They were devoted to the apostles' teaching

Irenaeus – On the Apostolic Preaching

I like to post about evidence for early Christianity that gets less attention that it could get, if we open our eyes a little more. Stuff that the ‘ordinary’ Christian doesn’t know, but academic scholars do know. I like to put this in the hands of ordinary Christians.

This one is about a late but valuable witness to what Jesus’ apostles were preaching. You might think that we have it all in the New Testament. But what if there is more? In the Book of Acts, in the New Testament, it is written that the church was devoted to the apostles’ teaching, but how much of this teaching do we have? Nothing in the New Testament ever says that the New Testament includes the apostles’ whole teaching. (How could it? It wasn’t all completely collected and called the New Testament until after the writers’ deaths, so none of them knew its contents list.) The Gospel of John says that it doesn’t have enough space to tell of everything Jesus did.

So here it is: Irenaeus’ book called On the Apostolic Preaching. This is something special: an early church document that says it contains the apostles’ teaching, preserved by the church, and now summarised in the second century. Could there be a core in this that really does go back to Jesus’ apostles?

This document was written down by a second century Christian, Irenaeus of Lyon. The second century might seem a bit late at first, but on the other hand, Irenaeus was well placed. He tells us that he learned as a young man from a Christian bishop called Polycarp who had learned from John. (See Irenaeus’ other book Against Heresies, III.3.4.) So the relationships between these people are not far removed from the first century at all.  

On the Apostolic Preaching isn’t based on the New Testament, that’s for sure. And its contents lend credence to its claim to go right back to the apostles’ era. And Irenaeus didn’t just make it up. Before him, Justin Martyr also wrote down chunks of it, and he didn’t base it on the New Testament either. Writing in the second half of the second century AD, Irenaeus is quite clear about the first century origins of the material. He is writing it down, he says,

‘as the elders, the disciples of the apostles have handed down to us’ (3)

 ‘true is the tradition of preaching, that is, the witness of the apostles’ (86)

 ‘This, beloved is the preaching of the truth ... the apostles handed over...’ (98)

(John Behr’s translation, the numbers are as in his translation.)

The document sets out how Old Testament predictions come true in the life of Jesus:

• His country of birth was Judea and his people were the Jews (58)
• This happened while the land of Israel was under Roman rule (57)
• He was born in Bethlehem and born of a virgin (63)
• The magi visited the infant Jesus in a house (58)
• Jesus performed healings including for the deaf, the blind and the lame (67)
• He also raised the dead (66)
• Some believed in Jesus and others did not (56)
• Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a foal (65)
• At his arrest, Jesus was left abandoned by his disciples (76)
• Jesus was tortured and killed and his death was voluntary on his part (68)
• Herod and Pontius Pilate between them condemned Jesus to crucifixion (74)
• Pilate had, until then, held ill-will toward Herod (77)
• Jesus’ arms were stretched out on the cross (79)
• The soldiers crucifying him cast lots for his tunic (80)
•  Judas took thirty pieces of silver from Jewish leaders but repented and hanged himself, and the silver was used to buy a field for burial (81)
• On the cross Jesus was given vinegar to drink (82)
• He died (78)
• He was buried (72)

And there is a fair bit about his resurrection too.

Now I’m not writing this to say that On the Apostolic Preaching proves anything about the life of Jesus to us. That’s not my point at all.

What is so interesting is that Irenaeus is not saying that he is quoting from the gospels (which he had read) but that he was writing down the apostles’ preaching which had been handed down. We usually consider that we have this sort of information from the gospels. But Irenaeus has to be taken to mean this: that the core of this teaching is older than when the gospels were written down. He is writing down what was handed down from the apostles. If you are familiar with reading the gospels, and read On the Apostolic Preaching, then you will immediately note the difference in style when reading this. As for the style of it, it feels more like the sermons of Peter in the Book of Acts. That fits, given that this is supposed to be the apostles’ preaching.

Why did Irenaeus write it down? He himself gives his reason, when addressing his document to someone called Marcianus:

‘since at this present time, we are separated from each other in body... we have not hesitated to speak a little with you... by writing ... and to demonstrate, by means of a summary, the preaching of the truth, so as to strengthen your faith.’ (1)

In other words, this isn’t even the whole thing! It is a summary written down for Marcianus, since this man wasn’t present with Irenaeus to keep hearing the fuller tradition.

John Behr makes some really helpful comments about this document: one of the things that makes the document special is that it is the first summary of plain and straightforward church teaching that was passed from person to person. Unlike much of what Christian wrote in the second century -

• It isn’t argumentative – it isn’t one side of a polemical debate.
• It isn’t apologetics – it isn’t written as a defence of the faith from the attacks of outsiders – it’s teaching inside the early church.
• It isn’t a system of theology and beliefs.
• It hardly talks about how the church should be organised.
• The New Testament isn’t used as the basis of the teaching, although Irenaeus knows the NT.[1]

What the apostolic preaching does show is how the early church understood the Old Testament to be about Jesus. Whether you think it makes a good preach is another matter of course! This is a contribution to the evidence of a very early way of telling the story of Jesus that, at its core as an oral tradition, may be even older than the written version of the gospels – indeed in my view it likely is.

Whether or not you are convinced by the way the Old Testament has been drilled and mined and quarried and excavated to find scriptures to fit the life story of Jesus is up to your judgment. Some may seem to be stretching things, unearthing things in the Old Testament that you would never have thought of applying to Jesus’ story but making that connection anyway!

All that remains is for you to go and read it! I Recommend John Behr’s translation. Online versions can also be found.

---

[1] I don’t mean to give the impression that parts of the Bible were called ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ in Irenaeus’ day. These terms hadn’t been thought of, but I’m keeping this simpler for the general reader.

Tracing 'who knew who' back to the historical Jesus

There are independent lines of transmission, leading back to Jesus from many independent authors of material about Jesus.

Here are some examples of those independent lines of transmission (with references, in case you want to look them up). All of these point to a historical Jesus.

Who knew who?

Paul>>Jesus’ brother James, and Peter>>historical Jesus (see Galatians 1:19)

Luke>>eyewitnesses>>historical Jesus (see Luke 1:1-2), Including
Luke>>James>>historical Jesus (Acts 21:18 "and the rest of us went to see James")

Mark>>Peter>>historical Jesus (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3.1. See also Papias in Eusebius, History of the Church, III.39)

John>>historical Jesus (John 21:23-24; 1 John 1:1-3)

Author of Hebrews>>those who heard Jesus>>historical Jesus (see Hebrews 5:7; 2:3; 2:17,)

Papias>>his travelling contacts>>elders>>Andrew and other disciples>>historical Jesus (see Papias in Eusebius, History of the Church, III.39)

Papias>>Philip's daughters>>Philip>>apostles>>historical Jesus (see in Eusebius, History of the Church, III.39)

Papias>>Aristion and John the Elder>>historical Jesus (see in Eusebius, History of the Church, III.39)

Ignatius>>Onesimus>>Paul>>Jesus’ brother James, and Peter>>historical Jesus (see in Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 1, 2, 6)

Irenaeus>>Polycarp>>John and other apostles>>historical Jesus (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.4)

Irenaeus>>Polycarp>>others who saw Jesus>>historical Jesus (see Irenaeus, Letter to Florinus, in Eusebius, History of the Church, V.20)


Josephus>>unknown sources>>historical Jesus (e.g. Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9.1)

Tacitus>>unknown sources>>historical Jesus (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44)

Did Paul learn about Jesus only from 'revelations'?

This blog follows on from my earlier blog about what St Paul knew about Jesus. This is of interest for a few reasons:

• because Paul was a contemporary of when Jesus was supposed to have lived, frequenting the same places in Jerusalem and a fellow Israelite;
• because Paul started out from an independent position, initially opposed to the Jesus' movement, rather than part of it; and even when he changed sides, some tensions with the Jesus movement persisted, so he always had some independence;
• because Paul left his personal letters, several letters recognised as authentic by secular scholars, and in them he makes autobiographical comments about meeting some of the earliest Christians in the 30s and 40s of the first century - naming some of them, Peter, James, John - and it is clear he had time to learn from them about the Jesus they were so interested in;
• secular and Christian scholars agree that these letters were written in the 50s of the first century, about 20 years or so after Jesus is supposed to have gone public with his ministry, and as such are the earliest historical witness;
• and with these things in mind, we have an important secondary witness to the Jesus who these people said they were following.

So Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and to a degree had an independent perspective, initially opposed to the Jesus movement, not its pupil; and we have Paul's own words written within about two decades or so of Jesus' death. In fact, when Paul is talking about his contemporaries, he doesn't talk about fictional ones.

So why are some people saying there are issues with his sources of information about Jesus? In an autobiographical passage in his personal letter known as Galatians (written in the 50s of the first century according to first-hand eyewitness data), Paul said that he received his 'gospel' message by a revelation direct from God (Galatians 1:11-12). But what did he mean by that, and did he have any other sources of information about Jesus?


It's not easy to break down what he knew, because in Paul's words, he first of all knew 'the Scriptures' as a good Jew would. Then he knew stuff about the 'faith' of 'the churches of Judea' and he tried to destroy that 'faith' (until he changed sides). Then a 'gospel' came to him. These three things, 'Scripture', the 'faith' and a 'gospel', run like threads through his letters, but it is not easy to break them down into 'which is which', or to apportion Paul's knowledge about Jesus to each stage, especially when we realise how much contact with believers should be taken account of.

A claim (sometimes made by 'mythicists') that Paul had information about Jesus from 'revelations' only and from no other source is unsubstantiated. He did have other sources, but it is overlooked by those who focus only on his claims about having 'revelations'. Claiming Paul's knowledge is only from revelations has to sustain the far-fetched idea that Paul had learned not a single thing about Jesus from his direct contact with followers of Jesus when he was persecuting them, and had learned not a single thing about Jesus when spending a fortnight with Peter and when meeting Jesus' brother James. Not a single thing. It is highly implausible and improbable that he learned nothing. Some of this is to do with the Greek words used by Paul about how knowledge reached him, and as this is technical, I'm explaining about it in a footnote at the bottom of this post.

Some common mistakes are made by people who are not paying attention to what Paul actually says. Mistakes such as:

• failing to making the important distinction between Paul's 'gospel' and his 'faith' and his general information about Jesus, that which isn't in itself his 'gospel' message as such, or his 'faith';
• ignoring that Paul had a view of Jesus prior to his 'revelations'. That Paul did have such a view can only mean that he did have some information about Jesus prior to his revelations (and therefore his information was obviously not from revelations alone).
• imposing a few words in Galatians 1 on  how we read texts written years later (as if Paul met no-one who talked about Jesus in the meantime!). This, any academic can tell you, is very poor methodology for how to read a later text. The scientific thing to do is to ask, what (and how) did Paul know by the time he wrote Galatians? Then, what by the time he wrote 1 Corinthians? Then, what by the time he wrote Romans? To know what Paul was learning up to the time he wrote, say, Romans, then it would be wrong to have a cut-off too early. What happened in his life both before and after he wrote Galatians is fundamental to any investigation of Paul's knowledge. What happened in-between letters? Paul says he met various people over time who talked about Jesus, and this means he had other sources of information from time to time. 
• ignoring that Paul could have been in possession of writings by others, with some stories or sayings of Jesus written down in them.
• ignoring that in the time between his 'revelations' and his letter-writing, were moments of information verification. This in itself debunks the 'revelation' only theory.

Here is more on each of those things:

• There is a difference between Paul's 'gospel' message (which he says came by revelation) and his 'faith' and his general knowledge about Jesus. This compels us to enquire what his gospel message was, and it was to do with God reaching out to Gentiles (non-Jews). It is particularly his 'gospel' message which he says came by revelation - but he never says the same about every bit of information he has about Jesus. It is important to define which content constitutes his 'gospel'. All other information falls into a different 'non-gospel' category, which I am calling other information. Paul's 'gospel' is typically taken to be the novelty of how the message could be made appealing to non-Jews, by putting them on an equal footing with Jews but not requiring Gentile men to get circumcised. That's basically it. So there is a difference in categories of message that we need to understand so that we categorise Paul's information scientifically.
• Paul had an independent opinion of Jesus before his conversion, before he had any 'revelations' or 'gospel' message from God (2 Corinthians 5:16). He had information first; revelations came later. As Paul puts it himself, prior to conversion he was giving unwanted attention to the "churches of Judea", because "I persecuted the church", when his attention was on "the faith he once tried to destroy.” (Gal 1:13, 22) That's an example of where he talks about his 'faith' as something distinct from (but not disconnected from) his 'gospel'. It's obvious that Paul knew stuff about the 'faith' before his conversion, either from the Christians he confronted as their persecutor, or from what Paul's informants told him. Paul knew things that way, and he knew the Scriptures before his conversion, but in addition something unique about his 'gospel' came to him after his conversion, as covered above.
• Another mistake is to presume that Paul learnt nothing from anyone after he wrote that to the Galatians (a letter that looms large in these discussions). His life story didn't end when he wrote Galatians. Bear in mind that by the time he wrote years later to the Romans and Corinthians and others, a lot could and would have happened in the meantime. We know from what Paul says that he met other Christians a number of times after he wrote to the Galatians. So for example, he could have received from them things he later mentions about Jesus. Our parameters of investigation should not be limited by what he says in an earlier letter (Galatians) about revelations prior to that time.
• Another mistake is to overlook the possibility that Paul might have acquired written information about Jesus. That is, as well as meeting people, what about written information about Jesus circulating - could Paul have had access to some of this? Since Paul is giving his own writings into circulation in the early church, it is unlikely that these were the only things in circulation. However much or little time Paul spent with Jesus' disciples, he could spend as much time as he liked with what anyone else may have written. That's speculating a little, but it makes more sense than thinking that all of Paul's knowledge dropped out of the sky.
• Another mistake is to overlook that Paul consulted human sources to verify what had been revealed to him. In fact, Paul qualifies his claims about revelation by saying that his message was checked out  by people whose knowledge of Jesus goes further back than his own (Galatians 1:17-19; 2:1-2), and it was only after such consultation with human sources was done that he actually wrote his letters, the texts from which we get our information about him. So prior to writing Galatians, Paul's information is like a coin with two sides - revelation from God and verification from apostles., the end product being what he tells the Galatians.  

We can't speak only of Paul believing that he received 'revelations' direct from God, as if that's the whole story, when really it's only half the story, as we learn once we look at the texts carefully and understand about his human sources.

As mentioned, apart from his 'gospel' message, Paul had general knowledge about Jesus, and in other blogs I sum up his knowledge of Jesus' life and his knowledge of some other things about Jesus.


To say a little more about him consulting human sources, I've seen some sceptics nowadays speaking about Paul as if he walked about in a bubble keeping his revelations untouched by the world around him, when Paul says the opposite. For example:

• how did Paul come to think that Jesus had appeared to Peter? Setting aside whether we think such unusual events happen, did that story about Peter come as a private 'revelation' from God to Paul? Whether we think so or not, Paul after three years went to meet Peter and spent fifteen days with him. This gives it away: Paul's knowledge about Peter has been checked - if not altogether informed - by virtue of meeting Peter for himself.

• or how did Paul come to think that James was Jesus' brother? Was that a private revelation from God to Paul? Whether we think so or not, Paul met James at the same time that he met Peter. This gives it away: Paul's knowledge about James has been 'sense-checked' by virtue of meeting James for himself.

This sense-checking of Paul's knowledge is made firmer still because after fourteen years he goes to meet Peter and James in Jerusalem again, to get his preaching vetted by them.

And afterwards, Paul is confident enough to indicate in writing that he preaches the same gospel message as they did. That indicates that Paul has 'compared notes' with Peter and James (and John too, he mentions) and that is how he can say that his gospel matches theirs.

So, however Paul acquired his knowledge about Jesus - before and after his conversion and his revelations - he's been in situations where that knowledge has been through a process of validation by people whose knowledge of Jesus goes further back than his own, and his letters are an end product of this process. His letter to the Galatians actually says that he exposed his knowledge to the 'experts', and was reassured about his message by this process of validation. And he had plenty of opportunity to learn more from them in the process too. 

Some people ask 'Did Paul invent Jesus?' and - in addition to what is above - a more specific answer on that is here. Prior to his interrogating church members, Paul's knowledge of Jesus may have been limited to what he heard through the grapevine from his fellow Pharisees. (As for that being part of his background, he describes himself as "in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church" Phil 3:6.) It is doubtful whether he would have regarded anything as reliable that he heard through that grapevine, once he had converted to following Jesus. After his conversion, his sources would have been as above.


Footnote: the technical language

1. παραδίδωμι and παραλαμβάνω

Sometimes Paul uses technical language about teaching being passed down to himself, and himself passing it down to others. Confusion about this language leads some people to think that Paul is attributing knowledge to private divine revelations even when Paul isn't.
In fact, Paul was putting his original readers on notice precisely when he was talking about tradition that was being passed on person to person where he was a link in the chain. He did this by using together two specific Greek words. No English translation makes that obvious because the smoke signal is two Greek words that had a technical meaning when Greek-speaking Jewish rabbis used either of them - and especially when using them both together - about teaching their religion. These two words used are paradidomi - παραδίδωμι - and paralambano - παραλαμβάνω. Where he was using these words about teaching - and especially where using these two words together about teaching - Paul wasn't laying claim to direct messages from heaven. He was claiming to be a legitimate teacher of what the church was passing on from person to person. It's embedded in his choosing to use these words.


The first word, paradidomi (παραδίδωμι), had an everyday meaning and a specialist technical meaning. It's everyday meaning would be expressed in something like this: "the policeman handed over the criminal to the jailor". The meaning of "handing over" someone or something physically is the common meaning, and you see it used that way in, for example, Acts 12:4, 21:11, and 27:1. You see it used that way in all four gospels too. That's not the sense that Paul uses it in when talking about church teaching. Here he uses it the same way that Jewish rabbis did about their teaching. It's used here in the sense that a tradition or teaching was passed down, passed along, handed on.


The second word, paralambano (παραλαμβάνω), also had an everyday meaning and a specialist technical meaning. It's everyday meaning would be expressed in something like this: "the mother took along her daughter". The meaning "took along" is the common meaning, and you see it used that way in, for example, Acts 15:39, 16:33, 21:24, 21:26, 21:32, and 23:18. You see it used that way in all four gospels too. That's not the sense Paul uses it in. He uses it in his letters the same way that Jewish rabbis did about their teaching. It's used here in the sense that a tradition or teaching was passed down, passed along, handed on, very similar to how paradidomi was used. Although English translations get it right by saying "handed on", that's not enough to tell us that this is a technical word in the right context.

2. Prepositions: παρα and ἀπὸ

Translations of Paul's letters tend to obscure this by translating it simply as "received". The meaning gets obscured further by the fact that Paul uses the word with different prepositions which don't have a simple one-to-one direct correspondence in English. When he says he received something by revelation from God, he uses the preposition παρα. But we have to note where he varies from this and why he does so.


So, Paul uses παρα with παραλαμβάνω when talking about direct communication from one to another in Gal 1:12, 1 Thess 2:13, 1 Thess 4:1, 2 Thess 3:6. That goes whether it is teaching from an apostle or revelation from God.


You see a difference in 1 Cor 11:23 when the preposition isn't παρα but rather ἀπὸ. Now it has the sense of a teaching that was passed down from the Lord, rather than passed down by the Lord. That is, it's a church tradition, which is attributed to Jesus as the original source, but was passed down to Paul second or third hand.


You see another difference in 1 Cor 15: 1-3, where it is used without either παρα or ἀπὸ, and the sense is of a teaching that is passed on, without bothering to say who it's from previously. The sense that scholars get here is that 1 Cor 15:3-7 is a very early Christian creed from days before Paul's conversion to Christianity, possibly from the apostolic circle, and passed from church to church. Paul was just one of the teachers passing it on.


This sort of technical language is the kind of thing lurking under the surface of translations that is hard to convey effectively without some knowledge of what is going on in the Greek. Where paradidomi - παραδίδωμι - and paralambano - παραλαμβάνω - are used together, it gives the sense that the teacher is passing down a teaching, and the pupils are receiving it as passed down to them. That's what Paul does in 1 Cor 15:3 as παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι...

Paul also uses these two words together this way in 1 Corinthians 11:23 thus: ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι...

So where he is doing this, just like a rabbi he is flagging up to his churches that he is acting in effect as their rabbi duly passing on established church teaching to them, not claiming personal divine revelation from heaven for it. His pupils wouldn't take it any other way.


In the few places where Paul does claim personal direct revelation from heaven, he clearly departs from using those words to describe the transmission from heaven to himself, avoiding confusion in Greek, but not avoiding confusion in English translation.

I'm indebted for some of these points to A. M. Hunter's book, Paul and his Predecessors, (London: SCM Press, 1961) pages 19-20.


For a brief, broader overview of evidence, Richard Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2006):

“The evidence is found in Paul's use of the technical terms for handing on a tradition (ρaradidσmί, i Cor 11:2, 23, corresponding to Hebrew másar) and receiving a tradition (ρaralambanö, ι Cor 15:1, 3; Gal 1:9; Col 2:6; ι Thess 2:13; 41 2 Thess 3:6, corresponding to Hebrew gίbbel). (For this terminology, see M. S. Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 73-75, 80.) These Greek words were used for formal transmission of tradition in the Hellenistic schools and so would have been familiar in this sense to Paul's Gentile readers. They also appeared in Jewish Greek usage (Josephus, Ant. 13.297; C. Αρ. 1.60; Mark 7:4, 13; Acts 6:14), corresponding to what we find in Hebrew in later rabbinic literature (e.g.,265m. Avot 1.1). Paul also speaks of faithfully retaining or observing a tradition (katecho, 1 Cor 11:2; 15:2; krateo, 2 Thess 2:15, which is used of Jewish tradition in Mark 7:3, 4, 8, corresponding to the Hebrew 'ahaz) and uses, of course, the term "tradition" itself (paradosis, 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, used of Jewish tradition in Matt 15:2; Mark 7:5; Gal 1:14; Josephus, Ant. 13.297).”

2. κατὰ

Misconceptions can arise from translators choice of words. In some English translations, you find 1 Corinthians 15:3 confusingly saying that Jesus died for sins "according to" the Scriptures. Problem. This is simply translating one Greek word, κατὰ, and translators prefer this very formal sounding language for it. What they mean is "in keeping with". Christ died for sins in keeping with the Scriptures. That is, the event was in line with expectations from religious writings, in keeping with them. So, what's the misconception? Not knowing the Greek, some people have taken "according to" as meaning, "Christ died, so the Scriptures say". That misconception comes only from the slightly misleading English phrase "according to". It has prompted some people to think that this is evidence to support a fringe theory that Paul's knowledge of Jesus dying was only on the say so of Old Testament writings that he had read, and from revelations. Whereas the key to understanding this correctly is to know that κατὰ here does not mean "on the say so" but rather means "in keeping with".

Who wrote the gospels?

Some people like to ask this question: who wrote the four gospels?

But that’s not one question, it’s four. Let’s start with one: the best question of all. What is the earliest evidence for who wrote any of these gospels?

Mark’s gospel

Mark’s gospel is dated to the first century and the authorship is credited to Mark. But how do we know that? It is Papias’ comments on how Mark came to write his gospel that give it away. Who was Papias? Born in the first century, he was a church leader in Asia.

In the second century he published a series of books of Jesus’ sayings, sadly now lost. Bits remain. In them, he explains Mark’s gospel as it as was told to him:

“Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of His followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter’s. Peter used to adapt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangement of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it.’” (Eusebius, History of the Church, III.39.)[i]

The fact that Papias didn’t wholeheartedly approve of the way Mark’s gospel is ordered gets a bit of attention. This doesn't seem to mean that Mark has no structure at all; but by contrast Papias says that Matthew wrote an ‘ordered arrangement’ of the material in his gospel. We know that Mark's gospel is structured very carefully, if you have eyes to see it. Either Papias couldn't see that, or he didn't like it. Papias was probably measuring Mark against the 'Matthew's gospel' that he knew, and preferred the order of events in this Matthew.[ii] The obvious difference is that in Matthew's Gospel, "the Lord’s sayings and doings" are interweaved much more, more chunks of teaching placed in the narrative compared to Mark. It's almost as if readers of Mark originally had two sections that were not integrated - a well-structured story section, and a sayings section which had not yet been integrated into the narrative, leaving Papias distinctly unimpressed with the lack of orderly integration of "the Lord’s sayings and doings" in Mark's Gospel.

It is worth mentioning that there are critics who distrust Papias as a historian getting his facts straight about who wrote Mark, but they do so because, ironically, they do trust Papias as a historian insofar as saying the contents of Mark are not in order. This is a really methodologically unsound criticism. How can Papias be a good enough historian to recognised inadequately integrated work, but at the same time not a good enough historian to say that Mark was the one responsible for that lack of orderly integration?

There are several good reasons for finding this account, as recorded by Papias, credible:

• Papias doesn’t try to credit the writing to an apostle. Naming a relatively obscure person – Mark – as the author is the sort of thing you wouldn’t do unless there was real substance to this. Mark’s name doesn’t give the gospel any great boost, it establishes it as second hand. In the second century, the fashion was to attribute newly written gospels to the name of an apostle or someone else with a big role in the New Testament. Mark’s name just doesn’t tick those boxes. The opportunity to pass the work off as written by an apostle isn’t seized. It signals authenticity in Mark’s name.
• Papias’ criticism levelled at Mark (for not putting all the events in a clear chronological order) suggests that this is an honest account of the gospel’s origins. This isn’t some legend unreasonably praising it to the skies. Far from it.[iii]
• The span of time between the writing of Mark and the presbyter's knowledge of how it was written isn’t going to be very great. It’s within the span of living memory.[iv]

The link with Peter, as Mark’s source, also has support which is important for the credibility of what Papias says:

• With unintentional usefulness, episodes written elsewhere establish a link between Peter and Mark. Peter led a group meeting in the house of Mark’s mother (Acts 12:12).[v]
• Peter is repeatedly the focal point of anecdotes in Mark’s gospel.[vi]
• The geography of Mark's gospel is an idiosyncratic mental map of a Galilean fisherman, fitting Peter.[vii]

These factors complicate things for critics who doubt the trustworthiness of what Papias wrote.

In the second century, church leader and author Irenaeus also wrote, “After [Peter’s] departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself delivered to us in writing what had been announced by Peter.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.1.1[viii]) Irenaeus probably got that from Papias. Apart from Papias, an early church writer called Clement corroborates Mark’s authorship of the gospel.[ix]

The evidence places the writing of Mark’s gospel squarely in the second half of the first century. That comes via Papias from the presbyter who was closer in time to when Mark was written.[x]

Or was Mark’s gospel really inspired by Paul?

By the way, an interesting thing about this: it’s been suggested to me by a sceptic that the biblical gospels are based on Paul’s teaching instead of that of Jesus’ disciples. But if that were so, then Paul is very conspicuous by his absence in Papias’ accounts of the writing of the gospels! Take a look: Papias says more about his sources of information, and – wait for this – Paul doesn’t get the slightest mention anywhere. (This digression has a potential bearing on dating by the way. Paul and Peter had exchanges going back to the thirties of the first century - according to Galatians 1-2 which was written in the 50s of the first century according to good data - so, how much should a gospel based on Peter's reflections reflect any debate between Peter and Paul? How might we expect that influence to show if Mark's Gospel were written in the 60s of the first century? How if it were written in the 40s, or the 50s? Should it show at all?)

Papias interviewed people late in the first century about the sayings of Jesus, and names some of them. He wrote about it early in the second century. (His words are preserved in Eusebius, History of the Church, III.39).[xi] Papias interviewed people who knew the first century 'elders' (named by him as John and Aristion) who were still living and had known the disciples Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and Matthew. Note: no Paul there.

Papias did the interviews to get as much as possible of the disciples' recollection of Jesus' teachings. (That these elders, still living, had known the disciples therefore puts Papias’ interviews in the late first century.[xii]) The point of his interviews is that these earlier disciples had direct access to Jesus' teachings, that was not possible for later Christians such as himself and the readers of his book. This does not make sense, by the way, unless Jesus was known to be a real person by Papias' contacts, and that Jesus lived when Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John and Matthew were alive.[xiii]

No mention of Paul, to return to the point. Papias’ chains of transmission do not include Paul, either for Jesus’ sayings or for the gospels. This undermines one of the modern conspiracy theories that Paul was behind it all. He doesn’t even figure in Papias’ picture. (In fact, the first person to try to tie Paul to a gospel – the gospel of Luke – comes later in the form of Irenaeus, but he’s not very convincing about it.) And Papias’ information was first century information.

Was Mark’s gospel originally anonymous?

Most expert biblical scholars will tell you that all the biblical gospels are anonymous, in a technical sense. Usually, the argument is that they were anonymous until Irenaeus gave them names towards the end of the second century.

As said, careful scholars mean ‘anonymous’ in a purely technical sense, which is that in the body of the text the author is anonymous in the same way that the actual authors are anonymous in the text of Harry Potter, Oliver Twist and To Kill A Mockingbird. (e.g. You don't see J. K. Rowling's name in the Harry Potter stories. The actual text of Harry Potter is technically anonymous. We know the author's name from the book cover and publicity.)

Many scholars like to go further and speculate that when the gospels were first circulated there was nothing attached to them equivalent to a book cover with an author's name on it. (This would typically be a tag attached to a scroll in ancient times, not a book cover). Some scholars go even further and assert that no-one originally knew who wrote any of the four gospels, and that names such as Mark were only added to them long afterwards. This sort of absolute anonymity is what the ordinary person would mean by 'anonymous', as distinct from the purely technical use of the word. So who is right?

Let’s go straight to Mark’s Gospel. Is it anonymous?  The argument arises (apart from other theories explained further below) by speculating as to what was on Mark's gospel before it got its formulaic "according to Mark". The argument for anonymity infers that there was a version before the "according to attribution Mark" attribution, and it assumes that this earlier version had no kind of author's attribution at all. No tag. Thus, on the basis of inference, speculation and assumptions, critics assert, as if it were a fact, that the gospels were anonymous in the sense that there was no tag on them. This is not a conclusion drawn from evidence, but from inference – scholars observe that since the first copies no longer exist, then it is fair game to infer what they were like. Some would say they probably had a tag. Others say they probably didn't have a tag. 

The argument for anonymity can easily give the weird impression of some intentionality - that the author's name was deliberately withheld from the start, that the early Christian community was in the dark about the origin of this gospel and every biblical gospel. It is a strange scenario. You might think it's like comparing it to when a writer of a complaint wants their name withheld, or to a generous donor who wishes to remain anonymous. But the argument for absolute anonymity is more extreme than that. Why assume all the writers of all the gospels would so wish it? It's a big assumption. When you try to image the scene, it starts to look very silly. I'll come to that.

By way of background, the words “according to Mark” are a formula (like “according to Matthew”, “according to Luke”, “according to John”), a formula that, it is inferred, became the norm in the second century rather than the first, and that this happened regardless of how the gospels authors’ were presented beforehand.[xiv] The inference is quite reasonable, although it is really an argument from silence, based on the observation that the church fathers don’t at first refer to them as "gospel according to..." until later. However, arguments from silence are hard to make stick. And a manuscript tradition of these supposed earlier versions is unattested by the church fathers and absent from ancient manuscripts. It remains an inference. Now it is not a wild suggestion to say that ‘Gospel according to…’ was added as a formula. But it is a more radical suggestion to say that the name ‘… Mark’ was added later, for example.

Of course in general, if the community in which it was written knows who wrote a book, then the mere absence of a name on a cover does not make it anonymous, at least not in the sense that ordinary people use the word. That’s just detail - the authorship is known in that community. Therefore, speculating that there were versions for every gospel without authors' names on scrolls does not in any case necessarily lead to a conclusion that they were anonymous. The theory of anonymity assumes more or less also that the original community was uninformed as to authorship.

This is where the scenario that many scholars assume starts to look a bit silly, if you think it through. In the close-knit world of the first Christians, it seems unlikely that a gospel would appear out of thin air without those around knowing who wrote it. It is rash to speak of the gospels as if they were produced anonymously by hermits unknown to anyone. First century Christianity was very much about community. There is no reason to suppose that the first recipients of the gospels happened to find the gospels miraculously without knowing who wrote them, as if they were dropped on the doormat in the night wrapped in unmarked brown paper by a masked individual wearing a hood. 

The balance of probabilities is that the Christian communities knew who amongst their members could read and write and who was spending all the hours God sends writing up a gospel. It would have been a talking point. In such communities, if you have something unusual for breakfast the whole community knows about it by lunchtime. It is easy to imagine the scribe being thanked before the community (eg in church). Deliberate anonymous writing within the church community - for something as substantial as a gospel - would have been unlikely to say the least, and one wonders what sort of society is imagined by people who suppose this. Complete anonymity is a pretty incredible idea when we’re talking about this. The only realistic question which could possibly be asked is whether the attribution of names has been preserved accurately, which name on which gospel.

It’s no surprise that Papias knows. Papias just happens to provide our earliest surviving discussion of the subject.[xv] 

What about other academic theories that the gospels were anonymous?

Such theories usually circle around the fact that early church fathers cite passages corresponding with the gospels but none of them name them as contents of this or that named gospel until Irenaeus does in the second half of the second century (setting aside for the moment that we have at least got named gospels in Papias, and Justin Martyr – before Irenaeus wrote – picks out one gospel as ‘Peter’s Memoirs’, by which he is referring to Mark’s Gospel). 

The hasty conclusion that the gospels were anonymous on the basis of their not being named in their earliest citations by church fathers (eg Ignatius) is unscientific in a manner unfortunately typical of some scholars outside the physical sciences. In contrast, any scientist would introduce a control for comparison: for example, do the said church fathers normally name authors when citing books with famous author attributions? If the answer is yes, then the 'anonymous' gospels theory has more weight. If the answer is no, then the anonymous gospels theory can draw no support from the manner of early citations. In fact, in case after case, we find early church fathers quoting all manner of things without naming their source - they are inconsistent, but very often quote without citing sources. This humanities theory does not pass more scientific manners of testing. 

The same unscientific fault can be found when scholars inspect Irenaeus' contribution. Many a  scholar will say that as Irenaeus was first to report the names of the four gospels as a group (forgetting for the moment about Papias), unlike earlier citations in Ignatius and Justin Martyr etc., then Irenaeus probably invented the four gospel authors names. Where is the scientific control element in this? In fact, Irenaeus names things in the manner of a cataloguist, which he very much does across the breadth of his work, especially in cataloguing heresies. The fact that he normally behaves as a cataloguist  - which provides a control element - does not mean that he invents the things he is cataloguing in the case of the gospels. He groups and orders information undoubtedly. In fact he names a number of apocryphal gospels too - are we to suppose that he invented their names also? Are we to assume that Irenaeus invented the name of every darned thing he catalogues except for those already named by a predecessor? Hardly. But humanities-style imaginations sometimes run riot when analysing the naming of gospels. 

About our witness Papias

We only have snippets of what Papias wrote, preserved by being quoted by other writers (e.g. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Jerome and Andreas and half a dozen other church fathers discuss it[xvi]). The longest quotes from Papias are found in Eusebius’ History of the Church. Can we trust these quotes? There is no basis in evidence to dispute the accuracy of Eusebius’ quotes from Papias. Eusebius was no fan of Papias (because of Papias’ millennarian theology) so it is inconceivable that Eusebius fictitiously made Papias into an authority about any subject.

Also on the gospels:

The biblical gospels were all originally anonymous? How historically plausible is that?
Did Jesus exist? 6. Do the gospels believe in a historical Jesus?

Chinese Whispers? On the reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life & teachings




How could a historical Jesus prophesy that the Temple would be destroyed?



62AD: The year in which the Book of Acts was written? (This gives a date for when Luke's Gospel was written by.)

               

---

[i] Eusebius, The History of the Church, translated by G.A. Williamson, with an introduction by A. Louth (London, Penguin, 1989) 103-4..

[ii] Schoedel, W.R., “Papias” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, 140.

[iii] Barnett, P., The Birth of Christianity The First Twenty Years (Michigan/Cambridge, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005) 160-1.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Barnett, P., Finding the Historical Christ (Michigan/Cambridge, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009) 90.

[vii] See Richard Bauckham's talk "Mark's Geography and the origin of Mark's Gospel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4THNI0CxbE

[viii] Grant, R.M., Irenaeus of Lyons (London/New York, Routledge, 1997), 124.

[ix] Ehrman, B. D., The New Testament and other Early Christian Writings: A Reader, Second Edition (New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004) 369.

[x] Barnett, P., The Birth of Christianity The First Twenty Years (Michigan/Cambridge, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005) 159.

[xi] See introduction in Grant, R.M., Irenaeus of Lyons (London/New York, Routledge, 1997), 35. Grant’s conclusion is that Papias supplied his information towards the end of the first century or soon after.

[xii] Wedderburn puts it that Papias was writing when the elders were still alive. Wedderburn, A.J.M. A History of the First Christians (London, T&T Clark International, 2004) 246 n.21.

[xiii] Jake O'Connell, "Papias' Testimony to the Existence of Jesus" in Shattering the Christ Myth, ed. James Patrick Holding, (Xulon Press, 2008) 73-86.

[xiv] When English translations say, “according to”, that is just our way of translating the original Greek word which is just KATA. “According to…” was probably put on the four gospels to preserve the names for each gospel as passed down to us.

[xv] You might ask: supposing Mark’s name was never on the gospel, in contrast why is it different for Paul whose name appears in his letters? Paul put his name precisely because they were letters from him to someone else. The gospels are not letters. The question is: what should be expected of a gospel? (not, ‘why does a gospel not look like a letter?’).

[xvi] Ehrman, B. D., The New Testament and other Early Christian Writings: A Reader, Second Edition (New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004) 369.