One basic problem I have with your theory is that Papas doesn't define *
logia* in the way you do; as quoted by Eusebius, Papias describes Mark as a
presentation of the *logia*, also described as the "things said or done by
Christ," though lacking in order and artfulness of arrangement; Matthew, in
contrast, "concatenated the *logia*," providing them with the artful
arrangement that was lacking in Mark. Papias' *logia*, in other words, form
books like Mark and Matthew.
For this reason, Austin Farrer suggests the translator of Papias render *
logia* as "oracles" or "divine teachings" rather than "sayings" (for which
one would expect *logoi*); he notes that the title of Papias' book (which to
judge from Eusebius' quotations was by no means limited to the teachings of
Jesus) was *Exposition of the *Logia* of the Lord.* FWIW, I think Farrer has
the best explanation of the Papias fragment, as an attempt to explain why
multiple, superficially similar accounts of Jesus' life were in circulation
in the late first and early second century; Papias' explanation is that Mark
originated as a sort of "reporter's notebook" account, the first draft of
Jesus' history as taught orally by Peter, whereas (extant) Matthew and Luke
were variant Greek translations of (hypothetical) Semitic Matthew.
But you don't have to accept Farrer's interpretation of Papias, or Papias'
account of Gospel origins, to recognize that what Papias means by *logia* is
"anecdotes relating things said or done by Jesus." The fragments of Papias
supply no evidence for the existence of a written collection of Jesus'
sayings along the lines of Q or the *Gospel according to Thomas.*
Austin Graduate School of Theology
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Ronald Price <ron-price@...>wrote:
> On 02/07/2011 15:19, "Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...> wrote:
> > It would surely be remarkable if the Second Tier Gospels, singly or
> > had a better pipeline to Jesus than the earlier Mark.
> When I first started to investigate the gospels from a historical point of
> view, I also thought Mark would be the best place to look. Indeed Mark is
> the best source for the passion and death of Jesus, though of course it
> needs to be approached using the tools of biblical criticism.
> But Mark is not the best source for the teaching of Jesus. This is because
> the authors of the gospels of Matthew (ca. 90 CE) and Luke (ca. 95 CE) were
> more historically dependable than Mark in their copying of the aphorisms
> recorded (as Papias noted) by the apostle Matthew.
> Ron Price,
> Derbyshire, UK
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]