of his friends and contemporaries; but these will assist us to a very
fair approximation. (1) He was a hearer of at least two personal
disciples of Christ, Aristion and the Presbyter John. If we suppose that
they were among the youngest disciples of our Lord, and lived to old
age, we shall be doing no violence to probability. Obviously there were
in their case exceptional circumstances which rendered intercourse with
them possible. If so, they may have been born about A.D. 10 or later,
and have died about A.D. 90 or later. In this case their intercourse
with Papias may be referred to the years A.D. 85-95, or thereabouts. (2)
He was acquainted with the daughters of Philip, who dwelt with their
father at Hierapolis, where they died in old age. Whether this Philip
was the Apostle, as the earliest writers affirm, or the Evangelist, as
others suppose [149:3], is a question of little moment for my immediate
purpose--the date of Papias. In the latter case these daughters would be
the same who are mentioned at the time of St Paul's last visit to
Jerusalem, A.D. 58, apparently as already grown up to womanhood [149:4].
On the former supposition they would belong to the same generation, and
probably would be about the same age. As a very rough approximation, we
may place their birth about A.D. 30, and their death about A.D. 100-110.
(3) Papias is called by Irenæus a 'companion' of Polycarp, whose life
(as we saw) extended from A.D. 69 to A.D. 155 [150:1]. The word admits a
certain latitude as regards date, though it suggests something
approaching to equality in age. But on the whole the notices affecting
his relations to Polycarp suggest that he was rather the older man of
the two. At all events Eusebius discusses him immediately after Ignatius
and Quadratus and Clement, _i.e._ in connection with the fathers who
flourished in the reign of Trajan or before; while the notice of
Polycarp is deferred till a much later point in the history, where it
occurs in close proximity with Justin Martyr [150:2]. This arrangement
indicates at all events that Eusebius had no knowledge of his having
been martyred at the same time with Polycarp, or indeed of his surviving
to so late a date. Otherwise he would naturally have inserted his
account of him in this place. If it is necessary to put the result of
these incidental notices in any definite form, we may say that Papias
was probably born about A.D. 60-70.
But his work was evidently written at a much later date. He speaks of
his personal intercourse with the elders, as a thing of the remote past
[150:3]. He did not write till false interpretations of the Evangelical
records had had time to increase and multiply. We should probably not be
wrong if we deferred its publication till the years A.D. 130-140, or
even later. Our author places it at least as late as the middle of the
second century [150:4].
The opinions of a Christian writer who lived and wrote at this early
date, and had conversed with these first disciples, are not without
importance, even though his own mental calibre may have been small. But
the speculations of the Tübingen school have invested them with a
fictitious interest. Was he, or was he not, as these critics affirm, a
Judaic Christian of strongly Ebionite tendencies? The arguments which
have been urged in defence of this position are as follows:--
1. In the first place we are reminded that he was a millennarian. The
Chiliastic teaching of his work is the subject of severe comment with
Eusebius, who accuses him of misinterpreting figurative sayings in the
Apostolic writings and assigning to them a literal sense. This tendency
appears also in the one passage which Irenæus quotes from Papias. But
the answer to this is decisive. Chiliasm is the rule, not the exception,
with the Christian writers of the second century; and it appears
combined with views the very opposite of Ebionite. It is found in Justin
Martyr, in Irenæus, in Tertullian [151:1]. It is found even in the
unknown author of the epistle bearing the name of Barnabas [151:2],
which is stamped with the most uncompromising and unreasoning antagonism
to everything Judaic.
2. A second argument is built on the fact that Eusebius does not mention
his quoting St Paul's Epistles or other Pauline writings of the Canon. I
have already disposed of this argument in an earlier paper on the
'Silence of Eusebius' [151:3]. I have shown that Papias might have
quoted St Paul many times, and by name, while nevertheless Eusebius
would not have recorded the fact, because it was not required by his
principles or consistent with his practice to do so. I have shown that
this interpretation of the silence of Eusebius in other cases, where we
are able to test it, would lead to results demonstrably and hopelessly
wrong. I have pointed out for instance, that it would most certainly
conduct us to the conclusion that the writer of the Ignatian Epistles
was an Ebionite--a conclusion diametrically opposed to the known facts
of the case [152:1].
3. Lastly, it is argued that Papias was an Ebionite, because he quoted
the Gospel according to the Hebrews. In the first place, however, the
premiss is highly questionable. Eusebius does not say, as in other
cases, that Papias 'uses' this Gospel, or that he 'sets down facts from'
it [152:2], but he writes that Papias relates 'a story about a woman
accused of many sins before the Lord' (doubtless the same which is found
in our copies of St John's Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), and he adds 'which
the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains' [152:3]. This does not
imply that Papias derived it thence, but only that Eusebius found it
there. Papias may have obtained it, like the other stories to which
Eusebius alludes, 'from oral tradition'([Greek: ek paradoseôs
agraphou]). But, even if it were directly derived thence, the conclusion
does not follow from the premiss. The Gospel according to the Hebrews is
quoted both by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, though these two
fathers accepted our four Gospels alone as canonical [152:4]. It may
even be quoted, as Jerome asserts that it is, and as the author himself
believes [152:5], by the writer of the Ignatian letters, a most
determined anti-Ebionite. If Papias had cited the Gospel according to
the Hebrews only once, Eusebius would have mentioned the fact, because
he made it his business to record these exceptional phenomena; whereas
he would have passed over any number of quotations from the Canonical
Gospels in silence.
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 of
_Supernatural Religion_ towards 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;
'_But_ I will not scruple _also_ to give a place _along 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 now _in
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 written _aids 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 of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will
be necessary in refutation of it.
The language then, which Papias uses to describe the document written by
St Mark, is as follows:--