Let's make a list of 'mistakes' or misrepresentations of Papias found in Irenaeus.
1.
https://books.google.com/books?id=zj02A ... as&f=false
2. Watson notes that the statement in Irenaeus - "then John the disciple of the Lord who reclined upon his breast likewise produced a gospel while living in Ephesus" is derived from a misrepresentation of Papias. Watson writes "Irenaeus is here dependent on Papias. Papias speaks of the Elder John along with Aristion as “disciples of the Lord,” and Irenaeus identifies this “disciple of the Lord” with the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the putative author of the fourth gospel (cf. Jn. 13.23; 21.24). Papias, however, shows no knowledge of this text.
3. Watson also notes that Irenaeus also changes what Papias reports about the oracles of the Lord. "Irenaeus's claim that Matthew was written “among the Hebrews in their own language” echoes Papias's claim that Matthew “set the sayings in order in the Hebrew language.” The only difference is that Irenaeus uses the term “gospel” to refer to a written text whereas Papias does not.
4. With regards to Mark, Watson notes that Irenaeus mirrors some of what Papias says about Mark but reshapes it for his own purposes.
Watson writes "For Irenaeus, Mark is “the disciple and translator of Peter.” The second term derives directly from Papias; the first echoes his reference to Mark as “following” Peter. Irenaeus not only takes over Papias's view of Mark as based on Peter's preaching, he also asserts a similar relationship between Luke and Paul." Irenaeus introduces the gospel of Luke as a mirror of Mark's relationship with Peter. But this is yet another example of Irenaeus taking Papias and remolding it for his own purposes. There likely was no Luke before Irenaeus. So he gets the idea for Luke from Papias. I strongly suspect he invents Luke. But it has a strong resemblance to the sudden appearance of the gospel of John. Both texts likely were fabricated in some form by Irenaeus but created from the fabric of the worldview presented by Papias.
https://books.google.com/books?id=hCh9k ... as&f=false
It might be worth citing Watson's observations in what follows:
In view of Irenaeus's dependence on Papias, the differences between them are striking. According to Papias, Mark wrote first and Matthew wrote to remedy his defects. According to Irenaeus, Matthew wrote first. His gospel may be dated during the ministry of Peter and Paul in Rome, about which Papias has nothing to say, and it was only “after their departure” that gospels were written by followers of Peter and Paul who recollected their preaching. Papias's defence of Mark against his critics has disappeared. Luke and John have been added to Matthew and Mark — or, on Papias's order, to Mark and Matthew. The choice of this order may acknowledge that the two gospels known to Papias are likely to have been the earliest ... Papias associates the inadequacy specifically with Mark, and considers that it was rectified by Matthew. In both cases, the perceived problem of order seems to derive from the existence of more than one gospel. Luke speaks of “many,” Papias of Mark and Matthew. If, as Papias believes, the Markan disorder is rectified by Matthew, it is presumably the Matthean order that creates the impression of Markan disorder.32 This impression, together with the elaborate defence it occasions, stems not from the Markan narrative as such but from its juxtaposition with Matthew. It seems that early readers of the two gospels were puzzled especially by differences of sequence. Mark was written first, and Matthew has reproduced much of the same material but in a significantly different order. A possible conclusion is that is reliable in this respect while the other is not. That is actually the consensus position presupposed in Papias's qualified defence of Mark. Indeed, Papias's claim that Markan order is unreliable, but that this defect was corrected by Matthew, assumes that it was Matthew who exposed the unreliability of Markan order in the first place.33 This assumption reflects a period when Matthew had begun to establish a dominant position in the life of some churches.
I have been thinking about Watson's interpretation for some time. At the very least it exposes that Irenaeus's efforts to make Matthew the first gospel are a gross misinterpretation or misrepresentation of Papias.
5. Schoedel (Schoedel, The Fragments, 89–90) doubted that Irenaeus had any real contact with Polycarp. Consequently, he argued that Irenaeus's “misunderstanding” of the apostle John was based upon his misreading Papias. It is worth noting that even when Irenaeus says that he knew Polycarp it turns out to be a passing 'witness' when he was a little boy which is brought up to counter Florinus (the Roman priest)'s acknowledged closeness to Polycarp.
6. Moreover Irenaeus goes from Papias's conscious distinction between two Johns (the elder and the apostle) and makes there to be one John - another deliberate mistake. But at the same time he often 'forgets' and reports that John died at the end of the first century but still that Polycarp met John the apostle. As Badham notes:
What grounds could Irenaeus have had for identifying the Ephesian John, who survived "till the time of Trajan" (i. e., later than 98 A. D.), with the homonymous apostle ? In the first place, he had before him the works of Papias; but then we find Eusebius in exactly the same position, drawing a precisely opposite conclusion. And it is difficult to see how and why Papias, if he had, or had had, an apostle of the first rank within reach, should have bothered himself at all with second-hand reports about other apostles ; or have had any need of the care and scrupulosity in weighing evidence with which he credits himself. In the second place, Irenaeus had his own personal recollection of Polycarp's discourses. But what was this worth ? In his own words, he was iv rrj wpiorrj ij/uSv r/XiKia, en mils <5v; and though it has been pointed out that these expressions do not necessarily exclude the idea of manhood, that cannot be said of their context. Irenaeus insists on the fact, as something remarkable, that he can even remember the place where Polycarp used to sit, and what was his appearance; and though he professes to remember the gist of Polycarp's discourses, he contents himself with giving a single direct quotation. We may conclude, then, that Irenaeus was about twelve. But, even granting two or three years more, how much does a man remember of the sermons heard at such an age? A few disjointed sentences of Polycarp's, a general impression of appeals to the name of John — that is all that reason warrants our ascribing to Irenaeus.
More especially might a hearer of Polycarp's have made a mistake as to identity, if Polycarp referred to John his master as having seen Jesus. The
last man who could say "I saw Jesus" must, in the ordinary course of nature, have been one who saw him in childhood; and in such a case there
is nothing improbable in survival "till the time of Trajan." One cannot, indeed, lay very much stress on the expressions in i John i : i ; for what
the writer says that he has "seen" and "handled" is not the person of Jesus, but "concerning the Word of life," the Logos invisible and intangible. And Origen's comment suggests itself: "No one is so foolish as not to see that the word 'hands' is taken figuratively, as when John says, 'our hands have handled.' " 27 But there is really much in favor of the idea that John the elder had seen Christ in childhood. The commanding position which he attained requires some exceptional qualification; and, however little of real value his memory might retain, still, if he had seen with his eyes, and handled with his hands, that fact would ultimately set him quite apart. Moreover, to those who had seen Christ in childhood would last be applied the cherished promise, "Some standing here who shall not taste of death." One can understand how, after a century's mist, such a figure would have loomed into apostolic proportions.
To sum up, then, with regard to Irenaeus: Florinus, whom he attacked, might well have replied: ""You say that you knew Polycarp, who knew John, who knew Jesus. If for 'knew' you substitute 'saw', I may admit your statement; but the link in all three cases is vitiated by youth, or childhood. It is the rare exception if a child ever realizes those points on which in later life information appears most desirable; and however incapable you may beof conscious dishonesty, what you are doing with your pretended traditional succession puts you, for practical purposes, almost on a par with those impostors who found their systems on some Glaucias, interpreter of Peter, or Mariamne, disciple of James, or Theodates, disciple of
Paul."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote