Galen and Papias on Forgery and Authorship

In a recent article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Armin D. Baum published a response to Bart Ehrman's book, "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

"Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations —A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman," JBL 136.2 (2017): 381–403.

In this article Baum cites several ancient Christian and non-Christian Greco-Roman primary sources to support his thesis that,

"Everywhere an authorial attribution was regarded as correct and nondeceptive if either the wording or the content of a particular text could be traced back to the author whose name it carried." (pg. 402)

In one interesting section, Baum discusses the Christian tradition that, even though Mark and Luke "composed" gospels that bore their names, Peter (for Mark) and Paul (for Luke), "were regarded as the intellectual authors of their contents (pg. 390)." Baum shows this attitude by siting the statements of Tertullian,

"That which Mark edited is stated to be Peter’s [Petri affirmetur], whose interpreter Mark was. Luke’s digest also they usually attribute to Paul [Paulo adscribere solent]. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters [Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint]." (Marc. 4.5.3–4)(Baum, pg. 390)

Another source not referenced by Baum support's this conclusion, Papias's (ca. 100-110 CE) statements on the composition of Mark.

"And the Elder used to say this: 'Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them." (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39; Holmes, 569)

It is clear that, though Papias acknowledged that his gospel was composed and written down by Mark, he considered Peter as the true "intellectual author."
Galen (ca. 160s-170s CE), In the midst of analyzing the textual work and editions of two former Hippocratic scholars who were active in the first part of the second century, Galen wrote;

"A second book written in place of one formerly written is said to be revised (επιδιεσκευασθαι), when it has the same 'hypothesis'(υποθεσις) and most of the same words; some (of the words) taken out from the former work; some added; some altered. If you want an example of this for the sake of clarity, you have the second Autolycus of Eupolis revised from the former. Thus the doctors from Cnidus published the second 'Cnidian Opinions'in place of the former ones; some having the same in every way; but some added; some taken away; just as some altered. This then is the second book of Hippocrates which they say is more medical than the former." (Hipp. vict. acut. 120.5-14; Scherbenske's translation)

Though Galen is speaking specifically in reference to editing an ancient author's work, it is clear that Galen saw that a work was still considered to be that of the ancient authors as long as "some of the words" were still from the original author and that the editing did not alter the original ideas.
Thus, both Papias and Galen confirm Baum's conclusion that,

"Everywhere an authorial attribution was regarded as correct and nondeceptive if either the wording or the content of a particular text could be traced back to the author whose name it carried." (pg. 402)

_____________________________

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Scherbenske, Eric W. Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 39

Did Justin Martyr Make Reference to Mark?

Recently, the radio show "Unbelievable" aired a debate between noted New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Richard Bauckham. The debate centered around Ehrman's new book "Jesus Before the Gospels" where Ehrman contends that the stories about Jesus were circulated, altered, and invented by the followers of Jesus before they were written down. Bauckham, provides a counter-argument, where, in his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," he has argued that the Gospels were written within "living memory" of those eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and these Gospels are based upon this testimony.
During this spirited discussion Ehrman mentions the second century Church figure Justin Martyr (140's CE) who makes reference throughout his writings to the "memoirs of the apostles." In regard to this, at 48:43, Ehrman states that  "he doesn't call them by our Gospels. . . the only memoir he names is the memoirs of Peter. . . he's talking about the Gospel of Peter."
The reference that Ehrman is referring to is Justin Martyr's comments in his Dialogue with Trypho;

“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder. . ." (Dia. 106; ANF)

Justin is referring to the memoirs of Peter and he is loosely quoting an incident recorded in this "memoir." That Jesus changed the name of an apostle to Peter and the names of two others to "Boanerges." In all of the Gospels, this account can only be found in the Gospel of Mark at 3:16-17;

"He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);" (ESV)

 No where in the Gospel of Peter is this account of the naming of Peter and the sons of Zebedee mentioned (Hill, 133-134). Therefore, contrary to Ehrman's claims, Justin Martyr can only be referring to the Gospel of Mark and here he connects it to Peter, independently verifying Papias' famous comments on the origins of Mark's Gospel;

"And the Elder used to say this: 'Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them." (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.39; Holmes, 569)

Here are at least two independent sources, one from the late first century (Papias) and one from  mid second century (Justin Martyr) that point to a common understanding in the early Church; that the Gospel of Mark was sourced in the testimony of the apostle Peter.

____________________
Hill, C. E. Who Chose the Gospels: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.