Papias' LOGIA
Introduction
Papias (ca 60-130) was quoted by the church historian Eusebius as saying: "Matthew arranged in order the sayings [logia] in the Hebrew [=Aramaic?] language, and each one interpreted/translated as he was able".
[1]
This statement has been ridiculed by Kloppenborg, who called it "legendary at best".
[2]
Is it a coincidence that the statement does not fit in with Kloppenborg's synoptic theory? I doubt it. He concluded that Q must have originated as a Greek document. This has rightly led him to see a historically attested Hebrew/Aramaic collection of Jesus' sayings as a threat to his conclusion, and this explains the vigour of his reaction. But his conclusion was ultimately based on what we have seen to be a false premise, namely that the author of Luke's gospel wrote independently of Matthew's gospel.
Analysis
Let's consider in turn each part of Papias' statement.
"Matthew"
Matthew was one of the twelve apostles (Mk 3:18). Later Christians took Matthew as the author of the gospel by which he is known. This identification is nowadays seen to be erroneous because one of the original apostles would not have been heavily reliant on the gospel of Mark who was not an eyewitness.
However there is no known reason why Matthew would not have made a suitable collector of Jesus' sayings.
"arranged"
In other words, Mathew was the editor.
"in order"
This probably indicates an orderly arrangement.
The reconstruction of the sayings of Jesus has a superbly ordered arrangement, with all the sayings arranged in pairs and set out in four sections. Additionally there are many keyword connections between adjacent sayings.
"the sayings [logia]"
"logia" is the Greek word here translated as "sayings". It is sometimes rendered "oracles". The Greek word most naturally refers to sayings rather than to a gospel such as Matthew which has a narrative structure.
"in the Hebrew [=Aramaic?] language"
Papias was writing in Greek, and for Greek speakers the term "Hebrew" could refer to either Hebrew or Aramaic.
[3] The reconstruction has no Greek or other alien features which would militate against a Semitic background, so there is no reason why Papias could have been referring to it.
"each one interpreted/translated as he was able"
This could well refer to Mark, Matthew and Luke having to translate each logia saying from Aramaic into Greek for their respective gospels because there was no Greek translation of the logia. The reconstruction is, of course, based on these three gospels. The implied absence of a formal translation into Greek helps to explain the evidence of occasional translation errors by Matthew and Luke.
Conclusion
If the reconstruction and the above analysis are correct, then the logia presented here, when translated back into Aramaic, will be almost identical to the logia to which Papias referred.
Notes
1. R.E.Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997) 158
2. J.S.Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q : The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) 80
3. A.Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 141