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 the _second_ of 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 a _petitio 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
could _à fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.
VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.
_Continued._
[OCTOBER, 1875.]
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 of _Supernatural Religion_ is
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 between
_traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _quotations from_
the 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 the
Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by
Theophilus 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 to _tell about_' the Gospels,
'any _anecdote_ of 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 anything _about_ them,' 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 Dionysius
_mentioned_ books of the New | _said anything about_ books
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 of_ the 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. But _magna 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 of
_Supernatural 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 of _Supernatural Religion_ in 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.