What Do the Writings of Papias Reveal About the Authorship of Matthew and Mark?

The question of who wrote the Gospels is one of the most significant topics in the field often called Christian Apologetics. When examining the earliest witnesses who commented on the Gospel accounts, few figures loom larger than Papias, commonly dated from about 60 C.E. to around 135 C.E. He lived during a time shortly after the death of the apostles of Jesus Christ, serving as an overseer in Hierapolis in Phrygia, an area of Asia Minor. Though his own writings have been lost to history, certain fragments preserved by later writers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius have allowed biblical researchers to glean valuable insights into the origins and authenticity of the Gospel texts. Early testimonies, such as those offered by Papias, provide an important link to the first and second centuries, helping Bible students to verify key elements of apostolic tradition.

Papias is particularly known for two claims that he made regarding the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. He identified Mark’s written record as rooted in Peter’s eyewitness accounts and placed Matthew’s composition in the Hebrew language. By gathering these testimonies from elders who had direct contact with the apostles, Papias displayed a careful approach to establishing sources for the Lord’s sayings. His five-volume treatise, sometimes called “Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles,” has unfortunately not survived in its entirety. Yet the fragments that remain reveal how Papias consciously sought the recollections of those who had walked and conversed with the disciples of Jesus. Papias aspired to counter the swirl of Gnostic distortions that threatened biblical truth, thus preserving the genuine teachings he received from those who had genuine apostolic ties. His stance on these matters helps highlight the reliability of the New Testament text, strengthening the conservative understanding that Matthew and Mark were authored by apostolic men who testified faithfully to the life and ministry of Christ.

Papias lived in a period when Gnostic currents roiled across the regions of the Roman Empire, promoting dualistic and speculative doctrines. People like Basilides, Valentinus, and other teachers advanced claims that the material world was evil, that the Scriptures were incomplete, or that secret revelations surpassed the public Gospel of Christ. Papias recognized these developments as heretical. By pointing to authentic apostolic testimony from figures such as Andrew, Peter, Thomas, and John, Papias framed an effective rebuttal to Gnostic ideas. He emphasized that the words which could be traced back to the Lord Jesus or his apostles were fundamentally trustworthy, unlike the elaborate religious speculation of those whom Papias wryly described as “having so very much to say.” His witness, therefore, stands as an early second-century voice affirming that the Gospels were rooted in verifiable eyewitness tradition, not in the guesswork or mysticism swirling through many circles of the time.

Papias apparently believed in the coming Millennial Reign of Christ, citing Revelation 20:2-7 as a bedrock for that expectation. Writers such as Irenaeus drew on Papias’ testimony to highlight biblical prophecies of a future period when creation itself would be liberated. The expectation of a literal 1,000-year reign was a prevailing outlook in second-century congregations that cherished apostolic tradition. Papias connected such teachings with direct apostolic instruction that had survived into his day, preserving the hope that believers would experience renewal of the earth under the Messiah’s authority.

Papias in the Second Century

Papias lived when the influence of the apostles was still within the living memory of some Christians. Polycarp, a notable figure of the same period, reportedly learned from the apostle John and was an associate of Papias. This proximity to apostolic times gave Papias a special vantage point. He knew that the Christian faith stood or fell on the reliability of the apostolic testimony regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. Indeed, many thinkers in that era sought to merge Greek philosophy and Eastern mysticism with Christian teaching, thus constructing elaborate theories at odds with apostolic doctrine. Papias saw the need to preserve authentic accounts of what the apostles originally taught, especially about the Messiah’s words and deeds.

At Hierapolis in Phrygia, Papias functioned as an overseer or elder. He was known for his careful method of cross-examining those older Christians who had direct contact with the apostles or who had heard them speak. Papias’ approach was to compile what he considered reliable testimony. He explained that he was not one “who enjoyed those who have much to say, but those who taught what was true.” This statement reflects a refusal to adopt purely speculative claims. Instead, Papias aimed to gather well-grounded teachings—“the ones given by the Lord to the faith,” as he phrased it.

By the time Papias compiled his five-volume work, the Gnostic movement was making headway in some congregations. Gnostic teachers, with their emphasis on hidden knowledge, sought to recast Christian faith as an elite spiritual philosophy reserved for a special few. The plain references of Scripture that Jesus was both fully God and truly man, living on earth, dying literally on a cross, and resurrecting bodily, were replaced by Gnostic illusions. Papias’ “Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles” was meant to refute these distortions by reaffirming that the Gospels were rooted in the real historical events of Jesus’ ministry. Papias’ personal quest for truth involved direct oral testimonies from those who had been taught by the apostles themselves, yielding a record that historians find especially valuable today.

He penned this five-chapter treatise around 135 C.E., but it was lost sometime after the ninth or perhaps the fourteenth century C.E. Despite the disappearance of the original manuscript, portions survived through quotations in the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius. These fragments are precious indeed, preserving some of the earliest extra-biblical references to the canonical Gospels. Papias’ commentary is, therefore, an enduring clue to how the earliest Christian communities handled the question of authorship and the reliability of apostolic tradition.

Papias’ approach reveals his confidence that the teachings of Jesus, transmitted by faithful disciples, were the authentic Word of God. Consistent with the rest of the second-century believing community, Papias accepted that there would be an earthly kingdom under the Messiah—an expectation rooted in Old Testament prophecies that speak of Jehovah’s sovereignty over the earth. The Gnostics generally spurned a literal future on earth, favoring spiritual or symbolic reinterpretations. Papias offered a grounded alternative, quoting the words attributed to Jesus himself, spoken to the apostles and carried down by their immediate followers.

Papias’ Method of Inquiry

Papias was an investigator who prized accuracy over verbosity. He rejected the endless ramblings of speculative teachers in favor of direct apostolic statements. He carefully learned from individuals who either knew the apostles personally or had close connections. He collected statements from believers who had heard Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, and others. Instead of taking for granted that the widely circulated accounts of the Lord’s sayings were accurate, he interrogated older Christians to see whether they had heard the apostles themselves.

Papias stated that he “would not hesitate to put down whatever I carefully learned at any time from the elders, and carefully remembered, assuring you of their truth.” That approach indicates a methodical posture, rarely found among some second-century writers who indulged in allegorical or mystical interpretations. Papias sought clarity regarding the instructions given by the apostles. He believed that these truths, rooted in the actual experiences of those who walked with Jesus, transcended the ephemeral philosophies of his day.

This approach provided direct evidence that early Christians placed substantial emphasis on the continuity between the apostles’ teaching and the next generation of believers. Papias’ commentary also confirms that within a few decades of the apostles’ passing, Christians were well aware of who authored certain writings and how accurately those documents captured the life and words of Christ. Papias relished verifying these details, bridging the gap between the apostolic age and later Christian communities.

Papias is believed to have disagreed with the Gnostics’ approach to knowledge and was evidently dismayed by the merging of pagan ideas with Christian concepts. Gnostic authors often wrote volumes of complex speculation, downplaying the historical foundation of Jesus’ life. Papias retorted that he did not “enjoy those who have much to say,” a sarcastic expression targeting Gnostic verbosity. He was driven by a desire for verifiable truth, so his search included personally questioning travelers who could relate the direct testimonies from the apostles.

References to Mark’s Gospel

Among the most crucial fragments that survived from Papias is his commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Papias wrote, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered.” This claim indicates that Mark’s written account was rooted in Peter’s recollections. Mark did not necessarily present events in a strict chronological order, but he was careful to preserve the authenticity of what Peter preached.

Papias emphasized Mark’s loyalty to Peter’s memory. Mark had not personally heard Jesus or followed him during his ministry, but he did accompany Peter, who recounted many episodes from the Lord’s earthly life. Papias insisted that Mark made no mistake, for “he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.” This statement directly refutes any notion that Mark’s Gospel is an unreliable secondhand account. Instead, it testifies that Mark’s role as Peter’s interpreter gave him unparalleled insight into the teachings and events that shaped the early Christian witness.

Papias explained that Mark was not writing a formal biography in chronological sequence but collecting Peter’s preaching as best as he could remember. When early Church fathers and historians read Mark’s Gospel, they observed a brisk pace and vivid detail that would be consistent with Peter’s dynamic style. The mention of tiny details—such as the green grass at the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:39) or the mention of Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21)—would be consistent with personal recollection. Papias’ affirmation aligns with the internal evidence of Mark’s narrative.

This commentary by Papias stands as one of the earliest external confirmations that Mark’s Gospel was not a random invention but directly tied to an apostolic source. Papias acknowledged that Mark never intended to produce a polished literary device. Rather, he sought to systematically record the testimonies from Peter’s speeches, preserving them for posterity. By referencing this tradition, Papias anchored Mark’s writing in a credible historical setting. This stands against the claims of some modern critics who suggest that Mark’s Gospel was a later invention or that the writers of the Gospels were not intimately connected with apostolic tradition.

References to Matthew’s Gospel

Papias also mentioned Matthew, writing that “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.” This statement is widely taken to mean that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic. Some researchers hold that this was a special Hebrew or Aramaic collection of Jesus’ teachings, forming the initial base for the Greek version of the Gospel that we possess today. Others believe that Papias was referencing the canonical Gospel of Matthew, contending that it was indeed penned first in a Semitic language. The tradition that Matthew’s Gospel had Hebrew or Aramaic origins was consistently reported in early Christian history, demonstrating that the notion was widely accepted in the second century.

The actual text of the Gospel of Matthew that has come down through centuries is in Greek. Yet Papias’ statement clarifies that an earlier version or a source document might have circulated among Jewish Christians. That possibility tallies with the internal evidence of Matthew. He was more prone to quoting the Hebrew Scriptures directly, pointing his predominantly Jewish audience to the fulfillment of prophecy in Jesus as the promised Messiah. The genealogies, emphasis on Jesus as the Son of David, and the repeated references to Old Testament passages highlight Matthew’s connection to a Hebrew-speaking audience. Papias’ claim also supports the understanding that Matthew likely authored his account for believing Jews before it was widely disseminated in Greek.

Papias’ direct reference to Matthew’s Gospel affirms the belief that the apostle Matthew, one of the twelve, was indeed the author. This stands in contrast to speculative modern theories that place the composition of Matthew in the hands of unknown later writers. Early Christians like Papias—who lived quite close to the apostolic period—did not appear to harbor any doubt that the Levi mentioned in the Gospels, also known as Matthew the tax collector (Matthew 9:9, UASV), wrote the Gospel that bears his name. The emphasis that each person interpreted the Hebrew version “as best he could” also underscores how the original Hebrew document might have been translated or adapted for broader Greek-speaking congregations. This harmonizes with the known historical trajectory of the Gospel’s circulation in the broader Roman world.

Papias’ Witness to Other New Testament Writings

Some references suggest that Papias also acknowledged or quoted from Luke, John, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation, though only fragments survive. The significance is that Papias recognized the authority of these writings, setting them against the claims of Gnostic treatises which were surfacing around the same time. The presence of direct quotes or paraphrases from canonical books is an additional indication that the early second-century communities firmly anchored themselves to the apostolic writings as Scripture.

Papias apparently gave special credence to the book of Revelation, acknowledging it as credible apostolic teaching. This is noteworthy because some in later centuries questioned the canonicity of Revelation, partly due to its symbolic imagery. Papias, living closer to the time of the apostle John, relayed that early believers saw Revelation as an authentic prophecy from the last living apostle. This recognition of Revelation as an inspired writing stands as an early witness that the book was not some fringe text but a recognized piece of the apostolic deposit, transmitted from John to the churches in Asia Minor.

Historians have gleaned that Papias urged believers to hold to the apostolic tradition as written in these texts, cautioning them not to be led astray by Gnostic illusions or the ephemeral teachings of traveling philosophers. Papias strove to highlight how the apostles’ words formed the heart of Christian faith, distinguishing it from the speculation of the day. From the vantage point of a conservative reading of history and theology, Papias’ approach underscores how crucial Scripture had become to the identity of second-century Christians. It was no casual matter to them to preserve authentic works of the apostles, for the entire hope of salvation rested on the faithful witness to Jesus Christ.

The Challenges of Gnosticism

Papias wrote at a time when Gnosticism had grown into a potent challenge. Gnostics were notorious for fusing pagan mysticism and early Christian vocabulary, then passing off their new revelations as the true message of Jesus. By the second century, Gnostics circulated many apocryphal writings, claiming secret discourses of the risen Jesus or hidden wisdom unavailable to average believers. Papias reacted with sarcasm, calling them “those who have so very much to say.” He contrasted such speculation with the grounded statements of Jesus and the apostles. Papias insisted that the words spoken by the apostles or the elders were worth far more than the showy rhetoric of the Gnostics, who had no genuine link to the historical Jesus.

The confrontation with Gnostic teachers shaped Papias’ convictions. He valued scriptural statements above all. He attached significance to the literal interpretation of the kingdom prophecies, adhering to the revelation that Christ would reign, as set forth in Revelation 20:2-7. By referencing the millennial reign, Papias indicated that he trusted the plain meaning of the apostolic writings, refusing to spiritualize them or relegate them to hidden metaphors. Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, disagreed with Papias’ “literal” approach, believing it to be naive or reflective of a limited intellect. Yet Papias’ stance was not exceptional in the early Church. Many second-century Christians also embraced the conviction that the world’s course would culminate in the visible reign of Jesus.

The reliability of Papias as a witness is occasionally disparaged by some later writers. Yet the apparently negative portrayal from Eusebius hinged more on Eusebius’ differing eschatological viewpoint. Eusebius lived in a time when certain allegorical interpretations were in vogue. Papias, who preceded Eusebius by roughly two centuries, was more comfortable applying the statements of Scripture in a direct manner. This stance underscores his general approach: Scripture over speculation, apostolic tradition over the philosophical whims of the day.

Papias’ Personal Faith and Martyrdom

The historical record about Papias’ final years is patchy. Tradition states that he was martyred at Pergamum around 161 or 165 C.E. Although we do not possess a comprehensive account of his personal convictions beyond these references, Papias evidently held a robust faith in the teachings he carefully compiled. He valued the words of Jesus as the highest authority, placing them above the swirling sea of second-century theological debate. The very fact that Papias took pains to verify the authenticity of the apostolic witness testifies that he treated the teachings of Christ’s original disciples as the bedrock of Christian doctrine. He agreed with passages like Jude 17, where believers are reminded to remember “the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,” indicating that the apostolic era set the standard for the entire faith.

Papias exemplified the principle set forth by Jesus in Matthew 5:3, urging believers to remain “conscious of their spiritual need.” By seeking out the words of the apostles from living witnesses, Papias refused to rely on secondhand reports or Gnostic claims. Instead, he reinforced the notion that genuine Christian teaching must stand in continuity with the apostles, not in contradiction to them. The question remains how deeply these teachings shaped his daily life. Yet the gleanings of history indicate that Papias was fervent in preserving the authenticity of the Lord’s statements. This sense of commitment presumably guided him even in the face of potential persecution.

Importance for Understanding the Gospels’ Origins

Papias’ statements about Matthew and Mark have proven to be some of the earliest glimpses into the process of Gospel writing. He placed Mark’s Gospel in direct connection with Peter, an apostle present at most of the events described. This testimony helps clarify why Mark’s text is replete with vibrant detail, short phrases like “immediately,” and scenes that appear vividly from an eyewitness vantage. Papias also noted that Matthew’s Gospel originated in Hebrew or Aramaic. This becomes a central piece of evidence for scholars who observe Hebrew idioms in the text of Matthew and see the account’s particular interest in connecting Jesus to Old Testament prophecy. When Papias wrote that each interpreted Matthew’s account “as best he could,” he admitted that many Greek-speaking Christians had to rely on a translation. While the canonical Gospel of Matthew we possess is in Greek, Papias’ testimony fits the background that this Gospel was first intended for Jewish believers, later rendered into Greek for universal distribution in the congregations.

This acknowledgment from Papias helps confirm that the Gospels did not arise haphazardly or from unnamed scribes. Instead, they can be traced to direct apostolic or near-apostolic sources. Mark’s short, action-oriented text was recognized from early days as the reflection of Peter’s preaching. Matthew’s methodical presentation of Jesus as Messiah was grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures, appealing to believers who were intimately acquainted with the Law and the Prophets. Both Gospels demonstrate no conspiratorial origin but a sincere desire to preserve the Lord’s life and teachings accurately, as Papias asserted. This stands in harmony with conservative Christian scholarship, which maintains that the Gospels are historically reliable and consistent with the earliest Christian convictions.

Although modern critics at times challenge Papias’ claims, the chain of tradition he represents is difficult to dismiss. He lived well before the formalization of the New Testament canon, yet he acknowledged Matthew, Mark, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation, and possibly other canonical writings as authoritative. The manner in which he derived his testimony shows that the early churches were not at the mercy of chaotic rumors but had stable chains of transmission for apostolic teaching. The survival of Papias’ statements encourages confidence in the process by which the Gospels reached final form. Even though Papias’ work was lost centuries after his death, Eusebius and others’ citations permit us a glimpse of the second-century conviction that these Gospels indeed stemmed from the men traditionally credited as their authors.

The Relevance of Papias for Contemporary Believers

The value of Papias’ testimony extends beyond academic interest. Believers seeking to confirm the reliability of the Gospels find in Papias a crucial second-century voice. His approach underlines the principle that faith is not a blind acceptance but is supported by verifiable apostolic tradition. His refusal to yield to spurious revelations resonates with Paul’s admonition to test everything against the known truth (1 Timothy 6:4; Philippians 4:5). Papias’ historical context—when the Church was vigorously confronting Gnostic infiltration—reminds present-day Christians that false teachings can cloak themselves in Christian language. The best defense remains fidelity to the Spirit-inspired Word of God, the Scriptures left behind by the apostles.

Papias also reminds us of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. His mention that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic reveals an awareness that the Gospel message was meant first for the Jews, who would check it against the Scriptures they already revered. Papias was cognizant that the revelation brought by Jesus was the fulfillment of Jehovah’s promises, not a radical break from the covenant. In that sense, Papias contributed to the strong tradition that anchored the teachings of Jesus in the prophecies that preceded him, reaffirming the unbroken thread of salvation history from Genesis to Revelation.

In an age when some question the authenticity of Scripture, the voice of Papias stands as a bulwark. His method was to ask direct questions of living witnesses or those who had heard them, contrasting that approach with others who spun stories with no verifiable apostolic link. His fragments confirm that the earliest Christian communities took the question of authorship seriously. The Gospels were not anonymous literary creations but were grounded in the recollections of trustworthy servants of Christ.

Papias also exemplifies the notion that an earnest truth-seeker should go to the earliest and most direct sources. Contemporary Christianity benefits from adopting the same posture. Instead of chasing modern theories that cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible, the faithful are encouraged to read the Scriptures themselves, compare biblical testimony with early Christian witnesses, and remain anchored in the same fundamental truths championed by Papias and his contemporaries. The apostle Paul declared, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Timothy 3:16, UASV). Papias, for his part, insisted on verifying the words of the apostles from reliable informants.

Conclusion

In the realm of historical Christian Apologetics, Papias remains an indispensable voice, providing a bridge from the apostles to the following generation of believers. He combined a willingness to learn from living elders with a steadfast commitment to the central teachings of Christ. By linking the Gospel of Mark to Peter’s preaching and affirming Matthew’s original composition in Hebrew, Papias guarded the authenticity of these writings. His convictions about a literal future reign of Christ aligned with widely held second-century views of a millennial kingdom on earth. Though Eusebius censured him for such a belief, Papias stood squarely within the mainstream of post-apostolic faith.

Papias’ diligence in seeking genuine testimony reminds readers today to guard against distortion and remain faithful to the apostolic witness. His story underscores the continuity of Christian teaching. The manuscripts might vanish, but the truth they carried endures. Papias appears to have died a martyr, yet his passion for the Lord’s sayings continues to exhort believers. He prized the carefully remembered words of Christ above the endless speculation that swirled in his generation. He validated the canonical Gospels as reliable accounts rooted in firsthand knowledge, not in mythical or purely symbolic interpretations.

Examining Papias’ legacy should fortify the confidence of those who cherish the Scriptures as the Spirit-inspired Word of God. With unwavering respect for the apostolic record, Papias refused to let ephemeral philosophies overshadow the direct instructions left by the apostles. Whether it is the distinctive rapid narrative of Mark or the Hebrew emphasis of Matthew, the Gospels exhibit marks of authenticity that Papias faithfully preserved. Across the centuries, his voice resonates: hold to the teachings grounded in eyewitness testimony, for such is the sure foundation of Christian hope. The impetus remains relevant: be conscious of one’s spiritual need, trust the faithful record of Christ’s life and resurrection, and reject any teaching that severs believers from the genuine words of the Lord.

You May Also Enjoy

First Epistle of Clement: The Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION