Editing Logia (section)

==Papias of Hierapolis==
[[Papias of Hierapolis]] composed around AD&nbsp;100 a work, now lost, entitled ''Exegesis of the Dominical Logia'', which [[Eusebius]] quotes as an authority on the origins of the Gospels of [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] and [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]].<ref>Eusebius, [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxix.html ''Hist. Eccl.'' 3.39].14–16.</ref><ref>Translations from {{cite book|title=Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony|last=Bauckham|first=Richard|authorlink=Richard Bauckham|year=2006|isbn=0802831621|page=203}}</ref>

On Mark, Papias cites [[New Testament people named John#John the Elder|John the Elder]]:
{{blockquote|The Elder used to say: [[Mark the Evangelist|Mark]], in his capacity as [[Saint Peter|Peter]]’s interpreter, wrote down accurately as many things as he recalled from memory—though not in an ordered form—of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of ''[[chreia]]i'', but had no intention of providing an ordered arrangement of the ''logia'' of the Lord. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong when he wrote down some individual items just as he related them from memory. For he made it his one concern not to omit anything he had heard or to falsify anything.}}

And the brief excerpt regarding [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] says:
{{blockquote|Therefore [[Matthew the Apostle|Matthew]] put the ''logia'' in an ordered arrangement in the Hebrew language, but each person interpreted them as best he could.}}

So, Papias uses ''logia'' in his title and once in regard to each Gospel. Eusebius, who had the complete text before him, understood Papias in these passages as referring to the canonical Gospels.

In the 19th century, however, scholars began to question whether this tradition actually refers to those texts, especially in the case of what Papias ascribes to Matthew. In 1832, [[Friedrich Schleiermacher|Schleiermacher]], believing Papias to be writing before these Gospels were regarded as inspired Scripture and before the formation of any [[New Testament canon]], argued that ''logia'' could not be understood in its usual sense but must rather be interpreted as ''utterances'' (''{{lang|de|Aussprüche}}''), and that Papias was referring to collections of the sayings of Jesus. Soon afterwards, a new theory of the [[Synoptic problem]] emerged, the [[two-source hypothesis]], positing that the [[double tradition]] in Matthew and Luke derived from a lost document containing mostly sayings of Jesus. [[Heinrich Julius Holtzmann|Holtzmann]]'s defense of this theory, which has dominated scholarship ever since, seized upon Schleiermacher's thesis and argued that Papias was attesting a ''{{lang|de|Logienquelle}}'' (''logia''-source), which he designated ''Λ'' (lambda). When later scholars abandoned the evidence of Papias as an argument, this hypothetical source came to be more neutrally designated as ''[[Q source|Q]]'' (for ''{{lang|de|Quelle}}''), but the reinterpretation of the word ''logia'' already had firmly taken hold in scholarship.<ref name="Robinson" /><ref name="Luhrmann">{{cite book | title=The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q | last=Lührmann | first=Dieter | year=1995 | editor-last=Piper | editor-first=Ronald Allen | chapter=Q: Sayings of Jesus or Logia? | pages=97–116 | publisher=BRILL | isbn=9004097376 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=F_KbL5s6h_kC&pg=PA97 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Norelli|first=Enrico|title=Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli Oracoli del Signore: I frammenti|year=2005|isbn=8831527525|pages=59–76|publisher=Paoline }}</ref>

Modern scholars are divided on what Papias actually meant, especially with regard to the ''logia'' he ascribes to Matthew, and what underlying historical facts this testimony alludes to.<ref name="Thomas">{{cite book | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QtE1orv4Xg0C&pg=PA39 | title=The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism Into Evangelical Scholarship | chapter=The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church | last1=Thomas | first1=Robert L. | last2=Farnell | first2=F. David | year=1998 | pages=39–46 | publisher=Kregel Publications | isbn=082543811X | editor-last=Thomas | editor-first=Robert L. | editor2-last=Farnell | editor2-first=F. David }}</ref> Some see this ''logia'' as referring still to the Old Testament, thus a collection of prophecies and prooftexts{{clarify|date=July 2016}} regarding Jesus. Others still hold that Papias is speaking of a now-lost collection of sayings, noting that canonical gospel of Matthew is especially focused on the sayings of Jesus. Others, noting how in the account of Mark, the parallel to "things said or done by the Lord" requires the meaning of ''logia'' at least to be extended to deeds, see Papias as referring to some account more closely resembling the canonical Gospels. Still others hold that Papias was indeed referring to the canonical Gospels as we know them—arguably even using ''logia'' in the sense of ''Scriptures'', and "dominical logia" as an early term for "Gospels"—and that the account of Papias thus amounts to our earliest testimony of their existence and recognition.

Another point of controversy surrounds the statement that Matthew wrote in the "Hebrew dialect", which in the Greek could refer to either [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]].<ref name="Thomas"/> Some, noting that "dialect" could mean not only language but also, in a technical sense, style, understand Papias to be referring to a Greek language gospel but written in a Semitic style. Others hold that Matthew wrote a Semitic-language work first, before producing a Greek recension recognized as canonical Matthew. Still others hold that whatever lost work Matthew allegedly wrote—whether a collection of sayings, the [[Gospel according to the Hebrews]], or a prototype of canonical Matthew—was composed in Semitic but translated freely into Greek by others. And some regard Papias as simply mistaken and telling nothing of value.