The Historical Nature Of Early Christianity (Part 1)

(This will be a three-part series.)

Papias described the origin of Mark's gospel as follows:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39)

If we don't begin with an assumption of a fictional genre, what's the most natural way of taking Papias' comments? He's referring to Mark's mediation of what was remembered of Jesus' actions and words by a historical witness who had contact with Jesus. He's discussing the historical memory of witnesses. Richard Bauckham discusses the evidence from Papias at length in his Jesus And The Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 12-38, 202-239. As he documents, Papias uses terminology that was part of the historiographical language of his day.

Bauckham also discusses a contemporary of Papias by the name of Quadratus (pp. 53-54). Here's what Quadratus wrote:

"But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:— those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." (in Eusebius, Church History, 4:3)

Notice the interest in historical evidence. Notice that the people Jesus healed are historical figures. They aren't fictional.

Bauckham points out something else that should be noted. Quadratus is concerned with emphasizing that the people in question were "always present". He uses that phrase twice. The people who were the recipients of Jesus' miracles seem to have served as ongoing historical witnesses to the miracles. The early Christians were concerned with having such witnesses and emphasizing their presence.

Irenaeus refers to Polycarp as a historical witness who provided eyewitness testimony:

"I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse— his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received information from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures." (Fragments, 2)

"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics." (Against Heresies, 3:3:4)