Papias of Hierapolis- by Kevin Rogers

Papias (c 60 AD to c 130 AD) was bishop of Hierapolis in western Turkey. He provides the first extant record about the authorship of the gospels and the manner of Christian oral tradition. His writings are highly debated and controversial, as they impinge on basic questions such as
• Who wrote the gospels?
• Are the gospels based on eye-witness sources?
• Are the gospels an accurate record of what Jesus said and did?

[@edwardkim8972]

First commenter after three years! Yay!
Anyways, I think there is a lot of misinterpretation of Papias going on. I also think Eusebius was correct in his low assessment of Papias. He clearly believed he was credible regarding Gospel tradition, but other than that had a bad opinion of him. You would think that those five books regarding the commentary on the Lord's oracles would have been preserved if they were worth preserving, but they were not. That's telling in and of itself.
I think the Expositions on the Sayings of the Lord had too much weird premillennial stuff in it. Especially, stuff that made heaven uncomfortability materialistic. What is that one passage from that work which summarized the whole work? Something about John the Elder saying that that Jesus said that each grape vine having a thousand shoots and each one of those shoots having a thousand more?
There's also that time when Papias thought that Judas Iscariot was still alive walking around like a decaying and bloated corpse? It sounds like Papias had some (probably embarrassing) hetrothodox views, to say the least. No wonder although he is quoted, nobody considers him a pillar Apostolic Father. He isn't mentioned in the same breath as Polycarp, Clement or Ignatius. Whenever anyone mentions Papias it's always about what he wrote on how the Gospels were composed and no other opinion from him is taken seriously.
Despite these issues with Papias I do think what he said about how the Gospels were compiled was generally accurate. Perhaps more accurate than what even Jerome or Justin Martyr said. Let's just take a look at what he said about Matthew. Tellingly, Papias never said Matthew wrote a full on gospel, but he wrote down the "oracles" of the Lord in an organized (maybe?) way. That just doesn't seem like an organized biography, with narration, like Luke, Mark or John. If he did, then wouldn't Papias have said "bios" instead of "logias"? The word "logias" is not typically used to describe a work like the Gospel of Matthew.
I personally believe there was a "Proto-Matthew" likely in Aramaic, that was penned by the Apostle Matthew himself and that was the work that Papias says "was written in a [dialect of] Hebrew and everyone interpreted as best they could." Other groups took this Proto-Matthew and used it to compose the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Gospel to the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, i.e. the more "Jewish" offshots. IMHO Proto-Matthew is probably the 55% of the Gospel of Matthew that doesn't seem to borrow from Mark. Proto-Matthew and Mark also may have had some overlaps too.
However, the version of the Gospel that eventually became the "Gospel of Matthew" is the Gospel of the Disciples quoted extensively in the Didache. 92% of the Gospel quotes in the Didache is from Matthew, but the Didache never called it the Gospel of Matthew. They called it the Gospel of the Disciples instead. That might have been the original name of the Gospel of Matthew. What is described as the Gospel of the Disciples in the Didache was probably renamed to the Gospel of Matthew in the late first or early 2nd century, just after the composition and distribution of the Didache.
The reason why the Gospel of the Disciples was renamed to the Gospel of Matthew is probably to counter heterodox Jewish-Christian heresies out there and give it greater Apostolic authority. However, this was not meant to be deceptive as the portion of the Gospel of Matthew NOT dependent on Mark was probably from Proto-Matthew, so it still is the Gospel "according to" Matthew.

[@ReasonableFaithSA]

Well congratulations on the first comment. This actually surprises me as I thought there were previous comments. I have suspected that sometimes something goes wrong with RUclips and it occasionally drops them.
I think a lot of your comments are quite plausible.
An obvious question to ask is 'Why would Matthew copy Mark if he was an eye-witness?' Your theory would address this question.
It is common for writings to be lost, and many scholars regret that the expositions were lost, even if some of its content is dodgy.
According to chatGPT 'The Greek term used by Papias for "sayings" or "logia" in his work is "λογίων" (logiōn), which is the plural form of "λόγιον" (logion). This term refers to brief sayings, maxims, or teachings attributed to Jesus or other early Christian figures. Papias is often noted for his interest in collecting and recording these sayings of Jesus,...
In modern scholarship, there is ongoing debate about the accuracy and fairness of Eusebius's portrayal of Papias. Some scholars believe that Eusebius may have had theological motivations for downplaying Papias's contributions, while others argue that Eusebius's concerns about certain aspects of Papias's teachings were valid.
Did John the Elder saying that that Jesus said that each grape vine having a thousand shoots and each one of those shoots having a thousand more?
Yes, Papias is often cited as attributing a saying about vines and grapes to "John the Elder" in his work "Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord." This saying is sometimes referred to as the "Thousand-Year Reign of Christ" or the "Millennium." In this saying, it is suggested that Jesus taught that in the future kingdom of God, each vine would have a thousand branches, and each branch would have a thousand shoots, and each shoot would produce a thousand clusters of grapes, and each grape would yield a vast quantity of wine.
I think the point of what he was saying was that the millenium would be a time of flourishing.
Anyway, thank you for your comments and interest. Best wishes.

[@edwardkim8972]

@@ReasonableFaithSA did you use ChatGPT to partially answer my comment?
Actually, ChatGPT is an underrated helper, particularly in Biblical scholarship.
Anyways, regarding your defense of Papias I already addressed that multifold in my past comment:
1) Papias is rolled out when you need an early witness to the composition of the NT Gospels and nothing else. He isn't quoted for anything else by the Church Fathers beyond that. That is telling IMHO.
2) Eusebius, in support of his low opinion of Papias, cites as evidence the passage where Papias recites the teaching of the shoots of vines. Eusebius thus implies that the five volume work of the "Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord" is just more of the same.
3) Other allusions by Eusebius of Papias' teachings clearly display his discomfort in Papias' overemphasis on the material plentifulness of heaven, especially in a time where the Church was also teaching that people should be comfortable with a life of poverty and poverty alleviation.
And regarding my thoughts on the potential of a "proto-Matthew" before the Gospel of Matthew it's an emerging field that has some very strong conservative scholarship backers at this time, including, but not limited to:
1) Richard Bauckham
2) Stephen Boyce
3) Dan Wallace

[@ReasonableFaithSA]

@@edwardkim8972 Yes I did use chatGPT. I am a fan. It quickly scans a wide range of information sources and saves a huge amount of time. You can quickly detect if someone is talking BS. It is no means perfect, but this is mainly because of what people feed it. I have quesstioned it on my own research. It was about 75% correct and did not cite me even though I am a major player in my field. It is also politically correct, reflecting the bias of the humans behind it, but you can drill down and ask pertinent questions and find out the truth. I also find it helpful on understanding the NT Greek and for providing a range of theological interpretations of the text.
I checked you out, and what you have said is quite reasonable.

[@edwardkim8972]

@@ReasonableFaithSA I don't know if ChatGPT is woke or if it doesn't want to offend anybody. It won't criticize Christianity or theism, for example.

[@edwardkim8972]

@@ReasonableFaithSA a little info about me. I have no theological background. I have BAs in Economics and Political Science and a Masters in Business. Early Christian history and basic textual criticism is just a hobby of mine.