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 [_or_ discourses]
([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 a _complete_ narrative. In the second place, the events are
not recorded in _strict 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 regards _completeness_, 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 regards
_order_ again, 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, but _from 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
the _only_ criticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian
Fathers] _ever_ indulged [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 [by
Papias]: 'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the
Oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he
could.'
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. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' 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 repeated _totidem
verbis_ here. 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 the _sayings_ of 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]) the _narrative_ in
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, but _the 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.