The dominical logia (for Ulan).

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi, Ulan. That other thread was getting pretty complicated, so I thought I would start a new one for this topic.

The choice of "logia" for Matthew's writings also suggests a more Q-like document....

I used to think that, too, but I no longer think so. Papias uses the same term of Mark, as well; he says that Mark did not hear the Lord himself, but rather heard Peter, who taught to the needs of his listeners, but did not give an ordering of the dominical (lordly) oracles (logia). Yet Papias also describes Mark as having written down what he remembered from what the Lord had said and done; and that does sound a bit like our gospel of Mark, right? Both sayings and deeds? So it seems that, according to Papias, Peter delivered the dominical oracles orally, but not in order, and Mark wrote them down. (Matthew, on the other hand, wrote down the dominical oracles in order, and in Hebrew, and others interpreted as best they could.... Not exactly a ringing endorsement of any Greek Matthews out there.)

Also, do not forget that the title given to the five books of Papias themselves is Exegesis of the Lordly Oracles, and Papias deals with deeds as well as words.

I think what is happening is this: the term oracles means words, certainly, but is not implying a genre, because it is not just the words of the Lord, but also the words about the Lord. And words about the Lord can include events, or deeds.

That is how it seems to me, at any rate.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Well said.

[Secret Alias]

And if I may continue our original discussion here rather than there, I think you are only seeing one tradition emerging from Papias-Irenaeus. But I think that is an error. There is Papias's original claims (let's call them X) and then there is Irenaeus's development of that original statement into an argument related to the pre-existence of Matthew and Mark (at least before Irenaeus mentions them in Adv Haer 3). So my point would be - forget what Papias actually says for a moment. Irenaeus has to be claiming that Matthew (or 'ur-Matthew) stood behind Mark given the widespread familiarity with Papais's original statement.

[Peter Kirby]

Ya cuz Matthew was an early-azz apostlez and duh Mark wuz Peterzz interpreterz who made Gospel with notes after Peter got Nero'd... #MatthewFirst

(This is how I read patristic tradition sometimes. I find that it helps.)

[Secret Alias]

Well on one level Irenaeus gives this supernatural argument later in Book Three with the four winds and Four Tops and all that. But that wouldn't have convinced anyone in antiquity. Literary criticism was developed sufficiently in antiquity to make it absolutely certain that contemporaries would have been convinced that there was literary borrowing between evangelists. The word parallels and phraseology would have made it obvious that some sort of borrowing took place. And other statements in Irenaeus suggest the same thing. Look at Adv Haer 1.8 and the business about the heretical gospels 'moving around' stories from their original position. The allegory is a mosaic of a king being reshaped into a dog or wolf. There is an eerie similarity again with Papias statement about things 'in the wrong order.'

[Ben C. Smith]

Irenaeus has to be claiming that Matthew (or 'ur-Matthew) stood behind Mark given the widespread familiarity with Papais's original statement.

Would that claim not completely undercut what Irenaeus really wants to be true regarding the gospels? I mean, I think he wants Mark to be based on Peter, Luke to be based on Paul and other apostles, and the other two to be based on their own personal experiences. I think that, even if he personally knows that there was copying going on between them, he would not want it to be so, and probably would not claim it.

We have his claims. He repeats them several times. None that I know of state or imply that Mark copied Matthew or vice versa.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Celsus, slightly before Irenaeus, just says it flat out: they rewrote their gospels three, four, etc. times. He alleges they had to be rewritten over and over to iron out contradictions (thus meaning that a gospel harmony might have been known to him?).

Celsus does not, however, give any clues about which supposedly has priority, except that he seems to believe the more-harmonized ones might be later.

[Ben C. Smith]

Celsus, slightly before Irenaeus, just says it flat out: they rewrote their gospels three, four, etc. times. He alleges they had to be rewritten over and over to iron out contradictions (thus meaning that a gospel harmony might have been known to him?).

Celsus does not, however, give any clues about which supposedly has priority, except that he seems to believe the more-harmonized ones might be later.

Celsus has nothing to lose (and something to gain) from such an arrangement. Irenaeus, I think, stands to lose from it.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Celsus does not, however, give any clues about which supposedly has priority, except that he seems to believe the more-harmonized ones might be later.

If my only criterion for priority and posteriority were that the more harmonious ones were posterior, I would be hard-pressed to recreate the order Celsus has in mind.

[Peter Kirby]

Celsus, slightly before Irenaeus, just says it flat out: they rewrote their gospels three, four, etc. times. He alleges they had to be rewritten over and over to iron out contradictions (thus meaning that a gospel harmony might have been known to him?).

Celsus does not, however, give any clues about which supposedly has priority, except that he seems to believe the more-harmonized ones might be later.

Celsus has nothing to lose (and something to gain) from such an arrangement. Irenaeus, I think, stands to lose from it.

Oh, right. I tend to agree with your interpretation of Irenaeus here.