Papias' Acceptance Of The Synoptics And John

Another early example of what I discussed in my last post, though a less significant example, is Papias. It's well known that he thought highly of the Synoptics, as cited in Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15-16. Something that gets discussed much less is how various phrases and concepts found in the Johannine literature are found in Papias' writings as well, including in forms very unlikely to be merely coincidental. In all likelihood, Papias was familiar with the Johannine documents in the New Testament and thought highly of them. As I wrote in a post several years ago, "I've already noted Papias' use of 'the elder', a term that John applied to himself. In most lists of the apostles, Peter's name appears first. But in Papias' list, Andrew comes before Peter, followed by Philip. That order (Andrew, Peter, Philip) is identical to the order in which Jesus calls the disciples in John's gospel (John 1:40-41, 1:43). The same passage in Papias uses the phrase 'truth itself' (3 John 12), which is somewhat unusual." For a discussion of some other evidence for Papias' high view of both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John, see the sixth paragraph here. Just after discussing Papias' high view of the gospels of Mark and Matthew, Eusebius noted that Papias "uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John" (Church History 3:39:16). And he was a premillennialist and is reported to have corroborated the book of Revelation in some sense (see section E2 here). The sort of high regard for the writings of John suggested by all of these lines of evidence is furthered by Papias' reference to an elder named John who seems to have still been alive for some part of Papias' life and whose testimony Papias is interested in (Eusebius, Church History 3:39:3-4). For an argument that the John Papias refers to there was the son of Zebedee, see here. And see my recent post here for evidence that Irenaeus likely had the son of Zebedee in mind when he referred to Papias as an eyewitness of John (Against Heresies 5:33:4). Papias was a bishop in Asia Minor, the region where the seven churches of Revelation resided. He and the audience for whom he wrote provide further examples of what I referred to in my last post, people who seem to have held views that harmonized what's found in the Synoptics and the fourth gospel. Papias was closely associated with John in a variety of ways (as an eyewitness of John, as somebody who lived in an area of the world where John lived and had a lot of influence, as somebody who thought highly of the New Testament's Johannine documents, etc.), and he held a high view of the Synoptics.

How The Book Of Revelation Corroborates The Synoptic Gospels And John's Agreement With Them

Critics of the fourth gospel often fault it for its differences from the Synoptics. But there's a long history of Christians arguing that John wrote with a knowledge of and agreement with the Synoptics and an intention to supplement them.

A Good Way To Think About Papias

He's one of the earliest extrabiblical sources who comments on Christianity, he addresses some significant issues, and many people think (probably correctly) that he had met the apostle John. But he's also highly controversial, in a lot of contexts, and there are widespread disagreements about how to interpret him. You can access an archive of our posts about Papias here.

What I want to focus on in this post is a good way to think about Papias in an important context in which he's often brought up, the authorship of the gospels (and related issues, like the origins of the gospels more broadly). He's often treated as if he's an isolated figure in the context of gospel authorship. He'll sometimes be referred to, wrongly, as the only individual who named any gospel authors before Irenaeus did so. (See here for a correction of that mistake.) People will try to undermine his credibility by various means, suggesting that we therefore don't have any reliable sources on gospel authorship in the earliest generations of Christianity, that he doesn't cause much of a problem for the hypothesis of the original anonymity of the gospels, etc. But Papias is connected to other sources in this context:

- He names a predecessor he got at least some of his information on gospel authorship from, a man he refers to as "the elder" (in Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15).

- The reason why people like Eusebius could quote Papias is that he wrote some material that was still extant in later generations. And the best explanation for why he wrote about gospel authorship is that he thought his audience was interested in the subject.

So, although Papias is just one individual, he relied on at least one earlier source on issues of gospel authorship (the elder), and he wrote about gospel authorship for an audience he probably thought was interested in the subject. Interest in and information about the authorship of the gospels (and other matters pertaining to the origins of the gospels) predate Papias and are present in some of Papias' contemporaries, not just Papias. It's helpful to think of him in connection with those other sources, the elder and the audience for whom Papias wrote.

How John's High Christology Is Connected To Other Historical Events

I've argued elsewhere that Jesus' high claims about himself in the fourth gospel can't be dismissed as easily as critics often suggest. I've argued for the historicity of Jesus' "I am" statements in general. I've argued especially for the historicity of John 8:12, such as how it's connected to so many aspects of the surrounding context in John's gospel and material outside John, meaning that removing 8:12 would cause a ripple effect that would go beyond that one verse. See my comments on 8:12 in the post linked above and my lengthier treatments of the subject here and here, for example.

Another example of that kind of thing is John 11:8. Jesus' disciples refer to how there had just been an attempt to stone him. That occurred in 10:31, in response to Jesus' high claim about himself in 10:30. So, removing 10:30 would affect 10:31 and 11:8, meaning that 10:30 doesn't exist in isolation. Even in the distinct context of 11:8, involving a different sequence of events in a different location, 10:30 is treated as historical.

Synoptic Corroboration Of Philip's Prominence In John

Some of Jesus' disciples who never speak as individuals in the Synoptics do so one or more times in the fourth gospel. Or they're more prominent in John than in the Synoptics in some other way. And that can be used as an argument against the historicity of the Synoptics or John, typically against John's historicity.

It's not much of an objection, given how selective authors have to be, especially when they're covering as much ground as the gospels do. And we have many examples of such selectivity in other contexts in life in which the historicity of the sources involved is widely accepted. Even in the Synoptics/John context, we know John gave little attention to some themes he surely had heard about and accepted (e.g., Jesus' statements about the kingdom of God, his exorcisms).

But there's a neglected line of evidence in the Synoptics (and Acts) that corroborates the material in John that I'm focused on in this post. All of the lists of the disciples give Philip a somewhat prominent place, just after the foremost disciples (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13). He's always listed fifth. That aligns well with Philip's place in John, where he isn't at the level of Peter or John, but there are a few contexts in which he's prominent.

How Bart Ehrman Misframes Discussions Of Jesus' Resurrection

He was recently on Ross Douthat's Interesting Times podcast, and there was some discussion of the historicity of the gospels, the resurrection, and other issues related to Easter. There are too many problems with Ehrman's claims for me to address all of them here, but I want to talk about some of them.

More Evidence That Irenaeus Attributed The Fourth Gospel To John The Son Of Zebedee

It's sometimes claimed that Irenaeus thought the fourth gospel was written by some other John, often referred to as John the Elder. I recently saw Tom Schmidt link a good article on the subject from Charles Hill. Here are some portions of Hill's argument, though the article includes a lot more:

Four of the five unequivocal references to the son of Zebedee [in Irenaeus] are found in a single chapter [of Against Heresies]: book three, chapter twelve. The last of these comes in 3.12.15, where Irenaeus says, “Thus did the apostles, whom the Lord made witnesses of every action and of every doctrine – for upon all occasions do we find Peter, and James, and John present with Him – scrupulously act according to the dispensation of the Mosaic law ...” The natural question arising from this statement would be, why would “all occasions” not include events recorded in the Gospel according to John? Irenaeus did not isolate John’s Gospel from the others as a maverick, renegade, or borderline-orthodox Gospel, but interpreted all four in the light of each other. So, when Peter and the rest reclined at supper with Jesus on the night he was betrayed, and Peter motioned to the disciple next to Jesus, the disciple whom Jesus loved – whom Irenaeus knows as a man named John –, why wouldn’t this John be the same John who is “upon all occasions” present with Peter and James as witness of every action and doctrine of Jesus (Jn 13:23–25)? Or, when Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved – whom Irenaeus knows as John – ran together to the tomb upon receiving Mary’s report (Jn 20:2–10). Or, when Jesus after his resurrection met seven of his disciples by the Sea of Tiberias and “Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved [the disciple Irenaeus knows as John], following them” and asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” (Jn 21:21). How is anyone supposed to think that this John is another John, and not the one that is found with Peter and James on all occasions?...

I mentioned earlier that the only way one could argue that John the Evangelist, if he was not one of the twelve, could in some sense be called an apostle “sent” by Jesus [as Irenaeus believed to be true of the author of the fourth gospel], would be by arguing that he was present among Jesus’ disciples when Jesus gave his sending commission in Jn 20:21: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” – although here the word πέμπω and not ἀποστέλλω is used for Jesus’ sending of the disciples. But if John was present that evening, and only members of the twelve were present, then John was one of the twelve – that is, one of the ten remaining. Again, this is how both Irenaeus and the Marcosians read the Johannine Great Commission. It is also how Cyprian, in the middle of the third century read it: “And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost ...’”

(n. 75 on 53, 60-61)

The Cumulative Effect Of The Pre-Irenaean Sources On Gospel Authorship

I've sometimes linked a collection of resources I put together on the best and earliest evidence for the authorship of the gospels. A mistake that can be made when evaluating that kind of evidence is to view the information in too isolated a manner. There's a cumulative effect to the evidence, and sometimes two or more things take on an added significance when considered together, a significance they wouldn't have if considered individually.

The Maturing Of Matthew And John

I want to expand on some things I said in my last post. When somebody like Bart Ehrman refers to the unlikelihood that the average first-century Jew without much of an education, an ancient fisherman like John, etc. would compose a document like the gospel of Matthew or the gospel of John, there are other factors involved that are being neglected.

The Ehrman/Licona Debate On Gospel Authorship

Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona recently debated the subject. I listened to the debate while doing something else and didn't take notes, so I'll just be summarizing some points that have come to mind after listening to the debate. Mike had some good things to say, but I want to supplement what he offered.

External Evidence For Jesus' "I Am" Statements

It's become popular to reject the historicity of Jesus' "I am" statements in the gospel of John ("I am the light of the world", etc.). Much of the evidence for their historicity has been neglected, including a lot of external evidence.

I've argued for the historicity of the statements in previous posts, like here. One of the lines of evidence I've brought up is the history of interpretation, including how Irenaeus and some earlier sources he cited interpreted the passages. I've also argued for similar material in the Synoptics and for far more agreement in general between the Synoptics and John than is typically acknowledged. See my collection of posts on the topic here, which I've been periodically updating over the years.

Some Agreements Among The New Testament Documents About Jesus' Siblings

I've been discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary in some of my recent posts, and one of the issues I've brought up is how often Jesus' brothers are referred to as being together (Matthew 12:46, John 2:12, 7:3, 7:10, Acts 1:14). I think they probably were Jesus' youngest siblings, born well after him (with his sisters and any brothers who didn't survive born earlier), and were still living in the same house after Jesus left. They probably were in their teens to twenties at the time of Jesus' public ministry, with the oldest brother (likely James) having taken over the leadership role Jesus had in the home after Joseph's death. Since Jesus' brothers were still in the same house, they often did things together. The sisters of Jesus are consistently not mentioned in these contexts, even though they are mentioned elsewhere (Matthew 13:56, Mark 6:3). They probably had moved out of the house, whereas Jesus' brothers were still there.

But whatever reason you'd propose for why they're together so often, and whatever view you hold of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the fact remains that the brothers are often referred to as being active together. Later on, the brothers are referred to as being active individually, later in Acts and in Galatians and the letters of James and Jude. The contrast between their acting together earlier and acting individually later can be seen within a single author in the case of Luke. He refers to the brothers' acting together (Luke 8:19, Acts 1:14), but refers to James' acting individually in later passages in Acts. This is another line of evidence for the historicity of the gospels and other parts of the New Testament. The gospels and the opening of Acts all agree that the brothers were active together, with the sisters not being mentioned in those contexts, and the parts of the New Testament discussing later history agree in portraying the brothers as being active in a more individual manner.

One way to appreciate the value of such agreements is to think of how easily the sources could have disagreed. Why agree that Jesus had any brothers? Or more than one? Or that they acted together so often during the timeframe the gospels and Acts 1 cover? Or that they were more individually active later? The sources could easily have been less harmonious and probably would have been if the New Testament were as unhistorical as critics sometimes suggest.

Did the earliest information about Christianity circulate entirely in oral form?

A post I wrote last week about Josephus was partly about the likelihood that the earliest Jewish opponents of Christianity communicated about the religion in writing. Elsewhere in Tom Schmidt's book that I cited, he discussed a line of evidence I've brought up before. "For the same reason during the 30s CE it is probable that Saul of Tarsus received letters from none other than a high priestly son of Ananus I instructing him to arrest followers of Jesus." (Josephus And Jesus [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025], 185) In a footnote, Schmidt cites Acts 9:1-2 and 22:5. There are other examples of actual or potential references to Christianity in written sources that are no longer extant, among both non-Christians and Christians. See my post here that discusses the example in Acts mentioned above and others. See, also, my discussion here regarding how the genealogy of Jesus in the gospel of Luke likely came from the brothers of Jesus, most likely James, and probably in written form.

What Justin Martyr said about early Jewish responses to Christianity, which I discussed in my last post, probably involved written material as well, not just oral sources.

People often speak of the earliest history of Christianity as if it involved only oral communication about the religion or as if any written sources that existed at the time had little or no significance. But that doesn't make much sense in the abstract, it's inconsistent with the large amount of documents we have from Christians from the middle of the first century onward, and it's contradicted by the references we have to early written sources that are no longer extant (the likely presence of written documents other than the canonical gospels in the "many" sources of Luke 1:1-3; Acts 9:1-2, 15:23-29; etc.). The nature of life is such that communicating orally makes more sense in some contexts, and communicating in writing makes more sense in other contexts. Both would have been present from the start of Christianity, not just later on. And that start of Christianity includes Jesus' life before his public ministry.

There's Not Much Apostolic Disunity In The Gospels

Critics of Christianity often allege that there was widespread disunity among the early Christians: Paul disagreeing with the Twelve, a Petrine community opposing a Johannine community, and so on. There's a large amount of evidence against such claims. I've written about the evidence for apostolic unity in 1 Corinthians 15:11, in the earliest patristic documents, and elsewhere. I've been struck lately, though, by how much material there is against these claims about disunity in the gospels. In John 13:10-11, for example, why would the author have Jesus commenting on how all of his rivals (or rival communities, etc.) are "clean"? Or think of the sitting on twelve thrones in passages like Matthew 19:28. That isn't just an expression of unity, but even unity in an eschatological context, which rules out a future falling away. (Judas is explicitly and repeatedly referred to as not being included in such comments in one way or another, whereas nothing comparable is said of any other apostle. The authors were capable of communicating that they had exceptions in mind if they wanted to, as their comments on Judas demonstrate.)

Early Interest In Mark's Authorship

When critics of the traditional gospel authorship attributions discuss the subject, they sometimes distinguish between the two earlier gospels, which they consider to be Mark and Matthew, and what they take to be the latter two, Luke and John. They'll concede that there are significant internal indications of authorship in the latter two sources, such as the "we" passages in Acts and the reference to the author of the fourth gospel in John 21:24. But it's suggested that we don't have anything like that for the other two gospels.

Some Agreements Between Paul And The Gospels On Miracles

In a recent post, I discussed the double healing passages, which involve incidents in which people are healed both physically and spiritually. Notice that those passages provide more examples of agreement between the Synoptics and the fourth gospel. And notice that Paul corroborates some of what we see in those passages. In Galatians 3:5, he refers to how miracles are often received through faith, as we see in the double healing passages in the gospels. And he compares that reception of miracles through faith to receiving justification through faith, as in the double healing passages.

The Historicity Of The Christmas Accounts

Lydia McGrew was recently interviewed about the historical reliability of the Biblical accounts of Jesus' childhood and made a lot of good points about the subject.

How To Argue That The Early Sources Agree About Jesus' Childhood More Than Critics Suggest

I've discussed forty examples of agreements between Matthew and Luke about Jesus' childhood. More examples could be cited. Yet, critics often suggest that Matthew and Luke only agree about a few things, or they list some higher single-digit number of agreements, for example. Even lists that consist of some low double-digit number are way off in the direction of underestimating the amount of agreement.

Though these discussions are often framed in terms of what Matthew and Luke have in common, we don't have to limit ourselves to those two sources (or just the infancy narratives within those two sources). There are many agreements among many early sources, not just Matthew and Luke.

One way to effectively remember and illustrate some of the agreements is to place them in categories, such as chronological issues or geographical issues. Think, for instance, of how many agreements there are between two or more sources on issues related to Jesus' familial circumstances:

How Jesus Identified Himself By His Actions

Here's something I recently posted on the subject in a YouTube thread:

Evidence For Luke's Authorship

Michael Jones (InspiringPhilosophy) recently released a good video on the subject. We've written a lot about it as well. You can click on some of the post labels below, like the Luke one and the Authorship one, to find relevant posts. For example, here's a post about how the widespread traveling of the author of Luke/Acts makes it harder to dismiss the widespread identification of that author as Luke. And here's one about the importance of what early Roman sources reported concerning the authorship of Luke and Acts. Here's one about the best and earliest evidence for the authorship of the gospels in general, not just Luke.