The fragments and testimonia of Papias’s Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord [Λογίων Kυριακῶν Ὲξήγησις] contain a number of terms whose precise meaning remains elusive, among them, auditor, presbuteroi, hermēneutēs, and parakoloutheō. These terms, and the oral-traditional ideology in which they occur, are illuminated by comparison with the terminology associated with the Pharisees and preserved in early rabbinic writings. More broadly, the ideology of received tradition preserved in the latter sources offers a better analogue to Papias’s enterprise than does Hellenistic historiography, as Bauckham has influentially argued. In addition, Papias’s explanation that he set out to collect and order the sayings of the Lord from certified tradents, marks him as an important but heretofore largely unrecognized precursor to the rabbinic establishment of the Mishnah.
Yadin-Israel starts off by noting
Paradosis [παραδόσεις]
The most important term for understanding Papias’s conception of tradition is “tradition” itself, παράδοσις. According to Eusebius, Papias “sets forth the traditions (παραδόσεις)” ... Most important for the present analysis is Eusebius’s assertion that a teaching reached Papias “from an unwritten tradition (ἐκ παραδόσεως αγράφου).”
The most important term for understanding Papias’s conception of tradition is “tradition” itself, παράδοσις. According to Eusebius, Papias “sets forth the traditions (παραδόσεις)” ... Most important for the present analysis is Eusebius’s assertion that a teaching reached Papias “from an unwritten tradition (ἐκ παραδόσεως αγράφου).”
Deuterōsis
A close relative of παράδοσις, δευτέρωσις is associated with Papias by Jerome, who writes: “Hic dicitur mille annorum Iudaicam edidisse δευτέρωσιν . . .” (“He is said to have propagated the Jewish tradition of the millennium”).
What immediately stands out here is Jerome’s use of a Greek term in the midst of his Latin prose, a linguistic shift that often, as here, marks the introduction of a technical term. Indeed, δευτέρωσις has long been recognized as a Greek calque of the Hebrew mishnah (literally: “repetition”). Note, however, that in early rabbinic sources unqualified mishnah refers to an extra-scriptural tradition, not to the authoritative collection of such traditions known as the Mishnah. This is the sense of δευτέρωσις in Jerome’s statement, as it is in, e.g., Epistle 121, when he refers to “traditiones Phariseorum ... quas hodie vocant δευτερῶσεις...” (“traditions of the Pharisees ... which today they call deuterōseis...”).
According to Jerome, then, Papias propagates a mishnah—a Jewish extra-scriptural tradition—regarding the millennium. Jerome’s testimony is, of course, far-removed from Papias, but the notion that Papias’s traditions are affiliated with Jewish mishnayot (whatever the precise understanding of this affiliation) is suggestive and, as the following analysis argues,altogether on point.The testimonies of Eusebius (παράδοσις as an unwritten oral tradition) and Jerome (δευτέρωσις as a Pharisaic received tradition) are late and must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Still, they are evidence that some of the leading authors of the first Christian centuries understood Papias as a champion of oral tradition in something like the sense that Josephus and the Gospels attribute to the Pharisees, and Tannaitic sources attribute to the rabbinic sages. If nothing else, these testimonies raise the possibility that there are other, less immediately evident similarities between Papias and early rabbinic oral-traditional terminology.
A close relative of παράδοσις, δευτέρωσις is associated with Papias by Jerome, who writes: “Hic dicitur mille annorum Iudaicam edidisse δευτέρωσιν . . .” (“He is said to have propagated the Jewish tradition of the millennium”).
What immediately stands out here is Jerome’s use of a Greek term in the midst of his Latin prose, a linguistic shift that often, as here, marks the introduction of a technical term. Indeed, δευτέρωσις has long been recognized as a Greek calque of the Hebrew mishnah (literally: “repetition”). Note, however, that in early rabbinic sources unqualified mishnah refers to an extra-scriptural tradition, not to the authoritative collection of such traditions known as the Mishnah. This is the sense of δευτέρωσις in Jerome’s statement, as it is in, e.g., Epistle 121, when he refers to “traditiones Phariseorum ... quas hodie vocant δευτερῶσεις...” (“traditions of the Pharisees ... which today they call deuterōseis...”).
According to Jerome, then, Papias propagates a mishnah—a Jewish extra-scriptural tradition—regarding the millennium. Jerome’s testimony is, of course, far-removed from Papias, but the notion that Papias’s traditions are affiliated with Jewish mishnayot (whatever the precise understanding of this affiliation) is suggestive and, as the following analysis argues,altogether on point.The testimonies of Eusebius (παράδοσις as an unwritten oral tradition) and Jerome (δευτέρωσις as a Pharisaic received tradition) are late and must be taken with more than a grain of salt. Still, they are evidence that some of the leading authors of the first Christian centuries understood Papias as a champion of oral tradition in something like the sense that Josephus and the Gospels attribute to the Pharisees, and Tannaitic sources attribute to the rabbinic sages. If nothing else, these testimonies raise the possibility that there are other, less immediately evident similarities between Papias and early rabbinic oral-traditional terminology.
Auditor
Jerome opens his Papias entry in Vir. Ill. by referring to his subject as “Papias the hearer of John” (Iohannis auditor), and similar language is used earlier by Irenaeus: “Papias . . . the one who heard John (ὁ Ἰωάννουμὲν ἀκουστής).”
These phrases are a bit odd: in what sense was Papias the hearer of John? Many people heard him over the course of his life, so presumably a phrase such as “Papias who heard John” or “Papias who was present when John spoke” would have been more apposite. But it is not odd to speak of Papias in this manner if “hearing” is a technical term for the reception of oral traditions from an authorized source, as we see from the following:
We will have occasion to examine this passage more closely below. My point now is merely that Mark’s “hearing” refers to the reception of traditions. Papias defends Mark’s decision to record the words and deeds of the Lord without imposing order on them on the grounds that he did not hear the Lord, that is, did not receive traditions directly from Jesus, but rather from Peter, who recited them in a different order as determined by the needs at hand. Mark presents the Jesus traditions in unordered form because he heard them in unordered form, which Papias finds altogether laudable since Mark’s goal was not to reconstruct Jesus’ original order(to which he had no direct access), but rather “to leave out nothing that he heard or to include any falsehood among them.”
Papias uses similar language in reference to his own work. When he receives traditions via intermediaries, he states that “. . . he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles . . . [rather] received the matters of faith from those known to them.” Here hearing parallels the reception of the traditions known as “matters of faith.” But when Papias receives a tradition directly “he indicates that he himself was the ear-witness (αὐτήκοος) of Aristion and the elder John.”
This oral-traditional sense of “hear” is attested in Tannaitic sources. For example, in m. Bekhorot 6.8, we find a discussion of the blemishes that disqualify an animal from being offered as sacrifice: "Ila enumerated these blemishes at Yavne and the sages consented. But he added three more and they said to him: 'We have not heard these'." ... m. Avot 5.7 urges that a sage admit ignorance when he has received no tradition regarding a matter—an injunction couched in terms of hearing: “of what he has not heard he says ‘I have not heard.’”
Another auditory reference to received tradition occurs in the Sifra’s interpretation of Leviticus 1.5. Rabbi Akiva draws an analogy between two of the sacrificial acts enumerated in the verse, the collection of the blood and its dashing, an analogy met with a harsh response from Rabbi Akiva’s senior colleague, Rabbi Tarfon ...
Closer still to Papias’s language is the following debate between the same two rabbis:
The mishnah opens with an anonymous statement regarding the requisite size for a moveable object to convey impurity, but Rabbi Tarfon knows of another tradition that appears to contradict the opening ruling, the accuracy of which he disputes. Rabbi Akiva, however, offers a legal resolution that allows Rabbi Tarfon’s and the anonymous traditions to peacefully coexist. The details of this legal dispute are of no concern for the present analysis: what is important is Rabbi Tarfon’s reference to the tradent of the opening extra-scriptural tradition as ha- shome a, “the hearer.” Taken on its own, the Hebrew ha- shome a could mean simply “whoever heard it.” However, the context strongly suggests a more precise, technical sense. After all, the authority of the legal tradition does not depend on some individual who happened to hear it, but on its reception by a recognized(though here anonymous) tradent. Rabbi Akiva confirms as much when he explicates the tradition so as to assure “that the words of the sages are sustained.” If so, Rabbi Tarfon’s reference to “the hearer” precisely parallels auditor / ἀκουστής in Papias; when Irenaeus and Jerome characterize Papias as the hearer of John, they appear to be identifying him as an (or the) authorized recipient of John’s extra-scriptural traditions.
Jerome opens his Papias entry in Vir. Ill. by referring to his subject as “Papias the hearer of John” (Iohannis auditor), and similar language is used earlier by Irenaeus: “Papias . . . the one who heard John (ὁ Ἰωάννουμὲν ἀκουστής).”
These phrases are a bit odd: in what sense was Papias the hearer of John? Many people heard him over the course of his life, so presumably a phrase such as “Papias who heard John” or “Papias who was present when John spoke” would have been more apposite. But it is not odd to speak of Papias in this manner if “hearing” is a technical term for the reception of oral traditions from an authorized source, as we see from the following:
When Mark was the ἑρμηνευτής of Peter, he wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord’s words and deeds—but not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him; but later, as I indicated, he accompanied Peter, who used to adapt his teachings for the needs at hand, not arranging, as it were, an orderly composition of the Lord’s sayings. And so Mark did nothing wrong by writing some of the matters as he remembered them. For he was intent on just one purpose: to leave out nothing that he heard or to include any falsehood among them.
We will have occasion to examine this passage more closely below. My point now is merely that Mark’s “hearing” refers to the reception of traditions. Papias defends Mark’s decision to record the words and deeds of the Lord without imposing order on them on the grounds that he did not hear the Lord, that is, did not receive traditions directly from Jesus, but rather from Peter, who recited them in a different order as determined by the needs at hand. Mark presents the Jesus traditions in unordered form because he heard them in unordered form, which Papias finds altogether laudable since Mark’s goal was not to reconstruct Jesus’ original order(to which he had no direct access), but rather “to leave out nothing that he heard or to include any falsehood among them.”
Papias uses similar language in reference to his own work. When he receives traditions via intermediaries, he states that “. . . he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles . . . [rather] received the matters of faith from those known to them.” Here hearing parallels the reception of the traditions known as “matters of faith.” But when Papias receives a tradition directly “he indicates that he himself was the ear-witness (αὐτήκοος) of Aristion and the elder John.”
This oral-traditional sense of “hear” is attested in Tannaitic sources. For example, in m. Bekhorot 6.8, we find a discussion of the blemishes that disqualify an animal from being offered as sacrifice: "Ila enumerated these blemishes at Yavne and the sages consented. But he added three more and they said to him: 'We have not heard these'." ... m. Avot 5.7 urges that a sage admit ignorance when he has received no tradition regarding a matter—an injunction couched in terms of hearing: “of what he has not heard he says ‘I have not heard.’”
Another auditory reference to received tradition occurs in the Sifra’s interpretation of Leviticus 1.5. Rabbi Akiva draws an analogy between two of the sacrificial acts enumerated in the verse, the collection of the blood and its dashing, an analogy met with a harsh response from Rabbi Akiva’s senior colleague, Rabbi Tarfon ...
Closer still to Papias’s language is the following debate between the same two rabbis:
Any movable object conveys impurity if it is as thick as an ox-goad.Rabbi Tarfon said: “May I lose my sons if this is not a perverted tradition (halakhah) that the hearer (ha-shome a) heard wrongly...” Rabbi Akivas said: “I will amend such that the words of the sages are sustained ...” (m. Oholot 16.1)
The mishnah opens with an anonymous statement regarding the requisite size for a moveable object to convey impurity, but Rabbi Tarfon knows of another tradition that appears to contradict the opening ruling, the accuracy of which he disputes. Rabbi Akiva, however, offers a legal resolution that allows Rabbi Tarfon’s and the anonymous traditions to peacefully coexist. The details of this legal dispute are of no concern for the present analysis: what is important is Rabbi Tarfon’s reference to the tradent of the opening extra-scriptural tradition as ha- shome a, “the hearer.” Taken on its own, the Hebrew ha- shome a could mean simply “whoever heard it.” However, the context strongly suggests a more precise, technical sense. After all, the authority of the legal tradition does not depend on some individual who happened to hear it, but on its reception by a recognized(though here anonymous) tradent. Rabbi Akiva confirms as much when he explicates the tradition so as to assure “that the words of the sages are sustained.” If so, Rabbi Tarfon’s reference to “the hearer” precisely parallels auditor / ἀκουστής in Papias; when Irenaeus and Jerome characterize Papias as the hearer of John, they appear to be identifying him as an (or the) authorized recipient of John’s extra-scriptural traditions.
Presbuteroi
Papias refers to elders, πρεσβύτεροι, in a number of fragments ...
... the term has an unmistakable oral-traditional sense in reports of the Pharisees and early rabbinic texts ... the Pharisees and scribes accuse Jesus of failing to uphold the extra-scriptural παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (Mark 7.1–23; Matt 15.1–20). While in rabbinic sources, m. Eruvin 3.4 transmits the following: “Rabbi Yose said: Abtolemos testified in the names of five elders (zeqenim) that a shared Sabbath space (eruv) whose status is in doubt is deemed valid." “Testify” is here, and throughout the Mishnah, a technical term for the transmission of an extra-scriptural tradition, and the Mishnah’s elders are its source. And elders also appear in m. Avot 1.1 (“Moses received torah from Sinai and passed it down to Joshua, and Joshua passed it down to the elders . . .”) as a link in the chain of oral law.
Papias refers to elders, πρεσβύτεροι, in a number of fragments ...
... the term has an unmistakable oral-traditional sense in reports of the Pharisees and early rabbinic texts ... the Pharisees and scribes accuse Jesus of failing to uphold the extra-scriptural παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (Mark 7.1–23; Matt 15.1–20). While in rabbinic sources, m. Eruvin 3.4 transmits the following: “Rabbi Yose said: Abtolemos testified in the names of five elders (zeqenim) that a shared Sabbath space (eruv) whose status is in doubt is deemed valid." “Testify” is here, and throughout the Mishnah, a technical term for the transmission of an extra-scriptural tradition, and the Mishnah’s elders are its source. And elders also appear in m. Avot 1.1 (“Moses received torah from Sinai and passed it down to Joshua, and Joshua passed it down to the elders . . .”) as a link in the chain of oral law.
Hermēneutēs
Papias’s commitment to oral-traditional transmission also illuminates the statement in 3.15, cited above, that Mark was Peter’s ἑρμηνευτής. Translators have rendered this term either “translator” or “interpreter,” but neither is satisfactory ...
Ethelbert Stauffer’s argument that Papias’s ἑρμηνευτής is a Greek rendering of the Aramaic meturgeman represents a decisive step forward. Stauffer’s claim rests on a series of parallels he draws between Aramaic and Greek Bible translations or commentaries: “[Aaron] shall serve as a mouth for you” (Exod 4.16) is translated “serve as a turgeman” in Targum Neofiti, while Philo (Vit. Mos. 1.84) refers to him as his brother’s ἐρμηνεύς; the biblical hapax legomenon malîs in Genesis 42.23 (“[Joseph’s brother] did not know that Joseph understood them, since he spoke to them through a malîs”) is translated as meturgeman in Onqelos and again as ἐρμηνεύς in Philo (Jos. 175). Stauffer’s argument falters when he understands meturgeman as “translator,” a well-established meaning of ἐρμηνεύς, but one that leaves us in the same straits as before. But the term (or its Hebrew cognate) has another meaning in Tannaitic sources:
Papias’s commitment to oral-traditional transmission also illuminates the statement in 3.15, cited above, that Mark was Peter’s ἑρμηνευτής. Translators have rendered this term either “translator” or “interpreter,” but neither is satisfactory ...
Ethelbert Stauffer’s argument that Papias’s ἑρμηνευτής is a Greek rendering of the Aramaic meturgeman represents a decisive step forward. Stauffer’s claim rests on a series of parallels he draws between Aramaic and Greek Bible translations or commentaries: “[Aaron] shall serve as a mouth for you” (Exod 4.16) is translated “serve as a turgeman” in Targum Neofiti, while Philo (Vit. Mos. 1.84) refers to him as his brother’s ἐρμηνεύς; the biblical hapax legomenon malîs in Genesis 42.23 (“[Joseph’s brother] did not know that Joseph understood them, since he spoke to them through a malîs”) is translated as meturgeman in Onqelos and again as ἐρμηνεύς in Philo (Jos. 175). Stauffer’s argument falters when he understands meturgeman as “translator,” a well-established meaning of ἐρμηνεύς, but one that leaves us in the same straits as before. But the term (or its Hebrew cognate) has another meaning in Tannaitic sources:
“So the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him’” (Num 27.18): He said to him,“Moses, give a turgeman to Joshua, who will ask and inquire and offer instruction during your lifetime, so that when you depart from this world Israel will not say, ‘during the lifetime of your master you did not speak but now you speak!’”
[Sifre Numbers §140]
[Sifre Numbers §140]
Yadin-Israel provides a lot more commentary finishing, albeit conditionally, -
...If so, the terminological overlap Papias and the Tannaim reflects a profound similarity between the Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord and the Mishnah as two attempts at collecting and preserving the disparate components of various chains of formal controlled tradition—and marks Papias as the single most important precursor for the literary corpus that would come to define rabbinic Judaism.
via https://www.academia.edu/15432597/2015_ ... rly_Rabbis