9. Papias_on_Mark_and_Matthew_s_Composition.m4a
This source delves into the historical claims of Papias of Hierapolis regarding the origins of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as preserved by the historian Eusebius. Papias's account asserts that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the "reminiscences" (apomnēmoneumata) of Peter, recorded and translated by Mark, who was Peter's "interpreter (hermeneutes)," likely meaning a translator, but one who did not impose a literary "ordered arrangement (syntaxis)." Conversely, Papias claims Matthew, an eyewitness, "put the logia in an ordered arrangement" in Hebrew, which was then variably interpreted or translated by others, thus implying that the Greek Matthew may have lost its original structure. Ultimately, the text suggests Papias contrasts the perceived lack of literary order in Mark and Matthew with the superior chronological structure and "historiographic practice" found in the Gospel of John, which he likely viewed as a finished work written directly by an eyewitness.
To a modern reader, the four Gospels can feel like ancient, monolithic texts that appeared fully formed. Their origins are often shrouded in a mist of tradition, making it difficult to imagine how they were actually created, compiled, and understood by the earliest Christian communities. But what if we could pull back the curtain and see how these texts were viewed just a few generations after they were written?
Fortunately, we have a guide. Papias of Hierapolis, an early Christian leader writing in the 2nd century, offers us a rare, "behind-the-scenes" look at how the first followers of Jesus thought about the origins of their most important texts. Preserved in the writings of the later historian Eusebius, Papias's commentary provides a window into a world of active literary criticism and debate. This post explores four of the most surprising and counter-intuitive takeaways from his analysis.
According to Papias, the creation of the Gospel of Mark wasn't a simple case of Mark writing down his memories of Peter's preaching. The process he describes was far more direct, immediate, and collaborative.
Papias identifies Mark as Peter's hermeneutes, a Greek word rich with meaning. It could signify an "expositor" who explained Peter's teachings, or a "reporter" who passed them on. But the context of Papias’s argument strongly suggests a more literal meaning: "translator." Why? Because his entire defense of Mark rests on the claim that Mark was a faithful conduit, not an independent author. As Papias puts it, Mark’s “one concern” was “not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything”—a version of a common stock formula ancient historians used to assert absolute fidelity to their sources.
Papias isn’t picturing Mark translating Peter’s public sermons. He seems to be describing a specific, formal writing project. The text paints a vivid picture of the two men sitting down together to create a permanent record. In this scenario, Peter, the eyewitness, would speak in his native Aramaic, recounting the words and deeds of Jesus. Mark, his companion, would then translate Peter's accounts directly into the more readable Greek of the final Gospel text. This reframes the Gospel of Mark dramatically: it ceases to be a second-hand recollection and becomes something closer to a courtroom transcription, a direct record of an eyewitness's testimony.
Rather Papias may be envisaging that Peter and Mark sat down together to make a written record of the traditions of Jesus' words and deeds as Peter was in the habit of reciting them. Mark translated and wrote as Peter spoke.