Did Papias's Logia Take the Form of a Written Gospel?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Did Papias's Logia Take the Form of a Written Gospel?

Post by Secret Alias »

I have been thinking about Ben's interpretation:
I think his logia were simply authoritative statements by apostolic figures about Jesus, whether in written or in unwritten form
Many people including Watson think that Papias has influenced Irenaeus's statement about Matthew and the four gospels at the beginning of Book 3 of AH. Watson infers then that Irenaeus has misinterpreted Papias to come up with a narrative gospel of Matthew or at least connecting his narrative gospel of Matthew with the logia of Papias.

I find this argument ultimately persuasive given that Irenaeus's audience must have known Papias and known what Papias was talking about. Could Irenaeus have simply 'plowed over' what generations knew about the logia of Papias and its relationship to a certain 'Matthew'? I don't think so. There were limits to what was possible with his revaluation of all values in early Christianity. I similarly suspect that when παράδοσις/traditio in Irenaeus further on in the same section:
Cum enim ex Scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum Scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant, neque sint ex auctoritate, et quia varie sint dictae, et quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciant traditionem. Non enim per literas traditam illam, sed per vivam vocem: ob quam causam et Paulum dixisse: Sapientiam autem loquimur inter perfectos: sapientiam autem non mundi hujus. Et hanc sapientiam unusquisque eorum esse dicit, quam a semetipso adinvenit, fictionem videlicet, ut digne sucundum eos sit veritas, aliquando quidem in Valentino, aliquando autem in Marcione, aliquando in Cerintho, postea deinde in Basilide, fuit aut et in illo qui contra disputat, qui nihil salutare loqui potuit. Unusquisque enim ipsorum omnimodo perversus, semitipsum regulam veritatis depravans praedicare non confunditur.

Indeed, when they are exposed by means of the Scriptures, they turn round and make accusations against the Scriptures themselves, as if these were not correct or were not authentic and stated things variously,8 and that the truth cannot be found in them by those who are ignorant of tradition. They claim the truth was not handed down by writings, but by a living voice, of which matter Paul said, Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom— although it is not the wisdom of this world. And each one of them claims as this wisdom that which he discovers by himself, which is really a fiction, so that their truth may fittingly be in Valentinus at one time, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, finally in Basilides, or even in one who disputes against these and would not be able to say anything pertaining to salvation.10 For each one of them, being totally corrupt, is not ashamed to deprave the rule of truth and preach himself.
It can't be coincidence that a section that begins with Papias's logia of 'Matthew' ends with a discussion of something that sounds like a distinction between written records and spoken truths.

The position of the heretics is rather strange. On the one hand they reject those written documents (literas traditam illam) i.e. the four gospels mentioned previously in AH Book 3 - i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. On the other hand they point to a traditio (i.e. something handed down) but not necessarily an oral teaching (although that's how the Papias and the context here is often interpreted). A traditio can refer to anything handed over even another sort of written text. All that is clear about this traditio is that it is secret - it is the 'secret wisdom' mentioned by the apostle and juxtaposed again (according to my Marcionite interpretation of the context in 1 Corinthians) i.e. Paul or 'the gospel' having written a gospel of some sort.

My question is - could Papias's traditio and the traditio of the heretics have both been written secret texts juxtaposed again four gospels which were openly available and read in public libraries? The reason I ask this is because there is in my mind striking similarities between 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and the idea of a secret gospel in Clement's letter to Theodore and what is written in Clement's letter of Theodore and a strange statement in the first book of the Stromata:
Now the Scripture kindles the living spark of the soul, and directs the eye suitably for contemplation; perchance inserting something, as the husbandman when he ingrafts, but, according to the opinion of the divine apostle, exciting what is in the soul. "For there are certainly among us many weak and sickly, and many sleep. But if we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged." Now this work of mine in writing is not artfully constructed for display; but my memoranda are stored up against old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness, truly an image and outline of those vigorous and animated discourses which I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and truly remarkable men.

Of these the one, in Greece, an Ionic; the other in Magna Graecia: the first of these from Coele-Syria, the second from Egypt, and others in the East. The one was born in the land of Assyria, and the other a Hebrew in Palestine.

When I came upon the last (he was the first in power), having tracked him out concealed in Egypt, I found rest. He, the true, the Sicilian bee, gathering the spoil of the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, engendered in the souls of his hearers a deathless element of knowledge.

Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from escape the blessed tradition.

"In a man who loves wisdom the father will be glad." Wells, when pumped out, yield purer water; and that of which no one partakes, turns to putrefaction. Use keeps steel brighter, but disuse produces rust in it. For, in a word, exercise produces a healthy condition both in souls and bodies. "No one lighteth a candle, and putteth it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may give light to those who are regarded worthy of the feast." For what is the use of wisdom, if it makes not him who can hear it wise? For still the Saviour saves, "and always works, as He sees the Father." For by teaching, one learns more; and in speaking, one is often a hearer along with his audience. For the teacher of him who speaks and of him who hears is one -- who waters both the mind and the word. Thus the Lord did not hinder from doing good while keeping the Sabbath; but allowed us to communicate of those divine mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God.

And if one say that it is written, "There is nothing secret which shall not be revealed, nor hidden which shall not be disclosed," let him also hear from us, that to him who hears secretly, even what is secret shall be manifested. This is what was predicted by this oracle. And to him who is able secretly to observe what is delivered to him. that which is veiled shall be disclosed as truth; and what is hidden to the many, shall appear manifest to the few. For why do not all know the truth? why is not righteousness loved, if righteousness belongs to all? But the mysteries are delivered mystically, that what is spoken may be in the mouth of the speaker; rather not in his voice, but in his understanding. "God gave to the Church, some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck with the thyrsus. For "speak," it is said, "to a wise man, and he will grow wiser; and to him that hath, and there shall be added to him." And we profess not to explain secret things sufficiently -- far from it -- but only to recall them to memory, whether we have forgot aught, or whether for the purpose of not forgetting. Many things, I well know, have escaped us, through length of time, that have dropped away unwritten. Whence, to aid the weakness of my memory, and provide for myself a salutary help to my recollection in a systematic arrangement of chapters, I necessarily make use of this form. There are then some things of which we have no recollection; for the power that was in the blessed men was great. There are also some things which remained unnoted long, which have now escaped; and others which are effaced, having faded away in the mind itself, since such a task is not easy to those not experienced; these I revive in my commentaries. Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection, afraid to write what I guarded against speaking: not grudging -- for that were wrong -- but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in a wrong sense; and, as the proverb says, we should be found "reaching a sword to a child." For it is impossible that what has been written should not escape, although remaining unpublished by me. But being always revolved, using the one only voice, that of writing, they answer nothing to him that makes inquiries beyond what is written; for they require of necessity the aid of some one, either of him who wrote, or of some one else who has walked in his footsteps. Some things my treatise will hint; on some it will linger; some it will merely mention. It will try to speak imperceptibly, to exhibit secretly, and to demonstrate silently. The dogmas taught by remarkable sects will be adduced; and to these will be opposed all that ought to be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge, which, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition, from the creation of the world, will advance to our view; setting before us what according to natural contemplation necessarily has to be treated of beforehand, and clearing off what stands in the way of this arrangement. So that we may have our ears ready for the reception of the tradition of true knowledge; the soil being previously cleared of the thorns and of every weed by the husbandman, in order to the planting of the vine. For there is a contest, and the prelude to the contest; and them are some mysteries before other mysteries.
Clearly Clement begins by speaking of 'scripture.' He then mentions being instructed by certain 'blessed men.' The reference to the Sicilian honey bee is taken to be to a certain 'Pantainos' who was Clement's instructor by Eusebius and later Jerome but I am not so sure.

The reference to a bee taken bits of pollen from different flowers in the context of various gospels sounds remarkably similar to what is intimated in Irenaeus about the heretical gospel and secret Mark - i.e. they go beyond what the apostles revealed (i.e. Peter) to a final product which contained 'things from the apostles' and 'apostolic things' (i.e from those who weren't apostles) - in this case Mark's own notes. It is true that neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian ever come out and condemn Mark for developing a gospel which went beyond Peter's teaching but you can make out the shadowy possibility that this is what was originally lurking in the shadows - i.e. an 'apostolic' gospel rather than a gospel of the apostles.

I see this in a lot of features of our inherited 'story' about Paul and the proto-gospel. On the one hand the orthodox are adamant that he did not write a gospel but that his 'apostolic' gospel was written by an apostolic - i.e. someone who never met Jesus viz. 'Luke.' But Paul didn't meet Jesus either. How did he come to be an 'apostle' when this apostle/apostolic distinction crept into the anti-Marcionite orthodoxy? It is very peculiar to say the least. If Paul could be an apostle then surely Luke and Mark could have been apostles rather than mere 'apostolics.' I have always thought that this distinction is arbitrary to say the least. The canon of the Marcionite was called 'the apostolic' and so the name was explained as an inferior product or a product of a lesser sort of figure - viz. an 'apostolic' as opposed to an 'apostle.'

The idea then that an 'apostolic' - in this case Mark waited until 70 CE to take Peter's notes (i.e. the notes of an 'apostle') and his own notes (the notes of an 'apostolic') to make an 'apostolic' gospel - a gospel identified as 'apostolic' by his followers is clever way of subordinating that gospel by its detractors. Notice at once that Papias's interest in the παράδοσις/traditio runs though men that are called 'apostolic' by later standards (for instance John the presbyter). The viva voce of Papias must have been similar to the viva voce of the heretics in Irenaeus AH 3 - i.e. it was a living voice in the sense of holy spirit rather than mere 'oral tradition.'

But if this is true then the παράδοσις/traditio of AH 3 could well have been a written text and similarly Papias himself could well have understood that the same παράδοσις/traditio was preserved among 'apostolics' as well as a written collection of logia. I think we can't ignore that the Montanist interest in the Holy Spirit was more in keeping with the spirit of the earlier pre-Catholic age than we realize. God was in the world after the crucifixion. This was the point of the crucifixion - i.e. that God die on the cross and is reborn in various human vessels. I think it is very possible that an 'apostolic' like Mark could well have encapsulated a secret gospel by 'collecting' pollen from various 'flowers' in order to make his honey.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply