History · Contested
Papias on the Origins of Mark and Matthew
Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early second century, reports that Mark wrote down Peter's teaching and that Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew manner, giving our earliest outside comment on how gospel traditions were produced.
The evidence explained
Papias's five-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord is lost; its remarks survive mainly in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (3.39). Papias says he preferred the living voice of those who had known the apostles to books, and he passes along a report from an 'elder' that Mark, as Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately though not in order what Peter taught, and that Matthew arranged the logia in the Hebrew dialect.
The date is debated, roughly AD 100 to 130. If early, Papias links the gospels to eyewitness circles within about two generations of the events. Richard Bauckham has argued that Papias's language of eyewitness testimony fits the shape of the gospels, while critics such as Bart Ehrman note that Eusebius himself thought Papias a man of small intellect, and that Papias's 'Matthew' (a Hebrew-language collection of sayings) does not obviously describe the Greek Gospel of Matthew.
Because the evidence is a quotation of a quotation, historians treat it as a clue to second-century belief about authorship, not as an independent proof of authorship. The strongest use of Papias is modest: by about AD 120 there was a settled tradition connecting Mark with Peter, which any theory of gospel origins must explain.
What it does show
- • By the early second century, Christians in Asia Minor connected Mark's gospel with Peter's preaching.
- • Early Christians valued oral testimony from those linked to the apostles.
- • Authorship traditions were circulating well before Irenaeus.
What it does not show
- • It does not prove that the canonical Matthew is a translation of a Hebrew original.
- • It does not independently verify any gospel event.
- • It does not settle whether Papias's information is reliable or reflects later tidying of tradition.
Primary sources and literature
- Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39Primary preserver of the Papias fragments; must be read with Eusebius's own bias in mind.
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (2006)Argues Papias reflects an eyewitness-based gospel tradition.
- Bart Ehrman, ed., The Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical LibraryCritical text and translation of the Papias fragments.
Where scholars disagree
Scholars divide over whether the 'Mark' and 'Matthew' Papias describes are our canonical gospels, whether the date is c. 100 or c. 130, and whether his elder is reporting history or apologetic.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach — Michael Licona
The most methodologically careful defense, explicit about historiographical method and the limits of the evidence.
The Resurrection of the Son of God — N. T. Wright
Eight hundred pages on what resurrection meant in the ancient world and why the early Christian claim is historically odd.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses — Richard Bauckham
Argues the Gospels rest on named eyewitness testimony rather than anonymous community tradition.
How Jesus Became God — Bart Ehrman
The leading skeptical account of the resurrection claim's origin; engage this rather than a caricature.
Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews — Paula Fredriksen
A first-rate secular historian's reconstruction, valuable for testing apologetic claims against mainstream scholarship.