Papias and the meaning of ἐξήγησις.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

That's why Papias accepts that Mark wrote an original narrative via 'anecdotes' (the original Greek terminology is somewhat more plastic than the English equivalent). Mark wrote something 'inaccurately' which Matthew 'corrected' but his 'correction' (= the Gospel of the Hebrews cited in Clement in 'Papian terms' see above) is only 'more correct' for reasons which would never convince a historian. They were more 'correct' because they were more interpretative but interpretive in the right way = i.e. as a systematic 'interpretation' of Old Testament prophesies now realized in the person of Jesus.

So for instance, Matthew has MORE references to Scripture and the fulfillment of Scripture which in itself IS A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT FOR 'AUTHENTICITY.' But we begin to see Papias as something of a spiritualist. But Mark must similarly have been 'mystical' insofar as he writes according to 'anecdotes' (of course scholars interpret the term as 'historical' anecdotes but the terminology does not presuppose that.

This was also my former pov. But the criticism of the Gospel of Matthew could perhaps even be more severe, because Papias may have wanted to suggest that the Greek Gospel of Matthew is just an doubtful interpretation of what the Apostle actually wrote in Hebrew.

[Secret Alias]

Unglaublich. Wir sind uns über etwas einig!

[Ben C. Smith]

There is no doubt that the term exegesis can mean interpretation. The question is whether that is what it has to mean as (part of) the title of Papias' work. (That the word itself, as simply a term in the language, does not have to mean interpretation is clear enough.)

It seems that Papias, in the preface quoted by Eusebius, clarified that his writing primarily contains interpretations

[Papias himself writes:] But I shall not hesitate to arrange alongside my interpretations (ερμηνειας) as many things as I ever learned well and remembered well from the elders

That is a great point.

Okay, then, upon reflection, I withdraw the overall point of my OP completely. My current view is that Papias probably intended the term exegesis in his title to mean "interpretation," and not the less colorful "account" or the like. Kunigunde was right, and I was wrong. Papias intended to interpret the logia of the Lord, and he also intended to lay out, alongside his interpretations, certain things from "the elders," including (per Eusebius, and perhaps especially) John and Aristion.

[Secret Alias]

That impresses me more than being right. You always were the smartest person at the forum but now you are also the wisest.

[Ben C. Smith]

Well, thank you.