If Matthew and Mark were not names already connected with what Papias was reading, then why:JoeWallack wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 3:16 pmNote that everything here is consistent with Papias being aware of GMark/GMatthew, but not knowing them as "Gospel of Mark"/"Gospel of Matthew", not considering them authoritative and not referring to them with his identification of Matthew and Mark authors:
- 1) he insists to show knowledge about who Matthew was and about who Mark was.
- 2) he insists to give weight to oral tradition, in function to give weight to these same Gospels.
- To co-opt these Gospels being already known as "according to Mark" and "according to Matthew"
- To sanitize them by framing them within the comforting oral tradition.
I think that it is also the Eusebius's reason to quote Papias.
Hence in virtue of this only, Papias has to be dated in a time when GMark and GMatthew were already authoritative: only, they were not so authoritative or comforting works for a proto-catholic like Papias (especially if considered as two Gospels in conflict among them: as de facto it is the case).