John2 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:21 pmI have a hard time buying this argument since Eusebius is under the impression that Papias is referring to the gospel of Matthew (like in his preceding comment about the gospel of Mark).
EH 3.39.15-16:
These things are related by Papias concerning Mark. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”
I suppose the options are that someone named Matthew compiled a list of OT prophecies "about" Jesus in Hebrew which was translated a number of times into Greek (or interpreted by more than one person, whether in writings or orally), or Papias is referring to the gospel of Matthew, like Eusebius says, and it was originally written in Hebrew and translated a number of times into Greek (like the Hebrew and variant Greek versions of Matthew that are said to have been used by Jewish Christians).
I think your first instinct is closer to correct. As probable as I think it is that such catenae of prooftexts from the Hebrew scriptures existed early, and as certain as I am that they existed later, I do not think that Papias' words have anything to do with them.
Already Papias' words about Matthew cast doubt on the idea: "Matthew therefore in the Hebrew dialect
ordered together [συνετάξατο]
the oracles/logia [τὰ λόγια], and each one interpreted them as he was able." Perhaps the "ordering together" is some kind of literary arrangement, but surely it is at least questionable that the mention of interpreting the oracles from the Hebrew dialect makes more sense of interpreting a chain of verses from the Jewish scriptures than of other options.
It is when we read Papias' words about Mark, however, that I feel some of those other options gain the upper hand in a definitive way: "Mark, who had become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately,
yet not in order [οὐ μέντοι τάξει], as many things as he remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an ordering together of
the lordly oracles/logia [τῶν κυριακῶν... λογίων], so that Mark did not sin having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or falsify anything in them." Peter's teachings are here said to consist of the
logia, and those teachings are characterized as "the things either said or done by the Lord." Therefore, almost mathematically speaking, the
logia are "things either said or done by the Lord." If those things are actually things
predicted of the Lord, things which the scriptures said he would say or do, then the passage is weirdly silent on that point. I for one have little doubt that many/most of the things we find attributed to the Lord in any and all of our extant gospels
do derive from scripture, but I do not think that is what Papias is talking about. I think that the
logia are, for him, literally the things said or done by the Lord, which (according to Papias or his elder) Mark could not put down in order because Peter was preaching
ad hoc rather than systematically.