practice of charging those from whom he disagreed with dishonesty. This
seemed to me to be a very grave offence, which deserved to be condemned
by all men alike, whatever their opinions might be. And in the present
instance I considered that the author was especially bound to abstain
from such charges, because he had thought fit to shelter himself (as he
was otherwise justified in doing) under an anonyme. Moreover, the
offence was aggravated by the fact that one of the writers whom he had
especially selected for this mode of attack was distinguished for his
moderation of tone, and for his generous appreciation of the position
and arguments of his adversaries.
This is our author's reply--
Dr Lightfoot says, and says rightly, that 'Dr Westcott's honour may
safely be left to take care of itself.' It would have been much
better to have left it to take care of itself, indeed, than trouble
it by such advocacy. If anything could check just or generous
expression, it would be the tone adopted by Dr Lightfoot; but
nevertheless, I again say, in the most unreserved manner, that
neither in this instance, nor in any other, have I had the most
distant intention of attributing 'corrupt motives' to a man like Dr
Westcott, whose single-mindedness I recognize, and for whose
earnest character I feel genuine respect. The utmost that I have at
any time intended to point out is that, utterly possessed as he is
by orthodox views in general, and on the Canon in particular, he
sees facts, I consider, through a dogmatic medium, and
unconsciously imparts his own peculiar colouring to statements
which should be more impartially made [137:2].
I am well content to bear this blame when I have elicited this
explanation. A great wrong had been done, and I wished to see it
redressed. But who could have supposed that this was our author's
meaning? Who could have imagined that he had all along felt a 'genuine
respect' for the single-mindedness of one whom he accused of 'discreet
reserve,' of 'unworthy suppression of the truth,' of 'clever evasion,'
of 'ignorant ingenuity or apologetic partiality,' of 'disingenuousness,'
of 'what amounts to falsification,' and the like, and whom in the very
passage which has called forth this explanation he had charged with
yielding to a 'temptation' which was 'too strong for the apologist,' and
'insinuating to unlearned readers' what he knew to be untrue respecting
Basilides? This unfortunate use of language, I contend, is no trifling
matter where the honour of another is concerned; and, instead of his
rebuke, I claim his thanks for enabling him to explain expressions which
could only be understood in one way by his readers, and which have so
grievously misrepresented his true meaning.
I trust also that our author wishes us to interpret the charges which he
has brought against Tischendorf [138:1] in the same liberal spirit. I
certainly consider that Tischendorf took an unfortunate step when he
deserted his proper work, for which he was eminently fitted, and came
forward as an apologist; and, if our author had satisfied himself with
attacking the weak points of his apologetic armour, there would have
been no ground for complaint, and on some points I should have agreed
with him. But I certainly supposed that 'deliberate falsification' meant
'deliberate falsification.' I imagined, as ordinary readers would
imagine, that these words involved a charge of conscious dishonesty. I
am content to believe now that they were intended to impute to him an
unconscious bias.
In our author's observations on my criticism of his general argument,
there is one point which seems to call for observation. Of all my
remarks, the one sentence which I should least have expected to incur
his displeasure, is the following:--
Obviously, if the author has established his conclusions in the
first part, the second and third are altogether superfluous
[138:2].
I fancied that, in saying this, I was only translating his own opinion
into other words. I imagined that he himself wished the second and third
parts to be regarded as a work of supererogation. Was I altogether
without ground for this belief? I turn to the concluding paragraph of
the first part, and I find these words:--
Those who have formed any adequate conception of the amount of
testimony which would be requisite in order to establish the
reality of occurrences in violation of the order of nature, which
is based upon universal and invariable experience, must recognize
that, _even if the earliest asserted origin of our four Gospels
could be established upon the most irrefragable grounds_, the
testimony of the writers--men of like ignorance with their
contemporaries, men of like passions with ourselves--_would be
utterly incompetent to prove the reality of miracles_ [139:1].
What does this mean, except that even though it should be necessary to
concede every point against which the author is contending in the second
and third parts, still the belief in the Gospel miracles is irrational?
Is the language which I have used at all stronger than our author's own
on this point? But I am glad to have elicited from him an expression of
opinion that the question is not foreclosed by the arguments in the
first part [139:2].
For some expressions in his concluding paragraph I sincerely thank the
author, though I find it difficult to reconcile them with either the
tone or the substance of the preceding reply. I trust that I have
already relieved him from the apprehension that I should confine myself
to 'desultory efforts.' I had hoped that some of the topics in my first
article might have been laid aside for ever, but his reply has compelled
me to revert to them. He does me no more than justice when he credits me
with earnestness. I am indeed in earnest, as I believe him to be. But it
seems to me that the motives for earnestness are necessarily more
intense in my case than in his; for (to say nothing else), as I read
history, the morality of the coming generations of Englishmen is very
largely dependent on the answers which they give to the questions at
issue between us. As he has withheld his name, he has deprived me of the
pleasure of reciprocating any expression of personal respect. Thus he
has placed me at a great disadvantage. I know nothing of the man, and
can speak only of the book. Of the book I would wish to say that one who
has taken so much pains to regulate his personal belief is so far
entitled to every consideration. And, if this had been all, I should
have entertained and expressed the highest respect for him, however
faulty his processes might appear to me, and however dangerous his
results. But, when I observed that the author, not content with ignoring
the facts and reasonings, went on to impugn the honesty of his
opponents; when I noticed that again and again the arguments on one side
of the question were carefully arrayed, while the arguments on the other
side were altogether omitted; when I perceived that he denied the
authenticity of every work, and questioned the applicability of every
reference, which made against him; when in short I saw that, however
sincere the writer's personal convictions might be, the critical portion
of the work was stamped throughout with the character of an
advocate's _ex parte_ statement, I felt that he had forfeited any claim
to special forbearance. For the rest, I do not wish to be unjust to the
book, and I am sorry if, while attempting to correct an exceedingly
false estimate, I have seemed to any one to be so; but I do not see any
good in paying empty and formal compliments which do not come from the
heart, and I cannot consent to tamper with truths which seem to me of
the highest moment. Still, I should be sorry to think that so much
energetic work had been thrown away. If the publication of this book
shall have had the effect of attracting serious attention to these most
momentous subjects, it will have achieved an important result. But I
would wish to add one caution. No good will ever come from merely
working on the lines of modern theorists. Perhaps the reader will
forgive me if I add a few words of explanation, for I do not wish to be
misunderstood. I should be most ungrateful if, in speaking of German
writers, I used the language of mere depreciation. If there is any
recent theologian from whom I have learnt more than from another, it is
the German Neander. Nor can I limit my obligations to men of this stamp.
All diligent students of early Christian history must have derived the
greatest advantage on special points from the conscientious research,
and frequently also from the acute analysis, even of writers of the most
extreme school. But it is high time that the incubus of fascinating
speculations should be shaken off, and that Englishmen should learn to
exercise their judicial faculty independently. Any one who will take the
pains to read Irenæus through carefully, endeavouring to enter into his
historical position in all its bearings, striving to realize what he and
his contemporaries actually thought about the writings of the New
Testament and what grounds they had for thinking it, and, above all,
resisting the temptation to read in modern theories between the lines,
will be in a more favourable position for judging rightly of the early
history of the Canon than if he had studied all the monographs which
have issued from the German press during the last half century.
V. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.
[AUGUST, 1875.]
Two names stand out prominently in the Churches of proconsular Asia
during the age immediately succeeding the Apostles--Polycarp of Smyrna,
and Papias of Hierapolis. Having given an account of Polycarp in my last
article, I purpose now to examine the notices relating to Papias. These
two fathers are closely connected together in the earliest tradition.
Papias, writes Irenæus, was 'a hearer of John and a companion of
Polycarp.' [142:1] On the latter point we may frankly accept the
evidence of Irenæus. A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was not likely
to be misinformed here. But to the former part of the statement
objections have been raised in ancient and modern times alike; and it
will be my business in the course of this investigation to inquire into
its credibility. Yet, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of St
John, still his age and country place him in more or less close
connection with the traditions of this Apostle; and it is this fact
which gives importance to his position and teaching.
Papias wrote a work entitled, 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' in
five books, of which a few scanty fragments and notices are preserved,
chiefly by Irenæus and Eusebius. The object and contents of this work
will be discussed hereafter; but it is necessary to quote at once an
extract which Eusebius has preserved from the preface, since our
estimate of the date and position of Papias will depend largely on the
interpretation of its meaning.
Papias then, addressing (as it would appear) some friend to whom the
work was dedicated, explains its plan and purpose as follows [143:1]:--
But I will not scruple also to give a place for you along with my
interpretations to everything that I learnt carefully and
remembered carefully in time past from the elders, guaranteeing
their truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those
who have so very much to say ([Greek: tois ta polla legosin]), but
in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate foreign
commandments, but in those [who record] such as were given from the
Lord to the Faith, and are derived from the Truth itself. And
again, on any occasion when a person came [in my way] who had been
a follower of the elders ([Greek: ei de pou kai parêkolouthêkôs tis
tois presbuterois elthoi]), I would inquire about the discourses of
the elders--what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or
by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the
Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the
disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that I could get so
much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a
living and abiding voice ([Greek: ou gar ta ek tôn Bibliôn tosouton
me ôphelein hupelambanon, hoson ta para zôsês phônês kai
menousês]).
This passage is introduced by Eusebius with the remark that, though
Irenæus calls Papias a hearer of John,
Yet Papias himself, in the preface to his discourses, certainly
does not declare that he himself was a hearer and eye-witness of
the holy Apostles, but he shows, by the language which he uses,
that he received the matters of the faith from those who were their
friends.
Then follows the extract which I have given; after which Eusebius
resumes:--
Here it is important to observe, that he twice mentions the name of
John. The former of these he puts in the same list with Peter and
James and Matthew and the rest of the Apostles, clearly intending
the Evangelist; but the second John he mentions after an interval
([Greek: diasteilas ton logon]), and places among others outside
the number of the Apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he
distinctly calls him an 'elder;' so that by these facts the account
of those is proved to be true who have stated that two persons in
Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus,
each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John.
Then, after speculating on the possibility that this second John was the
author of the Apocalypse, he continues:--
Papias avows that he has received the sayings of the Apostles from
those who had been their followers ([Greek: tôn autois
parêkolouthêkotôn]), but says that he himself was an immediate
hearer of Aristion and the Elder John. Certainly he mentions them
many times in his writings, and records their traditions.
The justice of this criticism has been disputed by many recent writers,
who maintain that the same John, the son of Zebedee, is meant in both
passages. But I cannot myself doubt that Eusebius was right in his
interpretation, and I am glad for once to find myself entirely agreed
with the author of _Supernatural Religion_. It will be observed that
John is the only name mentioned twice, and that at its second occurrence
the person bearing it is distinguished as the 'elder' or 'presbyter,'
this designation being put in an emphatic position before the proper
name. We must therefore accept the distinction between John the Apostle
and John the Presbyter, though the concession may not be free from
inconvenience, as introducing an element of possible confusion.
But it does not therefore follow that the statement of Irenæus was
incorrect. Though this passage in the preface of Papias lends no support
to the belief that he was a personal disciple of John the son of
Zebedee, yet it is quite consistent with such a belief. Irenæus does
not state that he derived his knowledge from this preface, or indeed
from any part of the work. Having listened again and again to Polycarp
while describing the sayings and doings of John the Apostle [144:1], he
had other sources of information which were closed to Eusebius. Nor
indeed is there any chronological or other difficulty in supposing that
he may have derived the fact from direct intercourse with Papias
himself. But the possibility still remains that he was guilty of this
confusion which Eusebius lays to his charge; and the value of his
testimony on this point is seriously diminished thereby.
It will have been noticed that in the above extract Papias professes to
derive the traditions of 'the elders,' with which he illustrated his
expositions, from two different sources. He refers _first_, to those
sayings which he had heard from their own lips, and _secondly_, to those
which he had collected at second-hand from their immediate followers.
What class of persons he intends to include under the designation of
'elders' he makes clear by the names which follow. The category would
include not only Apostles like Andrew and Peter, but also other personal
disciples of Christ, such as Aristion and the second John. In other
words, the term with him is a synonyme for the Fathers of the Church in
the first generation. This meaning is entirely accordant with the usage
of the same title elsewhere. Thus Irenæus employs it to describe the
generation to which Papias himself belonged [145:1]. Thus again, in the
next age, Irenæus in turn is so designated by Hippolytus [145:2]. And,
when we descend as low as Eusebius, we find him using the term so as to
include even writers later than Irenæus, who nevertheless, from their
comparative antiquity, were to him and his generation authorities as
regards the traditions and usages of the Church [145:3]. Nor indeed did
Papias himself invent this usage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews for
instance, we read that 'the elders obtained a good report' [145:4];
where the meaning is defined by the list which follows, including Old
Testament worthies from Abel to 'Samuel and the prophets.' Thus this
sense of 'elders' in early Christian writers corresponds very nearly to
our own usage of 'fathers,' when we speak of the Fathers of the Church,
the Fathers of the Reformation, the Pilgrim Fathers, and the like.
Thus employed therefore, the term 'presbyters' or 'elders' denotes not
office, but authority and antiquity [146:1]. It is equivalent to 'the
ancient' or 'primitive worthies' [146:2]. But at its last occurrence in
the extract of Papias, where it is applied to the second John, this is
apparently not the case. Here it seems to be an official title,
designating a member of the order of the presbyterate. Though modern
critics have stumbled over this two-fold sense of the word [Greek:
presbuteros] in the same context, it would create no difficulty to the
contemporaries of Papias, to whom 'the Presbyter John' must have been a
common mode of designation in contradistinction to 'the Apostle John,'
and to whom therefore the proper meaning would at once suggest itself.
Instances are not wanting elsewhere in which this word is used with two
senses, official and non-official, in the same passage [146:3].
Of the elders with whom Papias was personally acquainted, we can only
name with certainty Aristion and the Presbyter John; but as regards
these Eusebius is explicit. To them the Apostle John may perhaps be
added, as we have seen, on the authority of Irenæus. Beyond these three
names we have no authority for extending the list, though there is a
possibility that in very early life he may have met with others, more
especially Andrew and Philip, who are known to have lived in these
parts. But, however this may be, it seems to follow from the words of
his preface that his direct intercourse with these elders or personal
disciples of the Lord had not been great. It was probably confined to
the earlier part of his life, before he had any thought of writing his
book; and the information thence derived was in consequence casual and
fragmentary. When he set himself to collect traditions for this special
purpose, he was dependent on secondary evidence, on the information
collected from scholars and followers of these primitive elders.
We are now in a position to investigate the age of Papias; but, as a
preliminary to this investigation, it is necessary to say something
about the authority for the one definite date which is recorded in
connection with him. In my article on Polycarp, I pointed out that
recent investigations had pushed the date of this father's martyrdom
several years farther back, and that some chronological difficulties
attaching to the commonly received date had thus been removed [147:1]. A
similar difficulty meets us in the case of Papias; and it disappears in
like manner, as I hope to show, before the light of criticism. The
_Chronicon Paschale_, which was compiled in the first half of the
seventh century [147:2], represents Papias as martyred at Pergamum about
the same time when Polycarp suffered at Smyrna, and places the event in
the year 164. If this statement were true, we could hardly date his
birth before A.D. 80, and even then he would have lived to a very
advanced age. But there is a certain difficulty [147:3] in supposing
that one born at this late date should have been directly acquainted
with so many personal disciples of our Lord. No earlier writer however
mentions the date, or even the fact, of the martyrdom--not even
Eusebius, who has much to say both about Papias and about the
martyrologies of this epoch; and this absence of confirmation renders
the statement highly suspicious. I believe that I have traced the error
to its source, which indeed is not very far to seek. The juxtaposition
of the passage in this Chronicle with the corresponding passage in the
History of Eusebius [148:1], will, if I mistake not, tell its own tale.
CHRONICON PASCHALE. | EUSEBIUS.
|
In the 133rd year of the Ascension | At this time _very severe
of the Lord _very severe persecutions | persecutions having disturbed_
having dismayed_ ([Greek: | ([Greek: anathorubêsantôn])
anasobêsantôn]) _Asia_, many were | _Asia, Polycarp_ is perfected by
_martyred_, among whom _Polycarp_.... | _martyrdom_ ... and in the same
| writing concerning him were
| attached other martyrdoms ...
* * * * * | and next in order ([Greek: hexês])
| memoirs of _others_ ([Greek:
| allôn]) also, who were martyred
and in _Pergamum others_ ([Greek: | _in Pergamum_, a city of Asia,
heteroi]), among whom was PAPIAS and | _are extant_ ([Greek: pheretai]),
many others ([Greek: alloi]), whose | Carpus and PAPYLUS and a woman
martyrdoms _are extant_ ([Greek: | Agathonice....
pherontai]) also in writing.... |
|
* * * * * | * * * * *
|
_Justin_, a philosopher of the | And at the same time with these
word received among us ([Greek: tou | ([Greek: kata toutous]) _Justin_,
kath' hêmas logou]), _having | also who was mentioned shortly
presented a second book in defence of | before by us, _having presented
the doctrines received among us_ to | a second book in defence of the
Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus, | doctrines received among us_ to
the emperors, _is decorated_ not | the aforementioned rulers, _is
long after _with the divine_ crown of | decorated with divine martyrdom_,
_martyrdom, Crescens_ accusing (?) | a philosopher _Crescens_ ...
him. | having hatched the plot against
| him, etc.
The sequence of events, and the correspondence of individual phrases,
alike show that the compiler of this Chronicle derived his information
from the History of Eusebius [148:2]. But either he or his transcriber
has substituted a well known name, _Papias_, for a more obscure name,
_Papylus_. If the last letters of the word were blurred or blotted in
his copy of Eusebius, nothing would be more natural than such a change.
It is only necessary to write the two names in uncials, [Greek: PAPIAS
PAPYLOS], to judge of its likelihood [149:1]. This explanation indeed is
so obvious, when the passages are placed side by side, that one can only
feel surprised at its not having been pointed out before. Thus the
martyrdom of Papias, with its chronological perplexities (such as they
are), disappears from history; and we may dismiss the argument of the
author of _Supernatural Religion_, that 'a writer who suffered martyrdom
under Marcus Aurelius (c. A.D. 165) can scarcely have been a hearer of
the Apostles' [149:2].