Meanwhile back to the five books of Papias. As already noted, Irenaeus does not give the title of Papias' work, but the Anti-Marcionite prologue of GJohn reported that Papias transmitted (retulit) it in his EXOTERIC (Latin: exotericis). Since it is commonly assumed that the title of Papias' work is "Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles" (λογιων κυριακων εξηγησεως), as Eusebius and others claimed, scholars have wondered about the term "EXOTERIC".Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:14 pm
The Anti-Marcionite prologue of GJohn Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4 This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet still in the body, as the Heiropolitan, Papias by name, dear disciple of John, transmitted in his Exoteric, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated. These things Papias too, who was a earwitness of John and companion of Polycarp, and an ancient man, wrote and testified in the fourth of his books. For there are five books written by him. And he adds, saying: But these things are believable by the believers. And, he says, Judas the traitor did not believe and asked: How therefore will such generations be brought to completion by the Lord? The Lord said: Those who come into those [times] will see.
Monte A. Shanks (Papias and the New Testament) wrote in a footnote
William Fleming wrote in „Vocabulary of Philosophy“
Designed for the hearing of the initiated, applied to the lessons which were Esoteric (ἐσωτερικός) in contrast with the Exoteric, those given to general audiences (ἐξωτερικός). Plutarch (in Alexand.) and Aulus Gellius (l. XX. c. 4) maintained that the acroamatic works had natural philosophy and logic for their subjects, whereas the exoteric treated of rhetoric, ethics, and politics. Strabo (l. 13, p. 608), Cicero (Ad Atticum, 13, 19), and Ammonius Herm. (Ad Categor. Aristot.), maintain that they were distinguished, not by difference of subject, but of form; the acroamatic being discourses, the exoteric dialogues. Simplicius (Ad Categor. in Proem.) thus characterises the acroamatic in contradistinction to the exoteric works: "distinguished by pregnant brevity, closeness of thought, and quickness of transitions," from his more expanded, more perspicuous, and more popular productions.
Buhle has a Commentatio de Libris Arist., Exot. et Acroam., in his edition of the works of Aristotle, 5 vols. 8vo, Deux Ponts, 1791, p. 142. "In Aristotle's works the word exoteric does not occur (yet cf. Analyt. Post., I. 10, p. 76, bk. 27, ὁ ἔσω λόγος as ὁ ἐν τῇ φυχῇ, in opposition to ἕξω λόγος); but exoteric is employed in the sense of 'outwardly directed, addressed to the respondent (πρὸς ἕτερον)' " (Ueberweg's Hist, I. 143).
As an example, Plutarch, Adversus Colotem, 14, wrote
I find it very striking that there are no real interpretations, especially no interpretations of sayings of Jesus or revelations of the Lord, to be found in any of the fragments of Papias, but in the quote from Irenaeus there is indeed such an exoteric dialogue between Judas and the Lord.
In addition, the natural reading of the Anti-Marcionite prologue imho is clear that EXOTERIC should at least a word from the title of the work. Of course, if you firmly believe that the title has to be different, namely "Interpretation of the Lord's Oracles", then you look for far-fetched explanations.