Why Papias cannot be trusted

[T. E. Smith]

The traditional ascriptions for the Gospels are based on very shaky ground indeed: the testimony of one man, Papias. Papias wrote ~60 years after Mark wrote, too long to be a good source. But Papias cannot be trusted even without considering this date.

1. Eusebius thought that Papias was "a man of little intelligence" (H.E. 3:39:12–13). Eusebius wrote the most important source we have on the early church. Believers generally accept his words without much question, and his credibility is well-attested even among non-believers.
2. Papias acknowledged he wrote on hearsay.
   

   But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

   (emphasis mine) So here we see that Papias explicitly admits that his testimony comes only from the elders, that is, the apostles - but wait, not even from the elders, but rather from "anyone who had attended on the elders". His information is thirdhand, and he cannot verify it or even cite specific people who attended on the elders.
3. He was wrong on what language Matthew wrote in. He says,
   

   Therefore Matthew put the logia [book, words] in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.

   Of course, we have the New Testament in Greek, not Hebrew. It's vaguely possible he wrote in Hebrew and it was translated to Greek. But scholars are agreed from numerous clues in the text that Matthew wrote in Greek. For example, conservative scholar D. A. Carson writes,
   

   There was also a persistent tradition that it was written originally not in Greek but in Hebrew or Aramaic. Both of these traditions are doubted by most modern scholars. The Greek of the gospel as we know it does not read like 'translation Greek', and the close literary relationship of Matthew with the (Greek) gospels of Mark and Luke makes its origin in any other language unlikely.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The traditional ascriptions for the Gospels are based on very shaky ground indeed: the testimony of one man, Papias. Papias wrote ~60 years after Mark wrote, too long to be a good source. But Papias cannot be trusted even without considering this date.

1. Eusebius thought that Papias was "a man of little intelligence" (H.E. 3:39:12–13). Eusebius wrote the most important source we have on the early church. Believers generally accept his words without much question, and his credibility is well-attested even among non-believers.
2. Papias acknowledged he wrote on hearsay.
   
   (emphasis mine) So here we see that Papias explicitly admits that his testimony comes only from the elders, that is, the apostles - but wait, not even from the elders, but rather from "anyone who had attended on the elders". His information is thirdhand, and he cannot verify it or even cite specific people who attended on the elders.
3. He was wrong on what language Matthew wrote in. He says,
   
   Of course, we have the New Testament in Greek, not Hebrew. It's vaguely possible he wrote in Hebrew and it was translated to Greek. But scholars are agreed from numerous clues in the text that Matthew wrote in Greek. For example, conservative scholar D. A. Carson writes,

This is nonsense.

It would have to logivally follow, then that EVERYBODY who came after Papias spoke in "hearsay" or "thirdhand" because all of the Apostoles were DEAD.

As to your objections about Papias's claim regarding Mathhew's Gospel being originally written in Hebrew - this is NOT a wacky proposition. He is not the ONLY scholar in history to have proposed this. Besides - the ONLY way to prove one way or another is to produce an original autograph - but NONE exists.

Does Eusebius hold Irenaeus in the same light as Papias?
Irenaeus ALSO arote that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew (Agaijst Heresies, AD 180). I don't know of a single scholar - living or dead who would say that Irenaeus was a "simpletom" or was NOT to be trusted.

Finally - Eusebius himself stated that
“Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue (Aramaic), so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

 

[T. E. Smith]

This is nonsense.

It would have to logivally follow, then that EVERYBODY who came after Papias spoke in "hearsay" or "thirdhand" because all of the Apostoles were DEAD.

As to your objections about Papias's claim regarding Mathhew's Gospel being originally written in Hebrew - this is NOT a wacky proposition. He is not the ONLY scholar in history to have proposed this. Besides - the ONLY way to prove one way or another is to produce an original autograph - but NONE exists.

Does Eusebius hold Irenaeus in the same light as Papias?
Irenaeus ALSO arote that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew (Agaijst Heresies, AD 180). I don't know of a single scholar - living or dead who would say that Irenaeus was a "simpletom" or was NOT to be trusted.

Finally - Eusebius himself stated that
“Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue (Aramaic), so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

Only "evidence" for the idea is from early church testimony. No other evidence, nothing textual certainly. It is a fringe opinion among scholars. Translations tend to bear certain nuances and strange signs that original works do not exhibit. Irenaeus wrote long after, and he probably just is depending on Papias. Eusebius' statement about "native tongue" is not clearly referring to Aramaic. It seems he's saying that Matthew wrote the gospel in the language of the Gentiles - Greek.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Only "evidence" for the idea is from early church testimony. No other evidence, nothing textual certainly. It is a fringe opinion among scholars. Translations tend to bear certain nuances and strange signs that original works do not exhibit. Irenaeus wrote long after, and he probably just is depending on Papias. Eusebius' statement about "native tongue" is not clearly referring to Aramaic. It seems he's saying that Matthew wrote the gospel in the language of the Gentiles - Greek.

WRONG.

Matthew was a Jew anbd an Apostle whose native tongue ewas Aramaic.
Greek was the linhgua franca of commerce, intellect and otherwise public communication in the 1st century Eastern Mediterranean Region. Eusebius's comment was about Mathhew's native tongue - NOT the language if the Gentiles.

 

[T. E. Smith]

WRONG.



Matthew was a Jew anbd an Apostle whose native tongue ewas Aramaic.

Greek was the linhgua franca of commerce, intellect and otherwise public communication in the 1st century Eastern Mediterranean Region. Eusebius's comment was about Mathhew's native tongue - NOT the language if the Gentiles.

I don't accept the traditional authorships. That was the point of the thread.

 

[Mosheli]

I've never seen any other attributions for the authorship of the 4 gospels?
John is certainly in agreement with the 3 letters and Revelation to assume/presume same authorship. And we have fragments dating back to almost John's old age death date.
I assume the Athanasian creed, Nicaea council, Jerome, etc support the authorships too?
We can also rule out other authors by all the apocryphal gospels because there wouldn't be two gospels by same alleged authors?
Matthew/Levi as a publican and maybe a Levite is also qualified as a gospel writer, and as one to Hebrews/Jews/Levites (whether or not in Hebrew or Aramaic).
Luke also wrote 2 or 3 books including Luke & Acts, so authorship is abit more certain.

I agree that early Roman "church" writings are not reliable though.

Some scholar propose the first gospel was oral Aramaic one similar to Mark.

The Middle East language was Aramaic (Daniel) then Greek (Jesus) then Arabic (Islam). Greek is well suited as language of NT because Greek has good words & cases for expressing exact meanings of certain things. Also Greek might have been prophesied as language of NT because in Genesis 10 Elishah means "God + salvation". Though the INRI was in 3 of the 4 biblical world languages, so the gospels could have been written in Hebrew as well as in Greek. And since Jerusalem/Israel is always first center in biblical world one or more of the gospels may well have been in Hebrew first. Matthew "was to Hebrews", Mark/Peter "to Romans", Luke/Paul "to Greeks", John "to world/Greek-world", and interestingly the beatitudes in Matthew are more, in Luke less, in Mark least.

The bible skip code might also confirm. Or maybe there are anagrams/acrostics in the books.

I'm not sure about the common view that Mark (or a Q gospel) was written first and the others including Matthew afterwards. Not sure if the 4 gospels have always been in the same order since they have been in one same book/manuscript/text/scroll/roll?

I wouldn't put much trust in opinions of "most scholars". Heaps of times I've seen experts or majority have been wrong or lying.

 

[Mosheli]

There was certainly a gospel of Jesus according to Matthew in Hebrew because there is a Talmud tract titled exact same words and Matthew 1:1.
Matthew:
Sepher toledot Yeshua HaMessiah ...
Talmud:
Sefer toldot Yeshu HaNotsri ...

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't accept the traditional authorships. That was the point of the thread.

Yes, well, that's a moot point - given the fact that there are NO original autographs in existence.
All we have are fragments, copies - and testimonies.

 

[Illuminator]

I don't accept the traditional authorships. That was the point of the thread.

No, the point of the OP is to sow seeds of doubt on the early Church Fathers' writings. We look to their general consensus as reasonable indications of authentic beliefs and practices. We don't pay attention to a few words taken out of context or quotes from obscure sources that cannot be found on line.

 

[Marymog]

The traditional ascriptions for the Gospels are based on very shaky ground indeed: the testimony of one man, Papias. Papias wrote ~60 years after Mark wrote, too long to be a good source. But Papias cannot be trusted even without considering this date.....

TE....Your theory makes no sense. You made it clear that you reject Papias (even though Scholars disagree with you). He was taught by an Apostle and interviewed people who spoke to Apostles. You reject him and his credentials but then you accept what Eusebius wrote almost 300 years later? Weird theory....None the less:

Who do you accept that is not "on very shaky ground"?

Curious Mary

 

[Illuminator]

I don't accept the traditional authorships. That was the point of the thread.

Based on the dating difficulties and other problems, many scholars and researchers over the centuries have become convinced that the gospels were not written by the people to whom they are ascribed. (because the gospels were first received orally.) As can be concluded from the remarks of fundamentalist Christian and biblical scholar Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, the gospels are in fact anonymous.[3] Indeed, the belief in the authorship of the gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is a matter of faith, as such an opinion is not merited in light of detailed textual and historical analysis. In reality, it was a fairly common practice in ancient times to attribute falsely to one person a book or letter written by another or others, and this pseudepigraphical attribution of authorship* was especially rampant with religious texts, occurring with several Old Testament figures and early Church fathers, for example, as well as with known forgeries in the name of characters from the New Testament such as the Gospel of Peter, et al.
When Were the Gospels Written? - Stellar House Publishing
*pseudepigraphical attribution of authorship was intended as a compliment to the apparent author, not plagiarism. The real authors had no deceit in mind.

Briefly, therefore, the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by more than 500 eyewitnesses, whose experience, simplicity, and uprightness of life rendered them incapable of inventing such a fable, who lived at a time when any attempt to deceive could have been easily discovered, who had nothing in this life to gain, but everything to lose by their testimony, whose moral courage exhibited in their apostolic life can be explained only by their intimate conviction of the objective truth of their message. Again the fact of Christ's Resurrection is attested by the eloquent silence of the Synagogue which had done everything to prevent deception, which could have easily discovered deception, if there had been any, which opposed only sleeping witnesses to the testimony of the Apostles, which did not punish the alleged carelessness of the official guard, and which could not answer the testimony of the Apostles except by threatening them "that they speak no more in this name to any man" (Acts 4:17). Finally the thousands and millions, both Jews and Gentiles, who believed the testimony of the Apostles in spite of all the disadvantages following from such a belief, in short the origin of the Church, requires for its explanation the reality of Christ's Resurrection, for the rise of the Church without the Resurrection would have been a greater miracle than the Resurrection itself.​

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Is that reason enough for ya???

 

[theefaith]

Early church testimony is of those who are witnesses of Christ! Acts 1:8

the church shall prevail Matt 16:18-19
And “is” the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15

Jesus Christ extends his mission, power, and authority to His church of His apostles!

Even His judging!
Matt 19:28 and 1 cor 6:2
His teaching authority!
Matt 28:19 and Jn 20:21
His power to forgive sins!
Jn 20:23
His being the light of the world!
Matt 5:14
His ministry of reconciliation!
2 cor 5:18
His authority in governing the church and administering the kingdom!
Matt 16:18-19 & 18:18 Jn 21:17
Lk 22:29
Apart from me you can do nothing. Jn 15:5
So the church is subject to Christ!
Eph 5:24
Christ shares His glory! 2 thes 1:10 rev 12:1


Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Matt 18:17 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 9:4 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20 acts 2:42 1 Tim 3:15

Fundamentalism drives a wedge between Christ and his church, separates Christ from His kingdom, and the authority of Christ from the new covenant!

1 Corinthians 16:22
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema

Extends to the truth and the church

Cos Christ is the truth and His church teaches the truth without error! Jn 14:6 matt 28:19 matt 18:17 1 Tim 3:15 Jn 29:21-23 Jn 16:13

Christ and His church are one! Acts 9:4 eph 5:32

Authority of the Apostles!

What authority does Christ have?
What power does Christ have?
What mission / ministry does Christ have?

Peter, the apostles and their successors have the same authority, power, and mission! Jn 20:21 as my father sent me, even so send I you!

John 17:18
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

The apostles are Christ’s successors!
They have authority to send others as well, apostle means one who is sent!

Therefore the apostles have authority to send more apostles or successors!
Apostolic succession!

The nations still need to be taught, disciples still need to be baptized and the church the new covenant kingdom of christ still needs to be governed!

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

Christ is an apostle, and has authority to send other apostles, the apostles also have this authority, so the apostles continue down thru the centuries as Christ promised! Matt 28:19-20

Keys of authority! And power to bind and loose! Matt 16:18 and Matt 18:18 matt 28:19 Isa 22:21-22

Moral authority:
(Teaching)
Necessity of being taught by Christ:
Two edge sword: defining truth and condemning errors, and Interpreting scripture.

Jurisdictional authority:
(Governing / administering)
Necessity of Peter and the apostles and their successors to govern the holy church.

Spiritual authority:
(Life of Grace)
Sanctifying thru the mass and Sacraments

The apostles teaching is Christ’s teaching, Christ and His church are one! Acts 9:4

Christian rule of faith is not the Bible alone! But the doctrine of the apostles! Acts 2:42

Jesus Christ continues HIS ministry in His new covenant church thru Peter, the apostles, and their successors with the same mission, power, and authority!
Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Acts 1:17 acts 8:31 & 35 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 eph 2:20