Really did not Papias consider Matthew and Mark as already authoritative?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 7463
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Really did not Papias consider Matthew and Mark as already authoritative?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat May 11, 2019 11:21 pm

I like put in doubt the following claim:
JoeWallack wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Note 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:
If Matthew and Mark were not names already connected with what Papias was reading, then why:
  • 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.
Papias's emphasis on the names of Mark and Matthew is not in conflict with the his emphasis on oral tradition. Both are designed deliberately :
  • 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.
Hence I think that Papias's goal is to show GMark and GMatthew as coming from the same community (sic) and confirmed/sanitized by the same "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).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply