Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion

[rgprice]

also Klinghardt assumes that canonical Luke knew Matthew so I am not opposed to the idea.

If we accept also that canonical Luke knew and used Matthew, then that places all three synoptic gospels before c. 130 CE.

Not at all. If anything Matthew used Luke, and there is tons of evidence to support this. For sure Matthew is the most recent of the canonical Gospels, hence the reason it is the most well formed theologically of all of them.

Let's say that we use a date of 110 CE for the work composed by Papias and a date of 130 CE for the work composed by Basilides. Then we would have attestation in 110 CE for "Matthew" and "Mark" as gospel writers (in Papias). And we would have attestation in 130 CE for the gospel of Luke (by Basilides).

Papias is nonsense. The things attributed to Papias can't possibly be true. We have no works of Papias. We have dubious claims about him and dubious citations of his supposed works. Eusebius writing in the 4th century could just as well have been unknowingly citing a fraudulent writing attributed to Papias as well as just making it all up himself.

When a data point is an outlier, its just that, an outlier and highly suspect. Papias is an extreme outlier.

I'm quite convinced that Irenaeus was the first to associate the "Gospel of Mark" with Peter based on his reading o Justin Martyr's statement about the "memoirs of him", which appeared to be talking about Peter, but was probably really talking about the "memoirs about Jesus".

There is no reason, independently, for anyone to have thought that the Gospel of Mark would have in any way been positively associated with Peter. Irenaeus must have simply been grasping at straws for how to explain the titles of the Gospels in his possession and landed upon Justin's statement. Then, after making this connection between the Gospel of Mark and Peter, which helpfully balanced the collection out against a Gospel attributed to Paul's associate Luke and two other disciples, Irenaeus manufactured supposed support for his claims from Papias and Polycarp.

But even if you don't buy that scenario, the fact is that Papias is an outlier resting on the flimsiest of supports.

[Ken Olson]

also Klinghardt assumes that canonical Luke knew Matthew so I am not opposed to the idea.

If we accept also that canonical Luke knew and used Matthew, then that places all three synoptic gospels before c. 130 CE.

Not at all. If anything Matthew used Luke, and there is tons of evidence to support this.

What is this evidence? I am not inclined to take your word for it.

For sure Matthew is the most recent of the canonical Gospels, hence the reason it is the most well formed theologically of all of them.

Again, I am not inclined to take your word for this, even if you express a high level of confidence in your theory ('for sure').

Let's say that we use a date of 110 CE for the work composed by Papias and a date of 130 CE for the work composed by Basilides. Then we would have attestation in 110 CE for "Matthew" and "Mark" as gospel writers (in Papias). And we would have attestation in 130 CE for the gospel of Luke (by Basilides).

Papias is nonsense. The things attributed to Papias can't possibly be true.

I would not claim that what Papias says about the origins of Matthew and Mark is true. What I am interested in, and I think what Peter Kirby is interested in, is at what date he attests to the existence of gospels called Mark and Matthew.

We have no works of Papias. We have dubious claims about him and dubious citations of his supposed works. Eusebius writing in the 4th century could just as well have been unknowingly citing a fraudulent writing attributed to Papias as well as just making it all up himself.

We have Irenaeus and Eusebius attestation to a man named Papias who wrote five books (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4).

I do not think Eusebius invented the excerpts from Papias that he quotes. He disagree with Papias and I think he might misunderstand him as well.

If you think Eusebius invented the excerpts from Papias he quotes, please present your case for that.

When a data point is an outlier, its just that, an outlier and highly suspect. Papias is an extreme outlier.

You are using terminology as though this were a stastical case, which it is not.

I'm quite convinced that Irenaeus was the first to associate the "Gospel of Mark" with Peter based on his reading o Justin Martyr's statement about the "memoirs of him", which appeared to be talking about Peter, but was probably really talking about the "memoirs about Jesus".

Again, I should like to see a better case than you being convinced of this.

There is no reason, independently, for anyone to have thought that the Gospel of Mark would have in any way been positively associated with Peter. Irenaeus must have simply been grasping at straws for how to explain the titles of the Gospels in his possession and landed upon Justin's statement. Then, after making this connection between the Gospel of Mark and Peter, which helpfully balanced the collection out against a Gospel attributed to Paul's associate Luke and two other disciples, Irenaeus manufactured supposed support for his claims from Papias and Polycarp.

I am not defending the idea that Mark was based on the testimony of Peter. What I want you to show is that this originated with Irenaeus, not Papias, or perhaps someone before Papias.

But even if you don't buy that scenario, the fact is that Papias is an outlier resting on the flimsiest of supports.

At the moment, the only thing I would use Papias for is to attest to the existence of the gospels of Mark and Matthew. He must have existed before Irenaeus, who mentions him. Can you make a positive case for him not existing, or, failing that, can you make a positive case for when he did exist?

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

If we accept also that canonical Luke knew and used Matthew, then that places all three synoptic gospels before c. 130 CE.

It may be interesting to mention Papias also in this connection. Remarks about Papias generally place him in the reign of Trajan. Most of the references occur in a context that is early in the reign of Trajan (such as 100 CE or 106 CE).

https://peterkirby.com/putting-papias-in-order.html

(A) (1) Irenaeus and others record that John the Theologian and Apostle survived until the times of Trajan; after which Papias of Hierapolis and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, both of whom heard him, became well known.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon 220th Olympiad/100AD

(A) (2) In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above [Trajan], Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ. At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord. And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.34.1-3.36.2

(A) (3) Bishop Irenaeus writes that John the Apostle survived all the way to the time of Trajan: after whom his notable disciples were Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ignatius of Antioch.
-Jerome, Chronicon 220th Olympiad [100AD]

(A) (4) Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Divine, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of Oracles of the Lord, wherein, when giving a list of the Apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Irenaeus wrote that John the Apostle remained until the times of Trajen, after whom were Papias Bishop of Heirapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch.
-Prosper of Aquitania, Epitome of Chronicles Section 550 [106AD]

According to this notice (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

It is notable that Eusebius, in spite of his desire to discredit Papias, still places him as early as the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117); and although later dates (e.g., A.D. 130-140) have often been suggested by modern scholars, Bartlet's date for Papias' literary activity of about A.D. 100 has recently gained support (Schoedel 1967: 91-92; Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).

Let's say that we use a date of 110 CE for the work composed by Papias and a date of 130 CE for the work composed by Basilides. Then we would have attestation in 110 CE for "Matthew" and "Mark" as gospel writers (in Papias). And we would have attestation in 130 CE for the gospel of Luke (by Basilides).

Hypothetically, Papias could have mentioned Luke in a way that Eusebius doesn't quote (but I doubt that - the argument that Papias knew John seems better on the other hand). Some might be able to perceive an argument from silence here in favor of viewing Luke as having been composed between 110 CE (or the date of Papias) and 130 CE (or the date of Basilides). Openness to this argument of course would depend on several things, such as a willingness to work through the references to Papias instead of rejecting them outright, a willingness to consider the references in Papias as indications of knowing gospels similar to a form known to us, a willingness to view Luke and Acts as compositions of the second century, and a willingness to consider synoptic problem solutions where Luke had used Matthew and Mark. But for those who aren't necessarily opposed to the argument, they may find here some level of indication for the idea that Luke (ca. 110-130) was the last of the synoptic gospels (and, perhaps, also that John preceded Luke).

I would add that:

(1) I think the middle recension of the Ignatian epistles are authentic and written c. 110 CE.

(2) The Ignatian epistles show probable knowledge of Matthew's gospel.

(3) Matthew knew and used Mark.

So Luke was in circulation by c. 130 CE, Matthew by c. 110 CE, and Mark sometime before that.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

When a data point is an outlier, its just that, an outlier and highly suspect.

It is not actually a given that so-called "outlier" data is to be discarded or is "highly suspect." This is a common (and vulgar) misconception. Its popularity in the kind of folklore of how to handle data is partly due to its sometimes-convenient ability (as above) to allow someone to discard data for no valid reason. Attempting to discard what you believe to be the earliest instance of data regarding a certain phenomenon is a common error that you employ, rgprice, and it diminishes the value of your conclusions in that they are not well-founded on the entirety of the data. Your ideas would be better founded and capable of being more widely persuasive to critical investigators if it weren't for this habit of being arbitrary with the data.

[rgprice]

What is this evidence? I am not inclined to take your word for it.

I don't feel like hashing this out again, so I'll just say that there are many papers written on this topic, which argue that Matthew used Luke, not the other way around, and a lot of linguistic work has been done to show that Luke is the more primitive of the two, when you exclude Luke 1-2 and the end of 24. It is only Luke 1&2 and the association with Acts perhaps post-dates Matthew.

There are many criticisms of Goodacre's, Case Against "Q" that present the arguments for Matthew having used Luke.

Again, I am not inclined to take your word for this, even if you express a high level of confidence in your theory ('for sure').

I don't think anyone would argue against Matthew being the most well written of the Gospels. It is the clearest and most theologically consistent and advanced of all the Gospels.

I would not claim that what Papias says about the origins of Matthew and Mark is true. What I am interested in, and I think what Peter Kirby is interested in, is at what date he attests to the existence of gospels called Mark and Matthew.

I'm not saying that what Papias said wasn't true, I'm saying that the claim that Papias said those things cannot be true. At least not if Papaias is who he was claimed to be and said it when he was said to have said it. Irenaeus is writing about Papias around 180. All Irenaeus says about him is:

4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, Now these things are credible to believers. And he says that, when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, 'How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord.' the Lord declared, 'They who shall come to these [times] shall see.' When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp's den, into the nest also of the adder's brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain. And again he says, in recapitulation, Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth as if it were bread; and they shall neither hurt nor annoy anything in my holy mountain, says the Lord. Isaiah 40:6, etc. I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous.

Firstly, since the first we hear about Papias is from someone writing in 180, how can anyone think that what this person says can be dated to 110? And then Eusebius in 325 provides the citation about him supposedly talking about Matthew and Mark.

We have Irenaeus and Eusebius attestation to a man named Papias who wrote five books (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4).

I do not think Eusebius invented the excerpts from Papias that he quotes. He disagree with Papias and I think he might misunderstand him as well.

If you think Eusebius invented the excerpts from Papias he quotes, please present your case for that.

Not necessarily. But Eusebius is writing in the 4th century, around 325. Clearly Christian writing were full of fraud and misinformation. The letters of Ignatius are all forgeries, or at best heavily modified. There were numerous forgeries attributed to Clement of Rome. The Pauline letters contain forgeries and there were additional Pauline forgeries, like 3 Corinthians, etc. The account of Polycarp's martyrdom is fraudulent. Almost every, or every, writing in the NT is fraudulent. The story of Peter's martyrdom is fraudulent. Etc., etc. And Eusebius was fooled by some or all of these. Now, why do you think that Eusebius reading a work attributed to Papias in the 4th century has any credibility? Even if Eusebius didn't make it up himself, almost everything that Eusebius cited was a forgery! Acts is a forgery! Its all forgery. But you think that the works of Papias weren't a forgery?! Eusebius may well have had a work in hand attributed to Papias, but there is no reason to believe that such a work was authentic, unadulterated, and originally authored in 110.

You are using terminology as though this were a stastical case, which it is not.

Doesn't matter. Data points are data points. This data point does not fit with any of the other data points. What if Eusebius cited a writing from one of the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus who said, "I was there, and I saw his spirit leave his body and then there was an earthquake!" Would you say, "Well, I guess we have an eyewitness account from 30 CE of the crucifixion of Jesus." Or would you say, "Wait a minute, that is an extreme claim that doesn't fir the rest of the data, this is suspect."

I am not defending the idea that Mark was based on the testimony of Peter. What I want you to show is that this originated with Irenaeus, not Papias, or perhaps someone before Papias.

I've provided an explanation for how Irenaeus could have been led to that conclusion from the writings of Justin Martyr, which we know he read. My point is, I don't believe that anyone would think that the "Gospel of Mark" came from an associate of Peter's on their own. There is no reason why anyone would think that. The Gospel of Mark is the most anti-Peter of any of the Gospels. Nothing about the story suggests an association with Peter. The story must originally have been part of a Pauline letter collection. There was a supposed associate of Paul's named Mark. The story calls Peter Satan. Peter abandon's Jesus never to be seen again. Jesus ridicules Peter throughout. There is no way that people thought that this story came from "an associate of Peter".

The reason that Irenaeus claims it came from an associate of Peter is because Irenaeus has a four Gospel collection that includes a Gospel attributed to someone called Mark. Irenaeus wants his collection to be compliant with "apostolic succession". He has a Gospel from Paul's associate Luke, he wants something to balance out against the apostle of the heretics. And he find in Justin's writings a statement that could be interpreted as saying that the Gospel attributed to Mark is the "memoirs of Peter", so he jumps on that and says that the Gospel attributed to Mark is really the memoirs of Peter. But prior to Irenaeus there would have been no reason for anyone to associate this writing to Peter. It was only in the context of the four Gospels with assigned names, which Irenaeus wanted to link to the original apostles in order to "prove" that they were more reliable than the Gospels of the heretics, that making this association made sense.

[Peter Kirby]

What is this evidence? I am not inclined to take your word for it.

I don't feel like hashing this out again, so I'll just say that there are many papers written on this topic

Which do you have in mind? It's an interesting topic.

[Ken Olson]

What is this evidence? I am not inclined to take your word for it.

I don't feel like hashing this out again, so I'll just say that there are many papers written on this topic, which argue that Matthew used Luke, not the other way around, and a lot of linguistic work has been done to show that Luke is the more primitive of the two, when you exclude Luke 1-2 and the end of 24. It is only Luke 1&2 and the association with Acts perhaps post-dates Matthew.

There are many criticisms of Goodacre's, Case Against "Q" that present the arguments for Matthew having used Luke.

There are a lot of books and papers that argue the canonical gospels ahe historically accurate reports of Jesus words and actions and his resurrection from the dead. So what? The fact that there are a lot of them does not make what they claim true.

I think at present there are more that agree with Goodacre that Luke used Matthew than argue the reverse (Matthean Poteriority Hypothesis or MPH) that Matthew used Luke, though the number arguing for Matthean posteriority has grown considerably in the last decade or so. I think I could could appeal to more authorities than you could, but the appeal to authority is not a sound form of argument.

I've discussed Garrow's arguments on this forum and MacEwen's on my blog, and I think their arguments do not demonstrate their hypothesis to be probable. So I'm prepared to reject your opinion as undemonstarted.

Again, I am not inclined to take your word for this, even if you express a high level of confidence in your theory ('for sure').

I don't think anyone would argue against Matthew being the most well written of the Gospels. It is the clearest and most theologically consistent and advanced of all the Gospels.

Several scholars have argue that Mark is better written than Matthew, and probably more have argued that Luke is.It will depend on what your criteria for determining what the best written gospel are. A number of recent works have argued that Mark is the best storyteller among the synoptic evangelists. And Luke has long been seen (at least since Dibelius) as being the only one of the synoptic evangelists whose work would have qualified as a proper literary work by the standards of Hellenistic literature (the other two were kleinliteratur or folk literature for Dibelius). More recently, some have considered Luke the best of the gospels, especially because of the evocative and open-ended nature of his parables and to some extent his sayings (as opposed to Matthew's rather heavy-handed approach).

I would not claim that what Papias says about the origins of Matthew and Mark is true. What I am interested in, and I think what Peter Kirby is interested in, is at what date he attests to the existence of gospels called Mark and Matthew.

I'm not saying that what Papias said wasn't true,

You did say that.

I'm saying that the claim that Papias said those things cannot be true.

That is a strong claim which you have so far failed to demonstrate.

At least not if Papaias is who he was claimed to be and said it when he was said to have said it.

Who did Papias claim to be in the extant extracts of his work which you can show he was not?

Irenaeus is writing about Papias around 180. All Irenaeus says about him is:

4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, Now these things are credible to believers. And he says that, when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, 'How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord.' the Lord declared, 'They who shall come to these [times] shall see.' When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp's den, into the nest also of the adder's brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain. And again he says, in recapitulation, Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth as if it were bread; and they shall neither hurt nor annoy anything in my holy mountain, says the Lord. Isaiah 40:6, etc. I am quite aware that some persons endeavour to refer these words to the case of savage men, both of different nations and various habits, who come to believe, and when they have believed, act in harmony with the righteous.

So we have attestation that Papias wrote five books sometime before Irenaeus in 180 CE.

Firstly, since the first we hear about Papias is from someone writing in 180, how can anyone think that what this person says can be dated to 110?
And then Eusebius in 325 provides the citation about him supposedly talking about Matthew and Mark.

Well, 110 is before 180. If you wanted to date Papias to, say, 130 CE, I would have a hard time showing you were wrong.

We have Irenaeus and Eusebius attestation to a man named Papias who wrote five books (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4).

I do not think Eusebius invented the excerpts from Papias that he quotes. He disagree with Papias and I think he might misunderstand him as well.

If you think Eusebius invented the excerpts from Papias he quotes, please present your case for that.

Not necessarily. But Eusebius is writing in the 4th century, around 325. Clearly Christian writing were full of fraud and misinformation. The letters of Ignatius are all forgeries, or at best heavily modified. There were numerous forgeries attributed to Clement of Rome. The Pauline letters contain forgeries and there were additional Pauline forgeries, like 3 Corinthians, etc. The account of Polycarp's martyrdom is fraudulent. Almost every, or every, writing in the NT is fraudulent. The story of Peter's martyrdom is fraudulent. Etc., etc. And Eusebius was fooled by some or all of these. Now, why do you think that Eusebius reading a work attributed to Papias in the 4th century has any credibility? Even if Eusebius didn't make it up himself, almost everything that Eusebius cited was a forgery! Acts is a forgery! Its all forgery. But you think that the works of Papias weren't a forgery?! Eusebius may well have had a work in hand attributed to Papias, but there is no reason to believe that such a work was authentic, unadulterated, and originally authored in 110.

I think you have expanded the use of the words fraud and forgery so much as to be nearly useless. I believe some of the works you mention to be fraud or forgery, others to have been modified, others misattributed. I've even argued that Eusebius himself composed one of the passages from Josephus he quotes. Nonetheless, I have very specific reasons for doing so. I think most of Eusebius' quotations from other works, like Josephus and Philo and earlier Christian works are largely accurate. Sure, Eusebius might often be passing on inaccurate information he had heard, but then, so might Papias. You still don't have a solid case for claiming that there wasn't a Papias in 110 (or 130) CE who said what Irenaeus and Eusebius report him to have said.

You are using terminology as though this were a stastical case, which it is not.

Doesn't matter. Data points are data points. This data point does not fit with any of the other data points. What if Eusebius cited a writing from one of the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus who said, "I was there, and I saw his spirit leave his body and then there was an earthquake!" Would you say, "Well, I guess we have an eyewitness account from 30 CE of the crucifixion of Jesus." Or would you say, "Wait a minute, that is an extreme claim that doesn't fir the rest of the data, this is suspect."

It matters. How is Papias and outlier? How does the testimony of Papias about Mark and Matthew fit better later?

If Eusebius quoted a work such as you hypothesize, we might think the content was innaccurate, but we wouldn't immediately think Eusebius made it up. We would have to investigate the possibility that there was an earlier work such as he describes and determine when where and why it was written and maybe by whom

I am not defending the idea that Mark was based on the testimony of Peter. What I want you to show is that this originated with Irenaeus, not Papias, or perhaps someone before Papias.

I've provided an explanation for how Irenaeus could have been led to that conclusion from the writings of Justin Martyr, which we know he read. My point is, I don't believe that anyone would think that the "Gospel of Mark" came from an associate of Peter's on their own. There is no reason why anyone would think that. The Gospel of Mark is the most anti-Peter of any of the Gospels. Nothing about the story suggests an association with Peter. The story must originally have been part of a Pauline letter collection. There was a supposed associate of Paul's named Mark. The Gospel of Mark was originally linked to the Pauline letters, there was a supposed traveling companion of Paul's named Mark. Mark is mentioned in Pauline letters. The story calls Peter Satan. Peter abandon's Jesus never to be seen again. Jesus ridicules Peter throughout. There is no way that people thought that this story came from "an associate of Peter".

If there was no reason that anyone would associate Mark's gospel with Peter, then Irenaeus wouldn't have done it either. But you think Irenaeus did. And obviously someone did.

The reason that Irenaeus claims it came from an associate of Peter is because Irenaeus has a four Gospel collection that includes a Gospel attributed to someone called Mark. Irenaeus wants his collection to be compliant with "apostolic succession". He has a Gospel from Paul's associate Luke, he wants something to balance out against the apostle of the heretics. And he find in Justin's writings a statement that could be interpreted as saying that the Gospel attributed to Mark is the "memoirs of Peter", so he jumps on that and says that the Gospel attributed to Mark is really the memoirs of Peter. But prior to Irenaeus there would have been no reason for anyone to associate this writing to Peter. It was only in the context of the four Gospels with assigned names, which Irenaeus wanted to link to the original apostles in order to "prove" that they were more reliable than the Gospels of the heretics, that making this association made sense.

So you're hypothesizing that the gospel was already called Mark before Irenaeus and he is the one who first associated it with Peter? Can't we think of other reasons someone might have made that connection before Irenaeus, particularly if there was an interest in associating the gospels with an apostolic authority? If the story of Peter's mission to Rome were already circulating in 110, would it be implausible for a gospel primarily written for Gentiles in Greek (Mark 7.3, 19) under to the most common Roman name to become associated with Peter?

Best,

Ken

[rgprice]

What is this evidence? I am not inclined to take your word for it.

I don't feel like hashing this out again, so I'll just say that there are many papers written on this topic

Which do you have in mind? It's an interesting topic.

Here's a simple example: https://www.logos.com/grow/when-mark-go ... e-of-luke/

[Ken Olson]

What is this evidence? I am not inclined to take your word for it.

I don't feel like hashing this out again, so I'll just say that there are many papers written on this topic

Which do you have in mind? It's an interesting topic.

Here's a simple example: https://www.logos.com/grow/when-mark-go ... e-of-luke/

And here's my response to it from November 1, 2021:

https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... t-macewen/

[Ken Olson]

Here is what Irenaeus says about the cricumstances in which the synoptic gospels were written in Against Heresies 3.1:

AH 3.1.1 Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

We also know that Irenaeus knew that Papias had written a work consisting of five books and was able to quote from it:

AH 5.33.4. And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, Now these things are credible to believers. And he says that, when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, 'How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord.' the Lord declared, 'They who shall come to these [times] shall see.' When prophesying of these times, therefore, Esaias says: The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall take his rest with the kid; the calf also, and the bull, and the lion shall eat together; and a little boy shall lead them. The ox and the bear shall feed together, and their young ones shall agree together; and the lion shall eat straw as well as the ox. And the infant boy shall thrust his hand into the asp's den, into the nest also of the adder's brood; and they shall do no harm, nor have power to hurt anything in my holy mountain. And again he says, in recapitulation, Wolves and lambs shall then browse together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth as if it were bread; and they shall neither hurt nor annoy anything in my holy mountain, says the Lord.

Eusebius writes about Papias in the Ecclesiastical History 3.39:

HE 3.39.1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him. These are the words of Irenæus.

Eusebius knows what Irenaeus wrote about Papias and quotes it, but he adds the title of Papas' work and says his work is extant. He then corrects (?) what Irenaeus said about Papias:

HE 3.39.2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

Eusebius seems to have a low opinion of Papias and some of the material in his books:

HE 3.39.11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.

12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views

Later in HE 3.39, Eusebius quotes what Papias said of the composition of Mark and Matthew:

HE 3.39.14 But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15. This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely. These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. 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. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

It seems entirely reasonable to think Irenaeus, who had Papias work available, took what he said about Mark and Matthew from Papias, whom Eusebius quotes directly.

The alternative theory that someone read Irenaeus and forged five book of Papias, the originals of which had either disappeared or were made to disappear, and retro-engineered them so that they would appear to be the source of Irenaeus' information about the circumstances under which Mark and Matthew were composed, seems far less probable. It seems particularly unlikely that Eusebius made up the material he ascribes to Papias, while at the same time disparaging his witness by saying that he did not know the apostles directly and misunderstood the apostolic accounts.

Best,

Ken