. son of Talmai).

[@JamesBeanSantMatMystic]

Great conversation today. 1) "Luke's" servants of the word or sayings (logoi) and various mentions in early Christian writings of "the logia of the Lord" in Hebrew (Aramaic) associated with Matthew (or a Mattathias) -- that sounds like Sayings Collection Q, Quelle (source material). And 2) I believe Marcion's proto-luke (Evangelion) was composed much earlier than canonical "Luke". Wasn't this gospel in its final form composed long after the death of Mattathias ben Theophilus? Maybe he was even long since dead by the time of the Evangelion's composition. Perhaps then the reference to Theophilus we see in the final 2nd century edition of what we now call "Luke" is more likely just a literary device put into the preface of this gospel by the author to make it seem more authoritative.

[@JamesBeanSantMatMystic]

If the author/editor/redactor of "Luke" is mostly basing his gospel upon the already written Evangelion, just making some additions and edits, then there's not much of a reason for Theophilus to be "Luke's" benefactor. The work is mostly done already. If he was "Luke's" sponsor, as they say, nice work if you can get it, a mighty sweet gig.

[@Mr._Warlight]

1. Matthew's Oracles of the Lord & Original Mark (first gospels in Aramaic) 2. Gospel according to the Hebrews (Matthew's Oracles and Original Mark combined and translated to Greek) 3. Proto Luke or Marcion's Gospel (Improved version of Original Mark before it combined to form Hebrews' gospel) 4. Gospel according to Mark (improved version of proto Luke) 5. Gospel according to the Nazarenes (translated from Mark's gospel to Aramaic) 6. Gospel according to Matthew (translated from Aramaic Nazarenes' gospel to Greek) 7. Gospel of Cerinthus, Gospel according to John, Egerton Gospel, ...etc (Gospels that improved upon Mark's gospel around the 2nd century) 7. Gospel according to Luke (improved version of proto Luke with aspects of Matthew)

[@dunk_law]

You know how late and how limited the supposed fragments of papias actually are?

[@notanemoprog]

The issue is whether his account of the relation between two texts ("attack" and "defense") is correct so chronology is not the most important issue here

[@dunk_law]

​@@notanemoprog"What is even more remarkable is that some conservative scholars have actually argued that Papias gives us evidence about Luke and John, even though in none of the surviving fragments does Papias so much as *mention* Luke and John!! Scholars can be amazingly inventive sometimes….."

[@notanemoprog]

@@dunk_law I mean a kind of "inventiveness" is a must for all scholarship, history can't be done just by listing the known facts, it's not an insult to say someone is inventive, the only Q is whether it is in accord with the data

[@dunk_law]

One cannot make something out of nothing and if the data is insufficient then a good scholar would have to hold off on any pronouncement.

[@notanemoprog]

@@dunk_law There _is_ something here. For example, your argument about "late and limited" is no argument at all. "Late and limited" may convey more about what actually happened than "contemporary & comprehensive". There is no such thing as "sufficient historical data". You _never_ know the history as it was: you _can_ never know it.

[@heavenswindsong]

Also, as we can understand, Luke was a historian, and he had the capacity to record all of this information. I believe that he collected information from Josephus as well, to account accurately for the birth of Jesus and dates and times of Herod the greats reign in Jerusalem… it is my understanding or belief that the book of Acts what is written in the early to middle part of second century. And if it was Luke’s that wrote Acts, he certainly didn’t cut Paul any slack when it comes to having only positive things to say about him, and the entire book ends with Paul, going to prison, which wasn’t exactly complementary and furthermore, Paul had Highup connections in the Roman empire, which tells me he was a Herodian and part of the high up Roman government to be given the privileges he was given, and having an entourage of over 400 Roman foot soldiers surrounding him, and protecting him on his way to Rome as well!

"luke was a historian" lol

[@akashicturtle1827]

Interesting! I appreciate his original spin on papias. I can’t say I’m convinced by all his claims, but he does make some good points. My thoughts: - i haven’t seen scholarly discussion of the word “Chereia” and I’m curious to learn more. -ditto with “apemnemoneusen.” - i myself have recently toyed with the idea that Papias and Luke might have been “rivals” of sorts. -I have also toyed with the idea that gMatthew was based on the teaching of Barnabas, and hence John Mark would be a good candidate for authorship (as he was a relative of Barnabas). -My mind is blown at the suggestion that Theophilus might have played a role in compiling sources before the author of Luke/Acts. - it seems weird to me that none of the canonical gospels ultimately got attributed to Peter, considering his importance to the early church, if it were really the case that one was in fact his memoir. I think Mr Kirby should flesh out his thoughts more on why these authorial mixups happened.

[@kirbinator5000]

Very helpful insights! Obviously one is limited on how thorough he/she can be in a podcast. Below is a link to the blog where you can find a more detailed explanation of the argument (though it is still a work in progress) While Luke’s Preface doesn’t outright claim that Theophilus played a role in compiling the sources and content that came before Luke/Acts, I wouldn’t say that the suggestion is mind-blowing. Luke acknowledges that other accounts had already been compiled (Luke 1:1). Theophilus's apparent familiarity with these accounts and Luke’s insistence that his misunderstandings be corrected might imply that Theophilus had a hand in their development and was provided inferior content. The phrase "it seemed fitting to me as well" (Luke 1:3) is particularly noteworthy, as it implies a sense of continuity between Luke's project and that of his predecessors. While this is not a definitive claim, it is certainly a possibility. And if Papias is responding to Luke then we might have a small window into the context of development of Luke’s work. The reason for authorial mixup? At 5:14 it’s noted the number of early church fathers who are dependent on Papias followed by a 10 minute discussion on the ambiguity of Papias’ writings. The idea is that the early church fathers depended on Papias and misunderstood him (because he is easy to misunderstand). One of the early church fathers who isn’t dependent on Papias, Justin Martyr, does mention “Peter’s Memoir” in his Dialogue with Trypho and proceeds to quote from the Gospel of Mark (mentioned at the 1 hour 30 minute mark). Unfortunately, Justin Martyr’s comments didn’t stick as strongly as the misreading of Papais’s. What I honestly think happened is that one person, Irenaeus, misunderstood Papias, attributed gospel authorship to the names we have in our canon, and the tradition stuck. And to make matters worse, the way in which Irenaeus mistook Papias is a possible way in which one might take him, and unless one were to know the actual context in which Papias was writting (ie responding to Luke) then it would be nearly impossible to not misunderstand him. And for all we know, Papias’s Expositions may not have indicated that context. And even if it did, Papias is still difficult to understand! But you’re right, this idea needs to be fleshed out more. dremkirby.blogspot.com

[@richardfellows4734]

@@kirbinator5000 It is not certain that Justin Martyr meant memoirs of Peter. He may be referring to memoirs about Jesus. It all depends whether Justin's pronoun refers to Peter or Jesus.

[@akashicturtle1827]

@@kirbinator5000 thank you for your response, Dr. Kirby (and sorry for not using your correct title in my original comment)! I’ll check out your website. I’d be curious to know if there are any post-Irenaeus Christians (even if they were minor and/or unorthodox) who continued to cite the gospels w/o the standard author attributions (as pre-Irenaeus Christian writers did).

[@David-j8v5p]

The writer of Mark didn't write the conversation that went on during Jesus's Temptation.

[@tookie36]

Spoiler alert. Homie suggests Peter wrote a memoir. Then Mark wrote our gospel of Matthew. Which of course is wrong bc our gospel of mark in which is the foundation to all of the gospels… is written by a follower of Paul. If papias was correct it would have to be that “mark” wrote a sayings gospel. Like Q. And then “Matthew” wrote our first gospel. But that is a tough sell considering the early church just ran with the papias quote to justify the more current versions of mark and Matthew. Which really is a problem for the continuity claims

[@rasunsoter]

This Kirby fella is a nitwit. Kinda like Berman

[@EvilXtianity]

Matthew and Luke plagiarized a total of 97% of Mark, often word-for-word. Matthew contains 94% of Mark's material; Luke contains 88% of Mark's material. Mark contains a total of 11,025 words, and only 132 are unique to him. Additionally, Matthew (44%) and Luke (58%) have material in common that is not found in Mark. John was written later and 92% of the material was unique.

[@iwilldi]

- when it is said that Mark wrote down all which he remembered, then this is highlighting the volume of the author's own invention. - the note on order could have two origins: a) Papias used Matthew's fucked up order as model. b) They knew there originally was an original quire of 20 pages which had Mk 16 on page 1. In my synoptic model ( 1.) original Mark on a 20 page quire for roman audience, 2. ) Matthew, 3. ) (proto?)-Luke, 4. ) canonical Mark for christians ) readers were mostly used to Matthew's order, since canonical Mark only appeared ca 100 AD on the christian stage. In Luke's prolegomena the note about order could apply to Matthew or original Mark. But the very idea to adress a single person he likely had from the prolegomena in Mark's original. What made sense in original Mark makes no sense in Luke though, since Luke's account was for a christian audience in general, not for selected single roman upperclass readers. So i think Kirby is right that the Papias fragments answer against Luke's prolegomena. But i doubt that Papias is speaking about Matthew as Mark's gospel. What Papias' defense however entails is talking against the accusation that Mark knew not Peter. It's also a general defense against the idea that Mark invented most of the material. Both attacks should be expected. But the same attack coould be directed at Matthew's gospel. We note that Acts has Matthew voted for 2nd Judas, and there is a John Mark who seperates from Paul and would not let Peter into the house. If the author of Acts is the same as that of Luke, then the author hints that there are two figures behind Mark: An early author and a considerably faithfull Editor of canonical Mark. (You can still reconstruct Mark's quire based on canonical Mark). One major reason why i would not engage with Papias' exact wording is, that we don't have it. But there are certainly elements to consider. How about Theophilus? Why would Josephus' own father act as financial supporter to Luke? Luke must have been written no earlier than the 90's. But luke is also inheriting the same copy of original Mark from which Matthew worked'. But it now misses the pages 9/10. Hence the adverse reaction. But it is already Mark who wignals to Josephus (from Arimathea) that he too can now bury his messiah (act as a father would). Luke just pushes it one stage further and signals to Josephus father now. So no, i do not think that Josephus father was the patron behind Luke's gospel. If that Theophilus was still alive when the same author wrote Acts, then age also simply does not work. So this theory is debunked. Btw if you think that the synoptic problem is solved by any contribution of church fathers but the positive usage of gospel quotes, then you did not yet learn your lesson.

[@Paul-fg6mk]

Thanks for the clarity and the fact that you edited your comment to make it clearer. 😯

[@DominikPlaylists]

The huge problem I have with this is that these first chapters of Luke were not written by Luke. It's a very well known fact it's a different author, and likely a very late addition.

[@notanemoprog]

It could have been an early intro to another now lost gospel that was cut/pasted to our Luke and still be the text that Papias defended against. Additions/combinations can be late even if the material is early

[@richardfellows4734]

No, it is not a "well known fact". It is a hypothesis. It is also rejected by synoptic gospel experts such as Mark Goodacre. Also, those who think that the birth narrative in Luke was written by someone else tend still believe that the preface was written by the same author as the bulk of the gospel. Therefore the authorship of the birth narrative is irrelevant to the issues in question.

[@JosephBlanchard-m7e]

He’s definitely onto something. Apologist should listen has he is strengthening the early gospel dates argument. The hardest to swallow is Theopolus dates. 1 Timothy quotes Luke and dates to approx 64. If Luke used Josephus he can’t be that early. Unless you embrace some of the Marcion theories circulating now that Marcion used a pre Canonical Luke version.

[@heavenswindsong]

I think what’s the most critical thing that people are not paying attention to is who is Theophilus… Ignatius of Antioch, is also referred to, in Wikipedia, as, Theophóros, which means, ‘God-bearing’ and in which Theophilus means light bearing! It’s been my long understanding or belief that Theophilus and Ignatius are one in the same person that Luke was writing to!… I certainly don’t believe it was the high priest at the time because why would he be called your Excellency makes no sense at all to me. it is my opinion that Ignatius was trying to make up his mind about something. Do you know the truth about who Jesus was and needed a full account before he decided to convert, and then later became the bishop of Antioch. It all fits into the same time frame chronologically!

[@Kytheus_Errant_2106]

So you are saying that Josephus father paid Luke to write his gospel, and that's why Luke's gospel has so many similarities with Josephus. Hm. That's very interesting. Theophilus is Mattathias ben Theophilus. That kinda works. I'll have to let this all marinate but I like it.

[@trabob4438]

Papias also said that Judas blew up and his body exploded all over the place and Eucibus said Papias was a not very smart.

[@kirbinator5000]

The fragment we’re dealing with begins by saying that Papias is citing John the Elder. Whatever personal shortcomings Papias may have, hopefully he was at least competent enough to accurately relay other people’s comments!

[@richardfellows4734]

@@kirbinator5000 Yes, especially as he writes that he was interested in the living voice more than in books.

[@trabob4438]

@@kirbinator5000Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter.

[@kirbinator5000]

@@trabob4438 Papias might not be a reliable witness. His comments might be wrong. But the purpose of this discussion is to properly understand exactly what Papias said. Once we figure that out, then we can argue if what he said is accurate or not.

[@trabob4438]

@@kirbinator5000 well we know judus did not blow up.

[@macroman52]

Does Papias mean 'Matthew' collected the verses from the Hebrew scriptures that were supposed or assumed to refer to the Messiah? The sayings ABOUT the Lord in the Hebrew language.

[@kirbinator5000]

Again, this is the problem with Papias- he is incredibly ambiguous! Without context there are various ways you could translate his statement on Matthew. One of those various ways is that he is saying that Matthew *compiled* the *oracles* of *Aramaic speakers* that various people (*each one*- I take to be talking about the writers of the accounts) used as their source for writing a Greek translation of the account (interpreted the best he could). Without context, we can’t be sure what Papias meant on his own. I hope to show that Luke’s preface is the context, which will support my interpretation of what Papias is saying.

[@dunk_law]

See Bart Ehrman's blog - Papias as an Earwitness?

[@richardfellows4734]

Ehrman does a good job at discrediting Papias's ability to reason. This means that Papias could have misunderstood the Elder, but it does not mean that he misquoted him. We need to take the Elder seriously, given his antiquity.

[@dunk_law]

@richardfellows4734 the witnesses are second and third hand, they are not that old either. As ehrman states in the comment section - The traditions that he cites about Jesus are very, very different from what we find in Luke. Moreover, from these traditions and Eusebius’s comments about how he was a man of very limited intelligence, I’m not sure he could have pulled it off. But mainly it’s because his traditions about Jesus are so different from those of Luke.

[@dunk_law]

@@richardfellows4734 "What is even more remarkable is that some conservative scholars have actually argued that Papias gives us evidence about Luke and John, even though in none of the surviving fragments does Papias so much as *mention* Luke and John!! Scholars can be amazingly inventive sometimes….."

[@richardfellows4734]

@@dunk_law I don't quite understand your point about Luke. Isn't Papias's account of the death of Judas a bit closer to Luke than to Mt? Doesn't Papias have information in common with the author of Acts?

[@dunk_law]

@@richardfellows4734 see Ehrman's blog - Yet Other Accounts Of the Death of Judas

[@1968Mcneil]

When you are re-building history nothing is 100% sure. But this man works is incredible, it is amazing.

There are serious doubts about Papias' own reliability and about the accuracy with which he is portrayed by subsequent writers. He is not a historically reliable source.

[@richardfellows4734]

The question is not whether Papias had good judgment or intelligence, but rather whether he was able to correctly report the words of the elder. He says he took an interest in the "living voice" rather than in books. Is there any reason to doubt his memory of what the elder had said?

@@richardfellows4734 "whether he was able to correctly report the words of the elder" assuming he ever met "the elder" whatever that means. You understand that people can lie, be mistaken, or be misquoted right? The degree of credulity within bible "scholarship" is truly breathtaking.

[@terrybaker1147]

Matthew was most certainly originally written in Hebrew. See the works of Nehemiah Gordon.

[@terrybaker1147]

I came to the conclusion long ago, and I believe the guest implies this, that Matthew and Mark contain things said by men sent to spy on Jesus and record his sayings and deeds. Thus, those records aren't necessarily a curate.

[@SamKidder-yd2qo]

It seems to me that Matthew wrote what is called Marks gospel for Barnabas. I go to the gospel of the holy twelve concerning the discussion between Jesus the Christ and the pharisees about eating with unwashed hands. To believe that Jesus the Christ the Son of the living God was teaching in the 7th chapter of Mark that the descendant of Jacob Israel could eat hog meat is unbelievable. It is also unbelievable to believe that Saul / Paul of Tarsus birth was by divine providence as Saul / Paul of Tarsus said. What about all the murdering done by Saul / Paul of Tarsus. What is true that Saul / Paul of Tarsus is the father of the laodicean 7th church age. One could set in a protestant church for a thousand years and never hear the teaching of James the brother of Jesus the Christ and head Bishop over the bishops of the Ecclesia.

[@josephwurzer4366]

Like the argument. Marks Gospel is more like statements from Peter about Jesus put together into an order that became the Gospel of Mark. If Mark is the 1st account that gets out in the New Testament’s. Luke seems to be a more polished & yes I got it better than Mark.

[@dreaustin8796]

I found something that wasn't in the index of whiston translation of josephus. its in Antiquities of the jews book 20 chapter 10.7. " He also deprived Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, of the high priesthood, and gave it to Matthias , the son of Theophilus, under whom the Jews' war with the Romans took its beginning". I dont know if Josephus is intending to put some blame in part on this priest. Anyway Luke begins Jesus birth at the same time Judas the Gallieian dies in 6AD. Is Luke doing this to protect the image of Theophilus. Judas the galliean is also stated by Joesphus as the foundation of the Jewish war to come 60 years latter. Luke contrast Jesus movement the opposite of Judas movement and those who he inspires years later-peace out Andre Austin

[@craigfairweather3401]

MY THEORY: Our ‘Mark’ is by Aristion, the work mentioned by Papias. I propose it is early, from the 60s in the province of Asia, influenced by Paul congregations, and so became widespread. Our ‘John’ is by John Mark and is the work described by Papias as by Mark. Our ‘Matthew’ is from Antioch and incorporates Q which by tradition was ascribed to Matthew originally. But Papias is referring to Q when he speaks of Matthew’s writing. Our ‘Luke’ is from the early second century and is the latest written of the gospels, mildly influenced by our ‘John’ and written as a response to the more Torah-following ‘Matthew’. Read carefully Eusebius’s quote of Papias at ch39,14-15 : “14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel. 15. “This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses,so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.”. The word translated ‘accounts’ speaking of ARISTION means ‘narratives’ This implies Aristion had the sayings of Jesus embedded in some narratives. What Papias says about Mark (i.e. John Mark) fits better with our ‘John’, as the order of some events is different to the Synoptics, and ‘John’ emphasises the supposed author only from the last few days of Jesus and then this author accompanying Peter. See Parker’s1960 article ‘John and John Mark’. Eusebius says that Papias, in Papias’ now lost five volume work, refers to Aristion often. It is easier to quote often if there is a written source. If our Mark and John circulated among the congregations as anonymous works, as many modern scholars believe, and if our Mark was too widespread and respected to be replaced by the Mark-absorbing Matthew, it is easier to understand this if they were seen as originating from early respected experts on the sayings of Jesus and the actions the apostles: Aristion and the Elder John. It would then be a matter of Irenaeus 110 years to 90 years later mistaking Aristion’s work with the work of John Mark and John Mark’s work with a work of John son of Zebedee. ​​⁠ Nothing in the text of ‘John’ itself or scanty traditions about the text precludes it being a work of the 90s CE. The most likely reason for Acts to mention John Mark several times with details about his relative age, residence, relatives, some travels with Paul and his relative Barnabas and also for including the ‘embarrassing fact’ of a missionary split with Paul that caused a separation with Barnabas, was that the intended audience for Acts knew well of such a figure existing. Legendary material can still cluster around named people who had some sort of existence. My point includes that, like Papias’ allusion to a John the Elder and Aristion alive in his youth who supposedly knew Jesus, a John Mark, alive in the Province of Asia is possible. ‘The Elder John’’s self-assured bossiness is more understandable in a John Mark than from completely unknown figures. The church traditions from the 3rd century on also frequently confused John Mark with John son of The ‘traditional’ site last supper was considered to be the remains of the mansion of John Mark and his mother (mentioned in Acts as where Peter first fled to after escaping prison). This site is right next to the ancient Essene Quarter of Jerusalem. John Mark and the Jerusalem congregation. Would have had hundreds of Essenes living and talking close by for 40 years from the death of Jesus until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The 12 disciples forsook Jesus and fled yet the Beloved Disciple is at the foot of the cross next to the soldiers.. The same Beloved Disciple who had a free pass to enter the mansion of Annas the former high priest because he was personally known to him, has to be a high status young man not expecting to be either recognised as a follower or arrested at the crucifixion. He is more a ‘secret disciple’ like the high status and super wealthy Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus and even Mary of Bethany who owns a fortune in spikenard that she gives up. Note the author’s interest in these figures, suggesting his own original ‘class’ . Bart Ehrman has suggested that the author comes from a wealthy family and has many years of expensive education. He is thus likely of the same social status as Josephus was: a highly educated, wealthy and connected young man : which is possible in the elites of Jerusalem. Just because he is ‘the disciple’ Jesus ‘loved’ (showed goodwill towards) does not mean he was one of the inner three of the 12. Jesus is said to ‘love’ Lazarus, and his sisters: how does he show it? He travels to their house and has meals with them, teaches them and lets Mary get physically close to him. These are similar marks of honour (‘love’) for the Beloved Disciple if he is the host of the Last Supper.

[@richardfellows4734]

I agree that there are significant arguments that John Mark wrote the gospel of John. However, this does not mean that John Mark was the Mark mentioned by Papias. Mark was a very common name and praenomina (such as Mark) were commonly used by early Christians who left Palestine.

[@craigfairweather3401]

@ Name another Mark from the 1st century known to be a Christian preacher, or writer or leader. Name another Mark who is known to have had some connection with Jerusalem and might have a chance of being Peter’s helper as Papias believed. Much is speculative but mine has evidence.

[@richardfellows4734]

@@craigfairweather3401 Consider how many men called Luke/Lucius were prominent in the first century church. Then consider that the name Mark was twice as common as Lucius and that both are Latin Praenomina. Or consider the number of Gaiuses and that Mark was as common as Gaius. Such statistics should caution us against conflating Marks.

[@richardfellows4734]

@@craigfairweather3401 Many Christians from Palestine used Latin names, but not while they were in Palestine. Several used Latin praenomina. The name Mark was twice as common as Lucius/Luke, and it was as common as Gaius. Therefore we should expect to find multiple Marks in the NT.

[@kirbinator5000]

Good stuff!

[@The_Gypsy_Prince-y3v]

Eye whitnesses in the time that Luke wrote? So Luke and Mark where contemporary of Peter and they actually did write the gospels? They would have all been dead around that time that the gospels where written imo.

[@cenid2011]

Hebraidi dialektou: 'speech of the Hebrews.'

[@tookie36]

Papi!

[@dennythedavinchi3832]

In my mind, Papias did not exist. He is an imaginative character Iraneus invented. Papias means duck and it connotates 'holy' in ancient symbol. But naming the child name 'Duck' is awkward in the first place. Iranaeus probably never read any of the synoptic gospels even though he said there are only 4 genuine gospels including John.. That is why he brings awkward fake quotes of Papias to defend the genuity of the gospels.

[@francisgruber3638]

Peter comes off rather worse-the-wear in Mark's Gospel, and as the vicar of Christ in Matthew's Gospel. So, who is more likely Peter's spokesman?

[@kirbinator5000]

The attribution of the Gospel of Mark to Peter's Memoir, despite the gospel's occasional negative portrayal of Peter, can be justified by considering the apostle's character and the possible role of other contributors. Like Paul, who openly discussed his past persecution of the church (1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13-14), Peter may have chosen to include his own errors and shortcomings in the narrative to demonstrate his growth and the transformative power of his experience with Jesus. Alternatively, it's possible that Peter was the primary source behind the Gospel of Mark, but other servants of the Logia contributed to the narrative, adding details that were critical of Peter. This collaborative process would have allowed the gospel to present a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of the apostle's experiences. The Gospel of Matthew's more positive portrayal of Peter suggests that the source behind this gospel may have had a special affinity for Peter. This affinity could have influenced the author's selection and presentation of material, resulting in a more positive depiction of Peter compared to other gospel accounts. If you consider 1 Peter to be in any way associated with Peter (Papias did) then you’ll remember that Peter refers to Mark there as his son. But at this point we are both just throwing out ideas!

[@richardfellows4734]

@@kirbinator5000 It is revealing that GMark gets detailed only after Jesus arrives in Capernaum. John tells us that Peter was a disciple of Jesus for a long time before then. So doesn't GMark seem to be Levi-Matthew's account, not Peter's account?

[@francisgruber3638]

@@kirbinator5000 Thank you. "Servants of the Logia" : nice term. In all likelihood the gospels were more quilts of pericopes than blankets of theology; so amalgamation of complementary and contrasted pieces were early woven into the liturgical texts. For the assembly of the faithful, Jesus was present where the Word was proclaimed, so the Spirit inspired the communal process of worship that amalgamated and edited the canonical gospels as much as the authors themselves. We will never be able to fully excavate this dynamic process, and they could not have explained it either at the time. Appreciation more than explanation is the better theological response.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

This guest doesn't seem to know Greek very well. He pronounces all the words wrong.

[@vikingdemonpr]

He admits to his ignorance.

He says right off the bat he's not a bible scholar.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

his name is Dr. PETER Kirby, not Mark Kirby?

[@richardfellows4734]

No. His blog address is shown on his first slide.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@richardfellows4734 thanks - too bad it wasn't linked in the vid description. Dr. Edward M. Kirby is his name. Strange that he is called by his middle name in the vid title?

[@kirbinator5000]

Parents: Calling your child by his middle name will only lead to a lifetime of confusion.

[@DrWrapperband]

When the closest source to Mark is completely wrong what language it was written in, Greek, conveniently, for anyone trying prove the age of the Bible. Isn't the easiest answer that Papias was made up ~200AD to prove the age of the Gospels ?? .... There is no other record he existed.

[@tookie36]

Possibly. But papias may of been real and papias could of been wrong. Or papias was correct and our gospels are just different gospels

[@The_Gypsy_Prince-y3v]

Good point

[@conkergemini6489]

If we find he's lost book we might get answers. Or the Vatican already have it and they just stay quiet.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

Papias never quotes from the writings he is talking about. Papias was not pointing at Canonical Mark and Matthew and saying "Mark and Matthew wrote those." He just said books had been written by these characters, Mark and Matthew. Nothing he says about the writings he is talking about matches the Canonicals. It was Irenaeus over a Century later using Papias to try to identify the canonicals. None of the Gospels had names or titles attached to them until Irenaeus attached them. All of the Gospels were originally anonymous. So Papias existed and probably really wrote that stuff and probably really believed it, and possibly those writings even existed, but even if they did exist they are not the Canonical Gospels. That were erroneous designations by Irenaeus.

@@tookie36 Or Papias could have been lying. It's not like lying didn't exist then.

[@tim31415]

What ridiculous babbling over a few remaining Pappias scraps. No writer before Irenaeus knew anything of the canonical gospels. Martyr wrote hundreds of pages filled with clumsy paraphrases of sayings. Clement, Ignatius and Barnabas are all better sources for a later 2nd century gospel authorship.

[@neocount6397]

Calm yer tits 😘

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

see Marian Hillar's work on how Justin Martyr created the historical Jesus from Numenius.

[@simonj.1812]

Wow, tell me more about this, Numenius

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@simonj.1812 "This is stressed more when Justin, as if expanding Philo's theory of the two powers of God, and making reference to Numenius' Second God, insists on the identification of the Son with a Spirit (incorporeal Pneuma which was the essence, i.e., being and substance of divinity), therefore a separate being, and not only a power (i.e., an attribute) of God: "It is not right, therefore, to understand the Spirit [πεu/ma = Pneuma] and the Power [du,namij] of God as anything else than the Logos, who is also the First-begotten of God, as Moses, the previously mentioned Prophet, has stated." Justin speaks here as if he tried to correct some erroneous45 views being spread around. And he explains the identity of the Son using the common philosophical term of an intermediary between God and the visible world. The Logos Son is thus a pneumatic effluence from God which view will be confirmed by Justin in his treatment of the spermatic Logos. We learn that the First-begotten, the Son, is the Logos and a Spirit (Pneuma) and the Power of God. More explicitly and following Philo and the Middle Platonists directly, Justin teaches us that the Son is also the Power and the Logos: "The first power after God the Father and Lord of all things is the Logos [Word], who is also His Son, who assumed human flesh and became man in the manner which we shall presently explain." "And it was this Spirit46 [Pneuma] who came upon the virgin, overshadowed (or rather overpowered) her and, brought it about that she became pregnant, not by sexual intercourse, but by divine power." In the last47 statements Justin indicates that it was the Logos itself, and not the Holy Spirit (Holy Pneuma), as the Third Divinity, who was the agent of its own incarnation. " Marian Hillar - see his articles online for details. His book "From Logos to Trinity" is definitive.

[@Vic92084]

Your source does not say what you claim it says. All Hillar does is document the uncontroversial hypothesis that Justin interprets his Christianity through a Middle Platonist metaphysics. ​@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

[@ounkwon6442]

If they knew, what then?