"Specializing in Archaeology, History, Astrotheology, Mythology and Religion"
Join Our Mailing List!
Name:
Email:
Subscribe Unsubscribe   
 

Who Was Jesus?Does Church Father Papias Prove the Gospels Existed in the First Century?

by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S

Adapted from Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ

Christian apologetics for the early, first-century dates for the Bible's gospels rely on the slimmest of evidence, including a very late third-hand testimony of a late second-hand testimony that the evangelist Mark had written a narrative, supposedly based on the experiences of Peter as related by the apostle himself. In the fourth century, Church historian Eusebius quoted early Church father and bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 70?-c. 155? AD/CE) as referring to the "presbyter John" and stating:

This, too, the presbyter used to say. "Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord's sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only—to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it. ( Eusebius 3. 39; Eusebius/Williamson, 103-104)

"Of Papias's life nothing is known."

Eusebius of CaesareaRegarding the bishop of Hierapolis, the Catholic Encyclopedia ("St. Papias") says, "Of Papias's life nothing is known." In other words, we do not even know who this person is whom Eusebius is allegedly quoting regarding these purported earlier texts. According to Eusebius—in disagreement with Irenaeus, who suggested Papias had known the apostle John—Papias had no direct acquaintance with any of the apostles:

…Papias himself in the preface to his work makes it clear that he was never a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles, and tells us that he learnt the essentials of the faith from their former pupils. (Eusebius 3.39:2; Eusebius/Williamson, 101-102)

"Papias himself in the preface to his work makes it clear that he was never a hearer or eyewitness of the holy apostles."

The assumption that the "presbyter John" with whom Papias apparently had a relationship was the same as the apostle John is evidently incorrect. Papias himself remarked that he received his knowledge second-hand, even about the apostle John, when he stated:

And whenever anyone came who had been a follower of the presbyters, I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, were still saying. (Eusebius 3.39; Eusebius/Williamson, 103)

These comments indicate that the bishop was not in direct communication with any of the immediate apostles or disciples of the Lord. Indeed, Papias is merely passing along what he had heard from the disciples' "former pupils." What exactly is meant by "former pupils?" Such a statement implies that these individuals were either no longer followers or were deceased. If these individuals Papias is relying on were not even Christ's followers at that time, why should we trust their statements?

Bishop Papias of HierapolisMany of Papias's remarks, according to Eusebius, involved miracles, such as the raising of the dead, which stretch the credulity. Are we supposed merely to take Papias's word on what else he was told by these "former followers?" Moreover, even Eusebius does not think highly of Papias, remarking, "For he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books." (Eusebius 3.39; Eusebius/Williamson, 103)

"For [Papias] seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books."

Regarding Papias's purported discussion of an original "Gospel of Matthew," a collection of Jesus's sayings in "Hebrew" or, rather, Aramaic, professor of theological studies and dean of the Graduate school of Theology at Wheaton College Rev. Dr. Merrill C. Tenney, an evangelical Christian scholar, comments:

The testimony of Papias has been frequently rejected, since no trace of an Aramaic original has survived and the language of the Gospel bears no marks of being a Greek translation. (Tenney, 150)

"The testimony of Papias has been frequently rejected."

Nevertheless, Papias's remarks about a book of sayings in Aramaic by Matthew may well refer to a text extant in his time, which may have been used by the evangelists, whose gospels do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the late second century.

Sayings Gospel of Matthew

Indeed, in some early Christian texts there appear sayings that seem to correspond to some found in the gospels, but these isolated sayings or logia could easily be from earlier source texts utilized by the evangelists as well. In "The Use of the Logia of Matthew in the Gospel of Mark," Rev. Dr. Charles A. Briggs remarks:

The Logia of the apostle Matthew, written in the Hebrew language, according to the testimony of Papias, in the citation of Eusebius, was one of the most important sources of the Gospels. Certainly a considerable portion of the Sayings of Jesus given in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke came from this source. It is still in dispute, however, whether the Logia of Matthew was used by the Gospels of Mark and John.

Modern scholars have struck upon a sayings gospel called "Q" for the German term Quelle, meaning "source." In New Testament Documents, Christian scholar F.F. Bruce logically posits that Q is in fact based on the Matthaean logia, or sayings found in the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. Again, it would be reasonable to suggest that such a text or texts had been used by both the evangelists and early Christian writers; thus, the existence of sayings in early Christian texts that parallel those found in the canonical gospels does not prove the existence of the latter at the time the former were composed.

"Papias only speaks about a narrative by Mark, which by no means conclusively refers to the canonical Mark as we have it."

Bishop Papias of HierapolisDespite all these factors, Papias is one of the only pieces of evidence Christian apologists offer as to the dating of the gospels. Yet, his testimony concerning these writings of Mark and Matthew is not only second-hand but also too late to possess any value as concerns the earliest of the gospels dates. Moreover, Papias only speaks about a narrative by Mark, which by no means conclusively refers to the canonical Mark as we have it. Nor, as we have seen, is the Aramaic gospel of Matthew the same as the canonical Matthew. Furthermore, from Papias's comments we can adduce that Mark was never a disciple who had ever heard or followed Christ, as has been erroneously asserted by a number of apologists claiming that Mark may have been one of the 70 or 72 disciples mentioned in the gospel of Luke (10:1).

"From Papias's comments we can adduce that Mark was never a disciple who had ever heard or followed Christ."

In addition, from Eusebius it appears that Papias—rumored to have some relationship with the apostle John—does not mention any gospel of John! From this fact and other reasons, it can be safely stated that the gospel of John did not exist at that time, i.e., the first quarter of the second century. Nor does Papias mention Luke or give any indication of a narrative gospel of Matthew.

"In reality, the gospels do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the last quarter of the second century."

In the final analysis, the purported testimony of Papias found only in Eusebius, writing some 300 years after Christ's supposed existence is worthless in establishing an early date for the canonical gospels. In reality and to reiterate, the gospels do not emerge clearly in the historical record until the last quarter of the second century, a fact that explains much about their origin, contents and style.

For more information, see Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ

Bibliography and Further Reading

Briggs, Charles A. "The Use of the Logia of Matthew in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 23, no. 2 (1904), pp. 191-210.
Bruce, F.F. New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm
Eusebius. The History of the Church. tr. G.A. Williamson, New York: Penguin, 1989.
Tenney, Merrill C. New Testament Survey. MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.
"When Were the Gospels Written?"
"Late Dating of the Gospels" (FreethoughtNation.com forum thread)


Acharya S on DVD
Acharya S Interview with Metafysiko.org
Acharya's Online Videos
Astrotheology of the Ancients
Celebration of Life
Christ Conspiracy in the News!
Christ in Egypt Preface
D.M. Murdock/Acharya S's Media Appearances
David Mills's Review of 'Who Was Jesus?'
Did Buddha exist?
'Did Moses Exist?' reviewed by Robert Tulip
Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Who Was Jesus?
Does Church Father Papias Prove the Gospels Existed in the First Century?
Ezekiel's Vision of a Wheel within a Wheel
Easter: The Resurrection of Spring
The Gospel Dates
Is the King James Bible Inerrant?
Jesus Christ as the Sun God throughout History
Is Jesus an Egyptian Myth?
The Jesus Myth
Jesus, Son of Joseph, and Horus, Son of Seb
Man Made God Review
Moses, the Promised Land and Easter | Passover | Exodus
The Origins of Halloween
The Real ZEITGEIST Challenge
Skeptic Mangles ZEITGEIST (and Religious History)
The Christmas Hoax | Jesus is NOT the "Reason for the Season"
The Great Chaos | Paradise Found
The Healing Power of the Gospel
The Nativity of Amenhotep III at Luxor
The History of Mythicism | The Mythicist Position
The Star in the East and Three Kings | Wise Men | Magi
 Sirius as the Star in the East 'Debunked?' NOT!
Was Horus Crucified?
Was Jesus God, Man or Myth?
Was Krishna Born on December 25th?
What is a Mythicist? | The Mythicist Position | Mythicism
Who Is Gerald Massey?
Who Was Jesus?
Stellar House Articles
Videos