reblogged from Barts Blog
I have discussed Papias a number of times on the blog in the past, but have not given any substantial time to him in a about a year and a half. He is an important figure for historians of early Christianity, because, as I pointed out in my previous post, he was a proto-orthodox author from the first part of the second century. More than anything, conservative biblical scholars have latched on to Papias because in their opinion he provides direct evidence that the Gospel of Matthew really was written by Matthew, and the Gospel of Mark was really written by Mark. I’ll be dealing with the evidence from Papias on both matters in subsequent posts. 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…..
Before discussing what Papias says about the two Gospel-writers that do get mentioned in the surviving fragments, I need to explain why it is that his witness is often taken to be so important. The first reason is that he is writing so early in the tradition. Scholars debate when his writings were produced, but usually they are dated between 110-140. Some scholars (conservative evangelicals, for the most part) date him much earlier (that dating makes him more convenient for their purposes); no one really dates him much later. But suppose his Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord were written in, say 120 or 130. This would be the earliest commentary on Jesus’ sayings. That would be significant. Especially if we actually had the book.
But the other reason that his witness is taken to be important is because he himself, in one of his fragments, indicates that he had a direct line of transmission back to the apostles of Jesus, so that his claims about who they were and what they did are highly authorized by someone who would know.
This is what he says:
“I also will not hesitate to draw up for you, along with these expositions, an orderly account of all the things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth. For unlike most people, I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth, and not those who recalled commandments from strangers, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself
But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice.”
This passage from Papias is often cited in order to show that he could trace a direct lineage to what the apostles of Jesus themselves were saying, that even though he was not himself an eyewitness (or rather, earwitness) to what the apostles said, he was as close to an earwitness as we could possibly hope for. Some scholars have somewhat incautiously maintained that Papias actually knew some of Jesus’ own disciples. But that’s not at all what this passage says.
What it says is that Papias would on occasion speak with people who were “companions” of the “elders.” These “elders” were followers of the “apostles.” Work this out carefully. Papias is not claiming to have heard what he learned from Jesus or the apostles themselves. Or from the followers of the apostles. He has talked to those who were companions of the followers (“elders”) of the apostles. In other words, Papias has gotten his traditions about Jesus fourth-hand, not first or second hand.
The sequence goes like this Jesus (the figure in question) → apostles → elders → companions of the elders → Papias → us. When we listen to Papias, we do not have access directly to Jesus or his apostles. We’re getting it fifth-hand.
A lot can happen to traditions that exchange hands. As I will be arguing in a future book (the next one I’ll be writing, gods willing), eyewitness reports cannot be relied on to give us accurate information about something that happened. If we could always trust eyewitnesses to get something right, then we would have no need for a legal system. If a crime was committed, and someone saw it, we would simply ask them what they saw and convict the criminal accordingly. What need of a trial? We have an eyewitness!
The problem is that eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. So are earwitnesses. And in the sequence I sketched above, Papias is not getting anything from earwitnesses. The earwitnesses were the apostles. They told things about Jesus to others, the elders, who are earwitnesses not of Jesus but of the apostles. These elders then told some of what they heard, or thought they heard, to their companions, who are then earwitnesses not of Jesus but of earwitnesses of the earwitnesses of Jesus. And when Papias then heard what he heard, he was an earwitness to the earwitnesses of the earwitnesses of the earwitnesses to Jesus.
Put in this way, given what we know about ear- and eyewitnesses, some of our sanguine hopes of Papias being able to relay historically accurate materials are somewhat deflated. But this isn’t just a theoretical matter. There are clear and certain reasons for thinking that whatever Papias heard from his informants, or at least says he heard, it was not historically reliable material. That will matter, because it is Papias who first claims that Matthew and Mark wrote Gospels.
Categories: Christianity, History
Blogging Theology 
Please leave a Reply