As all these supposed tokens of Ebionite tendencies have failed, we are led to inquire whether any light is thrown on this question from other quarters.
And here his name is not altogether unimportant. Papias was bishop of Hierapolis, and apparently a native of this place. At all events he seems to have lived there from youth; for his acquaintance with the daughters of Philip, who resided in this city, must have belonged to the earlier period of his life. Now Papias was a designation of the Hierapolitan Zeus [153:1]; and owing to its association with this god, it appears to have been a favourite name with the people of Hierapolis and the neighbourhood. It occurs several times in coins and inscriptions belonging to this city and district [153:2]. In one instance we read of a 'Papias, who is also Diogenes,' this latter name 'Zeus-begotten' being apparently regarded as a rough synonyme for the Phrygian word [153:3]. We find mention also in Galen of a physician belonging to the neighbouring city of Laodicea, who bore this name [153:4]. Altogether it points to a heathen rather than a Jewish origin.
But more important than his name, from which the inference, though probable, is still precarious [153:5], are his friendships and associations. Papias, we are told, was a companion of Polycarp [153:6]. The opinions of Polycarp have been considered in it previous article [153:7]; and it has there been shown that the hypothesis of Ebionite leanings in his case is not only unsupported, but cannot be maintained except by an entire disregard of the evidence, which is of different kinds, and all leads to the opposite conclusion. As regards Papias therefore, it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of direct evidence, that his views were, at all events, in general accordance with his friend's. Moreover, the five books of Papias were read by Irenæus and by Eusebius, as well as by later writers; and, being occupied in interpretation, they must have contained ample evidence of the author's opinions on the main points which distinguished the Ebionite from the Catholic—the view of the Mosaic law, the estimate of the Apostle Paul, the conception of the person of Christ. It is therefore important to observe that Irenæus quotes him with the highest respect, as an orthodox writer and a trustworthy channel of Apostolic tradition. Eusebius again, though he is repelled by his millennarianism, calling him 'a man of very mean capacity,' and evidently seeking to disparage him in every way, has yet no charge to bring against him on these most important points of all. And this estimate of him remains to the last. Anastasius of Sinai for instance, who wrote in the latter half of the sixth century, and who is rigidly and scrupulously orthodox, according to the standard of orthodoxy which had been created by five General Councils, had the work of Papias in his hands. He mentions the author by name twice; and on both occasions he uses epithets expressive of the highest admiration. Papias is to him 'the great,' 'the illustrious' [154:1].
But indeed Eusebius has left one direct indication of the opinions of Papias, which is not insignificant. He tells us that Papias 'employed testimonies from the First Epistle of John.' How far this involves a recognition of the Fourth Gospel I shall have to consider hereafter. At present it is sufficient to say that this Epistle belongs to the class of writings in our Canon which is the most directly opposed to Ebionism.
It may be said indeed, that Papias was foolish and credulous. But unhappily foolishness and credulity are not characteristic of any one form of Christian belief—or unbelief either.
The work of Papias, as we saw, was entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or (more strictly), 'of Dominical Oracles' [155:1]. But what was its nature and purport? Shall we understand the word 'exposition' to mean 'enarration,' or 'explanation'? Was the author's main object to construct a new Evangelical narrative, or to interpret and explain one or more already in circulation? This is a vital point in its bearing on the relation of Papias to our Canonical Gospels. Our author, ignoring what Dr Westcott and others have said on this subject, tacitly assumes the former alternative without attempting to discuss the question. Yet, if this assumption is wrong, a very substantial part of his argument is gone.
The following passage will illustrate the attitude of the author ofSupernatural Religiontowards this question:—
This work was less based on written records of the teaching of Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his contemporary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted [155:2].
I venture to ask in passing, where our author obtained his information that Hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted.' Certainly not from any fragments or notices of this writer which have been hitherto published.
After quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which has been given above, our author resumes:—
It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels, he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated by his own words, and by the title of his work, [Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis] [156:1].
'The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 'is to believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.' He has appealed to Cæsar, and to Cæsar he shall go.
What then is the natural interpretation of the title 'Exposition of Oracles of' (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any one, without a preconceived theory, imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else but explanation or interpretation? It is possible indeed, that the original word [Greek: exêgêsis] might, in other connections, be used in reference to a narrative, but its common and obvious sense is the same which it bears when adopted into English as 'exegesis.' In other words, it expresses the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has an exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when, speaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer introduces into his letter to the Church of Amastris 'expositions of Divine Scriptures' ([Greek: graphôn theiôn exêgêseis]), or when he says that Irenæus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions of Divine Scriptures' (the same expression as before) [156:2]. It is used more than once in this sense, and it is not used in any other, as we shall see presently, by Irenæus [156:3]. Moreover Anastasius of Sinai distinctly styles Papias an 'exegete,' meaning thereby, as his context shows, an 'interpreter' of the Holy Scriptures [157:1].
'The title of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the kind which our author assumes it to indicate [157:2]. It does not suggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct interpretation of an existing narrative. And the same inference is suggested still more strongly, when from the title we turn to the words of the preface; 'ButI will not scruplealsoto give a placealong with my interpretations([Greek: sunkatataxai tais hermêneiais]) to all that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders.' Here the sense of 'exegesis' in the title is explained by the use of the unambiguous word 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important point. The interpretations must have been interpretations of something. Of what then? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for the interpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are mentioned subsequently, being introduced to illustrate the interpretations. The words which I have italicised leave no doubt about this. The 'also,' which (by the way) our author omits, has no significance otherwise. The expression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one meaning. In other words, the only account which can be given of the passage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the following sequence.—(1) The text, of which something was doubtless said in the preceding passage, for it is assumed in the extract itself. (2) The interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work. (3) The oral traditions, which, as the language here shows, were subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions in a slightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had obviously a strong attraction for Papias; he introduced them frequently to confirm and illustrate his explanations. But only the most violent wresting of language can make them the text or basis of these interpretations [158:1].
A good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and explained in his preface is accidentally preserved by Irenæus [158:2]. This father is discoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. His starting point is the saying of our Lord at the last supper, 'I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally, and argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of flesh can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by appealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the Gospels—the one the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those who call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast (Luke xiv. 13, 14); the other the assurance that those who have forsaken houses or lands for Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold nowin this present time(Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 29, 30; Luke xviii. 30) [158:3], which last expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by an earthly reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises to the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto they have not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to the reign of the just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed with abundance.
As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those times, and to say, 'The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and on each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of their clusters, another shall cry, "I am a better cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me." Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying, 'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?' he relates that the Lord said, 'They shall see, who shall come to these [times].'
I shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in this story, and, if so, how far it has been transmuted, as it passed through the hands of the elders and of Papias. It is sufficient for my purpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the preface of Papias would lead us to expect:first, the saying or sayings of Christ recorded in the written Gospels:secondly, the interpretation of these sayings, which is characteristically millennial;thirdly, the illustrative story, derived from oral tradition, which relates 'what John said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along with his interpretation' [159:1].
So far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what becomes of the disparagement of written Gospels, which is confidently asserted by our author and others? When the preface of Papias is thus correctly explained, the 'books' which he esteems so lightly assume quite a different aspect. They are no longer Evangelical records, but works commenting on such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and written Gospels, but between oral and writtenaids to interpretation. Papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of Andrew or Peter or John, or any anecdote of the Saviour which could be traced distinctly to their authority, would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than the capricious interpretations which he found in current books. If his critical judgment had corresponded to his intention, the work would have been highly important.
The leading object of Papias therefore was not to substitute a correct narrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to counteract a false exegesis by a true. But where did he find this false exegesis? The opening passage of Irenæus supplies the answer. This father describes the Gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta logia Kuriou]), showing themselves bad expositors of things well said' ([Greek: exêgêtai kakoi tôn kalôs eirêmenôn ginomenoi]) [160:1]. Here we have the very title of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenæus after him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of Gnosticism. If, while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the Gnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so that his Chiliastic doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism, he only offended in the same way as Irenæus, though probably to a greater degree. The Gnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were almost invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Irenæus and Hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's sayings as recorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians, Gnostics of all sects, are represented there, and all sin in the same way. These remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic literature which must have been enormous in extent. As by common consent the work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very appreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when he wrote. More especially the elaborate work of Basilides on 'the Gospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been published some years. Basilides flourished, we are told, during the reign of Hadrian [161:1] (A.D. 117-138). Such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion in Papias to those 'who have so very much to say' ([Greek: tois ta polla legousin]) [161:2], and who are afterwards described as 'teaching foreign commandments [161:3].' There are excellent reasons for believing this to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus, as from Basilides, are taken [161:4]. These fragments contain false interpretations of passages from St Luke and St John, as well as from several Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the general character of the work appears from the fact that Clement of Alexandria quotes it under the title of 'Exegetics' [161:5]. It is quite possible too, that the writings of Valentinus were in circulation before Papias wrote, and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his school. If we once recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism was rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent.
This account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems to follow from the grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence. And it alone is free from difficulties. It is quite plain for instance, that Eusebius did not understand our Gospels to be meant thereby; for otherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without expostulation or comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies these 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges him with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the second-hand report of what Matthew had said about the Lord's discourses to the account of these discourses which Matthew himself had deliberately set down in writing [162:1]. Such a report might have the highest value outside the written record; but no sane man could prefer a conversation repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same events by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the language which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical document about which (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's record he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any false statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book to which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1]
But, if Papias used written documents as the text for his 'expositions,' can we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere supplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives written by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the obvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for his work.
An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been maintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not our St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the author ofSupernatural Religionhas adopted this view, some words will be necessary in refutation of it.
The language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written bySt Mark, is as follows:—
And the elder said this also: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted His instructions to the needs [of his hearers] but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [ordiscourses] ([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]or[Greek: lôgon]). So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein.
Eusebius introduces this passage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark, the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is apparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately before.
Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that Papias is giving an account of the circumstances under which the Evangelical narrative in question was composed. There were two phenomena in it which seemed to him to call for explanation. In the first place, it is not acompletenarrative. In the second place, the events are not recorded instrict chronological order. These two phenomena are explained by St Mark's position and opportunities, which were necessarily limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St Peter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary and adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers (the preacher having no intention of giving a continuous narrative), the writer could not possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge for an accurate chronological arrangement. Papias obviously has before him some other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings or doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover related those which he did record in a different order. For this discrepancy he desires to account. The motive and the treatment have an exact parallel, as I shall show hereafter, in the account of the Gospels given by the author of the Muratorian Canon.
This is the plain and simple inference from the passage; and we have only to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of our St Mark. That it does so correspond, I think, can hardly be denied. As regardscompleteness, it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that any one of our Canonical Gospels records many doings, and above all, many sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regardsorderagain, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a 'Life of Christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events exactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess to be strictly chronological. There are indeed chronological links in the narrative here and there; but throughout considerable parts of our Lord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by notices of time. In short, the Gospel is just what we should expect, if the author had derived his information in the way reported by the Presbyter. But our author objects, that it 'does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it 'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement' [165:1]. Persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant; but if the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies, those of Anger and Tischendorf for instance, he will see that constant transpositions are necessary in one or other of the Synoptic Gospels to bring them into accordance, and will be able to judge for himself how far this statement is true. 'Orderly arrangement' of some sort, no doubt, there is; but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person obtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' I shall not quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exaggerated. Any amount of 'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of Papias, which refers only to historical sequence. 'Artistic arrangement' does not require the direct knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed however, that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the other two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had in view was wholly different? What, if he adduced this testimony of the Presbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed not from another Synoptic narrative, butfrom St John? I shall return to this question at a later point in these investigations.
Our author is no stranger to the use of strong words: 'If our present Gospel,' he writes, 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by the Presbyter John, as most certainly it cannot, the evidence of Papias becomes fatal to the claims of the second Canonical Gospel' [165:2]. The novelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the assumption.
Yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments, that he does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which the work to which the Presbyter John referred disappeared, and the present Gospel according to Mark became substituted for it' [166:1]. But others are of a more inquiring turn of mind. They will be haunted with this difficulty, and will not be able thus to shelve the question. They will venture to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest, indication of the existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the remains of Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date which our author himself adopts be correct, Irenæus was already grown up to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will remember that Irenæus received his earliest Christian education from a friend of Papias, and that his great authorities in everything which relates to Christian tradition are the associates and fellow-countrymen of Papias. They will remark that, having the work of Papias in his hands and holding it in high esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the conviction that our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the title-deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks heaven and earth for analogies to this sacred number. They will perhaps carry their investigations further, and discover that Irenæus not only possessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed it also with its present ending, which, though undoubtedly very early, can hardly have been part of the original work. They will then pass on to the Muratorian author, who probably wrote some years before Irenæus, and, remembering that Irenæus represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, they will see that they have here the representative of a different branch of the Church, probably the Roman. Yet the Muratorian writer agrees with Irenæus in representing our four Gospels, and these only, as the traditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two Evangelists have disappeared, the identity cannot be seriously questioned. They will then extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria and Tertullian in Africa; and they will find these fathers also possessed by the same belief. Impressed with this convergency of testimony from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a loss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses—all sharing in the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been silently substituted for the true Mark during their own lifetime, and consequently assuming as an indisputable fact that the false Mark was received by the Church from the beginning. And they will end in a revolt against the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite commonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.'
Indeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale denunciation; for they will observe that our author is convicted out of his own context. They will remark how he repels an inconvenient question of Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of theonlycriticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian Fathers]everindulged [167:1].' Yet they will remember at the same time to have read in this very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent criticism of Eusebius, with which this father confronts a statement of Irenæus, and which our author himself adopts as conclusive [167:2]. They will recall also, in this same context, a reference to a passage in Dionysius of Alexandria, where this 'great Bishop' anticipates by nearly sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the differences of style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse [167:3].
From St Mark we pass to St Matthew. Papias has something to tell us of this Gospel also; but here again we are asked to believe that we have a case of mistaken identity.
After the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues:—
But concerning Matthew, the following statement is made [byPapias]: 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed theOracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as hecould.'
The assumption that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the close proximity in which the two extracts stand in Eusebius. It must therefore be regarded as highly precarious. In Papias' own work the two extracts may have been wide apart. Indeed the opening particles in the second passage prove conclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just as the [Greek: hôs ephên] in the extract relating to St Mark showed that it was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar evidence of a violent severance here in the words [Greek: men oun]. The ragged edge is apparent in both cases [168:1]. This fact must be borne in mind in any criticisms which the passages suggest.
In this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in which each man interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. There can have been no authoritative Greek Gospel of St Matthew at that time, if his account be correct. So far his meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the time which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his book, but some earlier epoch. He says not 'interprets,' but 'interpreted.' This past tense 'interpreted,' be it observed, is not the tense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias himself. Everything depends on this distinction; yet our author deliberately ignores it. He does indeed state the grammatical argument correctly, as given by others:—
Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past tense, [Greek: hêrmêneuse], as contrasting the time when it was necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no longer necessary for them to do so [169:1].
Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as follows:—
The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that translation was requisite: and, as each one translated 'as he was able,' that no recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. There is absolutely not a syllable which warrants the conclusion that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek version, although it is possible that he may have known of the existence of some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however, imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them [169:2].
Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard pressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous use of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are perfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without alteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether obscure. 'Translationwasrequisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes 'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the necessity of which he speaks had already passed away. In other words, it implies the existence of a recognized Greek translation,when Papias wrote. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no respect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not from 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past tense.
But, if a Greek St Matthew existed in the time of Papias, we are forbidden by all considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any other than our St Matthew. As in the case of St Mark, so here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an accumulation of improbabilities. The argument used there might be repeatedtotidem verbishere. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a mistaken identity once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would be.
The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to the Hebrew document of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our First Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been translated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more than the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena. Or on the other hand he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which some later fathers made, of thinking that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the original of our St Matthew. In the absence of adequate data it is quite vain to conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of the document itself.
Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias speaks was not a Gospel at all—i.e.not a narrative of our Lord's life and ministry—but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is urged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek: xunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this explanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked upon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement, of the original document. In this case it would be vain to speculate how or when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This hypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have been made from time to time to restore this supposed document by disengaging those portions of our First Gospel, which would correspond to this idea, from their historical setting. The theory is not without its attractions: it promises a solution of some difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its acceptance.
Our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these [Greek: logia] our actual Gospel according to St Matthew' [171:1]. This is true in the same sense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely influenced in very many cases by the opposite desire. But such language is only calculated to mislead. By no one is the theory of a collection of discourses more strongly denounced than by Bleek [171:2], who apparently considers that Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at all. 'There is nothing,' he writes, 'in the manner in which Papias expresses himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing whose contents were those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew.' Equally decided too is the language of Hilgenfeld [171:3], who certainly would not be swayed by any bias in this direction.
Indeed this theory is encumbered with the most serious difficulties. In the first place, there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such 'collection of discourses.' In the next place, all other early writers from Pantænus and Irenæus onwards, who allude to the subject, speak of St Matthew as writing a Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in Hebrew. If they derived their information in every case from Papias, it is clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so as to include a narrative: if they did not (as seems more probable, and as our author himself holds [172:1]), then their testimony is all the more important, as of independent witnesses to the existence of a Hebrew St Matthew, which was a narrative, and not a mere collection of discourses.
Nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis. Hilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, explains it on grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. He supposes that Papias mentions only thesayingsof Christ, not because St Matthew recorded nothing else, but because he himself was concerned only with these, and St Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the great storehouse of materials for his purpose [172:2]. I do not however think that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only [Greek: logoi] ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called [Greek: logia] ('oracles'); but usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are expressly told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of Antioch (about A.D. 525-545), consisted of 'the Old Testament and the Oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) and the Preachings of the Apostles' [172:3]. Here we have the very same expression which occurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the Gospels. Our author does not mention this close parallel, but he alleges that 'however much the signification [of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia]] became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings'; and again, that 'there is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that period, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which were oracular or divine [173:1].' This objection, if it has any force, must involve one or both of these two assumptions;first, that books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be called oracles, unless they were occupied entirely with divine sayings;secondly, that the Gospel of St Matthew in particular could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike are contradicted by facts.
The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St Paul, for instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews, that they had the keeping of the 'oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God? Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 sq), of the wanderings in the wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 sq), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21 sq)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next chapter (Rom. iv.) depend much more on the narrative of God's dealings than of His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts of the Old Testament. But, if the language of the New Testament writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their contemporary Philo. In one place he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord God is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) thenarrativein Gen. iv. 15, 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him' [174:1]. From this and other passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture.' Similarly Clement of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God,' [174:2] and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. xxxii. 7 sq, of which the point is not any divine precept or prediction, butthe example of Moses. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the Lord.' [174:3] How much he included under this expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not write [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] 'the Dominical oracles,' or [Greek: ta logia] 'the oracles' simply—the two expressions which occur in Papias—but [Greek: ta logia tou Kuriou], 'the oracles of the Lord,' which form of words would more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker. Again Irenæus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current among the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] [174:4]; and though he does not define his exact meaning, yet as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a saying, but an incident in the Gospels—the healing of the ruler's daughter—we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to sayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find that the Scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,' while in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the 'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' [174:5]. Similarly Origen speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the oracles of God' [175:1]. In the context of the latter of the two passages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles', 'oracles of the Spirit,' [175:2] as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of passages might be largely extended.
This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully substantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias himself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If Papias entitled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather 'of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include narrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in other ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the sayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the corrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its use in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father, as we have seen [175:3], describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order the things said or done by Christ' ([Greek: ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta]). This, he states, was not within the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our Lord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of giving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles' ([Greek: ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]). Here the obvious inference is that [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] in the second clause is equivalent to [Greek: ta hupo tou Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta] the first, just as the [Greek: suntaxin] in the second clause corresponds to the [Greek: taxei] in the first. Our author however, following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the oracles,' explains it differently [176:1].
There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote [Greek: ê lechthenta ê prachthenta], because he had not the means of writing discourses, but Matthew composed the [Greek: logia]. Papias clearly distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a collection of his discourses [176:2].
This interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same context; but this is only an assumption. Moreover it introduces into the extract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested by the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St Mark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in question is [Greek: suntaxin], which picks up the previous [Greek: taxei], and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If our author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work relating sayings only; and [Greek: logiôn], as bringing out this idea, would demand the most emphatic place ([Greek: ouch hôsper tôn logiôn suntaxin poioumenos]); whereas in its present position it is entirely subordinated to other words in the clause.
The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) can be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' ([Greek: hai graphai]) in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles' ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical Scriptures' (Dominicae Scripturae, [Greek: ai kuriakai graphai])—an expression occurring in Irenæus and in Dionysius of Corinth [177:1]—or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in thesecondof the two assumptions which I mentioned above—namely, that no Evangelical record could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the use of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture. This assumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew is twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural reference—'as it is written' [177:2]. To what contortions our author puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the proper time comes [177:3]. At present it is sufficient to say that the only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two quotations, which are found there, is the assumption that St Matthew could not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words, it is apetitio principii. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on any showing, was written before the date which our author himself assigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70, or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century. If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it couldà fortioribe described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.
Continued.
It has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different. Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer. I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1], that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2], while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give, traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would not have cared to record the fact.
All this I have proved, and the author ofSupernatural Religionis unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he does indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it is there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction which underlies the whole of my argument—the distinction betweentraditions aboutthe Gospels on the one hand, andquotations fromthe Gospels on the other?
At times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him. He quotes a passage from my article, in which it is directly stated [179:2], and even argues upon it. I gave a large number of instances where ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our Canonical Scriptures, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes anonymously, sometimes by name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not mention the circumstance. This is his mode of dealing with such facts—
That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to theCorinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference byTheophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations,might be set down as much to oversight as intention [179:3].
Does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own argument? The reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the single direct reference by name to the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament in Clement; the reference to the Gospel of St John again is the single direct reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus. What would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner-Grat for the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the Alps from this commanding position, and returned from his survey without having noticed either the Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could have overlooked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked anything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any omission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our author deceive any fairly intelligent person, who has read my article with moderate care, by his convenient because cloudy expression, 'other supposed quotations.' I need only remind my readers that among these 'other supposed quotations' are included (to take only one instance) numerous and direct references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven Epistles of St Paul in Irenæus [180:1], of which Eusebius says not a word, and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence can be placed on the author's use of language.
But our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as a reason for discrediting its results. I am much obliged to him for the compliment, but I must altogether decline it. It is the ability of facts which he finds so inconvenient. I brought to the task nothing more than ordinary sense. I found our author declaring, as others had declared before him, that under certain circumstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a particular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, whenever we are able to test his action under the supposed circumstances, he acts in precisely the opposite way. I discovered that he not only sometimes, but systematically, ignores mere quotations from the four Gospels and the Acts and the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and however precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of these books.
But our author asks [180:2],
Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded their information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?
To the first question I answer that it is both possible and permissible to make this supposition. I go beyond this, and say that it is not only possible and permissible, but quite as probable as the opposite alternative. In the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the motive of Papias, I do not see that we are justified in giving any preference to either hypothesis over the other. There is no reason for supposing that Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St Matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or that they were connected and continuous, or that he had any intention of giving an exhaustive account of all the documents with which he was acquainted. On the contrary, these notices bear every mark of being incidental. If we take the passage relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference is that Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a passage where this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another authority, or gave some incident in an order different from that which he found elsewhere, and that in consequence he inserted the notice of the presbyter respecting the composition of this Gospel, to explain the divergence. He might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring from the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, or might not, have been able to communicate information respecting it, beyond the fact which every one knew, and which therefore no one cared to repeat, that it was written by a companion of St Paul. He might, or might not, have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him to repeat his information, assuming he had received any from them.
As regards the second question, I agree with our author. I am indeed surprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to Eusebius as he has done a few pages before, he should consider it impossible and impermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here. But I myself have a much higher opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this matter. So far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of the information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias had reported any 'similar' information respecting the two last Gospels, I should certainly expect Eusebius to record it. But if (to give an illustration) Papias had merely said of the fourth Evangelist that 'John the disciple of the Lord wished by the publication of the Gospel to root out that error which had been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and long before by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that effect, it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce it; because Irenæus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel [182:1], and Eusebius does not allude to the fact.
But our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell about it' [182:2]. Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he should have cared to tell this something gratuitously, or that any occasion should have arisen which led him to tell it. Indeed, this mode of arguing altogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed by Papias stood to St John. It would have been idle for Papias to have said, as Irenæus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay upon His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of Asia' [182:3]. It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review were to vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great ruler of the French who made war against England.' On the hypothesis of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such information would have been altogether superfluous. Papias might incidentally, when quoting the Gospel, have introduced his quotation in words from which a later generation could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have communicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not, there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the passage.
So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I drew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But elsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following passage:—
The only inference which I care to draw from, the silence of Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both from his promise and his practice, I am entitled to deduce. When any ancient writer 'has something totell about' the Gospels, 'anyanecdoteof interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record it. This is the only information of the slightest value to this work which could be looked for in these writers [183:1].
What? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing on the question at issue between us—the antiquity and genuineness of that Gospel—because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting its composition?
So again a few pages later, he writes—
Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is that Hegesippus did not say anything about them [183:2].
Yes; 'did not say anythingaboutthem,' in the sense of not recording any traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of times and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares to draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words would suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference which will assist his argument at all. Moreover this passage ignores another distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets down some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews' [183:3]; but, as our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our four Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his procedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note every single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single instance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenæus, he singles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas [184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very considerable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles?
But the passage which I have just given is not the only one in which the unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several instances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last edition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying the letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he writes of Dionysius [184:3]—
EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION [184:4]. | It is certain that, had Dionysius | It is certain that had Dionysiusmentionedbooks of the New |said anything aboutbooks Testament, Eusebius would, as | of the New Testament, Eusebius usual, have stated the fact. | would, as usual, have stated the | fact.
And again of Papias [184:5]—
EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION. | Eusebius, who never fails to | Eusebius, who never fails to _enumerate the works of the New |state what the Fathers say about Testament to which the Fathers | the works ofthe New Testament, refer_, does not pretend that | does not mention that Papias Papias knew either the Third or | knew either the Third or Fourth Fourth Gospels. | Gospels.
These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression, 'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by the author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts.
Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly ignored. Thus he still writes—
The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1].
I have shown that there is not any presumption—even the slightest—on this side.
Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus—
It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by Eusebius [185:2].
I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is all the other way.
I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or even a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the writer himself. Butmagna est veritas. My paper on the Silence of Eusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel confident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author ofSupernatural Religion, and unexpected as they may be to many others, they must be ultimately accepted in the main.
The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one way or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject.
Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have been preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into less than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to five books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek.
As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate. They may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they will not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in the preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's record, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the author ofSupernatural Religionin thinking that the inference is not warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the overthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears to have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least there is no other passage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently be referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact. It must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and a native of Asia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching, and which at this time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent document [186:2]. But this is a consideration external to the evidence derivable from Papias himself.
The case with the Fourth Gospel however is quite different. Here we have a combination of circumstantial evidence, which is greater than we had any right to expect beforehand, and which amounts in the aggregate to a very high degree of probability.
1. In the first place, Eusebius informs us that Papias 'has employed testimonies from the first (former) Epistle of John, and likewise from that of Peter.' The knowledge of the First Epistle almost necessarily carries with it the knowledge of the Gospel. The identity of authorship in the two books, though not undisputed, is accepted with such a degree of unanimity that it may be placed in the category of acknowledged facts.
But, if I mistake not, their relation is much closer than this. There is not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic connection between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the two books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written or (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and circumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the Evangelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers—'He that saw, it hath borne record … thatyemight believe.' 'These things are written thatyemight believe' [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we may suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the Presbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could guarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of the last chapter is, as it were, the endorsement of these elders—'This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, andwe knowthat his testimony is true.' After the narrative is thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles proper—the second and third—which bear the same Apostle's name. It begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this hypothesis) has preceded—'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, of the Word of Life … that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you.' The use of the plural here links on the opening of the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name—'I write.' The opening phrase of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the Word.' The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the Epistle, 'He that came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, 'There came forth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the Gospel so much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ's healing power.
This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the Epistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved. The Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written about A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this document more than once before I have done, I will here give an account of the passage relating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards.
The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins with the closing sentence in the description of the Second Gospel—obviously St Mark—which runs thus: 'At which however he was present, and so he set them down.'
'The Third Book of the Gospel' is designated 'according to Luke.' The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither didhe(nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues—
'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal) disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, "Fast with me to-day for three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been revealed to each." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer, since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit, concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, His intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle ([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, "What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written unto you?" For so he avows himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.'
After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentionstwoEpistles of St John as received in the Church.
I shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with Papias in this passage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the account which the writer gives of the origin of St John's Gospel [190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account; the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth. But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject. The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript in which it occupied this position.
But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his earlier editions:—
As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds [191:1].
In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and I emphasized the statement, that 'Eusebius in no instance which we can test gives a doubtful testimony.' I warned him that, if I were not proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter. In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.
Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.; Euseb.H.E.iv. 14,' and I wrote:—
The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistleof St John, which has been alleged by modern writers, butis not alleged by Eusebius.This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.
I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal; almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies in his preface:—
I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (S.R.I. p. 483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1].
Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the words:—
Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions [192:2].