Let's try to go over what some of the different interpretations are, to avoid misunderstandings.
One hypothesis about Papias assumes that Papias was comparing (by speculation, tradition, or knowledge) a text of Mark with a text of Matthew, given the reference quoted by Eusebius that Matthew "arranged" (συνετάξατο) the logia (τὰ λόγια), while Mark had the dominical logia (τῶν κυριακῶν ... λογίων) but not in order (οὐχ...σύνταξιν). On this hypothesis, Mark is compared negatively with with what was written in the Hebrew dialect. This hypothesis itself has variant related hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that Papias is implying that a Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation of the Matthean logia (as suggested above) or the hypothesis that Papias is implying that any such Greek gospels have deficiencies that are explained because of the inadequacies of their authors at accessing and using (interpreting) the Matthean logia.
Another hypothesis about Papias assumes that Papias is relating a comparison of an "elder" that reflects ambiguously or even somewhat poorly on all the gospels or at least all the gospels before the "elder." This hypothesis takes shape when identifying the elder with John the elder, who is associated with an editor of the Gospel of John. On this hypothesis, Eusebius didn't quote more than he did because the comparison didn't reflect well on the synoptic gospels, i.e., the ones with genealogies. This provides a context for the "each one" in the fragment of Papias "who interpreted as they were able." Like the second form of the hypothesis above that "any such Greek gospels have deficiencies that are [partly] explained because of the inadequacies of their authors at accessing and using (interpreting) the Matthean logia," the authors of the gospels with genealogies are understood in the tradition related by Papias as authors who had used prior sources, including the text of Mark and the alleged Matthean logia. These are both, in their own way, explanations of their deficiencies: the text of Mark was itself not arranged in order, and the Matthean logia in a Hebrew dialect were interpreted as each was able. In this way, the tradition of John the elder explained the problems with the existing texts and thus, implicitly, the need for a new text, John. This hypothesis was explained in John, Papias, Marcion: an early anti-synoptic reaction.
With a better picture of some of the different hypotheses in mind, we can better understand how to answer some questions about them.
The Greek here is:
The parsing is:
Part of what tips the scales here is that the words being used are singular pronouns and singular verbs. If the intention was to describe the work of a committee, then I would rather expect a plural description of their activity. In this regard, the translation "everyone" is misleading.
The translation "translated" is also overdetermined. The word can also mean "interpreted" or "explained," and it doesn't imply that anyone ever attempted an actual translation of the Matthean logia as such.
So while the "everyone" "translated" English translation could lead to the assumption made that it is picturing a Septuagint-committee like situation, that translation is not really accurate.
The varying δυνατὸς (capability) of each interpreter also favors the reading of multiple individual interpretations.
One hypothesis about Papias assumes that Papias was comparing (by speculation, tradition, or knowledge) a text of Mark with a text of Matthew, given the reference quoted by Eusebius that Matthew "arranged" (συνετάξατο) the logia (τὰ λόγια), while Mark had the dominical logia (τῶν κυριακῶν ... λογίων) but not in order (οὐχ...σύνταξιν). On this hypothesis, Mark is compared negatively with with what was written in the Hebrew dialect. This hypothesis itself has variant related hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that Papias is implying that a Greek Gospel of Matthew is a translation of the Matthean logia (as suggested above) or the hypothesis that Papias is implying that any such Greek gospels have deficiencies that are explained because of the inadequacies of their authors at accessing and using (interpreting) the Matthean logia.
Another hypothesis about Papias assumes that Papias is relating a comparison of an "elder" that reflects ambiguously or even somewhat poorly on all the gospels or at least all the gospels before the "elder." This hypothesis takes shape when identifying the elder with John the elder, who is associated with an editor of the Gospel of John. On this hypothesis, Eusebius didn't quote more than he did because the comparison didn't reflect well on the synoptic gospels, i.e., the ones with genealogies. This provides a context for the "each one" in the fragment of Papias "who interpreted as they were able." Like the second form of the hypothesis above that "any such Greek gospels have deficiencies that are [partly] explained because of the inadequacies of their authors at accessing and using (interpreting) the Matthean logia," the authors of the gospels with genealogies are understood in the tradition related by Papias as authors who had used prior sources, including the text of Mark and the alleged Matthean logia. These are both, in their own way, explanations of their deficiencies: the text of Mark was itself not arranged in order, and the Matthean logia in a Hebrew dialect were interpreted as each was able. In this way, the tradition of John the elder explained the problems with the existing texts and thus, implicitly, the need for a new text, John. This hypothesis was explained in John, Papias, Marcion: an early anti-synoptic reaction.
With a better picture of some of the different hypotheses in mind, we can better understand how to answer some questions about them.
I don't think so either. I do think that Eusebius has quoted a single sentence here on Matthew because he doesn't want to quote a larger discussion found in Papias that had elements that were disagreeable to him. That's part of why the fragment is difficult to interpret. And while Eusebius does not provide the context of the line about Matthew explicitly, Eusebius does quote Papias attributing what is said about Mark to an elder. If this elder is John the elder, one who had a part in the editing of or traditions behind the fourth gospel, then the evidence of John itself shows familiarity with the texts of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (link). If so, this makes it plausible that the elder would have had something to say about the Greek gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (the latter as the "gospels with genealogies"). Neither Papias nor the elder need to have seen a gospel written in Hebrew.As such I don't think we should expect that Papias has seen a gospel that was written in Hebrew.
The elder's traditions do seem to be aimed at explaining the deficiencies of the earlier texts, including their differences and/or difficulties in terms of being οὐχ...σύνταξιν. This would justify the publication of John.Papias' statement about Mark and Matthew could be an apologetic to why differ.
The "each" being mentioned here would be the different gospel writers, who allegedly had been partially and imperfectly informed by their reading and interpretation of the Matthean logia in a Hebrew dialect. I don't believe in this Matthean logia, but it is "conceivable" (understandable for Papias and his elder) that this set of people had some capability of interpreting this kind of text. It's also conceivable that they had different capabilities and that less than perfect capability could lead to differences. That could form part of the explanation of the issues with the gospels "with genealogies."His comment about "each one translated them to the best of his ability" does not imply that literally "everyone" had to translate it, as that would be pretty inconceivable that "everyone" was capable of doing so.
The name could have become attached to the text because of the existing reverence for Matthew as the author of logia, reflected here in Papias and also possibly in a logion of Thomas. This wouldn't be a prediction so much as reflecting a tradition that influenced the naming of the different gospels.Surely Papias could not have predicted the name of one of our Gospels unless he was referring to the same one?
It's honestly really hard to say. It's a maddening little sentence that has produced varied interpretations. But I do think there is at least a slight edge in favor of seeing this as a reference to multiple different interpreters at different times each doing the best they can with the material, instead of understanding it as a single event. Here's why.Sure, but what tips the scale between these two interpretations?
The Greek here is:
ἡρμήνευσεν δ̓ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος
The parsing is:
ἡρμήνευσεν
Parse: 3rd person singular, aorist active indicative
Root: ἑρμηνεύω (to interpret, explain)
Translation: "he/she/it interpreted" or "explained"
δ̓
Parse: Short form of δέ, a postpositive conjunction
Meaning: "but" or "and," often used to transition or contrast (sometimes untranslated)
Translation: "and" or "but"
αὐτὰ
Parse: Accusative plural neuter pronoun
Root: αὐτός (it/them, typically referring to a previously mentioned idea or thing)
Translation: "them" (referring to whatever is being interpreted)
ὡς
Parse: Adverb, conjunction
Meaning: "as" or "insofar as"
Translation: "as"
ἦν
Parse: 3rd person singular, imperfect active indicative
Root: εἰμί (to be)
Translation: "he/she/it was" (in the context of "was able")
δυνατὸς
Parse: Nominative singular masculine adjective
Root: δυνατός (able, capable)
Translation: "able" or "capable"
ἕκαστος
Parse: Nominative singular masculine adjective or pronoun
Meaning: each, every
Translation: "each one" or "each person"
Parse: 3rd person singular, aorist active indicative
Root: ἑρμηνεύω (to interpret, explain)
Translation: "he/she/it interpreted" or "explained"
δ̓
Parse: Short form of δέ, a postpositive conjunction
Meaning: "but" or "and," often used to transition or contrast (sometimes untranslated)
Translation: "and" or "but"
αὐτὰ
Parse: Accusative plural neuter pronoun
Root: αὐτός (it/them, typically referring to a previously mentioned idea or thing)
Translation: "them" (referring to whatever is being interpreted)
ὡς
Parse: Adverb, conjunction
Meaning: "as" or "insofar as"
Translation: "as"
ἦν
Parse: 3rd person singular, imperfect active indicative
Root: εἰμί (to be)
Translation: "he/she/it was" (in the context of "was able")
δυνατὸς
Parse: Nominative singular masculine adjective
Root: δυνατός (able, capable)
Translation: "able" or "capable"
ἕκαστος
Parse: Nominative singular masculine adjective or pronoun
Meaning: each, every
Translation: "each one" or "each person"
Part of what tips the scales here is that the words being used are singular pronouns and singular verbs. If the intention was to describe the work of a committee, then I would rather expect a plural description of their activity. In this regard, the translation "everyone" is misleading.
The translation "translated" is also overdetermined. The word can also mean "interpreted" or "explained," and it doesn't imply that anyone ever attempted an actual translation of the Matthean logia as such.
So while the "everyone" "translated" English translation could lead to the assumption made that it is picturing a Septuagint-committee like situation, that translation is not really accurate.
The varying δυνατὸς (capability) of each interpreter also favors the reading of multiple individual interpretations.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Wed Oct 30, 2024 8:12 pm