Jesus Mythicism and How Papias Overturns it.

A Critical Reassessment of Papias and the Mythical Jesus position.

by Vincent Sapone

 

I have recently argued that Papias' literary activity dates much earlier than current scholarship sublimely assumes it to. That Papias wrote c. 105 and that his reference to Mark was canonical Mark are fairly secure. This push-back has severe repercussions for Jesus-Mythicism based upon an analysis of the content of Papias' works. Writing c. 105, and handing down a tradition received from an elder, Papias claims that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, a companion of Peter. The terminus ad quem of this tradition must be 100 AD [1] with the terminus a quo being ca. 68 AD (the time of composition of Mark's Gospel). Now I will argue that this tradition testifies to an actual historical Jesus behind Mark's stories and the Jesus movement.

 

Mythicism:

The mythicist must argue that somehow Mark, or someone just before him invented a historical Jesus. Paul has the mythical Christ in the fifties which by 70 AD with Mark, is the flesh and blood Jesus of the gospels--and all their underlying sources! [2]

Paul mentions Peter as a follower of Jesus. He was contemporary with Peter and even had contact with him (contemporary primary data). Therefore, Peter's historicity is axiomatic. Mythicists, it seems, must contend that Peter was a follower of the mythical Christ and was later cast as a follower of an earthly figure. How tenable is this position in light of an earlier dating of Papias? [3] The first century tradition connects the text as the memoirs of Peter, an eyewitness follower of an historical Jesus. Papias also wrote the following:

4 But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too. For I did not assume that whatever comes from books is as helpful to me as what comes from a living and lasting voice.

Here Papias inquires of those who knew the original apostles. He wants to know what they say about Jesus. He did after all, write five books entitled, "Interpretations of the Oracles of the Lord." Thus, Papias relays to us that these followers of Jesus, the original followers of Jesus, had clearly believed in an historical, flesh and blood Jesus. Otherwise he would not be defending the content of Mark as stemming from apostolic preaching. He obtained his information directly from those who had followed the Lord's apostles and in turn, wrote his own books interpreting them. He also referenced the Gospel of Mark, as already mentioned and connects the dots in supplying information of a recently crucified Jesus.

Papias wrote, "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

This Peter fella is connected to Papias via one step and was an original follower of Jesus. This is that same Peter found in the Pauline corpus. Thus, we are furnished with clear evidence of an recently crucified Jesus and the fact that his followers--the original ones mentioned by Mark et al --some of whom are confirmed by Paul-- taught//believed in an historical Jesus. Eusebius wrote, "And the Papias being explained now admits that he had received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, and declares that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John. At any rate, he hands down their traditions in his treatises, often mentioning them by name. " Eusebius apparently had access to this work which hands down these traditions.

The Jesus of Mark had followers who can be proved to be real by contemporary primary data in the Pauline corpus. These followers were were responsible for the preservation of Jesus material (Papias) and clearly believed in a flesh and blood Jesus as Mark, Papias, pre-Gospel traditions, Q, M or L, Josephus, Tacitus, Thomas and others have them. The mythicist can no longer read behind these sources and excise a flesh and blood Jesus from the earliest core of material. The Crucified and alleged cosmic Christ of Paul is the same Palestinian Jew who flouted convention and died on a Roman cross in the first third of the first century. We can no longer toy with the notion that when Paul mentions the "pillars" they could have believed in a mythical Christ. Paul must be read with the same backdrop as all these other works. He was a contemporary of these original apostles.

Anticipating Responses from Mythicists:

Papias cannot be purely mistaken here as he relays their traditions in his treatises, according to Eusebius who had access to his works. Another possibility is that he has made up the entire story. But he quotes the various traditions, some of which come from other works (e.g. women accused of a multitude of sins) and even had access to earlier works (GMark and the larger more ordered to which it is defended against). That Papias is whole-sale fabricating is unlikely and runs contrary to his direct autobiographical testimony.

The traditions he relays in his works-- are reputed to have come from those who heard the apostles. For whatever odd reason Papias chose to, it must be maintained by the mythicist that he lied about all this and that he falsely attributed Mark's Petrine authority to a nonexistent elder . Or simply that Eusebius, who heaped scorn upon him, made up these details, falsely attributed several quotes to him and also decided to have Irenaeus say something about Papias only to add in an objection against it. Then Eusebius had the audacity to refer his interested readers to those very works themselves that stand behind his spurious references.

What we have here is direct data that has a direct line of transmission to contemporary primary data. Outside of eyewitness accounts, this is the best type of material we could ask for in this situation. There are no gaps. Jesus --> Apostles -->Followers of Apostles --> Papias. What stands at this core is that there were original followers of Jesus (those pillar types in Paul) and that they believed in a flesh and blood Jesus. They taught about then and any followers of the apostles Papias came across, he inquired as to their specific teachings and interpreted them in his five books. The mythicist is left either accusing Papias of outright lying and deception throughout his five treatises on the Lord, or conspiracy theories whereby Eusebius fabricated all the information he now records on Papias. This or the 30's-80's AD was an overextended April Fool's day and the second generation of Jesus' followers engaged in a mass conspiracy to trick poor Papias and the rest of subsequent civilization into thinking a mythical-Christ was a man who walked the earth.

 

Vinnie

[1] E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies actually gave 15 years difference from Papias to the elder. I have been less lenient.

[2] In itself, this notion can be shown dubious through analysis of the text of Mark alone, but I am providing exsternal information standing in opposition to this belief.

[3] By this question, I do not intend to convery the notion that this is tenable without an earlier dating of Papias.